Department of Human Development and Family Studies, School of Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Project 2Gen, Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research, Cornell University.
Am Psychol. 2021 Oct;76(7):1143-1158. doi: 10.1037/amp0000681. Epub 2020 Sep 24.
Psychologists are known for using science to influence public policymaking on criminal justice, education, health, and other specific policies. Little is known, however, about what commonalities exist across youth and family policies and, in particular, how prevalent polarization and research utilization are in political decisions. In response, this article examines how youth and family policies are positioned on the decision-making agenda and who advances them from an overlooked point of view, that of state legislators. Semistructured qualitative interviews inquired about research use, partisan polarization, and strategies for effectively advancing youth/family policies with 123 legislators; 24 legislators nominated by colleagues as exemplar champions of youth and family issues; and 13 key informants. Policymakers report youth and families are a population deserving of support. This widely shared value premise makes some policies to support youth and families less partisan. In addition, policymakers report that research can sometimes be more important for youth and family issues, particularly evidence on economic feasibility. Despite the importance of research, policymakers express concerns about its objectivity, conflicting results, and source credibility. Compared with colleagues, Youth and Family Champions are committed to a higher purpose; knowledgeable on policy issues and political maneuvers; and skilled in listening, earning colleagues' trust, and building relationships with colleagues and external stakeholders. For connecting research and policy, the article suggests that researchers could attract the attention of policymakers by illustrating their studies with a compelling story that places a human face on the issue and portrays the pragmatic significance of the findings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
心理学家以利用科学影响刑事司法、教育、健康和其他特定政策的公共决策而闻名。然而，人们对青年和家庭政策之间存在哪些共同之处知之甚少，特别是在政治决策中，两极分化和研究利用的情况有多普遍。有鉴于此，本文从一个被忽视的角度，即州议员的角度，研究青年和家庭政策是如何在决策议程中定位的，以及谁在推动这些政策。通过半结构化的定性访谈，询问了 123 名立法者、24 名同事提名的青年和家庭问题模范拥护者以及 13 名主要知情人关于研究利用、党派两极分化以及有效推动青年/家庭政策的策略。政策制定者报告说，青年和家庭是一个值得支持的群体。这种广泛存在的价值前提使得一些支持青年和家庭的政策的党派性较弱。此外，政策制定者报告说，研究有时对青年和家庭问题更为重要，特别是关于经济可行性的证据。尽管研究很重要，但政策制定者对其客观性、相互矛盾的结果和来源可信度表示担忧。与同事相比，青年和家庭拥护者更致力于更高的目标；对政策问题和政治策略有深入的了解；并擅长倾听、赢得同事的信任、与同事和外部利益相关者建立关系。为了将研究和政策联系起来，本文建议研究人员可以通过用一个引人入胜的故事来说明他们的研究，从而吸引政策制定者的注意，这个故事将问题人性化，并描绘研究结果的实际意义。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2022 APA，保留所有权利）。
