Imagine this scene: A county finance committee is meeting to decide how limited public funds should be allocated among several community programs.
Each program director has only a few minutes to explain the need their organization addresses and why continued or additional funding may be justified.
The director of a program serving adolescent parents anticipates that committee members will want to know:
- How many young people in the county are affected
- Whether rates differ across towns or neighborhoods
- How many people the program currently serves
- Whether there is unmet demand
- What outcomes the program is designed to improve
The director therefore arrives with current local data, program information, and appropriate examples of how the issue affects residents.
Personal stories may also help policymakers understand an issue, but participants should decide voluntarily whether and how their experiences are shared. Their identities should not be disclosed privately or publicly without meaningful consent.
This example illustrates a central principle of advocacy research: research is most useful when it anticipates the questions decision-makers and communities need answered without sacrificing accuracy, privacy, or the people whose experiences are being represented.
What do we mean by conducting research to influence policy?
Research can take many forms, and different questions require different methods.
Research intended to inform or influence policy focuses on evidence that can help policymakers, community members, organizations, and other decision-makers understand:
- Whether a problem or need exists
- Who is affected
- What contributes to the issue
- What policies or interventions have been tried
- What evidence supports different options
- What costs, benefits, and unintended consequences may result
- Whether existing policy is working
The purpose is not simply to collect information that makes a preferred policy more persuasive.
Good policy research can support a proposed approach, suggest modifications, identify a better alternative, or show that the original assumption was incorrect.
When communicating findings, advocates may use statistics, research summaries, lived experience, testimony, examples, and other forms of evidence.
Each should be presented accurately and with enough context for the audience to understand what the evidence does and does not establish.
Why conduct research to influence policy?
To determine whether funding, services, or policy action are needed
Research may begin with a suspected need.
In that situation, your research should test the assumption rather than simply gather information to prove it.
Ask:
- How widespread is the problem?
- Who is affected?
- What do people directly affected identify as important?
- What services or policies already exist?
- Where are the gaps?
- What evidence supports possible responses?
If sound research does not support the need you expected to find, reconsider the original assumption.
Advocacy credibility depends on being willing to change course when the evidence changes.
To identify what a community actually needs
Sometimes the appropriate policy is not known in advance.
Research may help identify:
- Community priorities
- Barriers to services
- Root causes
- Populations experiencing disproportionate effects
- Gaps in existing policy
- Possible unintended consequences
In this situation, the research helps define the advocacy goal rather than merely supporting one that has already been chosen.
To demonstrate that an issue exists and should be addressed
Policymakers and community members may not know the scale or consequences of a problem.
Research can provide:
- Local prevalence or incidence data
- Trends over time
- Geographic patterns
- Community experiences
- Economic or health effects
- Evidence of unequal access or treatment
The aim should be to make the issue understandable, not to manufacture urgency or outrage.
To make sure policy addresses the right problem
The most visible problem is not always the underlying one.
Research may show that an intervention should focus on:
- Access
- Communication
- Economic conditions
- Service quality
- Institutional practices
- Education
- Prevention
- Another underlying factor
Avoid moving from one study directly to a policy conclusion unless the evidence supports that connection.
To evaluate a specific policy, method, or practice
Research can help determine whether a policy or practice:
- Produces intended outcomes
- Creates unintended harms
- Is implemented consistently
- Works equally well across populations
- Is cost-effective
- Should be expanded, revised, replaced, or discontinued
Use terms such as support, evaluate, or challenge rather than treating research mainly as a tool for “discrediting” a practice.
To learn from other communities
Research can identify policies or programs that have been tried elsewhere.
When considering whether those findings apply locally, ask:
- How similar is the population?
- How similar are local laws and institutions?
- What resources were available?
- How was the intervention implemented?
- What outcomes were measured?
- What limitations did the researchers identify?
A policy that worked elsewhere may require adaptation rather than direct replication.
To investigate possible misconduct or institutional failure
Research may be appropriate when there are credible concerns involving:
- Corruption
- Fraud
- Conflicts of interest
- Misuse of public funds
- Discrimination
- Regulatory violations
- Misleading public statements
- Failure to carry out legal or contractual obligations
Investigative research should seek to establish facts and accountability.
