# Abstract --- ### Specific Applications - Policymaker use of research evidence in policymaking, in general, and in youth and family policy, in particular. - Policymaker use of research evidence in policymaking, in general, and in youth and family policy, in particular. - Policymaker perceptions of why and how polarization varies across states and how it affects research utilization. ### Sources for This Method Bogenschneider, K., Corbett, T. J., & Parrott, E. (2019). Realizing the promise of research in policymaking: Theoretical guidance grounded in policymaker perspectives. *Journal of Family Theory & Review*, 11(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12310 Bogenschneider, K., & Bogenschneider, B. N. (2020). Empirical evidence from state legislators: How, when, and who uses research. *Psychology, Public Policy, and Law*, 26(4) 413-424. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000232 Bogenschneider, K., Day, E., & Parrott, E. (2019). Revisiting theory on research use: Turning to policymakers for fresh insights. *American psychologist*, 74(7), 778–793. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000460 Bogenschneider, K., Day, E., & Bogenschneider, B. N. (2020). A window into youth and family policy: State policymaker views on polarization and research utilization. *American Psychologist*. Online first publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000681 Bogenschneider, K., Day, E., & Bogenschneider, B. N. (2022). When policymakers are asked: Why and how polarization varies across states. *Political Research Quarterly.* Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F10659129221113777 Day, E., MacDermid Wadsworth, S., Bogenschneider, K., & Thomas-Miller, J. (2019). When university researchers connect with policy: A framework for whether, when, and how to engage. *Journal of Family Theory & Review*, 11(1), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12306 ### URE Questions Addressed - What contributions does research make to policymaking? - Why is research underutilized in policymaking? - How, when, and which policymakers use research evidence? - What does polarization mean to policymakers and why does it vary across states? - How polarized are youth and family issues and how prevalent is the use of research evidence? - How can communication and trust between the research and policy communities be increased? - What advice do policymakers have for how universities and university researchers could engage with them? ### Interview Goals and Design - To elicit policymaker perspectives on the contributions that research makes to policymaking - To examine how, when, and which legislators use research evidence - To investigate the influence of relationships and governing practices on dysfunctional polarization - To explore the perspectives of policymakers on the extent of partisan polarization and research utilization in youth and family policies - To refine community dissonance theory which proposes that researchers can more effectively engage policymakers and improve research use if they better understood the policy community—its inhabitants, institutions, and culture. - To gain insights into how professional and institutional cultures operate in a policymaking body in an effort to improve communication and trust between researchers and policymakers - To understand potential cultural frictions and impediments to the use of research evidence in the policy culture - To explore legislators’ perspectives on how universities and university researchers could better engage with the policy community. [Five interview protocols are attached][1]—one for all legislators, one for legislators nominated as Exemplar Research Users, one for legislators nominated as Exemplar Relationship Builders, one for legislators nominated as Youth and Family Champions, and one for key informants. ### Interview Form Three rounds of semi-structured interviews - two with state legislators and one with key informants. This is a semi-structured protocol with the interviewer using probes to deepen understanding of the meaning of a policymaker’s response to a question and to compare responses across policymakers. The study’s three-tiered iterative design elicited a deep and discerning understanding of policymakers’ research use, given that analysis of each round of interviews was used to identify promising lines of inquiry to pursue in the next and subsequent rounds. The protocols were pilot tested with six former legislators, 3 Democratic and 3 Republican, who were no longer serving in the legislature. In response to these interviews, the definition of research was clarified by expanding on what was included and excluded. Also, the interview questions were reordered to start with questions that were easier for legislators to answer. ### Participant Selection - Round 1 interviews were conducted with 123 legislators - 87 from Wisconsin and 36 from Indiana. - Round 2 interviewees were nominated by colleagues in Round 1 as exemplar research users, relationship builders, or youth or family champions; n=89. The design of the study is displayed in the three attached tables, one that [overviews the three rounds of interviews for the exemplar research users study][2], one [that details the three rounds of interviews for the youth and family champions study][3], and another that [describes the qualitative and quantitative protocols for the face-to-face