Researchers have noted with concern the often weak link between research evidence and policymaking, particularly in some areas such as education. In this introductory essay—dedicated to the late Carol Weiss—we consider this issue first by reflecting on how changing historical conditions can shape institutional demands on and for research production, promotion, and use. This leads to the questions: How can institutions use evidence on different policy options? How do policymakers and other information consumers sort through competing claims? Are new processes and institutions emerging to shape research use? In view of the current calls from public policymakers in the government and private policymakers in philanthropies for rigorous research on the effectiveness of policy interventions, we compare the relative role of research use in education policy to other issues, such as climate science, and highlight the growing role of intermediate actors as they shape research use. And we consider some common characteristics of these policy issues that may contribute to misuse or disuse, as well as to greater consideration of research. We offer an overview of the understanding of research use in education and point to the need to explore new theoretical frameworks and methodologies. The essay ends with an overview of the papers in the issue.
AsenR.GurkeD.ConnersP.SolomonR.GummE. (2013). Research evidence and school-board deliberations: Lessons from three Wisconsin school districts. Educational Policy, 27, 33-63.
2.
BallS.JunemannC. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
3.
Civil Rights Project. (2012). Brief of American Social Science Researchers in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.
4.
CoburnC.PenuelW. (2012). Research-practice partnerships at the district level: A new strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement (White Paper). New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation.
5.
EpsteinD. M. (1993). Sister Aimee: The life of Aimee Semple McPherson. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
6.
FinniganK.DalyA.CheJ. (2013). Systemwide reform in districts under pressure: The role of social networks in defining, acquiring, and diffusing research evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4).
7.
GoldhaberD. D.BrewerD. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129-145.
HenigJ. (2013). The end of exceptionalism: The changing politics of school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
10.
HoutM.ElliottS. W. (Eds.). (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability in public education. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.
11.
LinnR. L.WelnerK. G. (Eds.). (2007). Race-conscious policies for assigning students to schools: Social science research and the Supreme Court cases. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.
12.
LubienskiC.GarnG. (2010). Evidence and ideology on consumer choices in education markets: An alternative analytical framework. Current Issues in Education, 13(3), 1-31.
13.
LubienskiC.ScottJ.DeBrayE. (2011). The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advocacy, and educational policy. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16487
14.
LubienskiC.WeitzelP.LubienskiS. T. (2009). Is there a “consensus” on school choice and achievement? Advocacy research and the emerging political economy of knowledge production. Educational Policy, 23, 161-193.
15.
MassellD.GoertzM. E.BarnesC. (2012). State education agencies acquisition and use of research knowledge for school improvement. Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 609-626.
16.
McDonnellL.WeatherfordS. (2013). Evidence use and the Common Core State Standards movement: From problem definition to policy adoption. American Journal of Education (120).
17.
MickelsonR. (2008). Twenty-first century social science on school racial diversity and educational outcomes. Ohio State Law Journal, 69, 1173-1226.
18.
OreskesN.ConwayE. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.
PrewittK.SchwandtT.StrafM. (Eds.). (2012). Using science as evidence in public policy (Report of the National Research Council). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
21.
RichA. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
ScottJ.JabbarH. (2013). The role of foundations in knowledge production, In AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS.JacobsenR. (Eds). The infrastructure of accountability (pp. 75-92). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Ed Press.
23.
ScottJ.LubienskiC.DeBrayE.JabbarH. (in press). The intermediary function in evidence production, promotion, and mobilization: The case of educational incentives. In FinniganK.DalyA. (Eds.), Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill. New York: Springer.
24.
SpecterM. (2010). Denialism: How irrational thinking hinders scientific progress, harms the planet, and threatens our lives. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
TsengV. (2012). The uses of research in policy and practice. Social Policy Report, 26(2), 1-16.
28.
TyackD. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
WeissC. H. (1995). The four “I’s” of school reform: How interests, ideology, information, and institution affect teachers and principals. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 571-593.
30.
WeissC. H. (2000). The experimenting society in a public world. In BickmanL. (Ed.), Validity and social experimentation (pp. 283-302). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