Its purpose should not be to generate enough public anger to force a particular result.
To protect public health and safety
Research may identify risks involving:
- Environmental contamination
- Workplace conditions
- Transportation safety
- Food or product safety
- Public-health threats
- Infrastructure
Technical questions should be addressed with appropriate scientific or professional expertise.
To strengthen the evidence behind advocacy
Good research helps advocates:
- Explain the issue accurately
- Answer legitimate questions
- Evaluate competing claims
- Identify uncertainty
- Avoid overstating conclusions
- Revise recommendations when necessary
To maintain integrity
Policy research should influence advocates as well as policymakers.
If credible evidence contradicts your preferred position, examine:
- Whether the research question was appropriate
- Whether the methods were sound
- Whether the evidence applies to your community
- Whether your original assumption was wrong
Do not reject sound evidence simply because it complicates the advocacy message.
Who should conduct research to influence policy?
Many people and organizations can contribute to policy research.
The appropriate team depends on the question, methods, resources, and expertise required.
Community members and community-based organizations
People directly affected by an issue may bring knowledge that is absent from formal datasets or academic research.
They can help:
- Identify research questions
- Design surveys or interviews
- Recruit participants
- Interpret findings
- Identify unintended consequences
- Develop policy recommendations
Community organizations may benefit from partnerships with researchers or data specialists when statistical, technical, or methodological expertise is required.
Academic researchers
Universities and research centers may provide:
- Subject-matter expertise
- Statistical analysis
- Evaluation experience
- Access to research databases
- Student or faculty collaboration
Academic status alone does not guarantee that a study is appropriate or unbiased.
Review methods, limitations, funding, and conflicts of interest.
Research organizations and policy institutes
Research organizations may contribute valuable policy analysis.
Evaluate their work according to:
- Methodology
- Data sources
- Transparency
- Funding
- Relevant expertise
- Conflicts of interest
- Whether conclusions match the evidence
Do not assume research is reliable or unreliable simply because an organization is associated with a particular political or ideological perspective.
Government agencies
Public agencies often collect large amounts of data related to:
- Health
- Education
- Employment
- Housing
- Transportation
- Environment
- Public spending
- Other policy areas
Review definitions, collection methods, dates, exclusions, and revisions before using government data.
Professional associations
Professional organizations may sponsor research, establish standards, or provide expertise in their fields.
Consider whether the association represents interests that may affect its interpretation of the issue.
Independent commissions and review bodies
Governments or institutions sometimes create commissions to investigate complex policy questions.
Their usefulness depends on:
- Independence
- Expertise
- Transparency
- Access to information
- Whether findings and recommendations are made public
Organizations working directly on the issue
Service organizations and advocacy groups may have valuable administrative data, community relationships, and practical experience.
Their involvement should be transparent, including any direct interest they have in the policy outcome.
Watchdog and oversight organizations
These organizations may contribute investigative research or analysis.
Apply the same source-evaluation standards to watchdog organizations that you would apply to government agencies, universities, businesses, advocacy organizations, or other sources.
Regulatory, investigative, or law-enforcement agencies
When there is credible evidence of possible illegal conduct, an appropriate government authority may conduct a formal investigation.
Community organizations should not attempt to substitute for agencies that have legal authority, subpoena power, specialized forensic tools, or other formal investigative responsibilities.
When should you conduct research to influence policy?
When no adequate policy exists
Research can help establish:
- The nature of the problem
- Who is affected
- What approaches have been tried elsewhere
- What implementation would require
- Which options appear most promising
When an urgent or overlooked issue needs attention
Research can help demonstrate that a problem exists even when it is poorly understood or has received limited public attention.
Avoid assuming that lack of attention always reflects deliberate indifference. Information may be incomplete, responsibilities may be unclear, or competing priorities may be involved.
When an existing policy or budget is being reviewed
Policy review creates an opportunity to present current evidence regarding:
- Need
- Effectiveness
- Cost
- Access
- Equity
- Implementation
- Unintended effects
When important considerations are being overlooked
Research can ensure that difficult or less visible issues are considered during policy discussions.
