Connecting research to policy: Understanding macro and micro policy-makers and their processes

This article provides a real-time blueprint for connecting academic research and expertise to the policy-making process. While some academic research exists on how researchers in various social science fields can use their professional expertise to inform policy, it is not voluminous, and what does exist contains significant gaps. In reviewing the literature, much of the existing research excludes input from those engaged in the policy-making process. Further, the research often applies models retroactively to policy in general. Instead of describing the process of policy engagement, most research looks at policy broadly with hindsight and tries to apply a theoretical model to describe what has happened. This article combines academic research with an autoethnographic approach and addresses the difficulty of identifying the correct policy-maker, translating complex research findings into digestible policy recommendations, and then communicating those findings to policy-makers. The research applies to multiple disciplines and provides researchers with tools and a systematic process that can be employed in real-time to convert research and expertise into policy.

Contents

1. Introduction
2. Literature review
3. What is a policy-maker?
4. Cracking the window: Part 1 — Identifying your audience
5. Cracking the window: Part 2 — Understanding your audience
6. Cracking the window: Part 3 — Refining your message
7. Idea promotion — How to compete for attention and recognition
8. Best practices
9. Conclusions

1. Introduction

Call it “knowledge translation”, “knowledge transfer”, or any of the dozens of other similar academic terms, how to connect research to policy is a key question for many academics in the field of public policy and other social sciences. While academic practitioners in many disciplines routinely engage outside academia, engagement with policy-makers for the purpose of using research and expertise to impact policy seems to occur much less often. This is understandable as the policy-making process is physically distant, insular, mysterious to outsiders, and convoluted.

This article provides a real-time blueprint for connecting academic research to public policy and impacting the policy-making process. This research applies to multiple disciplines as the tools and concepts can be employed by anyone seeking to engage with policy-makers.

This research seeks to fill that void and provide academics a model for engaging with policy-makers for the purpose of impacting some aspect of Internet or technology policy. This article combines academic research with an autoethnographic approach utilizing my firsthand experiences over the course of 20+ years working as a public policy professional — including six-years as an elected member of the California State Legislature. This article addresses the difficulty of identifying the correct policy-maker, translating complex research findings into digestible policy recommendations, and then communicating those findings to policy-makers. The objective is to provide researchers with tools and a systematic process that can be employed in real-time to convert current work into policy.

Before we proceed, it is important to note that while in an ideal world policy-makers would more actively seek research and expertise when making policy decisions, there are many limitations on their ability — and in some cases willingness — to do that as we shall see in later sections. That doesn’t me the policy-making process isn’t iterative with a feedback loop and an information flow that that is bidirectional, as illustrated in Figure 1. It just means, as Figure 1 also shows, the onus to initiate contact for the purpose of influencing policy falls primarily to the researcher. And this does not just apply to academic researchers. The responsibility for initiating contact usually falls to the lobbyist, constituent, or anyone else seeking to influence policy. This is especially true for those who must overcome the “familiarity barrier”, as discussed below.

While initially conceived in response to a specific query regarding research on the digital divide, this article can help all academic researchers understand how to more effectively engage in the policy arena and use research to inform and influence policy. This research explores key concepts and strategies researchers can use to effectively place their research in front of policy-makers with a focus on how to translate research into policy actions. The seminal academic work in this area is John Kingdon’s (1984) book Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. More recently, the concept of the “Overton Window” has emerged (Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 2019). The “three streams” concept contained in Kingdon’s book and the “Overton Window” are both useful frameworks which I refer to frequently in this article. However, this article approaches the issue from the policy-maker perspective instead of the academic perspective taken in those works.

While some academic research exists on how researchers in various social science fields can use their professional expertise to inform policy, it is not voluminous, and what does exist contains significant gaps. In reviewing the literature, much of the existing research excludes input from those engaged in the policy-making process. Further, the research often applies models retroactively to policy in general. Instead of describing the process of policy engagement, most research looks at policy broadly with hindsight and tries to apply a theoretical model to describe what has happened.

The theoretical models that will be discussed focus on and draw data and inferences mainly from larger bodies like the United States Congress and the California state legislature, as well as the United States’ elected and bureaucratic system of policy creation and implementation. The principles apply to similarly situated institutions like city councils, county boards of supervisors, school districts, and other elected bodies that play a significant role in policy-making in the United States. The also apply to bureaucratic policy-making within the myriad agencies, departments, commissions, and other entities with a narrow scope, but significant power to create or implement policy within that scope. The application in foreign jurisdictions depends upon the structure, rules, functions, and processes of those policy-making bodies.

For Internet researchers, entities such as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission and state public utilities commissions, play a prominent role in Internet policies, but so to do less obvious entities. For example, departments related to health services or health care can play a leading role in telemedicine efforts. In California, the department of transportation can play a role in the deployment of conduit to connect rural areas, and obviously state departments of education and local school districts play a significant role in educational technology. With the vast number of institutions and researchers around the world looking at so many different facets of Internet policy, it is important to recognize the role of all policy-makers in the process. Approaching the United States Congress may be daunting, but it is often much easier to engage with other bureaucratic entities that have policy-making and implementation authority over a specific area.

Figure 1 provides a model for the iterative process of turning research into policy. The model begins with research and identifies the path, the process, and the individuals involved with converting it to policy. The model culminates with “implementation” and then “evaluation” which reconnects to research. It is important to note, the process detailed in Figure 1 and the concepts and strategies presented in this article are not unique to the world of academia. This article and Figure 1 describe the process, strategies and concepts implemented daily by thousands of organizations around the world who employ government affairs professionals and lobbyists to influence policy-makers and shape policy. This research takes those strategies and modifies them for use by those in the academic realm. The biggest difference between the academic world and the professional world is how the idea or policy at the top of Figure 1 is formulated. Seldom is academic research the basis for policy when the policy being sought comes from the existing world of government affairs.

Figure 1: Framework for connecting research to policy.

