In the development of federal alcohol control policy, is research used merely to inform policymakers and the public, or to persuade them? Is it critical to the enactment of public policy, or is it an afterthought? To answer these questions, we analyzed in-depth interviews with federal alcohol policy community members, including those of the executive and legislative branches, interest group representatives, advocates, and media professionals. A snowball sampling strategy was used to collect 64 interviews. Informants were asked to respond in free narrative to questions about the role of research in policymaking generally and in instances known to the informant personally. Interview data were coded for demographics and content was analyzed. We also examined governmental documents pertaining to policies mentioned by subjects. Respondents perceived scientific information as only one of many levers relevant to the policymaking process, its role significantly constrained by rules governing policymaking strategy.
BimberB. A. (1996). The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. Albany: State University of New York Press.
2.
BranteT. (1993). Reasons for studying scientific and science-based controversies. In BranteT.FullerS. & LynchW., eds., Controversial Science: From Content to Contention. Albany: State University of New York Press.
3.
BruunK.EdwardsG.LumioM.MäkeläK.PanL.PophamR. E.RoomR.SchmidtW.SkogO.-J.SulkunenP. & ÖsterbergE. (1975). Alcohol Control Policies in Public Health Perspective. Helsinki, Finland: The Finnish Foundation for Alcohol Studies.
4.
Carr-GreggM. (1993). Interaction of public policy advocacy and research in the passage of New Zealand's Smoke-free Environments Act 1990. Addiction, 88 (Suppl.), 35S–41S.
5.
CasswellS.StewartL. & DuignanP. (1993). The negotiation of New Zealand alcohol policy in a decade of stabilized consumption and political change: The role of research. Addiction, 88 (Suppl.), 9S–17S.
6.
EdwardsG.AndersonP.BaborT. F.CasswellS.FerrenceR.GiesbrechtN.GodreyC.HolderH. D.LemmensP.MäkeläK.MidanikL. T.NorströmT.ÖsterbergE.RomelsjöA.RoomR.SimpuraJ. & SkogO.-J. (1994). Alcohol Policy and the Public Good. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7.
FillmoreK. M. (1984). Research as a handmaiden of policy: An appraisal of estimates of alcoholism and its cost in the workplace. Journal of Public Health Policy, 5(1), 40–64.
8.
GiesbrechtN. (2000). Roles of commercial interests in alcohol policies: Recent developments in North America. Addiction, 95 (Supplement 4), S581–S595.
9.
GlaserF. B. (1995). On wooden-headedness. Addiction, 90, 201–203.
10.
GordisE. (1990). Science aid to policy dilemmas: Implications of alcohol research to policy formulations in U.S.A.Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 25, 183–186.
11.
GordisE. (1993). Alcohol research and public health policy—commentary by NIAAA director Enoch Gordis, M.D.Alcohol Alert—National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 20, 3.
12.
GordisE. (1996). Alcohol research and social policy. Alcohol Health and Research World, 20(4), 208–212.
13.
GreenfieldT. K.GiesbrechtN.KaskutasL. A.JohnsonS.KavanaghL. & AnglinL. (2004). A study of the alcohol policy development process in the United States: Theory, goals, and methods. Contemporary Drug Problems, 31, 591–626 (this issue).
14.
GusfieldJ. (1981). The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
GusfieldJ. R. (1996). Contested Meanings: The Construction of Alcohol Problems. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
16.
HawksD. (1995). Why do so many administrations persist with unintelligent alcohol policies?Addiction, 90, 199–201.
17.
HawksD.StockwellT. & CasswellS. (1993). Helping research and policy meet. Addiction, 88 (Suppl.), 5S–7S.
18.
HolderH. D. (1993). Changes in access to and availability of alcohol in the United States: Research and policy implications. Addiction, 88 (Suppl.), 67S–74S.
19.
HoltgraveD. R. (1997). Influence of behavioral and social science on public health policymaking. American Psychologist, 52(2), 167–173.
20.
HomelR. (1993). Random breath testing in Australia: Getting it to work according to specifications. Addiction, 88 (Suppl.), 27S–33S.
21.
KingdonJ. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: HarperCollins.
22.
KirpD. L. (1996). Intelligent policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(3/4), 603–619.
23.
LindblomC. E. (1959). The “science” of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 119, 79–88.
24.
LindblomC. E. (1995 [1959]). How public policy is made. In TheodoulouS. Z. & CahnM. A. eds., Public Policy: The Essential Readings. New York: Prentice Hall.
25.
MajoneG. (1989). Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.
26.
MaussA. L. (1991). Science, social movements, and cynicism: Appreciating the political context of sociological research in alcohol studies. In RomanP. M., ed., Alcohol: The Development of Sociological Perspectives on Use and Abuse. New Brunswick: Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies.
27.
RogersJ. M. (1988). The Impact of Policy Analysis. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
28.
RoomR. (1984). Former NIAAA directors look back: Policymakers on the role of research. Drinking and Drug Practices Surveyor, 19, 38–42.
29.
RyderD. (1996). The analysis of policy: Understanding the process of policy development. Addiction, 91(9), 1265–1270.
30.
SaltzR. F. (1993). The introduction of dram shop legislation in the United States and the advent of server training. Addiction, 88 (Suppl.), 95S–103S.
31.
SaundersB. (1993). Guarding the guardians: Influencing the regulation of alcohol promotions in Australia. Addiction, 88 (Suppl.), 43S–51S.
32.
SingleE. (1993). The interaction between policy and research in the implementation of server training. Addiction, 88 (Suppl.), 105S–114S.
33.
SeckerA. (1993). The policy-research interface: An insider's view. Addiction, 88 (Suppl.), 115S–120S.
34.
StoneD. (1997). The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W.W. Norton.
35.
United States Congress (1990). House. Health Warnings on Alcoholic Beverage Advertisements, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. United States House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, second session. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
36.
United States Congress (1992). Senate. Alcohol Beverage Advertising Act, S. 664. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Consumer, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. United States Senate. One Hundred Second Congress, second session. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
37.
United States Congress (1993). House. S. 674, The Sensible Advertising and Family Education Act, Hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, first session. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
38.
United States Congress (1998). House. The Role of Science in Making Good Decisions. Hearing before the National Science Policy Study of the Committee on Science, United States House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress, second session. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
39.
WagenaarA. C. (1993). Research affects public policy: The case of the legal drinking age in the United States. Addiction, 88 (Suppl.), 75S–82S.
40.
WagenaarA.GehanJ.ToomeyT. L.Jones-WebbR. & WolfsonM. (1996). Organizing for alcohol policy: What is needed and how to get it. Paper presented at the 10th International Alcohol Policy Conference, Toronto, May 4–8, 1996.
41.
WhitemanD. (1985). The fate of policy analysis in congressional decision-making. Western Political Quarterly, 38(2), 294–311.
