A window into youth and family policy: State policymaker views on polarization and research utilization.

Psychologists are known for using science to influence public policymaking on criminal justice, education, health, and other specific policies. Little is known, however, about what commonalities exist across youth and family policies and, in particular, how prevalent polarization and research utilization are in political decisions. In response, this article examines how youth and family policies are positioned on the decision-making agenda and who advances them from an overlooked point of view, that of state legislators. Semistructured qualitative interviews inquired about research use, partisan polarization, and strategies for effectively advancing youth/family policies with 123 legislators; 24 legislators nominated by colleagues as exemplar champions of youth and family issues; and 13 key informants. Policymakers report youth and families are a population deserving of support. This widely shared value premise makes some policies to support youth and families less partisan. In addition, policymakers report that research can sometimes be more important for youth and family issues, particularly evidence on economic feasibility. Despite the importance of research, policymakers express concerns about its objectivity, conflicting results, and source credibility. Compared with colleagues, Youth and Family Champions are committed to a higher purpose; knowledgeable on policy issues and political maneuvers; and skilled in listening, earning colleagues' trust, and building relationships with colleagues and external stakeholders. For connecting research and policy, the article suggests that researchers could attract the attention of policymakers by illustrating their studies with a compelling story that places a human face on the issue and portrays the pragmatic significance of the findings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Revisiting theory on research use: Turning to policymakers for fresh insights.

Social science has done well in providing empirical studies that depict how research is used in policymaking. Yet it performs less well in another contribution science can make-developing explanatory theoretical frameworks that predict and promote future research use. To address this theoretical void, onsite studies of policymakers have been called for. In this qualitative study, semistructured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 123 legislators in 2 states, 32 legislators nominated by colleagues as exemplar research users, and 13 key informants. Policymakers' reports of 14 contributions that research makes to policymaking are compared to the predictions of four prominent theories of research utilization, which are representative of four categories of theories that examine the interface between researchers and policymakers-the politico-administrative decision-making model, a typology of research use; community dissonance theory; and policy agenda-setting/multiple-streams theory. The eight research contributions most frequently mentioned by policymakers cut across policymakers, political party, and states with varying degrees of partisan polarization. In some respects, policymakers' perceptions were well-aligned with theory, such as the contributions research makes to individual considerations (e.g., informing, explaining, and justifying one's positions), and to policy issue considerations (e.g., defining issues; designing legislation). Yet other contributions were seldom predicted by theory, such as the contributions research makes to policymakers' relationships (earning the trust of colleagues; educating others) and the policy process (asking important questions; enhancing debate, dialogue, collaboration, and compromise). Policymakers report that these contributions of research provide both policy and political benefits. Implications are drawn for advancing theory on research utilization. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The Voice of Experience: How Social Scientists Communicate Family Research to Policymakers.

Because scientific understanding of communicating family research to policymakers is incomplete, qualitative interviews were conducted with social scientists experienced in bridging the gulf between research and family policy. In keeping with the tenets of two communities and community dissonance theories, the underutilization of research in policymaking was attributed, in part, to misperceptions and miscommunication between researchers and policymakers who operate in different cultures. Social scientists identified cultural barriers they encountered and rewards they experienced when communicating research to policymakers. Ten recommendations detail pragmatic strategies for communicating across conflicting cultures to promote greater use of research in family policy decisions. The findings suggest a paradigm shift away from simply disseminating research to policymakers and toward developing collaborative relationships with them.