IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v106y2024ics0149718924000715.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of research evidence in U.S. federal policymaking: A reflexive report on intra-stage mixed methods

Author

Listed:
  • Diaz, Brett A.
  • Pugel, Jessica
  • Phutane, Aditya
  • Zhang, Liwei
  • Green, Lawrie
  • Hoffmann, Jayne
  • Long, Elizabeth C.
  • Crowley, Max
  • Taylor Scott, J.

Abstract

The policymaking process is largely opaque, especially regarding the actual writing of the policy. To attempt to better understand this complex process, we utilized mixed methods in our evaluation of an intervention. However, the process of mixing methods can be messy, and thus may require recalibration during the evaluation itself. Yet, in comparison to reporting results, relatively little attention is paid to the effects of mixing methods on the evaluation process. In this article, we take a reflexive approach to reporting a mixed methods evaluation of an intervention on the use of research evidence in U.S. federal policymaking. We focus on the research process in a qualitative coding team, and the effects of mixing methods on that process. Additionally, we report in general terms how to interpret multinomial logistic regressions, an underused analysis type applicable to many evaluations. Thus, this reflexive piece contributes (1) findings from evaluation of the intervention on the policymaking process, (2) an example of mixing methods leading to unexpected findings and future directions, (3) a report about the evaluation process itself, and (4) a tutorial for those new to multinomial logistic regressions.

Suggested Citation

  • Diaz, Brett A. & Pugel, Jessica & Phutane, Aditya & Zhang, Liwei & Green, Lawrie & Hoffmann, Jayne & Long, