Citation

Bogenschneider K, Bogenschneider BN. Psychol. Public Policy Law 2020; 26(4): 413-424.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2020, University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law, Publisher American Psychological Association)

DOI

10.1037/law0000232

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

For decades, science has made few advances regarding when, why, how, and even whether research is utilized in policymaking. Guided by community dissonance theory, this study examines research utilization in an overlooked population--state legislators. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 123 legislators in two states; 32 legislators nominated by their colleagues as exemplar research users; and 13 key informants. Drawing on the lived experience and language of legislators, the study found a slice of issues, segments of policymakers, and points in the policy process where research was used in policymaking. Legislators who were most likely to use research were in the minority party and were "go-to" legislators who developed specialized expertise on an issue. Research was less utilized on issues driven by morality, ideology, or passion. Research was more utilized on issues that were new, nonemotional, or technical, and those for which the legislator had no established position or bipartisan consensus had been reached. Research use was facilitated when it was introduced early in the policy process and made available in committees. The utilization of research depended on its credibility, which policymakers typically assessed by the reliability of the source and, in particular, its nonpartisan reputation among political adversaries. Theoretically, the findings support the predictions of community dissonance theory in explaining and promoting future research use. Pragmatically, policymakers recommended that researchers provide more access to credible research from nonpartisan sources, and communicate in concise and understandable language why the research is important to policymakers and what the core findings are. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

Language: en

Keywords

Communities; Experience Level; Experimentation; Government Policy Making; Ideology; Laws; Morality; Policy Making; Social Sciences; Theories