Implicit in Figure 1 is a desire to move from research to policy implementation with the aim of affecting social change. However, there is two significant impediments exogenous to this chart that inhibits that movement:

Lack of “institutional incentive”

>Proximity to government institutions — the “proximity barrier”

A significant challenge is posed by the circumstance of researchers being affiliated with academic institutions that often don’t use engagement in the policy-making process, policy changes, and societal outcomes as a valid method of academic evaluation. Because of the ties to these institutions and the requirements that come with them, professors and other academic researchers lack the time and appropriate external incentives to do the work necessary to connect their research to the appropriate policy maker or policy-making/implementing body. Further, the distance from most research institutions to non-local policy-making bodies, — the “proximity barrier” — prohibits the type of frequent, face to face meetings necessary to impact policy. Overcoming these impediments will be explored in detail later in this article.

As this research is geared towards academics who are perhaps not steeped in the day to day practicalities of policy-making, it is important to keep in mind two very astute assessments of politics and the creation of public policy that are popularly attributed to Otto von Bismarck.

“Laws are like sausages; it is better not to see them being made.”

“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.”

The creation of policy is not always pretty. Many different inputs go into the policy making machine, they often get chopped, diced, whirred, and pureed in a maddingly frustrating and unscientific process. The result is often not what is best, but what is possible at that point in time given that set of circumstances and participants.

The remainder of this article will focus on providing strategies for connecting research to policy-makers. I will define two overarching types of “policy-makers” and look at the differences between them. I will then discuss the methods and strategies of engagement necessary to impact the policy-making process. This research continually refers back to Figure 1 as its frame of reference or roadmap to work through the process of converting research to policy. This framework will be connected to entities, organizations, and policies that affect the digital divide.

2. Literature review

When looking for existing research on the subject of “knowledge transfer” two works stand out, John Kingdon’s (1984) seminal book, Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, and Bardach and Patashnik’s (2016) A practical guide to policy analysis. Kingdon introduces us to the metaphor of “three streams” that parallel and then converge to create public policy. The theory is that the problem stream, policy stream, and political stream must eventually merge to create the window of opportunity for policy change (Kingdon, 1984). That model functions well as a theoretical description to explain what happened after the fact. What is missing is a model, or a “map” for researchers and those working with them to turn their research into policy. Where Kingdon’s model tells us how it happened, this article aims to teach us how to make it happen. There are some similarities between the theory and the practice, as both this model and Kingdon start with problem identification as the first step. Figure 1 begins with “research” which literature describes as revealing or clarifying the “problem”.

Kingdon (1984) also discusses the “focusing event”, an event that suddenly and acutely brings a problem to the forefront to be addressed. Earthquakes, wildfires, floods, mass shootings, or sudden outbreaks of disease are some examples of issues that could serve as focusing events. Focusing events are virtually impossible to create, and only applicable to certain, infrequent policy issues. Politicians and policy-makers often try to capitalize on events and turn them into focusing events. But even when a potential focusing event is recognized it is still exceedingly challenging to capitalize on it.

The terrorist attacks of September 11^th were a focusing event thrusting terrorism and airport security to the forefront. Many politicians at the federal and state level have attempted to use mass shootings as focusing events for the issue of gun control, but to date these attempts have yet to translate into the opening of the policy window. While it is exceedingly difficult for policy-makers to create focusing event, it can happen such as when then San Francisco Mayor and now California Governor Gavin Newsom declared same sex marriage legal in 2004. That action lead to a surge in publicity and a wave of policy and legal actions that resulted in full legalization of gay marriage.

As focusing events are infrequent, nearly impossible to create, and can’t be predicted or controlled, we will not discuss them further in this paper. This research provides guidance to researchers seeking to impact policy when no “focusing event” is present.

Cairney and Jones (2016) examine Kingdon’s approach and compare it to several others. The work both praises and criticizes the three streams approach finding it so malleable as to only really engage at a superficial level, while at the same time it is recognized for its foundational importance in the field. There are other well-developed frameworks for looking at policy creation and knowledge transfer. Particularly known and employed are Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IAD) (Ostrom, et al., 2014; Kiser and Ostrom, 1982; Polski and Ostrom, 1999, among others) and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (Jones and Baumgartner, 2012). Davison (2009) has an excellent summary table listing additional knowledge transfer frameworks. However, these models, like the three streams approach are all academic theories applied after the fact. They look at the system of policy creation and attempt to apply a model to understand it. What they don’t do is provide a more practical guide to researchers and institutions as to how to take specific research or subject knowledge and translate that into a policy document, and then effectively engage in the policy-making process.

Bardach and Patashnik (2016) provide us with “The Eightfold Path” which functions as a “how-to manual” for those looking influence public policy. The concepts contained in Bardach and Patashnik very much mirror my own experiences in the pragmatic world of day-to-day policy-making. From defining the problem, to creating alternative policy solutions, and then telling the story, much of what Bardach and Patashnik write is reflected in the approach suggested in this research. However, this research doesn’t so much use the framework provided by Bardach and Patashnik to make its point, as it uses it to validate that my first-hand experiences in the California State Legislature are also somewhat ubiquitous in other jurisdictions and policy-making bodies.

Lavis, et al. (2003) is also useful in translating research to policy. Their work merged the theory and practice of knowledge transfer and sets out five questions that they argue “... provide an organizing framework for a knowledge-transfer strategy ... .” Specifically, the message, the target audience, the messenger, the process and communications, and evaluation are put forth as the key to transferring research knowledge to public policy. One area where their model agrees with the framework provided in this research is in the use of trusted intermediaries. This is a point we will explore in more detail later.

More recently the “Overton Window” [1] has found its way into many public policy discussions. The Overton Window, introduced in the mid-1990s by Joe Overton of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, is another model to examine and understand how policy ideas become adopted law (Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 2019). The concept is based on public support for and perception of policies, and how those change over time either gaining or losing support. While Overton uses the metaphor of a window through which policies can theoretically appear and be acceptable, I use the bell curve in Figure 2 to illustrate the concept. And instead of “acceptable” or “popular”, I cast it as policies being to liberal or too conservative to attract enough popular or legislative support, and therefore falling outside the Overton Window were action could occur.

