This study uses critical discourse analysis to explain how legislators determine the role and contributions of academic researchers in Congressional legislative hearings. The discursive practices that legislators use serve to construct the social identity of academic witnesses, characterize witnesses’ qualifications, solicit information from witnesses, frame comments from witnesses, and amplify and mitigate witness testimony. The findings make visible the ways that legislators use the power of their positions to depict academic witnesses as both experts who offer independent knowledge and experts who validate or confirm a legislator’s preferences and priorities. The results have implications for academics who seek to improve connections between research and policy, and academics who seek to further advance the production of knowledge of federal policymaking processes.
BaumgartnerF.JonesB. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BergströmG.BoréusK. (2017). Analyzing text and discourse in the social sciences. In BoréusK.BergströmG. (Eds.), Analyzing text and discourse: Eight approaches for the social sciences (pp. 1–22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
BergströmG.EkströmL.BoréusK. (2017). Discourse analysis. In BoréusK.BergströmG. (Eds.), Analyzing text and discourse: Eight approaches for the social sciences (pp. 208–241). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
BirklandT. A. (2016). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts and models of public policy making (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BrasherH. (2006). Listening to hearings: Legislative hearings and legislative outcomes. American Politics Research, 34, 583–604.
6.
BrownsonR. C.RoyerC.EwingR.McBrideT. D. (2006). Researchers and policymakers: Travelers in parallel universes. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30, 164–172.
7.
BursteinP.HirshC. E. (2007). Interest organizations, information, and policy innovation in the U.S. congress. Sociological Forum, 22, 174–199.
8.
CaplanN. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22, 459–470.
9.
DeimerD.FeddersenT. (2000). Information and congressional hearings. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 51–65.
10.
DoughertyR. (2007). Critically framing education policy: Foucault, discourse and governmentality (Counterpoints; Vol. 292). In BesleyT.PetersM. A. (Eds.), Why Foucault? New directions in educational research (pp. 193–204). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
11.
EdwardsH. R.BryantD. U.Bent-GoodleyT. (2011). Participation and influence in federal child welfare policymaking. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 5(2–3), 145–166.
12.
FaircloughN. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
GoldhaberD. D.BrewerD. J. (2008). What gets studied and why: Examining the incentives that drive education research. In HessF. M. (Ed.), When research matters: How scholarship influences policy (pp. 197–217). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
15.
GoldieD.LinickM.JabbarH.LubienskiC. (2014). Using bibliometric and social media analysis to explore the “echo chamber” hypothesis. Educational Policy, 28, 281–305.
HayC. (1997). Divided by a common language: Political theory and the concept of power. Politics, 17(1), 45–52.
18.
HeadB. W. (2010). Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges. Policy and Society, 29, 77–94.
19.
HenigJ. R. (2008). The evolving relationship between researchers and public policy. In HessF. M. (Ed.), When research matters: How scholarship influences policy (pp. 41–62). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
20.
HenigJ. R. (2009). Politicization of evidence: Lessons for an informed democracy. Educational Policy, 23, 137–160.
21.
HessF. M. (2008a). Introduction. In HessF. M. (Ed.), When research matters: How scholarship influences policy (pp. 1–15). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
22.
HessF. M. (2008b). Conclusion: Education research and public policy. In HessF. M. (Ed.), When research matters: How scholarship influences policy (pp. 239–256). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
HirdJ. A. (2009). The study and use of policy research in state legislatures. International Regional Science Review, 32, 523–535.
25.
HolyokeT. T. (2008). Interest group competition: Cooperation at legislative hearings. Congress & the Presidency, 35, 17–38.
26.
LandryR.AmaraN.LamariM. (2001). Climbing the ladder of research utilization. Science Communication, 22, 396–422.
27.
LeydenK. (1995). Interest group resources and testimony at Congressional hearings. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20, 431–439.
28.
LindblomC. E.CohenD. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29.
LubienskiC.ScottJ.DeBrayE. (2014). The politics of research use in education policymaking. Educational Policy, 28, 131–144.
30.
NessE. C. (2010). The role of information in the policy process: Implications for the examination of research utilization in higher education policy. In SmartJ. C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 25, pp. 1–49). New York, NY: Springer.
ReisiglM.WodakR. (2016). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In WodakR.MeyerM. (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed., pp. 23–61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
RigbyE. (2005). Linking research and policy on Capitol Hill. Evidence & Policy, 1, 195–212.
37.
RogersR.Malancharuvil-BerkesE.MosleyM.HuiD.O’Garro JosephG. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature, Review of Educational Research, 75, 365–416.
38.
ShakespeareC. (2008). Uncovering information’s role in the state higher education policy-making process. Educational Policy, 22, 875–899.
TsengV. (2012). The use of research in policy and practice (Social Policy Report Vol. 26, No. 2). New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation.
41.
VergerA.FontdevilaC.RoganR.GurneyT. (2018).Manufacturing an illusory consensus? A bibliometric analysis of the international debate on education privatisation. International Journal of Educational Development. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.12.011
42.
WeissC. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3, 531–545.
43.
WeissC. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426–431.
44.
WodakR.MeyerM. (2016). Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In WodakR.MeyerM. (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed., pp. 1–22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
