The Weeds: Politicization of Research, Partisan Policy, and Pushing Forward Toward Implementation

Political debates surrounding the most effective methods to educate American students are not new to the national discourse.  In fact, such debates are as old as the American Republic itself. Benjamin Rush a signee of the Declaration of Independence and advocate for publicly funded education said the following when accused of supporting oppressive taxes to fund schools, “But, shall the estates of orphans, bachelors, and persons who have no children be taxed to pay for the support of schools from which they can derive no benefit? I answer in the affirmative to the first part of the objection, and I deny the truth of the latter part of it” (Rudolph 1965, p. 6–7). The history of American education is replete with deep educational divides surrounding questions that are still relevant to our current context. Questions pertaining to access, funding, and training of teachers have always been at the fore of the American educational dialogue. Yet, in recent decades we have seen the growth of a relatively new phenomenon, that is the rise of the politicization of educational research.

In Jeffrey Henig’s piece, Politicization of Evidence, he defines politicization as, “when organized interest apply power at the policy making stage to steer government toward actions that benefit them-- at the expense of others and in contradiction to the democratically determined good” (Henig, 2009, p.140).  Given this definition of politicization, the politicization of research can be understood as the process whereby research is used as a mechanism for organized interest to steer policy towards ends that benefit them. To be clear, what is not new is political factions utilizing research to support their claim or policy goal, however, the problematic novel idea that professor Henig highlights is the way in which academia itself has been co-opted by the political process. Rather than a politician spelunking the depths of JSTOR to find an article to support a charter school initiative, political think tanks like the Heritage foundation have created their own pipeline of research and researchers with the sole purpose of advancing their political aims. In an increasingly politically divided and partisan America, what seems to be necessary is independent research that is as removed from the political process as possible. This is especially true for high stakes fields such as education research. Henig argues that the opposite is true. Research is not the guiding light that American policy makers so desperately need. Quoting Weitzel & Lubienski (2009), Henig states the research has amplified “the strident destructive forms of ideological trench warfare.” (Hennig, 2009, p.130). This is to say that increasingly, research has acted as an exacerbating force of American political polarization.

The politicization of research has had drastic implications for the broader American policy discussion.  Additionally, it has resulted in some equally disturbing issues at the local school level.  In this brief essay, I’ll seek to highlight one of the ways in which the politicization of research has reduced the role of education within the educational policy landscape, in that educational research primarily functions as a means to support political goals as opposed to instructing them.  Secondly, I’ll discuss how these broader policy implication impacts the implementation of policy at the local school level by highlighting the ways in which hot cognition impacts the ways in which implementing agents interpret value laden policy. Lastly, I’ll end the discussion by suggesting more forums for implementing agents to collectively interpret policy as mean to mitigating these effects.

It is important to note the numerous barriers that stand in the way of policy makers implementing the findings of educational research, especially high-quality research.  These barriers are a function of the numerous differences in the world of policy making and that of research creating. Henig describes these differences as “Research think” versus “Political Think” (Henig, 2009, p. 144). For example, the lifespan of a policy maker is much shorter than that of a researcher in that policy makers are subject to term limits. This creates a certain degree of urgency in the processing of a policy maker that may not be apparent among researchers. Additionally, researchers are prone to abstraction as they must consider and discuss the various nuances within their argumentation, whereas abstraction is a hindrance for a policy maker seeking to create laws. These two disparate ways of thinking require a certain amount of compromise for researchers and policy makers to have a non-politicized interaction.  First political actors must consider and acknowledge the limitations of the findings that they interpret as favorable to their political goals.  Conversely researchers must consider the political constraints of their audience when drawing applications of their findings.  Yet, what makes the politicization of research so problematic within our broader policy discourse is that the aforementioned compromise is not taking place, rather what we often see in our polity is the presence of customization. This is to say that increasingly research is losing its instructive capacity and in both subtle and not so subtle ways it is being required to conform to either the underlying values of political agents, or worse augment its findings to meet the often short cited political goals of these same agents.

Harvard professor Carol Weiss’, Where Politics and Evaluation Research Meet aims to highlight the ways in which evaluative research is politized, however, the implication of her work extends beyond the purview of evaluative research. Weiss argues that what is important for researchers is to be heard, yet what policy makers are listening for is not so much the rightness of the findings rather the underlying assumptions guiding these findings.  Weiss illustrates this by giving a telling example;

“If a decision-maker thinks it is important for job trainees to get and hold on to skilled jobs, he will take negative evaluation findings seriously, but if he is satisfied that job training programs seem to keep the ghettos quiet then job outcomes data mean much less” (Weis 1993, p. 99).