Figure 2: Overton Window.

The simplest explanation of the Overton Window is that awareness and/or acceptability of issues and policies operates on a continuum and only those that have broad support and are widely known can be passed as legislation. However, common sense and basic observations of legislative practices and outcomes tell us this definition is limited as many nuances exist.

It is in those nuances that the Overton Window begins to make the transformation from post-legislation descriptor to something that may provide instructions for academic researchers. The Overton Window is similar in concept to Kingdon’s Focusing Events, but unlike a focusing event, there are effective strategies that can be employed to “open” the Overton Window. Or, more precisely, to change public and legislative awareness and perception of an issue or policy to move it within the window.

The Overton Window was developed by Joe Overton but explained and refined by Joseph Lehman. Originally, the concept of the window was developed by Overton to explain the role of a think tank. But the same tool and principles can be used by other advocates, or academic researchers.

Ring the bell loudly for your idea, no matter how unpopular, and back it up with plenty of research and evidence, so the thinking went. Today’s fringe theory can become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom by the shifting of the finely tuned gears that move popular opinion ... . (Robertson, 2018)

While Overton Window itself appears passive — wait until something is in the window and then act — the nuances and refinements form part of the blueprint for academic researchers looking to affect and change public discourse and public policy, as we will explore later.

Finally, this research, like most academic frameworks for knowledge transfer, focuses heavily on the “push” in the “push vs. pull” method of understanding knowledge transfer (Roux, et al., 2006). The “push” is what is in control of the researcher. How to push is the key. The “pull”, or how polic-makers bring in information is out of the control of researchers, and as all policy-makers are different, they all pull in information in different ways. Creating an effective “push” will allow for quick adaptations to account for differences in “pull” as the preferences of individual policy-makers is learned.

3. What is a policy-maker?

The definition of “policy-maker” isn’t straightforward. Researchers come from universities around the world, each with their own political system and government institutions. Recognizing and accounting for the variety of systems and the size and complexities of government entities within the political systems, I tried to come up with a definition that accounts for function not title. Figure 1, above, places policy-makers into two broad categories:

Macro policy-makers (Policy creators),

Micro policy-makers (Policy implementors).

Those who have policy and decision-making authority in most Western democracies and non-authoritarian government structures fit within these categories.

A macro policy-maker is generally the elected or appointed official at or near the top of a governmental entity’s organizational structure. They are responsible for the statutory and regulatory changes to programs, the creation of new programs or program rules, setting the policy agenda, and overseeing the micro policy-makers. Using the United States model as an example, a member of Congress, a member of a state legislature, a city council member, or a school board member are examples of elected macro policy-makers. Further, high-level appointed individuals can function as policy creators. In California, for example, the governor (a macro policy-maker) appoints the secretaries of various agencies, directors of departments, and commissioners of key commissions. Within their realm, these individuals have the ability to act as policy creators. Their policies, however, are limited to the specific areas — code sections — over which they have authority, and their policies can be checked by action from elected macro policy-makers who rank above them. The same holds true at a city level. While the jurisdiction is smaller in size, the structure is the same. The mayor and city council are elected by the people and are macro policy-makers for their city. Their top appointees, such as the city manager or director of the department of public works, can also function in a macro policy-maker capacity.

Specific to the digital divide and other Internet research topics, there are multiple individuals at all levels of the United States government who are macro policy-makers with the ability to set the agenda and enact policies that contribute to closing the digital divide. At the federal level Congress and the President are the elected macro policy-makers and can and have taken actions in the past to address the digital divide. Most recently the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) in 2009 appropriated $US7.2 billion to expand broadband deployment and increase adoption. Here they clearly set the agenda and provided funding for that purpose. They left the implementation up to the micro policy-makers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) (U.S. Department of Commerce. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, n.d.).

The Commissioners at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which has authority over telecommunications and broadband also have macro level policy-making duties. This function is most clearly demonstrated in the FCC’s 2016 ruling redefining broadband as a “Title II common carrier service”. This action changed broadband from an information service to a telecommunications service and gave the FCC regulatory authority over broadband and broadband providers (U.S. Federal Communications Commission, 2016).

While the federal government can supersede state action, state government macro policy-makers also have a role in closing the digital divide or creating Internet or technology related policies. The California Legislature has taken a number of recent, significant steps in that regard. In 2005 the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed legislation to speed the deployment of broadband and video service (California, 2006). In 2008, in conjunction with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the Legislature enacted the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) and provided funding and policy guidance to close the digital divide in rural areas (California Public Utilities Commission, n.d.). In 2017, the Legislature reauthorized CASF and made a significant policy expansion allowing the funds to be used for adoption programs in addition to infrastructure deployment programs (California, 2017).

Finally, even local entities with no direct regulatory or statutory authority over broadband providers can still play a limited role in closing the digital divide or addressing other Internet related topics. Following the model laid out in Figure 1, researchers interested in addressing Internet polices at the local level should identify the proper policy-makers and then tailor the specific policy recommendations to things that are within the jurisdiction of the local entity in question. The most obvious example again being educational technology research where it is very appropriate to discuss the policy research with representatives of local school districts.

While not exhaustive, this description should allow researchers to understand the concepts that embody a macro policy-maker and understand their different policy-making capacities. From the digital divide, to telemedicine policy, to educational technology, this should make it easier for researchers to identify the different macro policy-makers who may be able to assist in transitioning research to policy action.

Micro policy-makers (policy implementers) are also able to affect policy changes, albeit in a much more constrained manner than a macro policy-maker can. The micros take the policy created by the macros and turn that policy framework into programs. Micro policy-makers are usually the individuals operating just below the top one or two rungs of leadership in an agency, department, or other similar government body. The farther down the organizational chart you go the less decision-making responsibility exists.

