Within the realm of social sciences focused on human development, a long and often tumultuous history of interaction with public policy unfolds. Contemporary relations between developmental science and public policy can be traced back to the reform movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which concentrated on addressing issues among the urban poor, public health, labor conditions, and juvenile crime. Advocates of social reform intentionally harnessed the insights provided by researchers delving into human development to enhance lives and, in turn, to uplift society. Their endeavors resulted in the formulation of pioneering laws regulating child labor, maternal and child health, compulsory education, as well as the establishment of social institutions like public health and child guidance clinics, and the juvenile court system.
Since that era, the interface between the scientific examination of human development and public policy has undergone periods of retreat, marked by phenomena like the ascendancy of positivist social science in the 1920s, and intervals of intensive cooperation, exemplified by initiatives such as the “war on poverty” during the 1960s, and more recently, reforms related to education, juvenile justice, and welfare. This perpetual tug-of-war between social science functioning as a detached, objective enterprise and serving as an explicit instrument of social reform continues to be a lingering challenge confronting the fusion of human development science and public policy.
What Is Public Policy?
Public policy encompasses the gamut of legal, legislative, and administrative decisions made at various levels of government. Its scope and intricacy have defied attempts to draw clear boundaries around this domain. Public policy can encompass a vote in the U.S. Congress or a city council, a court ruling, the issuance of regulations to guide law implementation, the appointment of an agency director, or an Executive Order. The spectrum of human policy issues it addresses includes well-known areas such as health, education, labor, social security, and welfare, but it also extends to areas like transportation (e.g., seat belt and speed limit laws), taxation (e.g., child tax credits), agriculture (e.g., pesticide usage), immigration (e.g., family reunification), and defense (e.g., military child care).
Rational models attempt to trace the policy process, starting from the conversion of a societal problem into a policy matter and extending to the implementation and evaluation of the enacted policy. In practice, illustrating the intricate dynamics of public policy creation is challenging. Public policies aren’t “crafted” at a specific time and place but are rather the outcome of numerous decisions made incrementally over an extended period. This process inevitably involves a diverse, largely uncoordinated array of participants with varying roles, agendas, values, and abilities to influence, revolving around the resolution of conflicts of interest. Policies and laws are shaped by a multitude of conditions, events, and actors that are intricately connected, though not always logically. Consequently, rational models must be supplemented by portrayals that capture the unpredictability, fragmentation, contentiousness, and multiple influences that affect the policy process.
It’s evident that the policy-making process operates quite differently from the fundamental tenets of the scientific process. Science, for instance, seeks the truth, legal procedures aim for justice, and legislative policy seeks allies. The scientific method strives to eliminate the influence of personal values, whereas the policy process openly deals with conflicting values. Science often presents human behavior as being influenced by multiple factors, while policy and legal debates often assign individuals responsibility for their actions. Moreover, the rules of evidence differ significantly across these domains. Nevertheless, both science and policy are conservative, incremental processes. They seek to accumulate knowledge and revisit major questions and issues over time in light of new developments. Policies, like scientific research, are built on hypotheses about human behavior and the actions—interventions, tax incentives, sanctions—that can influence it. Consequently, despite some inherent skepticism between those operating in these two spheres, they share a substantial common ground.
Rationales For Human Development Policy
Government involvement in human development policy typically stems from two primary rationales. The first is police power, which justifies intervention when public safety is compromised. The second is parens patriae, a legal doctrine that frames government intervention in the lives of dependent children and impaired adults. This intervention is deemed necessary when family circumstances put individuals at risk. Examples of this rationale can be seen in policies related to juvenile justice and child welfare, such as foster care. These policies often portray government involvement as a last resort, activated only when private (family) solutions have failed. However, they tend to focus on remedial rather than preventive interventions.
There are also other rationales for government involvement in human development policy. These rationales prioritize promoting social goals and reducing social costs over preventing harm to individuals. The civil rights movement has left a significant legacy in the form of policies aimed at promoting equal opportunity, particularly in areas such as employment and disability issues. Public education also serves this purpose, though the federal role in education is primarily concentrated on children who are impoverished or have disabilities, still invoking parens patriae. Public health policy underscores the importance of avoiding health and economic costs to society at large.
Policies for America’s elderly population are somewhat distinct. Given that economic dependency is an inevitable facet of old age and often occurs after a lengthy period of economic contribution, policies such as Social Security and Medicare are not typically viewed with ambivalence or stigma. Instead, they are considered entitlements, established to prevent and alleviate old-age dependency, and they are approaching universal coverage.
Contributions Of Research
The role of research in shaping public policy is multifaceted, influenced by a complex interplay of various factors that collectively define the policymaking landscape. In this intricate dance between research and policy, several critical facets and models emerge, each contributing to the evolution of effective public policies. As experts in psychology, we recognize the importance of understanding these dynamics and their implications for the betterment of society.
The Complex Landscape of Policy Shaping
Research is one among several dynamic forces at play when it comes to shaping public policy. This landscape is characterized by an amalgamation of influences, including social, economic, demographic, political, and ideological factors. Additionally, constituency pressures, guiding principles, the influence of institutions, and the power of media collectively mold the contours of policymaking.
The Four Pillars of Research in Public Policy
Research serves as a cornerstone in the realm of public policy, contributing significantly in four distinct areas:
- Knowledge Building: Research is a torchbearer for advancing our fundamental understanding of complex social and behavioral processes. Through rigorous inquiry and empirical exploration, it unveils the mysteries of human behavior and its societal implications.