interviews of legislators and key informants for the polarization study][4]. - Round 3 interviewees were 13 key informants drawn from former governors, lieutenant governors, and gubernatorial staffers; lobbyists; nonpartisan legislative agency analysts; and former legislators. ### Administration Face-to-face; interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Analysis was conducted using MAXQDA Software (Version, 2018.2; BERBI Software, 2017). Interview length: - Round 1 - mean 55 minutes; Range = 16 - 129 minutes - Round 2 – Exemplar Research Users; mean = 63 minutes; Range = 24 - 139 minutes - Round 2 – Youth and Family Champions; mean = 67 minutes; Range = 32 to 139 minutes - Round 3 - mean = 119 minutes; Range = 45 - 189 minutes ### High-level Analytic Structure - In one paper (Bogenschneider, Day, & Parrott 2019), policymakers reported the contributions of research to policymaking as detailed below.[ \[The coding manual for these contributions is attached\]][5]. - Persuading others by developing arguments that support one’s view or anticipate and counter opposing views; - Providing a larger context for thinking about issues and an enlightened understanding of the complexity of issues; - Designing good legislation and stopping bad legislation; - Defining problems and raising awareness of why action is needed; - Educating others; - Improving the decision-making process by enhancing debate, dialogue, collaboration and compromise; - Earning the trust of colleagues as a knowledgeable and credible information source; - Asking important questions for policy or political purposes; - Informing one’s position on an issue; - Justifying a pre-existing position on an issue; - Assessing the political and economic feasibility of policy decisions; - Changing one’s position on an issue; - Offering new and emerging ideas; - Explaining a vote on an issue; - To refine community dissonance theory (Bogenschneider, Corbett, & Parrott 2019), the authors coded several dimensions of professional and institutional culture (e.g., work context, interactional preferences, epistemological frameworks, influence loops, focal interests, salient stakeholders). - To examine the issues, policymakers, and points in the policy process where research is used (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020), the authors coded several dimensions of institutional culture as identified in community dissonance theory (i.e., salient topics, the decision-making process, internal stakeholders, and epistemological frameworks). - To examine why and how polarization varies across states, indepth interviews were analyzed to examine whether dysfunctional polarization was associated with triggering conditions (rifts and resulting conflict dynamics), the actions of policy actors (influence of party and committee leadership, party leaders’ tone and actions, perceptions of whether polarization has negative effects), and processes (committee role and its effect on bipartisanship, importance of relationships in a polarized setting, influence of polarization on relationships, minority party’s opportunities to contribute to policymaking, and opportunities to get to know and build relationships with colleagues). - To examine polarization and research utilization in youth and family policies (Bogenschneider, Day, & Bogenschneider, 2020), the authors coded the three key components of Kingdon’s agenda-setting theory—the recognition of youth and family problems, availability of research-based policy solutions, and political and economic feasibility of policy solutions. In addition, the authors coded how partisan youth and family policies are, why they are partisan, the importance of research, the importance of research on youth and family issues, changes in the importance of university research, policymaker world views relevant to public policy, the skills and attributes of effective policymakers, effectiveness strategies to advance youth and family policy, and frustrations of youth and family champions. - To explore legislators’ perspectives on universities and how researchers can better engage with policymakers (Day et al., 2019), the authors coded mentions of universities and instances of specific advice legislators had for university researchers. ### Analytic Approaches Interviews were human coded line-by-line. The codes were verified by a second author and discrepancies were resolved by a third person. Discrepancies are reported in all papers with the acceptable range based on Campbell, Quincy, Osserman, and Pedersen, 2013. - Beach, D. & Pedersen, R. B. (2018). Selecting appropriate cases when tracing causal mechanisms. Sociological Methods & Research 47(4):837-871. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0049124115622510 - Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J. & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research (42)3, 294-320. doi: 10.1177%2F0049124113500475 ### Author Contact Researchers are free to use any of these questions or coding instructions as long as the author’s appropriate papers are cited. The coding manual is [attached][5] for the coding of research contributions. Questions on the coding of other constructs are available by contacting Karen Bogenschneider at karen.bogen@wisc.edu or Elizabeth Day at ead255@cornell.edu. [1]: https://osf.io/h8ser/ [2]: https://osf.io/mhakq [3]: https://osf.io/sz37v [4]: https://osf.io/z8qk7 [5]: https://osf.io/v9yau