This example highlights that what is important to policy makers is the extent to which research helps them achieve their political goals.  Research may be instructive in limited situations; however, this is only possible if the researcher shares the presupposition of the policy makers. So, while the findings of a researcher may challenge a policy maker to create laws that better regulate charter schools, it may be less likely that the same policy maker would adhere to research that suggests laws that result in getting rid of charter schools. The obvious implication of this dynamic is that it may not be of consequence whether or not a particular policy is effective, or worse, harmful.  But, what is of the most importance to the policy maker is the political benefit that a particular policy provides.  Therefore, the work of a researcher is less about instructing policy makers on how to make effective laws, but rather supporting the assumptions of the policy makers and helping them to identify best practices within the implementation process.

Henig argues that one of the problems that exacerbate the politicization of research is the ideological and often partisan framing of issues (Henig, 2009, p. 147). To illustrate this, Henig discusses the partisan way in which charter schools are discussed.  Often charter schools are used to pit market forces against the government.  This framing results in the othering of research, hence research that highlights the benefits of charters is seen as antagonistic to public schools, while research that highlights the limitations of charters is seen as an endorsement of public schools. The problem of framing exists in a number of other education policy debates that have pressing implications for local schools. Debates surrounding high stakes teacher evaluation, the adoption of common core standards (aligned curricula and assessments), or Michigan’s own third grade reading law, though relatively new have already been framed as partisan or as an attempt to erode the agency of teachers. 

The problem with the politicized and partisan framing of education policies at the local level is that it works to hinder the implementation by implementing agents such as teachers. Northwestern education Professor James Spillane makes the case, in his piece Policy Implementation and Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research, that the hindrance of implementation is a function of hot-cognition (Spillane, 2009, p. 401).  This is to say, that because of the value laden nature of many education policies, affect and emotion play a pivotal role in how policies are interpreted and in turn executed. Spillane argues that policies that run-in contrast to the beliefs of implementing agents often fail, not as a result of conscious efforts to resist the implementation, but rather because people human are biased towards their own experiences. Within the sense-making process, individuals over-project their experiences into their understanding of what the policy is requiring, ultimately distorting the policy, yet providing the implementing agent with a sense that they accomplished the policy directive. A second obstacle related to hot-cognition is the role of emotion within implementation (Spillane, 2009, pp. 401-402).  Spillane argues that emotions play a key role in sense making coloring the response to policy directives. Thus, framing a policy within a set of values that the implementer does not hold may elicit an emotional response which may also hinder the execution of a policy.

The politicization of research has resulted in a number of broader policy issues, namely that research has been reduced to function as a means to support political goals as opposed to instructing them. In addition to a reduced role, research findings have been placed within hyper partisan politicize frames rendering the information they offer inconsequential to listeners across the aisles. I argue that it is the second of the two issues that work to hinder policy implementation at the school level, as the partisan nature of the policy discussion works as a cognitive roadblock in the sensemaking process of the implementing agent.  Due to the negative emotional associations that partisan dialogue often elicits, implementing agents struggle to properly interpret policy directives, resulting in either poorly implemented policy or unimplemented policy.

 Unfortunately, research is only becoming more politicized, furthermore it is impossible to disentangle research findings from their politicized frames. If the goal is to implement policy, then district and school leaders must invest in creating more spaces whereby implementing agents at multiple district levels can meet and freely exchange ideas.  Spillane (2009) argues that “organizational arrangements and norms can enable the implementation of reform by providing opportunities for implementing agents to deliberate” (p. 408).  Again, such an arrangement will not de-politicized the nature of the policy that must be implemented, yet what it will do is provide opportunities for implementing agents to gain clarity on what the policy directive is requiring the agent to do.  I imagine that within a school context these forums may look like a bi-monthly meeting. Given the emotional nature of many of the policies being implemented, a number of conversational protocols would need to be put into place to regulate the conversations.  For example, framing all criticism within an “I wonder statement”, time limits on comments or questions gear towards school or district leaders, and questions submitted prior to the forum. That said this forum should feel different than a board of education meeting.  There should be space allotted for the implementing agents to collaborate and reflect.  It is my assumption that a key lever in this process may be the vulnerability of the school leader.  Divisive political rhetoric and policies have overtaken the educational landscape and they affect us all, yet if our leaders can model how to productively discuss the frustrations and sorrows that these policies cause, I am sure that it is these school that will create the solutions that our education so desperately needs.

References 

Henig, J. R. (2009). Politicization of Evidence: Lessons for an Informed Democracy.

Educational Policy, 23(1), 137–160.

Rudolph, Frederick, ed. 1965. Essays on Education in the Early Republic. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Spillane, James P., Brian J. Reiser, and Todd Reimer. "Policy Implementation and Cognition:

Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research." Review of Educational Research

72.3 (2002): 387-431. ProQuest. Web. 9 Nov. 2018.

Weiss, C. H. (1993). Where politics and evaluation research meet. Evaluation Practice, 14(1),

93-106. doi:10.1016/0886-1633(93)90046-r