When the effects of current policy are unclear
Evaluation can help determine:
- Whether intended outcomes occurred
- Whether effects differed across populations
- Whether there were unintended consequences
- Whether policy should continue, change, or end
When new evidence suggests current policy may need revision
Policy should be revisited when credible evidence indicates that:
- Existing assumptions are outdated
- Programs are not producing expected outcomes
- Costs or harms are greater than expected
- New approaches appear more effective
When you have an opportunity to contribute to policymaking
Public hearings, advisory committees, regulatory comment periods, legislative briefings, commissions, and community planning processes may provide opportunities to present research.
Evidence is especially useful when you can explain:
- The source
- Methods
- Findings
- Limitations
- Policy implications
How do you approach research intended to influence policy?
Define the policy question
Be clear about what you are trying to learn or change.
You may be trying to:
- Determine what policy should be
- Evaluate whether existing policy works
- Support a policy change
- Oppose a proposed policy
- Advocate for funding
- Improve implementation
- Strengthen oversight or enforcement
Identify the relevant audiences
Different people may need different information.
Audiences may include:
- Elected officials
- Public agencies
- Funders
- Businesses
- Community organizations
- People directly affected
- Researchers
- Journalists
- The broader public
The purpose of understanding an audience is to determine what questions it needs answered and what level of explanation is appropriate – not to identify personal vulnerabilities or manipulate people into supporting your position.
Elected officials and public decision-makers
Decision-makers may need information about:
- Number of people affected
- Budget consequences
- Legal requirements
- Evidence of effectiveness
- Community priorities
- Implementation feasibility
- Effects on different constituencies
Avoid assuming that elected officials are motivated primarily by reelection or personal connections.
Personal testimony from constituents can be valuable, but people should not be selected or approached primarily because of family or social relationships with officials.
Businesses and employers
Businesses may consider:
- Costs
- Revenue
- Legal obligations
- Workforce effects
- Customer needs
- Community relationships
- Reputation
- Long-term sustainability
Do not assume that profit is the only relevant consideration for every business or that the same evidence will matter equally to all businesses.
Funders
Funders may want information about:
- Need
- Outcomes
- Cost
- Implementation quality
- Equity
- Sustainability
- Community priorities
Avoid assuming that all funders prioritize the lowest-cost intervention or that ideological disagreement automatically means evidence will be ignored.
The public
Community members may want to understand:
- How a policy affects them
- Whether it is fair
- Whether it is likely to work
- What it costs
- Who benefits
- What risks or tradeoffs are involved
- Whether alternatives exist
Do not characterize public reasoning as simplistic or based mainly on emotion.
Community members may bring lived experience, practical knowledge, values, and concerns that technical research alone does not capture.
Use existing evidence before collecting new data
Before beginning new research, determine whether reliable evidence already exists.
Review:
- Peer-reviewed research
- Government data
- Program evaluations
- Community assessments
- Public records
- Previous policy analyses
- Research from comparable communities
Collect new information when existing evidence cannot answer the policy question adequately.
Conduct the research
Choose methods according to the question rather than according to what is most likely to produce the result you want.
Useful approaches may include:
- Statistical analysis
- Surveys
- Interviews
- Focus groups
- Program evaluation
- Cost analysis
- Policy comparison
- Public-records research
- Community-based participatory research
- Qualitative research
Use multiple kinds of evidence where appropriate
Different evidence can answer different questions.
Quantitative data may help describe:
- Scale
- Trends
- Differences among populations
- Costs
- Outcomes
Qualitative evidence may help explain:
- Experiences
- Barriers
- Perceptions
- Implementation problems
- Why observed patterns may be occurring
One type of evidence should not automatically be treated as superior to another when they answer different questions.
Do not go looking only for evidence that persuades your audience
Define the question and appropriate methods first.
Then collect and analyze the evidence.
Avoid choosing data merely because:
- It is emotionally powerful
- It supports the preferred policy
- It comes from a prestigious person
- It is difficult for another side to challenge
Credibility comes from sound methods, transparent sourcing, relevance, and accurate interpretation.
Analyze your results
Depending on the research, analysis may involve:
- Statistical analysis
- Comparing groups
- Identifying patterns
- Qualitative coding
- Examining historical context
- Comparing implementation with policy requirements
- Investigating root causes
Respect the results.
Do not exaggerate them because you expect criticism.
If findings differ from what you expected, ask:
- Did we ask the right question?
