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. Contributor Phil Rabinowitz Resources Online Resources Advocacy and Policy Change Data, a resource from the Urban Institute, highlights the importance of building data capacity to effectively track, measure, and communicate the impact of advocacy and policy change efforts. The American Enterprise Institute for Policy Research is a member of one of the conservative think tanks. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a progressive think tank respected across the political spectrum for its accuracy and hard-nosed insight. One of the most influential of liberal public policy research organizations. Chapter 14: Public Policy in the "Introduction to Community Psychology" explains how public policy interventions can bring about impactful change, how social justice issues can be addressed through public policy, and ways to get involved in public policy. Community Advocacy: A Psychologist’s Toolkit for State and Local Advocacy is a science-based toolkit that highlights various advocacy strategies to inform policy at the state and local levels. It aims to build a community of grassroots psychologist advocates that can intervene to promote well-being in the communities in which they reside. A Gateway for Capacity Development provides a resource for practitioners to draw on their own work, and it gives information on the latest research findings, analytical frameworks, policy debates, practical experiences, and toolkits. The Harris School - The University of Chicago offers links to resources - think tanks, government agencies, etc. How do researchers influence decision-makers? is an article that appeared in Health Policy and Planning in 1999. It is available free online, and case studies of Mexican policies are used to analyze factors that promoted or impeded exchanges between researchers and policy-makers. The Institute for Public Policy Research is a UK center-left public policy think tank. The Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin includes a database of research papers and findings. The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard provides public policy research papers and links to other organizations. Knowledge to Policy – This free e-book was written to enhance the design of research projects in order to increase the policy influence of research. Making the Most of Development Research is a resource provided by ODI, the Overseas Development Institute. The “report” link provides a detailed summary of a presentation on research and policy development. The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is a conservative urban policy research group. The National Center for Public Policy Research is a conservative think tank. The National Institute for Research Advancement (Japan) provides links to public policy research organizations worldwide. NE Public Policy Institutes: New England Board of Higher Education is a state-by-state directory of public policy research organizations in New England. Public Agenda is a non-partisan group founded by, among others, former US Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, to provide "in-depth analysis and opinion studies" to keep policy makers informed, as well as educational materials on policy issues for the general public. The Public Policy Forum is an independent, non-partisan, good government organization (est. 1913) serving southeastern Wisconsin. RAND (a contraction of research and development) is the conservative grandfather of think tanks, was founded to serve the US military after World War II. It now works in a broad range of policy and other areas. Research that Influences Policy and Practice – This article, from the Malaria Journal, is an analysis of characteristics of operational research used to improve malaria control in South Africa. It provides detailed analyses of the positive and negative attributes of the employed research methods by the groups in their sample. Syracuse University Public Affairs Department provides a guide to conducting public policy research on the Internet. Links to resources from a Syracuse University course syllabus. Three Ways Academic Research Can Influence Civil Service Policy is an article that appeared in The Guardian. It discusses three different ways that research can influence the policy environment.
