Research Use and Politics in the Federal Higher Education Rulemaking Process

Abstract

This case study examined how research has been used in the federal higher education rulemaking process, through which the U.S. Department of Education implements programs under the Higher Education Act. Findings indicate that in this high-conflict policymaking process, politics infuses various forms of research use to create several overlapping categories of use (political-instrumental, political-conceptual, and political-imposed) that existing typologies of research use omit. This study demonstrates how previous conceptualizations of forms of research use should be expanded to account for these politically infused forms of research use. This study also uncovered consequences of widespread political research use in rulemaking, including a general distrust of research presented in the process and political actors using the same or similar data to reach different conclusions.

Analyzing Congressional Research Service Reports on Education: How Is Information Used at Congress’s Think Tank?

“…Weiss (1979) developed the foundational work on this concept, which culminated in a seven-category typology detailing possible ways research is used. Subsequent studies established a more widely recognized and utilized abridged version that focuses on three broader categories of research use: instrumental use , conceptual use , and political use (Amara et al, 2004; Beyer, 1997; Deshpande & Zaltman, 1983; Dunn, 1983; Lindblom & Cohen, 1979; Natow, 2020a; Nutley et al, 2007; Tseng, 2012).…”

“…The third type of research utilization is political use , which focuses on the tactical use of information to support predetermined positions on policies or issues (Amara et al, 2004; Beyer, 1997; Natow, 2020a; Tseng, 2012; Weiss, 1979). Notably, Weiss (1979) suggests that political use is a valid function for research, as long as findings are not misrepresented.…”

“…A recent study by Natow (2020a) examining the federal higher education rulemaking process notes an important limitation of the extant literature on research use—namely that these categories are not necessarily wholly independent and that overlapping or blended forms of research use are possible. Citing research by Sunesson and Nilsson (1988) and Klemperer et al (2001), Natow (2020a) explains that policymakers often utilize different forms of research use concurrently. Moreover, given the political nature of policymaking, Natow (2020a) underscores that all research use is inherently political as well as instrumental, conceptual, or political, based on the Weiss (1979) typology.…”

Research utilization in higher education rulemaking: A multi-case study of research prevalence, sources, and barriers

“…Another way that politics presented a hindrance to research use was that the political nature of higher education rulemaking caused some participants to be mistrustful of research that was presented in the process (see also Natow, 2020). One federal official said that individuals who attended OMB meetings were often "very interested parties… So the evidence they present is sometimes viewed through a very suspect lens."…”

“…This is an example of the political use of research (e.g.,Ness, 2010;Weiss, 1979). For more about this and other forms of research use in higher education rulemaking, seeNatow (2020).8 Ness and Gándara (2014) identify "ideological think tanks" as think tanks that are "ideologically driven," and they provide examples such as the Cato Institute and the Center for American Progress (p. 259). Malin…”