Micro policy-makers don’t create the overarching policies, they implement them. But the implementation often requires formulating programmatic rules which leaves open the possibility of a decision-making process. For example, using the legislation referenced above, while the macros created the policies, the micros — in this case, the staff at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) — are in charge of implementing those policies. All three pieces of legislation were very complicated with many facets needing a lot of administrative involvement to create successful programs. Engagement by researchers with those individuals can go a long way to shaping policy. Among other factors, the implementers (micros) are much less influenced by political power and pressure. Once a policy reaches the hands of a micro, the political establishment (macros) have moved on to the next issue. But the implementation is seldom fully spelled out in detail in legislation, and how the rules of a program are created and how that program established in practice can go a long way to determining the success of the program.

Looking at the role of macro and micro policy creators, academic experts would want to identify the correct policy-makers and engage with them. The model in Figure 1, shows multiple areas of engagement. However, it is important to understand that most frequently the policy-making cycle is not in sync with the research cycle. As Kingdon and the Overton Theory tell us, just because the research is complete and published, it doesn’t mean the policy world is ready for it. Perhaps the work is topical, and the window is already open, but that would be incredibly rare. More likely, researchers would need to either have a relevant focusing event coincidentally occur right after their research is complete, or much more realistically, they would need to engage in the work detailed in this research. In other words, this research tells you not just that policy is created when the window is open, but more importantly, how to open that window.

4. Cracking the window: Part 1 — Identifying your audience

Translating research to policy requires us to identify the correct policy-makers to engage on an issue. As all governmental entities have Web sites, a few non-technical Internet searches will help point you in the right direction. For researchers looking to close the digital divide in California there are multiple entities that have jurisdiction or the ability to affect some part of the problem. Specifically, researchers would want to talk to the relevant legislative policy committees such as the Assembly Committee on Communications and Conveyance and the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Communications which both have jurisdiction over telecommunications issues, which includes broadband. However, there are other committees that could be relevant. If you are conducting research that focuses on education disparities between children who have “meaningful Internet access” at home (Levine and Taylor, 2018) and those who don’t, you would want to meet with the Education Committee and show them the research that demonstrates those who lack meaningful Internet access suffer negative educational outcomes. Further, in addition to the legislators who chair the committees, there are the other members of the committee and there are committee staff.

Beyond the Legislature, there are also commissions, agencies, and departments that have jurisdiction over some parts of Internet deployment and adoption. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is one, but so too is the Department of Technology. Again, agencies who don’t have primary jurisdiction but who are impacted by the divide could be useful in some circumstances. Research I published last December (Levine, 2018) looked at the intersection of the digital divide and energy efficiency. That article was then presented to both macro and micro policy-makers at the California Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency, and to the CPUC Commissioners and energy policy staff.

This section was not intended to provide researchers a definitive list of entities, but rather to help researchers understand the process of identifying the appropriate policy-makers. Also, a key message here is to be expansive when starting out. While it is time consuming, talking to multiple people has a number of benefits. First, as we identified above, the motivations of policy-makers differ. By talking to multiple policy makers, you identify those whose motivations align with your research, and avoid those who are motivated to act counter to your policy position. Additionally, by talking to many people on this issue, you begin the process of becoming familiar to them and establishing credibility with them. They may not be able to help now, but now they know they can call you on this type of issue in the future.

5. Cracking the window: Part 2 — Understanding your audience

As published, academic works likely are not in a format that is accessible to or convenient for policy-makers. This means it is important to understand your audience to know how to tailor your proposal to what they can digest.

It is hard to overstate the volume of information presented to most policy-makers, particularly the macro policy-makers and their direct staff. It is also hard to overstate the number of issues presented to them and the number of issues and topic areas they are supposed to be adept at understanding. Members are carrying/sponsoring legislation and sit on multiple committees and subcommittees where they are expected to be experts in multiple areas of policy. The issue is the same at the state level. In the California Legislature members can carry up to 30 individual pieces of legislation, plus resolutions and constitutional amendments, all while serving on four to six policy committees. And, the work isn’t limited to legislation. On the weekends there are meetings with constituents and duties in the district that keep legislators busy from morning to night.

Local government officials are no different. They are expected to be experts at everything in the city or their school district. Additionally, many local elected officials serve in a part-time capacity. This means that while they are expected to be well informed and up to date on the issues, they also need to earn a living outside of their elected duties. While your research is the most important thing to you, macro policy-makers are being bombarded from all sides by people who feel the same.

Appointed macro policy-makers have the same issues. Commissions, agencies, and departments have multiple programs they administer. They are empowered to address issues impacting millions of people, and they too receive vast quantities of information. They are expected to be well informed and make decisions on a wide variety of subjects. For purposes of the digital divide in California the CPUC is key among places we could turn research into policy. But even in commissions with limited scope, a quick look at their Web sites reveals the volume of programs they manage or oversee. Their dockets are full, and the staff generated information is voluminous.

The workload of policy-makers has been emphasized because their workload directly effects the amount of information they can process and how they can take it in, which is a vital part of the knowledge transfer process. Most won’t have time to read 8,000 words, but they may have time to read a two-page bullet pointed briefing paper or policy memo. The goal isn’t to get them to read your research, it is to get them interested enough in what you have to say that they want to take on the issue, assimilate your information into the work they are doing, call on you as an expert witness, or simply know you are available as an expert for the future. To do that you have to provide your communicated information in a format they can take in.

6. Cracking the window: Part 3 — Refining your message

For the purposes of this article, the focus is on converting existing research and knowledge into policy (as opposed to specifically commissioned research). In many ways, this is the easiest part of the process. Once the data has been collected, the research conducted, and the paper written, it usually only takes minor adjustments to make the work “policy ready”.

From my experience, and which Bardach and Patashnik (2016) include as the first and third steps in the Eightfold Path, there are two keys to translating existing research into policy:

Clearly and concisely identify the problem you are trying to solve, and

Clearly and concisely identify or create policy (or policies) or programmatic changes that will solve the problem.

