“The Research Says . . .”: Uses of Research Evidence in School-Board Deliberations

• In Event: Diverse Perspectives on Understanding the Policy Uses of Education Research

Abstract

In recent decades, federal policymakers have called for the use of research evidence in decisions about education policy. This call has been spurred in part by a belief that research may address potentially contentious issues and avoid seemingly intractable partisan squabbles. However, the call for research use raises as many questions as federal officials hope to answer by implying a clear and common understanding of research, suggesting a model of research that moves from “lab” to “field,” attributing a value-neutral status to research, and envisioning research as a means of reducing uncertainty in decision-making. This presentation focuses on the use of research evidence as education policy moves from the federal to the local level, which, in turn, raises questions of meaning, circulation, and politics.

We adopt a communication perspective that examines how local school-board members act as deliberators and decision-makers. Our approach considers how various aspects of the policymaking process—from meetings, to supporting documents, to community input—represent acts of communication. We understand deliberation as a process of reason-giving directed toward commonly identified issues. Although scholars have defined deliberation variously, a shared feature of many of these definitions is that deliberation involves exchanges among interlocutors about what they believe and why they believe it. Elucidating the “why” of belief invites evidence use.

Our presentation is based on the analysis of deliberations from three medium-sized school districts in Wisconsin. Although similar in size, the districts vary in terms of socio-economic status and educational achievement. One of the districts had been lauded as a top-performing district while another faces sanctions under No Child Left Behind. The third district incorporates a changing community that is facing population growth and economic pressures. We observed these districts over a two-year period, attending 160 committee and school-board meetings. Focusing on policy deliberations, we transcribed portions of 107 meetings.

Working inductively, we examined a subset of transcripts to identify six evidence types used by meeting participants: research, experience, examples, data, testimony, and law/policy. We discovered that meeting participants made general and specific references to research. General references constituted 1-2 sentence references to “research,” “studies,” or a “literature.” The structure of these general references typically began with a mention of “research” and a description of a general finding. Specific references provided some information about the researcher, the population studied, the research design, and conclusions. Specific references included instances of published research, district-initiated research, widely examined case studies, and investigations undertaken by individuals participating in the meetings.

Meeting participants operated with an expansive sense of research evidence, ranging from peer-reviewed publications to ideas generated in group discussions. They combined research evidence with other evidence types, including examples and experience to convey key information to diverse audiences. Meeting participants—especially board members—sought to balance the technical aspects of education research and policy with a sense of community interests and values. The need to balance research with other factors also pointed to the limits of research, since it could resolve value conflicts.

Authors

• Robert Asen, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• Deb Gurke