Reflections on the "Policy-Relevant Turn" in Research

Abstract

AS RESEARCHERS, WE FACE INCREASING PRESSURE TO MAKE OUR WORK policy-relevant. Some of the impetus comes from within the academy as we try to make our work more usable and useful; other pressure comes from funding agencies, which demand that policy relevance be addressed in proposals and reports. In this article, we challenge the assumption that this in research has only positive implications and reflect critically on how the demands for policy relevance can influence our work. Throughout the discussion, we identify some of the potential subtle influences that the turn may have in shaping decisions and activities at each stage of the research process. Over the past decade, researchers have been increasingly asked to make research policy-relevant (Wilson, 2002; Auriat, 1998; Shahidullah, 1998). This is true not only for those of us working around issues of social justice, but also for social science researchers across multiple disciplines. Certainly, the focus on policy relevance is not completely new (see, e.g., journals such as Social Policy, Health Policy, Policy Sciences, and Journal of Public Policy and Marketing). However, recent years have seen interest in policy relevance become more in academia. For instance, concern for addressing policy relevance is increasingly found in disciplines such as political science (Candler, 2000; Lijphart, 2000; Hart, 1998), sociology (McDonald et al., 2000; Rehg, 2000; Schrader-Frechette, 2000), and economics (Erard and Ho, 2001; Block, 1999; Cameron and Ndhlovu, 1999; Turner et al., 1998). Likewise, policy relevance emerges as an issue in cross-disciplinary work, including immigration and migration studies (McDonald et al., 2000; Portes, 1999; Duncan, 1998), poverty studies (Korpi and Palme, 1998; Marcoux, 1998), criminology (Braga, 2001 ; Bridges et al., 1997), religious studies (Carroll, 2000), rural studies (Hodge and McNally, 1998), and ecology (Vaughan et al., 2001; Urquhart et al., 1998; Parsons and Daniel, 1988). The current impetus for policy relevance comes from many quarters, including researchers themselves as they strive to ensure their work makes a difference (see, e.g., Baldwin, 2000). Further, commissioned work requires action-oriented outcomes; government and agency contracts demand concrete recommendations; and research agencies increasingly request that investigators identify policy relevance in proposals and final reports. This has crept into our work in a way that impels researchers to think carefully about the potential outcomes and use of our research and, in many cases, to specifically outline plans for communicating findings to communities, decision-makers, and policymakers in a language and format that make results accessible. Endeavors such as participatory processes (Nichols, 2002; Mathie and Greene, 1997) and empowerment evaluation (Fetterman, 2001) attempt to include alternate voices and more applied outcomes in many research venues. Much of this work recognizes the importance of values in the conduct of research (House and Howe, 1999) and of ensuring ethical approaches in work (Neale et al., 2003). The turn generally assumes that making research findings accessible and applicable in the world will bring only benefits. Policy-relevant research provides funders and society with bang for their buck through solving problems and using research to the world. This is especially important as researchers and funders seek concrete ways for research to make a real difference in society and in the lives of the people with whom we work. However, as policy relevance becomes more mainstream in research, we ask: What are some of the potential dangers of the turn and how may it subtly change how investigators approach their work? In this article, we invite researchers to think critically and reflectively about the influence of the turn in their research. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.