We examine whether social science research can influence state legislation and elaborate on why social scientists may sometimes fail to have an impact. To begin, we construct a simple model of the policy process in which social scientists supply research to legislators, which they then use to fashion bills into law. Next, we discuss the risks that may prevent achievement of this depiction and how legislators, other policy groups, and social scientists themselves may act to compromise the process. Afterward, we offer actions that may enhance the chances that research will be used by legislators.
Beebe, S.A., and S.J. Beebe.2000. Public speaking: An audience centered approach. Needham Heights, MA: Pearson Education Company.
2.
Caplan, N.1977. A minimum set of conditions necessary for the utilization of social science knowledge in policy formation at the national level. In Using social research in public policy making, ed. C. Weiss.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
3.
Card, D., L.F. Katz, and A.B. Krueger.1993. An evaluation of recent evidence of the employment effects of minimum and subminimum wages. Working Paper Series No. 4528, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge.
4.
Card, D., and A.B. Krueger.1994. Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. American Economic Review84:772-93.
Etzioni, A.1988. The moral dimension: Toward a new economics. New York: Free Press.
7.
Garrett, J.L., and Y. Islam.1998. Policy research and the policy process: Do the twain ever meet? Gatekeeper Series 74, International Institute for Environment and Development , London.
8.
Grindle, M., and J. Thomas.1990. After the decision: Implementing policy reforms in developing countries. World Development18:1163-81.
9.
Hird, J.A.2005. Power, knowledge and politics: Policy analysis in the states. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
10.
Juna, C., and N. Clark.1995. Policy research in sub-Saharan Africa: An exploration. Public Administration and Development15:121-37.
11.
Laswell, H.D.1951. The policy orientation. In The policy sciences , eds., D. Lerner, and H. D. Laswell.Stanford: Stanford University Press.
12.
Lu, M.C., Y.G. Lin, N.M. Prietto, and T.J. Garite.2000. Elimination of public funding of prenatal care for undocumented immigrants in California: a cost/benefit analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology182:233-9.
13.
Lupia, A.2000. Evaluating political science research: Information for buyers and sellers. PS: Political Science & Politics33:7-14.
14.
Macrae, D., and D. Whittington.1997. Expert advice for policy choice: Analysis & discourse. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
15.
March, J.G., and J.P. Olsen.1996. Institutional perspectives on political institutions. Governance: An Informational Journal of Policy and Administration9:247-64.
16.
Mayntz, R.1977. Sociology, value freedom, and the problems of political counseling. In Using social research in public policy making , ed. C. Weiss.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
17.
Neilson, S.2001. IDRC-supported research and its influence on public policy, knowledge utilization and public policy processes: A literature review. Ottawa, Ontario: Evaluation Unit, International Development Research Center.
18.
Neumark, D., and W. Wascher.1993. Employment effects of minimum and subminimum wages: Reply to Card, Katz and Krueger. Working Paper No. 4570, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, December.
19.
---. 1995.The effects of minimum wages on teenage employment and enrollment: Evidence from matched CPS surveys. Working Paper No. 5092, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, April.
20.
Nutley, S.2003. Increasing research impact: Early reflections from the ESRC evidence network. Working Paper No. 16. Center for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, Queen Mary University, London.
21.
Nutley, S., J. Percy-Smith, and W. Solesbury.2000. Models of research impact: A cross-sector review of literature and practice. London: Learning and Skills Research Center.
22.
Peterson, P.1995. The price of federalism. Washington, DC: Brookings.
23.
Rhodes, R.A.W., and D. Marsh.1992. New directions in the study of policy networks. European Journal of Political Research2:181-205.
24.
Reeher, G.1996. Narratives of justice: Legislators’ beliefs about distributive fairness. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
25.
Sabatier, P.A., and H.C. Jenkins-Smith .1993. Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder: Westview Press.
26.
Shropshire, K.1995. The sports franchise game. Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press.
27.
Stone, D., S. Maxwell, and M. Keating.2001. Bridging research and policy. A paper prepared for an international workshop on July 16-17, 2001, Radcliffe House, Warwick University, UK.
28.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.1996. A review of the literature on dissemination and knowledge utilization. Austin, TX: National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research.
29.
Sutton, R.1999. The policy process: An overview. Working Paper No. 118, Overseas Development Institute, London.
30.
Weiss, C.1977. Research as policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social science research. Policy Analysis3:531-45.
31.
Wildavsky, A.B.1979. Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis . Boston: Little Brown.
32.
Young, J., and J. Court.2004. Are you a policy entrepreneur? How to promote pro-poor policy and practice. Presentation at an Overseas Development Institute Workshop in March 2004, Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.