The policy solutions do not have to be written in statutory language; they merely need to state the policy changes necessary to solve the identified problem. As Figure 1 shows, “policy recommendation/solution” is essential to the policy-making process but aren’t always included in the original research and publication. Informing policy-makers of problem can be beneficial, but the chances of impacting policy are much greater if an array of possible solutions are provided. There is no official or accepted government format for translating research to policy, but good practice to:

Articulate the problem

Provide a short background, if necessary

Articulate the harm being done by the problem

Articulate a small range of policy or programmatic solutions

Provide a recommendation and assessment of the benefits of the solution

Again, these concepts are articulated in Bardach and Patashnik (2016) and borne out as by personal experience.

Keep the document concise, not more than two pages, preferably with headings and bullet points to make it easier for the policy-makers to process the information quickly. It is acceptable to provide supporting documentation as evidence, but the cover document should be brief. Get them interested and let them ask for more information or details as they want, don’t overwhelm them with information and documents.

There are multiple entities and levels of policy-makers who have authority over aspects of the digital divide. When developing policy solutions, in the “adaptation” phase it is important to focus on solutions within the jurisdiction of the policy-maker you have identified. For example, in my own recent work (Levine and Taylor, 2018), we make numerous policy recommendations as this work was not targeted to a specific policy-maker or government agency. The recommendations at the end are for anyone interested in the topic. In a different, more narrow piece last year that focused exclusively on the interrelationship between energy policy and broadband the policy recommendations were specifically tailored to the likely readership, i.e., people in the energy policy world (Levine, 2018).

There are several practical challenges to be mindful of when attempting to use research to impact policy. For the purposes of this research I want to specifically discuss three of them.

Lack of problem awareness

Lack of political feasibility of the suggested policy

Policy-maker motivations

Policy-makers can’t solve problems they don’t know exist or don’t understand (Kingdon, 1984; Bardach and Patashnik, 2016). This is particularly true of more technical problems and problems that don’t manifest themselves in a public way. Using my work on the digital divide as an example, most policy-makers have broadband-connected computers at home and at work, plus a smart phone. The people they work with have the same. The digital divide does not enter the frame of reference for most policy-makers unless someone places it there. To accomplish this, the problem must be articulated in a way that helps the relevant policy-maker(s) understand why it is a problem and the benefits of solving it. This is an example of where the more refined definition of the Overton concepts come into play. Theoretically, this amounts to researchers employing a strategy to move digital divide and its attendant solutions into the Overton window.

There are likely multiple solutions to problems but if attention isn’t paid to political feasibility there is no chance of implementation, a point also emphasized by Bardach and Patashnik (2016). There are many factors impacting feasibility, although cost is usually the biggest concern. The more a solution costs the harder it will be to rally the political will to either levy additional taxes or fees or take from an existing program. However, a policy that is infeasible at a certain point can, over time become acceptable. This aspect is well discussed in Kingdon’s (1984) “political stream”. It is illustrated in the feedback loops in Figure 1 where “adaptation” feeds back to “policy recommendations”, and where “modify” feeds back to “adaptation”. It is reinforced by the Overton concepts where raising awareness can move acceptability and push the solution into the Overton Window. This process can last an entire legislative cycle or longer as the cycle can be repeated until the window is open [2]. This process can be conceived of in terms of functions where:

Political Condition = f (electoral cycle, interest groups, cost, media coverage, legislator motivations, party in charge)

Policy Condition = f (Cost, implementation, alternatives, problem severity, enforcement)

The inputs here are not exhaustive but used to illustrate that the political and policy conditions are functions of many independent inputs that can be added to or changed in a wide variety of ways (this is the embodiment of “sausage making”).

Were we to plug in actual data, the graph would look something like this:

Figure 3: Theoretical scatter plot of policy conditions.

Policy conditions improve as we move up the graph in Figure 3, and political conditions improve as we move to the right. The “window” for optimal policy action exists in the upper right quadrant with the very top and farthest right being optimal policy and optimal political conditions. Policy can be enacted in the lower right quadrant, but in that case the policy conditions are well below optimal. For example, an objective policy analyst would likely assess that the 2017 United States tax reform measure was a case of optimal political conditions meeting sub-optimal policy [3]. Whereas, the same analyst might view the Affordable Care Act as a circumstance where the political and policy conditions were far from ideal but were sufficient enough that the policy slipped through a slightly open window. Viewing this graph through the lens of Bardach or Overton, we see engagement efforts should be aimed at improving the political and policy conditions until they are in the upper right quadrant.

The impact of motivation on policy-makers is extremely important, especially in high profile issues. Kingdon (1984) addresses this in his “political stream”, and in my view motivation is the most important component of political feasibility. Political feasibility, described in part by the Overton Window concept, speaks to the overall political climate of an institution or entity, whereas motivation speaks to the willingness of the individual to address an issue. In my personal, professional experience I have observed firsthand a wide variety of motivations for the actions and responses of policy-makers.

One example that stands out is legislation I carried to increase the use of a specific, environmentally friendly paving product. In trying to secure the vote of another legislator, I presented very scientific arguments as to why the new product should be used instead of the traditional material. The arguments were many. But, the legislator didn’t counter the meritorious arguments, rather told me that one of his constituents and a longtime friend was a large employer in his district, in the road paving business and didn’t make or want to make the new product. In this case, rather than supporting the new, better, longer lasting, environmentally friendly product, he chose to protect the business in his district. There was nothing close to illegal about the legislators decision, he was merely reflecting a different governing philosophy. It simply underscores the influence of motivation on the actions of policy-makers.

Political factors are also important motivators, particularly for elected policy-makers who need to stand for reelection. In this case the three motivations are money, endorsements, and constituent perceptions. Elected officials may be concerned with one or all of those factors. They would want to know if the policy recommended by the research would be objectionable to potential donors, endorsers, or voters.

There are countless examples of other instances where the non-political individual motivations of an elected policy-maker impacted the ability to solve a problem. Fundraising and other external political pressures are less likely to impact micro policy-makers. However, there are still external motivations involve, as there is the potential for implementation decisions could be weighed against personal future employment decisions, or the overall political impact of a decision on the administration or agency for which they work. For researchers looking to influence policy the important message to take away from this section is that just because you believe your research provides incontrovertible evidence of the correct course of action, counter motivations may stand in the way of your ability to influence the policy. Motivations can be incredibly complex, are unique to each individual policy-maker, and are specific to a certain point in time. These motivations implicitly embody the concepts of the Overton Window, and Kingdon but are played out within individual policy-makers. Should the motivations not be favorable, Figure 1 instructs us to go back to the beginning of the process and either revise our policy recommendations or identify a different policy-maker.

