Research utilization in higher education rulemaking: A multi-case study of research prevalence, sources, and barriers

Abstract

For stakeholders who would like to see more research as a basis for educational policy, it is important to understand the prevalence of research use and the sources of the studies used by policymakers, as well as the factors that hinder research use in educational policymaking. Through an analysis of regulatory documents and interviews with 34 key informants, this multi-case study examined the prevalence and sources of research utilized in higher education rulemaking, which is the process for developing federal regulations that govern higher education. This study also examined barriers to using research in higher education rulemaking. Findings indicate that while research has been used in this process, factors other than research were discussed more frequently in final regulations. Barriers to research use in higher education rulemaking included time constraints, unavailability of data, politics, lack of government research capacity, and other disjunctions between the research and policy communities. Moreover, the contexts in which particular rules were created shaped the prevalence and sources of research used in the regulations’ development. The article concludes with implications for policy and theory.

Data and research as evidence in tuition‐free community college legislation

“…Instead, "research utilization" in this context refers to various ways that policy actors rely on research (usually social science research) to understand the phenomenon in question and to implement various interventions aimed at curtailing the social problem (Ness, 2010). Most policy scholars distinguish between the use of data and research, with research conceptualized as a minimal systemic analysis of data, regardless of the level of rigor or methods employed (Natow, 2020b). Weiss's (1979) typology is a seminal work in the research utilization literature and provides seven distinct conceptualizations for how policymakers solicit and use research throughout the policy formation process:…”

“…The initial analysis in this chapter only included a large sample of legislative documents and not additional artifacts that capture the policy formation process. In addition to expanding the sample size of artifacts, qualitative interviews with policymakers and legislative staff have produced rich findings regarding the political use of evidence throughout the entire policy formation process (Natow, 2020a(Natow, , 2020b. Future research could expand on these findings by including qualitative interviews with key stakeholders throughout the policy formation process.…”

“…To generate support for tuition‐free policies, political factions introduce “evidence” throughout public and private discourses to build coalitions that will support their iteration of the tuition‐free agenda. Research on information and evidence use in public policy broadly, and higher education specifically, suggests that policymakers not only seek out evidence to understand and inform a policy problem but also seek out evidence that confirms previously held policy positions constructed from larger ideological biases (Gándara, 2019; Natow, 2020a, 2020b; Ness, 2010; Weiss, 1979). Research on evidence use in higher education policy has found that policymakers solicit information from multiple sources for different political ends (Gándara, 2019; Ness & Mistretta, 2009; Shakespeare, 2008).…”

The Need for Educational Research Engagement With Courts, Public Policy, and Practice in a Post-Dobbs Era

“…Here, too, educational research can document the importance of comprehensive reproductive care and institutional support post- Dobbs . Similar to the use of research by courts, the use of research in education policymaking is well established, although there are limitations (Cooper et al, 2009; Levin, 2013; Lubienski et al, 2014; Pasachoff, 2017; Scott & Jabbar, 2014; Wiseman, 2010), such as time constraints, unavailability of data, politics (Natow, 2020), and overreliance on research that privileges individualism over the collective good (Jabbar & Menashy, 2022).…”

Analyzing Congressional Research Service Reports on Education: How Is Information Used at Congress’s Think Tank?

“…Calls to improve research-informed policy and policyrelevant research often underscore the long-standing gap between policy actors-those who are directly involved in the production and implementation of policy-and academic researchers (Galey, 2015;Hillman et al, 2015;Honig & Coburn, 2008). Previous research notes that policy actors and researchers have distinct language, norms, and goals that prevent the two sides from communicating effectively, resulting in a "two-communities" divide (Birnbaum, 2000;Caplan, 1979;Natow, 2020b;Snow, 1963;Tseng, 2012;Tseng & Nutley, 2014;Wolanin, 1976). For example, researchers tend to emphasize theory and reliability with the aim of informing future research, whereas policymakers focus on experience, common sense, and tangible connections to specific and current issues (Birnbaum, 2000;Tseng & Nutley, 2014;Wolanin, 1976).…”