This article analyzes the use of research evidence in school-board deliberations in three school districts in Wisconsin. In these settings, the circulation, meaning, and function of research depended importantly on the interests and backgrounds of advocates, the composition of audiences, and the values and contexts of decision-making. Board members and other meeting participants sought direct connections between research evidence and local district concerns. Their use of research gainsays linear models of policymaking, demonstrating that research carries different meanings in different situations and that research may not resolve value differences that inform policy disputes.
AsenR. (2010). Reflections on the role of rhetoric in public policy. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 13, 121-143.
2.
BenhabibS. (1992). Situating the self: Gender, community, and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
BessetteJ. M. (1994). The Mild voice of reason: Deliberative democracy and American national government. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BiestaG. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in education research. Education Theory, 57(1), 1-22.
5.
BogenschneiderK.CorbettT. J. (2010). Evidence-based policymaking: Insights from policy-minded researchers and research-minded policymakers. New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
BohmanJ. (1996). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
BrummettB. (2009). Techniques of close reading. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
8.
Brydon-MillerM.MaguireP. (2009). Participatory action research: Contributions to the development of practitioner inquiry in education. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 79-93.
9.
BurkhalterS.GastilJ.KelshawT. A. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory, 12, 398-422.
10.
ChatterjiM. (2004). Evidence on “what works”: An argument for extended term mixed method (ETMM) evaluation designs. Educational Researcher, 33(9), 3-13.
11.
CampbellK. K.HuxmanS. S. (2009). The rhetorical act: Thinking, speaking, and writing critically. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
12.
CoburnC. E.ToureJ.YamashitaM. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teacher’s College Record, 111, 1115-1161.
13.
CohenJ. (1997). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In BohmanJ.RehgW. (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 67-91). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
CookT.GorardS. (2007). What counts and what should count as evidence. In Evidence in education: Linking research and policy (pp. 33-49). Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
15.
CookeM. (2002). Five arguments for deliberative democracy. In Passerin d’EntrèvesM. (Ed.), Democracy as public deliberation: New perspectives (pp. 53-87). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
16.
DeweyJ. (1954). The public and its problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press. (Original work published 1927)
17.
DryzekJ. (2001). Legitimation and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29, 651-669.
18.
EastonD. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
19.
EstlundD. (1997). Beyond fairness and deliberation: The epistemic dimension of democratic authority. In BohmanJ.RehgW. (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 173-204). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
FaircloughN. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London, UK: Longman.
21.
FeldmanM. S.MarchJ. G. (1988). Information in organizations as sign and symbol. In MarchJ. G. (Ed.), Decisions and organizations (pp. 409-428). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
22.
GastilJ. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
23.
GoodnightG. T. (1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 214-227.
24.
GutmannA.ThompsonD. (2004). Why deliberative democracy?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
HabermasJ. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Volume 1, reason and the rationalization of society (McCarthyT., Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1981)
26.
HabermasJ. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (RehgW., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1992)
27.
HarperD. (1992). Small n’s and community case studies. In RaginC. C.BeckerH. S. (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 139-158). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
HessF. M. (2008). When education research matters. Education Outlook, 1, 1-6.
29.
HesseM. (1995). Habermas and the force of dialectical argument. History of European Ideas, 21, 367-378.
30.
HicksD. (2002). The promise(s) of deliberative democracy. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 5, 223-260.
31.
HonigM. I.CoburnC. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices. Educational Policy, 22, 578-608.
32.
KrippendorffK. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
33.
LeffM.SachsA. (1990). Words the most like things: Iconicity and the rhetorical text. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 252-273.
34.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 9101, 115 Stat. 1964 (2002).
35.
NoffkeS. E. (2009). Revisiting the professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. In NoffkeS. E.SomekhB. (Eds.), Sage handbook of educational action research (pp. 6-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
36.
MajoneG. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
37.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
38.
RawlsJ. (1996). Political liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
39.
SchudsonM. (1994). The “public sphere” and its problems: Bringing the state (back) in. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy, 8, 529-546.
40.
SirianniC.FriedlandL. (2001). Civic innovation in America: Community empowerment, public policy, and the movement for civic renewal. Berkeley: University of California Press.
41.
SkocpolT. (2003). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American civic life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
42.
SlavinR. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15-21.
43.
SmithA. (2003). Scientifically based research and evidence-based education: A federal policy context. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28, 126-132.
44.
StoneD. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: Norton.
45.
StoutR. T.TallericoM.ScribnerK. P. (1995). Values: The ‘what?’ of the politics of education. In ScribnerJ. D.LaytonD. H. (Eds.), (pp. 5-20). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
46.
ToulminS. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
TracyK. (2010). Challenges of ordinary democracy: A case study in deliberation and dissent. University Park: Pennsylvania University Press.
48.
TracyK.DurfyM. (2007). Speaking out in public: Citizen participation in contentious school board meetings. Discourse and Communication, 1, 223-249.
49.
TrybusM. (2007). Understanding scientifically based research: A mandate or decision tool?Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 73(4), 5-8.
50.
Van DijkT. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
WilliamsonA.FungA. (2004). Public deliberation: Where are we and where can we go?National Civic Review, 93(4), 3-15.
52.
Wisconsin Information Network for Successful Schools. (n. d.). WINSS successful school guide: Data analysis. Retrieved from http://data.dpi.state.wi.us/data/
53.
WisemanA. W. (2010). The uses of evidence for educational policymaking: Global contexts and international trends. Review of Research in Education, 34, 1-24.
54.
WyckoffP. G. (2009). Policy and evidence in a partisan age: The great disconnect. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
55.
YoungI. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
56.
ZeichnerK. (2001). Educational action research. In ReasonP.BradburyH. (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 273-283). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