7. Idea promotion — How to compete for attention and recognition

Translating research into policy action requires getting research, data, and information in front of policy-makers. Once the research has been converted into an easily digestible form you will need to engage in the “promotion” of your work as shown in Figure 1. There are two types of “promotion” researchers can engage in, direct, and indirect.

Direct promotion is the process of contacting the office of the policy-maker you are seeking to influence and then informing them of who you are and why you want to meet with them. It is direct promotion because there is no intermediary. You are directly presenting the information, i.e., promoting your work to the policy-maker (or more likely their direct staff at first). While “direct promotion” has the benefit of being the shortest path between the two points, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is the easiest path. Which is why the model in Figure 1 places indirect and direct promotion on the same level. These paths should be pursued simultaneously.

The biggest impediment to researchers engaging in direct promotion is the “familiarity barrier”. While knowledge is capital, so too is familiarity. Macro policy-makers use familiarity as a screening process. They generally tend to meet with people they know, for example known community leaders, or representatives of organizations with which they are already familiar [4]. Kingdon (1984) describes the information flow and cautions, correctly, that it is not hierarchical or linear. While there is a loose hierarchical structure to offices and departments, it is impossible for staff to completely control the information flow to macro policy-makers, particularly in the Internet age. While you may want to walk through the front gate, the gatekeepers (staff) will exercise their screening process. Engaging in the correct forms of “indirect promotion” can help make direct promotion easier by assisting in overcoming the “familiarity barrier”.

This article identifies and considers four specific types of indirect promotion:

Intermediaries

Policy conferences

Traditional media

Social media

From my observations, using intermediaries is the most effective and least difficult method of initially connecting research to policy. There are many organizations who specifically utilize academic quality research to formulate policy. In the United States and in the California Legislature, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is one such organization who uses this model extensively. They focus on turning science into environmental policy by employing both scientists and policy/political experts. A researcher unaffiliated with an intermediary group would have to build the connective infrastructure/relationships, groups like NRDC already have the infrastructure and relationships built. They make it a point of their regular course of business to connect with and become familiar to both macro and micro policy-makers. Additionally, with a combination of employees who often have advanced degrees, and who specifically seek out current research on specific topics, the ability to connect with and present research to representatives of intermediaries is a frequently easier than it is to connect directly with policy-makers.

In the academic realm some institutions are beginning to function as their own intermediaries. The University of California, Riverside has created “Science to Policy” with the mission statement of:

Science to Policy (S2P) at the University of California, Riverside, is founded on the idea that scientists can and should play a critical role in public policy. By hosting and supporting a number of professional development opportunities on and off campus, S2P’s mission is to empower Ph.D. graduates in science and engineering to serve as known and trusted voices in public policy at the federal, state, and local levels. (University of California, Riverside, 2019)

Additionally, the University’s School of Public Policy worked with the Academic Senate and the campus administration to allow academics to get credit for policy impact related work in addition to teaching and publishing. This was in keeping with the School’s desire to be combine theory and practice and demonstrates a commitment to translating research to policy impact. These changes both merit observation to see how they impact the ability and effectiveness of researchers to engage in the policy process.

These models aren’t new, they are just new to the university realm. Multimillion dollar lobbying and campaign organizations exist representing a wide array of interests have been doing this for many years (California Secretary of State, 2019) [5], just without the credibility of university level research. Organizations who regularly have issues at stake that materially affect them spend resources to position themselves correctly in the process. They evaluate candidates for office, help to support those who they think best represent their views, and it is why they have teams of lobbyists in the capitols. While it would be impractical for every university researcher or department to have a presence in the capital region, it would be quite easy to engage with those intermediaries who already do.

One caveat for universities trying to engage is to make sure there are clearly delineated distinctions between university research and “think tanks”. “Think tanks” can be mistaken for academic institutions by policy-makers unable to distinguish between entities conducting unbiased research and those funded to reach specific conclusions to support a specific agenda. Ironically, the Overton Theory was the product of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Libertarian leaning think tank.

Policy conferences are excellent opportunities to increase the familiarity of your name and ideas with key stakeholders in a substantive way. Policy conferences are often, but not always conducted by intermediary type organizations. A policy conference is different than an academic conference. The specific goal of a policy conference is to affect policy change or to begin the process of changing the political or problem streams to create the conditions that result in an open policy window (Kingdon, 1984). Most often policy conference sponsors have macro and micro policy-makers in attendance. Appearing at a conference where you have the opportunity to serve on a panel or speak in a meaningful way can put you in proximity to those policy-makers. The drawback to this approach is that a conference on your topic may not be occurring in the correct time frame or location or may not involve the stakeholders you are interested in connecting with. Connecting with an array of intermediary organizations will assist greatly in identifying appropriate conference opportunities. Also, most of these organizations would welcome your participation as it would enhance their credibility to have academics as presenters. Attendance at one conference will often lead to requests for appearances at others.

The use of both traditional and social media can play a role in overcoming the lack of familiarity. Strategic use of social media, including identifying and connecting with the appropriate micro and macro policy-makers can help elevate issues and increase name awareness, allowing them to connect with and transfer knowledge to policy-makers. Social media’s advantage is that is directly under the control of the researcher. They can create and control the content and even seek out their desired audience. With traditional media the proliferation of outlets and the need for content means there are more opportunities to place research in front of reporters, including writing op-ed pieces. In an ideal model, the use of social and traditional media will be used by the researcher in tandem to increase reach and presence.

By using these tools and previously having identified the correct macro and micro policy-maker targets, researchers should be able to begin to get their names and work known, and in turn have their research and knowledge impact policy.

