This article explores growing pessimism among those scholars who wish to see rigorous research used more frequently to formulate public policy. That commonsense aspiration is threatened by the impoverished dialogue between the communities that conduct studies (researchers) and those that apply them to decisions (policymakers). To examine this disconnect, the authors advance community dissonance theory, which proposes that a better understanding in the research community of the inhabitants, institutions, and cultures of the policy community could increase communication and trust. Community dissonance theory extends earlier two‐communities theories by deconstructing the cultural impediments to optimal communication. Building on previous literature and supported with in‐depth interviews of state policymakers, this article examines professional culture and institutional culture (e.g., preferred decision‐making processes, interactional preferences, favored epistemological frameworks, dominant influence loops, salient goals, salient stakeholders). The article presents several frictions that occur when cultures clash, discussing their promise and peril for improving research use in policymaking.

No abstract

Using longitudinal data collected from a college cohort in the United States ( N = 922), we examined the associations between systemic and structural factors (gender, race/ethnicity, family SES, and first-generation college status), financial parenting (teaching, and modeling behavior), and emerging adults’ financial behavior. We conducted a series of one-way repeated measure ANOVA analyses (GLM) to assess patterns of average change in financial parenting and financial behavior in the first year in college, fourth year in college, and two years after college and found evidence suggestive of recentering—a gradual transfer of responsibility during emerging adulthood from parent-directed behavior to self-directed behavior; however, the decline in financial parenting was not offset by an improvement in emerging adults’ financial behavior. Despite similar patterns of change, family socioeconomic status (SES), first-generation college student status, and gender influenced both financial parenting and financial behaviors at each time point. We discuss the findings and the implications on the timing and length of the recentering process.

No abstract

Social science has done well in providing empirical studies that depict how research is used in policymaking. Yet it performs less well in another contribution science can make-developing explanatory theoretical frameworks that predict and promote future research use. To address this theoretical void, onsite studies of policymakers have been called for. In this qualitative study, semistructured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 123 legislators in 2 states, 32 legislators nominated by colleagues as exemplar research users, and 13 key informants. Policymakers' reports of 14 contributions that research makes to policymaking are compared to the predictions of four prominent theories of research utilization, which are representative of four categories of theories that examine the interface between researchers and policymakers-the politico-administrative decision-making model, a typology of research use; community dissonance theory; and policy agenda-setting/multiple-streams theory. The eight research contributions most frequently mentioned by policymakers cut across policymakers, political party, and states with varying degrees of partisan polarization. In some respects, policymakers' perceptions were well-aligned with theory, such as the contributions research makes to individual considerations (e.g., informing, explaining, and justifying one's positions), and to policy issue considerations (e.g., defining issues; designing legislation). Yet other contributions were seldom predicted by theory, such as the contributions research makes to policymakers' relationships (earning the trust of colleagues; educating others) and the policy process (asking important questions; enhancing debate, dialogue, collaboration, and compromise). Policymakers report that these contributions of research provide both policy and political benefits. Implications are drawn for advancing theory on research utilization.