Neutralizing Pull Factors: Intermediary Gatekeeping on the Use of Research Evidence for informing Civics Programming

• In Event: Documenting the Barriers and Facilitators for Integrating Lived Civics Into K-12 Schooling

Abstract

Objective: There has been an increased recognition of a research-practice gap in relation to how educational research is applied to inform policy and practice (Finnigan et al., 2013; Neal, et al., 2015). The utilization of research evidence (URE) scholarship highlights the critical role of individuals or organizations as intermediary actors and connectors of research to practitioners and decision-makers (Neal et al., 2022; Scott et al., 2017). Intermediary actors navigate a complex political ecological landscape in which specific policies, community context, and major sociopolitical events often create “pull factors” in the curation and dissemination of specific types of information utilized to inform school decision-making (Lubienski et al., 2014). With recent state mandates requiring civics education in primary schooling, civics curriculum provides a unique context to explore the role of intermediary actors in that such programming is: 1) often decentralized (unavailable on What Works ClearingHouse), 2) underfunded (limited evaluation resources), 3) predominantly untested (most scholarship on research use is focused on math and literacy), and 4) perceived as highly political in many communities.

Theoretical Framework: As such, this paper explores the “choice points” of intermediary actors and what research they elevate to support school decision-makers’ selection of civics education programming. Applying Scott and colleague’s (2018) political ecology framework, this paper explores the role of politics and power structures in the dissemination and utilization of research evidence within the context of civics educational programming.

Methods/Data: Data sources, include interviews conducted with 34 intermediary actors (non-profits, state departments, university centers, philanthropies, and for-profit sectors) and 49 school decision-makers (principals, subject coordinators, and lead teachers). Data analysis combines quantitative (textual analysis) and qualitative methods (critical discourse) to unpack power narratives.

Results: In the context of civics, the positionality of the intermediary actors, the local district climate, and larger state and national politics fostered a desire to preemptively select research that supported civics programming identified as both “safe” and “neutral”. Notably, neutral curriculum typically avoided discourse around pressing social issues (racial injustice, climate crisis, LGBTQ rights), maintained the status quo, and focused on the historic foundations of government as compared to a more applied action focus.

Significance: This gatekeeping has notable implications in relation to programming that is reflective of and equitably meets the needs of students’ lived realities. For instance, the Lived Civic Scholars have stressed the importance of civics programming that takes a critical asset-based approach that acknowledges and addresses the experiences of minoritized students to increase student engagement and active learning (Clay & Rubin, 2020: Mirra & Garcia, 2017). Notably, the ripple effects of neutrality as a decision-making factor are hardly benign, and rather may exacerbate disparities in access to civics programming. Specifically, research indicates schools serving poor and racially/ethnically minoritized youth often have fewer resources and district supports, as well as less access to culturally relevant civic education opportunities (Kahne & Middaugh, 2008).

Author

• Mariah Kornbluh, University of Oregon