# **Abstract** --- #### **Specific Application** Public health legislation related to childhood obesity in the United States. #### **URE Questions Addressed** To what degree is research vs. non-research evidence used in the policymaking process? To what degree is research used strategically vs instrumentally vs conceptually in the policymaking process? In what settings and larger contexts are certain types of evidence and evidence use expected to be more commonly found in the policymaking process? How is evidence presented (format, valence, interpretation) in the policymaking process? #### **Scope - What counts as evidence** 1. Research Evidence - Empirical findings derived from systematic research methods and analyses such as scientific experiments, observational studies (e.g., surveys, observations, and interviews), epidemiological or medical studies, research syntheses (e.g., meta-analysis, systematic reviews, and scientific expert panels), and public opinion polls that adhere to basic scientific standards 2. Non-Research Evidence - Proof derived from personal experience; others' stories, anecdotes or testimonials; expert, practitioner or constituent opinion; and news stories. Coders were cautioned not to confuse evidence with a claim, which is a statement or assertion that something is true without providing evidence or proof (e.g., “most American children are obese”), as claims are omnipresent in policy discourse. #### **Domain of Documents** Policy documents - i.e., official documents that contain a detailed description of procedures, deliberations, decisions, or actions relevant to proposing, implementing, and/or evaluating a particular public policy - produced as part of legislative processes directly relevant to childhood obesity-related legislation and published between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2014. #### **Source(s) and Modes of Documents** Digital documents from the U.S. Government Printing Office online database (FDsys). #### **Number of Documents Retrieved** 1,888 #### **Rationale(s) for Document Inclusion in Analytic Sample** Argumentation and persuasion theories; documents needed to contain some type of evidence mention. #### **Number of Documents Analyzed** 786 (224 congressional bills, 190 committee hearings and reports, and 372 records of floor debates). #### **High-level Analytic Structure** Operationalizing instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic use of evidence based on theories of argumentation and persuasion. #### **Analytic Methods** Qualitative and quantitative data analysis; document-, person-, and evidence-level coding. #### **Primary Source(s) for This Method** Yanovitzky, Itzhak & Weber, Matthew. (2018). Analysing use of evidence in public policymaking processes: a theory-grounded content analysis methodology. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 10.1332/174426418X15378680726175. #### **Author Contact** Questions about this protocol can be addressed to Dr. Itzhak Yanovitzky at itzhak@rutgers.edu. --- # **Background** --- #### **Structure Files** [Coding Manual][1] #### **Key References** BOSWELL, C. 2008. The political functions of expert knowledge: knowledge and legitimation in European Union immigration policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15, 471-488. MAJONE, G. 1989. Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process, New Haven, Yale University Press. O'KEEFE, D. J. 2002. Persuasion : theory & research, Thousand Oaks, Calif. ; London, Sage Publications. SCHEUFELE, D. A. & TEWKSBURY, D. 2007. Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9-20. WEISS, C. H. 1979. The Many Meanings of Research Utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426-431. [1]: https://osf.io/b9hq2/