This article posits the mutual inability of policymakers and researchers to communicate in compatible language and compatible imagery. The lack of direct influence of research, and of academics in general, in the policy arena is reconfirmed. Conceptual treatment of several rationales for divergence between two separate cultures the academic and the political is offered, with particular reference to the notion of the "ecology of games" that argues for understanding each side in terms of its own rules and for accepting the discontinuities between the two worlds. Gaps are illuminated with case material from policy-making in Florida, and semantic differentials are developed to further illustrate incompatibilities in language and culture. A critique of efforts to "improve communication" is presented, and a set of tactical adaptations are suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alkin, M.
(1990). Debates on evaluation.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Cohen, D. K.
, & Garet, M. S. (1975). Reforming educational policy with applied social research. Harvard Educational Review, 45,17-43.
3.
Crane, D.
(1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
Edelman, M.
(1980). The symbolic uses of politics.Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
5.
Firestone, W. A.
(1989). Educational policy as an ecology of games. Educational Researcher,18(7), 18-24.
6.
Ginsberg, R.
, & Wimpelberg, R. K. (1987). Educational change by commission: Attempting "trickle down" reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 344-360.
7.
Gonet, P. M.
, & Nowlan, J. D. (1982). The legislature. In J. D. Nowlan (Ed.), Inside state government: A primer for Illinois managers (pp. 69-92). Urbana: University of Illinois, Institute of Government and Public Affairs.
8.
Guba, E.
& Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
Guthrie, J.
, & Clifford, G. (1989). A brief for professional education. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 380-385.
10.
Haensley, P. A.
, Lupkowski, A. E., & McNamara, J. F. (1987). The chart essay: A strategy for communicating research findings to policymakers and practitioners. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 63-75.
11.
House, E.
(1974). Politics of educational innovation.Beverly Hills, CA: McCutchan.
12.
House, E.
(1986). New directions in educational evaluation.London: Falmer.
13.
Katz, D.
, & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations.New York: Wiley.
14.
Kleinfeld, J.
, & McDiarmid, G. W. (1986). Living to tell the tale: Researching politically controversial topics and communicating the findings. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,8, 393-401.
15.
Lincoln, Y.
(1985). Organizational theory and inquiry: The paradigm revolution.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16.
Malen, B.
, Murphy, M., & Geary, S. (1988). The role of program evaluation information in legislative decision making: A case study of a loose cannon on deck. Theory into Practice,27, 111-125.
17.
Marshall, C.
, Mitchell, D., & Wirt, F. (1986). The context of state-level policy formation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 8, 347-378.
18.
McLaughlin, M. W.
(1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
19.
Patton, M. Q.
(1987). Creative evaluation (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20.
Patton, M. Q.
(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Rein, M.
(1983). From policy to practice.Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
22.
Sederburg, W. A.
(1989). A legislator looks at academe: Hypotheses for a language gap. Change,21(1), 30-42.
23.
Shavelson, R. J.
(1988). Contributions of educational research to policy and practice: Constructing, challenging, changing cognition. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 4-11.
24.
Snow, C. P.
(1961). Science and government.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
Starratt, R. J.
(1988). Administrative leadership in policy review and evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10, 141-150.
26.
Weiss, C.
(Ed.). (1977). Using social research in public decision making.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
27.
Weiss, C.
, & Bucuvalas, M. (1980). Truth tests and utility tests: Decision-makers' frames of reference for social science research. American Sociological Review, 45, 302-313.
28.
Weiss, J. A.
, & Gruber, J. E. (1984). Using knowledge for control in fragmented policy arenas. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 3, 225-247.
29.
Wirt, F. M.
, & Mitchell, D. E. (1982). Social science and educational reform: The political uses of social research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(4), 1-16.
