Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:28:58.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Single Conversations Expand Practitioners’ Use of Research: Evidence from a Field Experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2021

Adam Seth Levine Open the ORCID record for Adam Seth Levine [Opens in a new window]
Adam Seth Levine*
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many people seek to increase practitioners’ use of research evidence in decision making. Two common strategies are dissemination and interaction. Dissemination can reach a wide audience at once, yet interactive strategies can be beneficial because they entail back-and-forth conversations to clarify how research evidence applies in a particular context. To date, however, we lack much direct evidence of the impact of interaction beyond dissemination. Partnering with an international sustainability-oriented NGO, I conducted a field experiment to test the impact of an interactive strategy (i.e., a single conversation) on practitioners’ use of research evidence in a pending decision. I find that the conversation had a substantial impact on research use relative to only receiving disseminated materials, which likely was due to increased self-efficacy. I also provide practical guidance on how researchers can apply this finding close to home by strengthening linkages with local decision makers.

Type
Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 432 - 437
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aronow, Peter, and Samii, Cyrus. 2012. “Ri: R Package for Performing Randomization-Based Inference for Experiments.” http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ri.Google Scholar
Bandura, Albert. 2006. “Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales.” In Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, Vol. 5, ed. Pajares, Frank and Urdan, Tim, 307–37. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Bogenschneider, Karen, and Corbett, Thomas J.. 2010. Evidence-Based Policymaking. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brownson, Ross C., Royer, Charles, Ewing, Reid, and McBride, Timothy D.. 2006. “Researchers and Policymakers: Travelers in Parallel Universes.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30:164–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bullock, John G., Green, Donald P., and Ha, Shang E.. 2010. “Yes, But What’s the Mechanism? (Don’t Expect an Easy Answer).” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98:550–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, David R., Murdie, Amanda, and Steinmetz, Coty Garnett. 2012. “‘Makers and Shapers’: Human INGOs and Public Opinion.” Human Rights Quarterly 34:199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbins, Maureen, Hanna, Steven E., Ciliska, Donna, Manske, Steve, Cameron, Roy, Mercer, Shawna L., O’Mara, Linda, DeCorby, Kara, and Robeson, Paula. 2009. “A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Impact of Knowledge Translation and Exchange Strategies.” Implementation Science 4 (1): 61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallup. 2019. “Wellcome Global Monitor—First Wave Findings.” https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wellcome-global-monitor-2018.pdf. Accessed June 18, 2020.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2012. Field Experiments. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Haynes, Abby S., Gillespie, James A., Derrick, Gemma E., Hall, Wayne D., Redman, Sally, Chapman, Simon, and Sturk, Heidi. 2011. “Galvanizers, Guides, Champions, and Shields: The Many Ways That Policymakers Use Public Health Researchers.” The Milbank Quarterly 89:564–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hird, John A. 2005. Power, Knowledge, and Politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Richard. 1966. Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. New York: Knopf Publishing.Google Scholar
Jewell, Christopher J., and Bero, Lisa A.. 2008. “‘Developing Good Taste in Evidence’: Facilitators of and Hindrances to Evidence-Informed Health Policymaking in State Government.” The Milbank Quarterly 86:177–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knott, Jack, and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1980. “If Dissemination Is the Solution, What Is the Problem?” Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1:537–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leary, Mark R. 2010. “Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging: The Pursuit of Interpersonal Connection.” In Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, ed. Fiske, Susan T., Gilbert, Daniel T., and Lindzey, Gardner, 864–97. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Levine, Adam Seth. 2019. “Why Social Science? Because It Tells Us How to Create More Engaged Citizens.” www.whysocialscience.com/blog/2019/9/24/because-it-tells-us-how-to-create-more-engaged-citizens.Google Scholar
Levine, Adam Seth. 2020a. “Research Impact Through Matchmaking (RITM): Why and How to Connect Researchers and Practitioners.” PS: Political Science & Politics 53:265–69.Google Scholar
Levine, Adam Seth. 2020b. “Why Do Practitioners Want to Connect with Researchers? Evidence from a Field Experiment.” PS: Political Science & Politics 53:712–16.Google Scholar
Levine, Adam Seth. 2020c. “Replication Data for: Single Conversations Expand Practitioners’ Use of Research: Evidence from a Field Experiment.” Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PXLWBZ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lomas, Jonathan. 2005. “Using Research to Inform Healthcare Managers’ and Policy Makers’ Questions: From Summative to Interpretive Synthesis.” Health Policy 1:55–71.Google ScholarPubMed
Lupia, Arthur. 2013. “Communicating Science in Politicized Environments.” PNAS 110:14048–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merkley, Eric. 2020. “Anti-Intellectualism, Populism, and Motivated Resistance to Expert Consensus.” Public Opinion Quarterly 84 (1): 24–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motta, Matthew. 2018. “The Polarizing Effect of the March for Science on Attitudes toward Scientists.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51:782–88.Google Scholar
Murray, Vic. 1998. “Interorganizational Collaborations in the Nonprofit Sector.” In International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration, Vol. 2, ed. Shafirtz, Jay M., 1192–96. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Nutley, Sandra M., Walter, Isabel, and Davies, Huw T. O.. 2007. Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services . Bristol, England: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, Mark A. 2018. “In the Shadow of Politics: The Pathways of Research Evidence to Health Policy Making.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law 43:341–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, Richard E., Haugtvedt, C. P., and Smith, S. M.. 1995. “Elaboration as a Determinant of Attitude Strength: Creating Attitudes That Are Persistent, Resistant, and Predictive of Behavior.” In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, ed. Petty, Richard E. and Krosnick, Jon A., 93–130. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. Kent, and Stares, Paul B. (eds.). 2001. Guidance for Governance: Comparing Alternative Sources of Public Policy Advice. Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange.Google Scholar
Weiss, Carol H. 1979. “The Many Meanings of Research Utilization.” Public Administration Review 39:426–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Baobao, and Mildenberger, Matto. 2020. “Scientists’ Political Behaviors Are Not Driven by Individual-Level Government Benefits.” PLOS One, May 6.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Levine Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PXLWBZ
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Levine supplementary material

Levine supplementary material

Download Levine supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 197.5 KB