Hess, Frederick M. (ed.) (2008). When Research Matters: How Scholarship Influences Education Policy. Reviewed by Mark Oromaner

Hess, Frederick M. (ed.) (2008). When Research Matters: How Scholarship Influences Education Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press Pp. 324         ISBN 978-1-891792-84-7 Reviewed by Mark Oromaner March 28, 2009 An indication of the timeliness of When Research Matters is that in his recent inaugural address President Obama stated that his administration would “restore science to its rightful place.” What is the appropriate role of science in policy making in a democratic society? Partisanship aside, the President’s remarks remind us that there are connections between science and politics. Although the president used the term “science” and Hess uses “research” and “scholarship,” I think it is fair to say that from the perspective of this work, these terms can be employed interchangeably. Given the central role of education policy in this volume, I was concerned when I read that the papers were originally presented at a 2007 conference at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and that the editor, Hess, is a resident scholar and director of Educational Policy Studies at the AEI. However, a review of the professional activities of the 15 contributors, including Hess, lessened my concern. The expertise of each author is reflected in the informative and well reasoned nature of each of these well written papers. Current affiliations of the authors indicate that 13 hold academic positions, one is affiliated with a think tank (Hess), and one, Michael J. Petrilli, is vice president for national programs and policy at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. In their co-authored paper Manna and Petrilli state that the Fordham Foundation “is typically viewed as a conservative voice on education policy” (p.80). At the same time, the political independence of academic institutions does not mean that individual researchers are politically independent or not affiliated with paradigms that influence their work. Rather than focus on methodological or meta-methodological issues, authors of these papers explore concerns such as: “when and why research influences policy; what role is played by intermediaries like scholarly journals, advocacy groups, and the press; and how this affects contemporary school reform” (Hess, p.1). In terms of the production – dissemination – utilization of knowledge process, the emphasis is on the second and third steps. In the aggregate, these papers provide a realistic and balanced view of the ways in which education research is selected or sought to influence, support, inform, or change education policy in the pluralistic contemporary American society. Although throughout the emphasis is on the “soft tissue” between research and education policy, there is relatively little overlap among the particulars in the various papers. The first two chapters deal with the history of federal education research and the structural changes that account for the paradox that, at present, education research has high visibility but a problematic reputation. Chapters 3 – 5 are case studies of three of the hot current areas of debate: No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the reading wars, and “out-of-field” teaching. Each of these contains valuable lessons. Paul Manna and Michael J. Petrilli provide a detailed history of the limited role of research in what is arguably the most well-known and debated current education policy- NCLB. In particular they looked at the use of the phrase “scientifically based research” and the input of various groups into the use and misuse of the “highly qualified teachers” provision. In his research on the 40 plus years history of the reading wars (phonics vs. whole-language), James S. Kim documents ways in which research has been used and misused by both sides. A memorable example is the fate of the meta-analysis conducted by the National Reading Panel (NRP) comprising 15 experts. The NRP was formed as a reaction to the call by Congress for a synthesis of the best research on reading. A 464 page technical report and a 33 page summary were published. The summary was for distribution to teachers and lay audiences. The use of the summary for non-technical audiences makes sense, however, “(a)lthough the full NRP report provided insufficient data to draw conclusions about the effects of phonics instruction above the first grade, the summary indicated that systematic phonics benefited children from kindergarten to sixth grade” (p.104). Which “research” is to serve as a basis of the use of phonics? Prior to becoming a sociologist, Richard M. Ingersoll (University of Pennsylvania) taught high school. On the basis that experience he developed an interest in the “out-of-field” teaching phenomenon– the assignment of teachers to subjects in which they have little preparation, education or background. He has become the leading researcher on this issue. However, he points out how some have used his findings as “ammunition” to criticize the preparation of teachers, state certification standards, union rules, or teacher shortages . Each criticism has obvious policy implications. Ingersoll’s alternative explanation has structural implications. We must look at the nature of teaching as a profession and ways in which schools are managed and teachers are utilized once in the school. How do policy makers decide among various explanations of the same data? Readers interested in the impact of social science research on head start, kindergartens, and day care may wish to consult the work of Nawrotzki, Smith, and Vinovskis (2004). In chapter 6, William C. Howell reports on an imaginative design based on survey data to study the impact of education research on public opinion (possible but likely to be limited by prior commitments); in chapter 7, Joshua Dunn and Martin West demonstrate that as a result of the kinds of cases raised, research has had a decreasing influence in federal courts and an increasing influence in state courts; and in chapter 8 Lance D. Fusarelli argues that traditional research has limited impact on local school leaders, and that there are institutional, structural, and personal barriers that account for this. In the words of one superintendent, “schools aren’t structured for systematic organizational learning,” (Fusarelli, p. 191). In chapter 9, Dan D. Goldhaber and Dominic J. Brewer take an economic perspective (supply, demand, incentives) and return to the issue of the relatively low esteem of education research. They conclude that “…not enough of the research that is needed gets done, and too much of what is not needed is produced” (p.201). This is followed by a political analysis by Kenneth K. Wong (chapter 10). Researchers should never forget that they work within a political structure and culture. Perhaps the most important reminder from Wong is that “Good research has to compete with other forces to gain the attention of policymakers” (p.231). Research must be marketed. In the concluding chapter, Hess provides his insights into the limits to and opportunities for research to impact policy. Hess has also published recently (Hess, 2008) an article based on this collection. A negative comment is that Hess’s worthwhile introduction is marred by poor editorial work. For instance, in his overview of the book (pp. 11-15) he refers to chapter 1 as chapter 2 and continues with this pattern throughout his description. The careful reader will be distracted by this error. The good news is that this type of distraction is not found in the rest of the book. When Research Matters achieves what Frederick M. Hess defined as its aim to examine the research-policy nexus in the hope that fuller understanding might help researchers, public officials, and other interested parties play their roles more constructively” (p.2). I would stress the significance of including the next generation, i.e., graduate students, among the “other interested parties.” In a pluralistic society, research should not and cannot determine policy, however, the implementation of some of the recommendations in these papers may provide opportunities for research to play an increasingly larger role. In the words of Manna and Petrilli, I am “cautiously optimistic” (p.63). References Hess, F. M. (2008). “When Education Research Matters,” Society 45 (November/December):534-539. Nawrotzki, K. D.; Smith, A. M.; Vinovskis. M. (2004). Social Science Research and Early Childhood Education: A Historical Analysis of Developments in Head Start, Kindergartens, and Day Care. In Cravens, H. (Ed.) The Social Sciences Go To Washington: The Politics Of Knowledge In The Postmodern Age. Pp.155 – 180 . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. About the Reviewer Mark Oromaner Before his retirement from Hudson County Community College , NJ, Mark Oromaner served in a number of administrative positions. His primary responsibilities were in the areas of research, evaluation, grants, and planning. He has also taught sociology at Hunter College, CUNY and at Jersey City State College. His research has appeared in journals of sociology, higher education, social studies of science, and information sciences. His most recent research on the role of core journals in sociology appears in The American Sociologist.