Finally, as noted above this part of the process is very recursive. Researchers who are truly committed to having a continued impact on policy should expect to spend time moving from one part of the model to the other and back again as circumstances and individuals change. Use of indirect methods of promotion might lead to a meeting with a macro policy-maker who will then refer you to their staff, who will then refer you to the committee staff or agency. That may lead to a refinement of your proposal which then leads to a round of follow-up meetings. There is no single way this process occurs, and no way of describing it all. The model in Figure 1 attempts to show the multiple and most likely paths that can be taken, but those arrows may need to be gone over multiple times before a Kindgon (or Overton) window opens and implementation occurs.

8. Best practices

A systemic approach is necessary to create the conditions necessary for academic researchers to convert research knowledge to policy impact.

The first and most helpful condition would be for more schools to allow activities related to policy-making to be credited towards institutional obligations. With few exceptions, researchers who seek to employ their expertise to impact policy are not rewarded for those efforts. A researcher who publishes research on the education gap created by the digital divide is recognized for the publication. But, why not go the next step and reward that researcher for additional activities related to transferring that research and expertise into policy? If the academic professional takes the initiative to travel to Sacramento, the Capital of California, (the fifth largest economy in world) to meet with the Chair and staff of the Education Committees and with top staff at education agencies and school boards, and then becomes the key witness at a public hearing of those entities, is that not worth something to the university and the school? Does a researcher whose work ends up as the basis for a policy changes that allows for the expansion of telemedicine which improves health outcomes for patients, and saves money for the state not bring recognition to the department, school, and university? Ideally, the university hierarchy would find a balance that allows for external factors that are specific to a discipline to count towards the full measure of the faculty member.

Further, forward thinking departments, schools, academic centers, etc. who are interested in strengthening the connection between research and policy could employ an internal intermediary. This would be a non-academic position and function as the liaison between researchers and policy-makers. They would be responsible for understanding the skills, expertise, and issue areas of each faculty member as well as keeping current on what research they are working conducting. This position would be in charge of identifying policy-makers, assisting with the adaptation, and lead on the promotion of the work to policy-makers. They would identify appropriate policy opportunities, conferences, and external intermediary groups. Where appropriate and wanted, they could assist the researchers with the social media activities necessary to promote policy research. While this may be an anathema to some, there are models for this currently. The University of California at Davis Law School has communications specialist with media training who has the responsibility of raising the profile of the law professors, including promoting them to the media so they become go to experts for interviews. In this case the position leverages a set of skills and a network in media.

Given the proper external motivation (or permission) and sufficient internal assistance, researchers and the internal intermediary can consistently engage with policy-makers to become familiar, trusted experts on policy. However, should the university, school, or department not choose to provide employment-based motivation and internal support, dedicated researchers seeking to make an impact can obviously still employ the tactics and strategies referenced in this research.

Seeking out and working with intermediary organizations would be the most effective method of connecting research to policy, especially for institutions that are not located near governmental entities. Using the University of California at Riverside School of Public Policy as an example, the campus is located in the city of Riverside, California. They are in close proximity to the Riverside city and county governments but are more than 400 miles away from the state capitol in Sacramento, California, and several thousand miles from the United States’ Capitol. It is a significant commitment of time to go to either capital for meetings. For researchers focused on state and federal policies, it would be more efficient and effective to work with intermediary groups and only strategically travel to the capitals. However, it would be a prudent use of time to visit the district offices of the state and federal elected officials. An academic professional affiliated with a major research institution would be very welcome to come share findings in a district office. Building a relationship with the local staff is also a way of beginning to overcome the familiarity barrier. While they are neither macro or micro policy-makers, they are connected to the policy-makers and the policy-making network.

These activities should be supplemented with a strategic effort on social media and in traditional media. The focus should be on identifying and connecting with the right audience and then strategically promoting the work. This is also an area where working with the local staff of state and federal officials can help. The local staff is connected to the capitol staff and the greater policy network as a whole. Connecting with the local staff provides and entry point to the model in Figure 1.

9. Conclusions

Connecting research to policy is challenging and there are significant impediments to be overcome, among the biggest are the lack of employment related incentives, and the familiarity barrier. The motivations of and pressures facing individual policy-makers can also be significant obstacles. If two people can agree that a specific issue is a problem that needs solving, they can usually figure out a solution. However, as with global warming, if one group is actively refusing to acknowledge a problem and rejecting science then it is highly unlikely that a research-based solution can work. In that case, as we are seeing currently, researchers, outside interest groups, and concerned policy-makers must address the problem and political streams to force open the window to allow a policy solution.

Overcoming the impediments and pushing solutions into the Overton Window takes work, even with the roadmap provided here. It can take months or even years in some cases to penetrate far enough into the process and gain enough trust to be able to impact policy. There are thousands and thousands of organizations who employ even more thousands of government affairs professionals and lobbyists to influence policy-makers and shape policy. Those employees are given proximity (offices near the capitol building) and are employed on a full-time basis to become a known quantity with policy-makers of all types. Some organizations even have separate sets of lobbyists and government relations professionals to specialize in one particular aspect of policy. Using broadband policy as the example, many larger corporations and other organizations have a government affairs team focused on Congress, a separate team focused on the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, and still other teams focused on state legislatures and the state public utilities commissions. This apparatus of “professional influencers” is indicative of the amount of work can take to impact policies.

This article was written to answer the specific question of how academics can effectively engage in policy process to convert their research and knowledge into policy impacts. This article did not explore any potential negative consequences of researchers proactively engaging in policy. Academia derives its credibility from its impartiality and from the ‘process of research’. Proactively engaging with policy-makers to influence policy could jeopardize the impartiality. The question to be answered by each researcher, department, school, and university is, how can we engage to impart our knowledge in the policy-making process while maintaining our impartiality. If institutions choose to follow the steps outlined here and engage in the policy-making process, they would be wise to put in place policies and guidelines to ensure the accuracy and impartiality of research is never impeached. The ability to impact policy with academic research and credentials is a unique attribute, once that credibility has been breached it cannot be reversed.