- Were the methods appropriate?
- Is the sample adequate?
- Are there important confounding factors?
- Does previous research apply to this setting?
- Were our original assumptions incorrect?
If the evidence shows that your original position was wrong, revise the advocacy goal.
Present findings clearly and responsibly
Make communication accessible
Use communication channels appropriate to the people who need the information.
Consider:
- Language
- Disability access
- Digital access
- Literacy
- Format
- Level of technical detail
Make the information understandable
Clear communication may include:
- Plain-language summaries
- Charts
- Maps
- Tables
- Fact sheets
- Short policy briefs
- Longer technical reports
Avoid using visual or emotional techniques in ways that obscure uncertainty or make evidence appear stronger than it is.
Communicate across cultures without stereotyping
Effective communication may require:
- Translation
- Interpretation
- Community review of materials
- Accessible terminology
- Communication through trusted organizations or messengers
Avoid broad assumptions about how people communicate based solely on race, ethnicity, social class, or another demographic category.
Personal testimony and lived experience
First-person experience can help explain the effects of policy.
People sharing their experiences should:
- Participate voluntarily
- Understand how their information may be used
- Decide whether identifying details are included
- Understand possible public or media exposure
Do not choose people mainly because their identity, personal relationships, or story will make a policymaker more sympathetic.
Ways to present research
Depending on the audience and purpose, options may include:
- Meetings with policymakers or agency staff
- Formal public-comment processes
- Legislative or administrative briefings
- Letters or email
- Public presentations
- Community forums
- News-media outreach
- Websites and digital publications
- Social media
- Policy briefs
- Academic or professional publications
- Formal reports or white papers
- Fact sheets, flyers, or posters
Direct communication with policymakers
Established relationships can make it easier to bring findings to the attention of relevant officials.
Relationships should supplement rather than replace official processes.
People without personal access to decision-makers should still have meaningful ways to submit information and participate.
Official channels
Legislative offices, agencies, regulatory bodies, commissions, and local governments increasingly provide formal channels for:
- Public comment
- Testimony
- Written submissions
- Hearings
- Advisory processes
These channels should not be dismissed simply because personal relationships may sometimes provide faster access.
Public presentations and media
Public presentations can explain findings, answer questions, and broaden participation.
Media outreach can help make research accessible to wider audiences.
Provide journalists with:
- The main findings
- Methodology
- Relevant limitations
- Source documents or links where appropriate
- Contact information for qualified researchers or participants who have agreed to speak
Aim for accurate coverage rather than simply maximizing attention.
Continue research after policy changes
Policy adoption is not the end of the research process.
Follow-up research can help determine:
- Whether the policy was implemented
- Whether intended outcomes occurred
- Whether effects differed across populations
- Whether unintended consequences emerged
- Whether circumstances have changed
- Whether the policy should be revised
Do not conduct follow-up research simply to prove that policymakers made the right decision.
The purpose is to learn what happened and use that information to improve future decisions.
In Summary
Research can play an important role in policy development, advocacy, implementation, and evaluation.
It can help identify community needs, clarify causes, evaluate existing policies, compare possible approaches, investigate institutional problems, protect public health and safety, and support more informed decision-making.
Advocacy research should not begin with the assumption that its job is to prove a preferred position.
Begin with a clear policy question and methods capable of answering it.
Include community members and people directly affected in defining research questions and interpreting findings when appropriate.
Use qualified research, technical, or statistical expertise when needed.
Evaluate sources according to methods, transparency, relevance, date, expertise, and conflicts of interest rather than reputation or ideology alone.
Understand the information needs of policymakers, funders, businesses, community members, and other audiences without reducing those audiences to stereotypes about what supposedly motivates them.
Use both quantitative and qualitative evidence when appropriate.
Personal testimony can add important context, but people should control whether and how their experiences are used.
Analyze findings honestly. If the evidence contradicts your preferred policy, revise the policy recommendation rather than the evidence.
Present research clearly, accessibly, and transparently, including important limitations and uncertainty.
After policy changes, continue research to determine what was actually implemented and what effects followed.
The purpose of research to influence policy is not simply to make advocacy more persuasive.
It is to help communities and decision-makers choose policies that are better supported by evidence and more responsive to the people affected by them.