Once research results have been produced, how are they used? This article examines the politics of using information generated by research. The value-laden nature of any research provides policy makers with an important resource to further their political agendas. Information can be subject to numerous interpretations. Those policy makers who are skillful in using research information can frame the issues and solutions in ways that are compatible with their interests. In terms of influencing public policy, how policy makers use research findings may be as important as the findings themselves.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, B.
, & Biddle, B.J. (Eds.). (1991). Knowledge for policy: Improving education through research. London: Falmer.
2.
Berk, R.
, & Rossi, P. (1976, February).Doing good or worse: Evaluation research politically reexamined. Social Problems, 23,337-349.
3.
Boyd, W. L.
(1998). Paradoxes of educational policy and productivity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
4.
Buchanan, J.
, & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5.
Campbell, D.
(1991).Methods for the experimenting society. Evaluation Practice, 12(3), 223-260. Reprint of 1971 presentation to the American Psychological Association.
6.
Caporaso, J.
, & Levine, D. (1992) Theories of political economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Chelimsky, E.
(1995). The political environment of evaluation and what it means for the development of the field. Evaluation Practice, 16(3), 215-225.
8.
Cobb, R. W.
, & Elder, C. D. (1983). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda-building (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
9.
Coleman, J.
et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, OE-38001. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
10.
Comte, A.
(1875). Systeme de politique positive (Harriet Martineau, Trans.) (4 vols.). London: Longmans Green.
11.
Cook, T. D.
(1991). Postpositivist criticisms, reform associations, and uncertainties about social research. In D. S. Anderson & B. J. Biddle (Eds.), Knowledge for policy: Improving education through research (pp. 43-59). London: Falmer.
12.
Cronbach, L.
(1980). Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Crozier, M.
(1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Dahl, R.
(1991). Modern political analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15.
Durkheim, E.
(1938). The rules of sociological method. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
16.
Easton, D.
(1965). A framework for political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17.
Emerson, R. M.
(1962, February).Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27,31-40.
18.
Firestone, W. A.
(1989).Educational policy as an ecology of games. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 18-23.
19.
Fischer F.
, & J. Forester. (Eds). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
20.
Foucault, M.
(1969). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Harper Colophon.
21.
French, J.R.P., Jr.
, & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
22.
Habermas, J.
(1970). Toward a rational society. Boston: Beacon.
23.
Habermas, J.
(1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon.
24.
Husen, T.
, & Kogan, M. (Eds.) (1984). Educational research and policy: How do they relate?Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
25.
Johnson, B. L., Jr.
(1995). Principals and the political economy of environmental enactment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
26.
Johnson, B. L., Jr.
(1998). Resource dependence theory: A political economy model of organizations. In J. Shafritz (Ed.), International encyclopedia of public policy and administration (vol. 4, pp. 1968-1974). New York: Henry Holt.
27.
Kingdon, J.
(1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
28.
Lasswell, H.
(1958). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. Cleveland: Meridian Books.
29.
Lewin, K.
(1946).Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2,34-46.
30.
Lindblom, C. E.
(1980). The policy making process (2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31.
Lindblom, C. E.
, & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32.
Majone, G.
(1989). Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
33.
Mannheim, K.
(1936). Ideology and utopia. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
34.
Mayntz, R.
(1977). Sociology, value, freedom, and the problems of political counseling. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 55-65). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
35.
McLaughlin, M. W.
(1975). Evaluation and reform: The case of ESEA. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
36.
McLaughlin, M. W.
(1987).Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
37.
Mintzberg, H.
(1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
38.
Murphy, J. T.
(1971).Title I of esea: The politics of implementing federal education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 41(1), 35-63.
39.
Nisbett, R.
, & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pascal, B.
(1966). Pensees (A. J. Krailsheimer, Trans.). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
42.
Pfeffer, J.
, & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
43.
Phillips, D. C.
(1987). Philosophy, science, and social inquiry. New York: Pergamon.
44.
Rein, M.
(1971).Social policy analysis as the interpretation of beliefs. Journal of the American Institution of Planners, 37,297-310.
45.
Schattschneider, E. E.
(1960). The semi-sovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
46.
Selleck, R.J.W.
(1991). The Manchester statistical society and the foundation of social science research. In D. S. Anderson & B. J. Biddle (Eds.), Knowledge for policy: Improving education through research (pp. 291-304). London: Falmer.
47.
Shadish, W.
, Cook, T., & Leviton, L. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories and Practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
48.
Simon, H.
(1957). Administrative behavior. New York: Free Press.
49.
Thompson, J. A.
, 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
50.
Weber, M.
(1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. H. Henderson & T. Parsons, Eds.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
51.
Weimer, D. L.
, & Vining, A. (1992). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (2nd ed.). Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
52.
Weiss, C. H.
(Ed.). (1977). Using social research in public policy making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
53.
Weiss, C.
(1973).Where politics and evaluation research meet. Evaluation, 1,37-45.
54.
Wildavsky, A.
(1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston: Little, Brown.
55.
Wilson, J. Q.
(1973).On Pettigrew and Armor: An afterword. Public Interest, 30,132-134.