- Problem Exploration: Research acts as a beacon, illuminating the contours of social problems. It aids in defining, identifying, and quantifying issues that demand society’s attention. By shedding light on these concerns, research helps prioritize areas that require intervention.
- Policy Formation: Research is instrumental in the formulation of sound policies. It provides the empirical foundation upon which policies are built. Moreover, research often plays a pivotal role in resolving legal questions associated with specific social problems.
- Program Direction and Evaluation: Policies and programs benefit from research insights. Research guides the design, evaluation, and continuous improvement of established policies and initiatives. Through rigorous evaluation, it ensures that programs remain effective and aligned with their intended objectives.
Models of Research Utilization in Policy
Two distinct models illustrate how research informs and influences policy:
- Instrumental Model: This model represents the direct, practical applications of research. Research findings are deployed as tools to address specific policy or legal decisions. Notable examples include the submission of amicus briefs and providing expert testimony in courtrooms and legislative chambers.
- Enlightenment Model: In contrast, the enlightenment model recognizes the indirect and more subtle influence of research. Generalized evidence gleaned from multiple studies or overarching concepts derived from research shape policymakers’ worldviews. This, in turn, influences their approach to addressing policy issues.
Factors Influencing Research Impact on Policy
Several factors determine the extent to which research informs and shapes policy:
- Timeliness and Relevance: Research must align with the timing and relevance of active policy debates to be considered and utilized effectively.
- Quality and Fit: High-quality research findings that resonate with policymakers’ existing perceptions and values are more likely to gain trust and traction.
- Actionable Findings: Research that not only identifies issues but also offers actionable solutions and examines variables policymakers can manipulate holds greater value.
- Potential to Raise New Issues: Innovative research that unveils fresh issues or perspectives often captures policymakers’ attention and stimulates further exploration.
- Circumstantial Context: The impact of research is heavily contingent on the specific circumstances under which it is introduced. Policymakers are more inclined to turn to research when dealing with unfamiliar issues, addressing contentious policies, or seeking to delay action through claims of inconclusiveness.
Interdependence and Mutual Interests
The relationship between science and policy is marked by interdependence and shared interests. This collaboration brings critical funding for research and training, policies that facilitate empirical inquiry, increased public relevance, and opportunities for social and scientific impact. It underscores the convergence of these two domains in their shared mission to make a positive difference in the lives of individuals and society as a whole.
Conclusion: Forging a Path Forward
The intersection of research and public policy is a dynamic and evolving arena. As experts in psychology, we stand at the crossroads of knowledge and action, wielding the power to inform and shape the policies that govern our societies. Our role in this process is not only significant but also carries profound responsibilities.
To maximize our impact, we must remain cognizant of the multifaceted nature of policy shaping. It is a complex dance, where research competes with a myriad of forces, from social and economic influences to political agendas and media narratives. Acknowledging this complexity, we recognize that research’s contribution to policymaking can be categorized into four pillars: knowledge building, problem exploration, policy formation, and program direction and evaluation.
Moreover, we understand that research utilization in policy is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. Two distinct models, instrumental and enlightenment, illustrate the varied ways research informs and influences policy decisions. The extent to which research impacts policy hinges on factors like timeliness, relevance, quality, and the potential to raise new issues.
As we navigate this intricate landscape, we must also be mindful of the circumstances under which research is introduced. Policymakers are more likely to turn to research when faced with unfamiliar or contentious issues, but they may also seek to delay action by casting doubt on research findings. This necessitates a delicate balance in presenting research to maintain credibility while acknowledging its limitations.
Yet, amidst this complexity lies a shared purpose. The relationship between science and policy is marked by interdependence and mutual interests. It is a symbiotic exchange that fuels research funding, informs policy decisions, enhances public relevance, and opens doors to societal impact. We, as experts in psychology, are uniquely positioned to bridge these realms and drive positive change.
In closing, our journey as psychology experts in the realm of research and public policy is an ongoing and evolving one. By understanding the intricate dynamics, leveraging our expertise, and advocating for the responsible use of research findings, we can actively contribute to the creation of informed, effective policies that address the complex challenges of our time. Together, we can forge a path forward towards a more equitable and prosperous future for all.
- Birkland, T. A. (2001). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making. Armonk, NY: ME
- Bottoms, B. L., Kovera, M. B., & McAuliffe, B. D. (Eds.). (2002). Children, social science, and the law. New York: Cambridge University
- Erickson, R. J., & Simon, R. J. (1998). The use of social science data in Supreme Court decisions. Urbana, IL: University of Chicago
- Featherman, D. , & Vinovskis, M. A. (Eds.). (2001). Social science and policy-making: A search for relevance in the twentieth century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
- Hayes, D. (Ed.). (1982). Making policies for children: A study of the federal process. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- Levine, , & Wallach, L. (2002). Psychological problems, social issues, and law. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
- Lorion, P., Iscoe, I., DeLeon, P. H., & VandenBos, G. R. (1996). Psychology and public policy: Balancing public service and professional need. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Lynn, E. (Ed.). (1978). Knowledge and policy: The uncertain connection: Vol. 5. Study project on social research and development. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
- Zigler, E. G., & Hall, N. W. (2000). Child development and social policy: Theory and applications. Boston: McGrawHill.