However, once the proper safeguards and standards in place to protect academic integrity, employing the concepts discussed here, building the right infrastructure and relationships, recognizing that not every effort will result in the desired outcome, and engaging for the long haul are the correct and necessary steps that must be undertaken by those who desire to translate research to policy.

About the author

Lloyd Levine is a Senior Policy Fellow at the University of California, Riverside’s School of Public Policy. Mr. Levine is a former member of the California State Legislature. As a legislator, Mr. Levine served as Chair of the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce where he specialized in issues relating to electricity, renewable energy, telecommunications, and broadband. He is the co-founder of the Center for Technology, Policy, and Society at the University of California, Riverside’s School of Public Policy, a founding board member of the California Emerging Technology Fund, and a former member of Governor Schwarzenegger’s Broadband Taskforce.
E-mail: spp [at] ucr [dot] edu

Notes

1. The Overton Window is a public policy concept and is unrelated to the book of the same name by political pundit Glenn Beck.

2. However, there is no guarantee that the window will open. There have been many instances where all of these tactics were employed, but the window stayed closed, chiefly because these actions do not happen in a vacuum and another entity employed the same tools to help keep the window closed.

3. Of course, this does depend up on your measurement. The Congressional Republicans who passed the legislation would likely not view the policy as “sub-optimal”.

4. There is a significant body of research on gatekeeping, exploring who people trust and why. That is beyond the scope of my expertise and a literature search on this would be prohibitive. However, using my first-hand observations of how policy makers receive information and screen people out, I am confident that my observations would stand up to empirical scrutiny.

5. The California Secretary of State (SoS), by law, publishes a list of every association, business, non-profit, or other entity who employs or hires a lobbyist or lobbying firm. The Web site is a great place to understand just how many organizations employ government affairs professionals.

References

Eugene Bardach and Eric M. Patashnik, 2016. A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. Fifth edition. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage.

Paul Cairney and Michael D. Jones, 2016. “Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: What is the empirical impact of this universal theory?” Policy Studies Journal, volume 44, number 1, pp. 37–58.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12111, accessed 27 June 2020.

California, 2017. “Assembly Bill number 1665, Chapter 851 of the Statutes of 2017,” at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1665, accessed 27 June 2020.

California, 2006. “Assembly Bill number 2987, Chapter 700 of the Statues of 2006,” at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2951-3000/ab_2987_bill_20060929_chaptered.pdf, accessed 27 June 2020.

California Public Utilities Commission, n.d. “California Advanced Services Fund background and history,” at https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=6442457932, accessed 27 June 2020.

California Secretary of State, 2019. “Lobbying activity,” at http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Lobbying/, accessed 27 June 2020.

Colleen M. Davison, 2009. “Knowledge translation: Implications for evaluation,” >New Directions for Evaluation, volume 2009, number 124, pp. 75–87.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.315, accessed 27 June 2020.

Bryan D. Jones and Frank R. Baumgartner 2012. “From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing,” Policy Studies Journal, volume 40, number 1, pp. 1–20.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00431.x, accessed 27 June 2020.

John W. Kingdon, 1984. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown.

Larry L. Kiser and Elinor Ostrom, 1982. “The three words of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches,” In: Michael D. McGinnis (editor). Polycentric games and institutions: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 56–88.

John N. Lavis, Dave Robertson, Jennifer M. Woodside, Christopher B. McLeod, and Julia Abelson, 2003. “How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers?” Milbank Quaterly, volume 81, number 2, pp. 221–248.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00052, accessed 27 June 2020.

Lloyd Levine, 2018. “Energy policy and the digital divide: Broadband deployment and adoption are insufficient to meet the needs of demand response and the smart grid,” ICER Chronicle, Edition 9, pp. 31–38, at http://icer-regulators.net/the-icer-chronicle/, accessed 27 June 2020.

Lloyd Levine and Matthew P.H. Taylor, 2018. “Closing the digital divide: A historic and economic justification for government intervention,” University of California Riverside School of Public Policy, Working Paper Series, number WP#18-05. at http://spp.ucr.edu/publications/closing_digital_divide.pdf, accessed 27 June 2020.

Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 2019. “The Overton window,” at https://www.mackinac.org/OvertonWindow, accessed 27 June 2020.

Elinor Ostrom, Michael Cox, and Edella Schlager, 2014. “An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework and introduction of the social-ecological system framework,” In: Paul A. Sabatier and Christopher M. Weible (editors). Theories of the policy process. Third edition. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, pp. 267–306.

Margaret M. Polski and Elinor Ostrom, 1999. “An institutional framework for policy analysis and design,” Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, at https://ostromworkshop.indiana.edu/pdf/toolkit/iad-for-policy-applications.pdf, accessed 27 June 2020.

Derek Robertson, 2018. “How an obscure conservative theory became the Trump era’s go-to nerd phrase,” Politico (25 February), at https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/25/overton-window-explained-definition-meaning-217010, accessed 27 June 2020.

Dirk J. Roux, Kevin H. Rogers, Harry C. Biggs, Peter J. Ashton, and Anne Sergeant. 2006. “Bridging the science– management divide: Moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing,” Ecology and Society, volume 11, number 1, article number 4, at https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art4/, accessed 27 June 2020.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, n.d. “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,” at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/2011/american-recovery-and-reinvestment-act-2009, accessed 27 June 2020.

U.S. Federal Communications Commission, 2016. “Lifeline and link up reform and modernization,” WC Docket, number 11-42, at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/02/17/2016-03075/lifeline-and-link-up-reform-and-modernization-telecommunications-carriers-eligible-for-universal, accessed 27 June 2020.

University of California, Riverside, 2019. “Welcome to Science to Policy at UCR,” at https://sciencetopolicy.ucr.edu, accessed 27 June 2020.

Editorial history

Received 6 June 2020; accepted 9 June 2020.

Copyright © 2020, Lloyd Levine. All Rights Reserved.

Connecting research to policy: Understanding macro and micro policy-makers and their processes
by Lloyd Levine.
First Monday, Volume 25, Number 7 - 6 July 2020
https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/download/10866/9571
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v25i7.10866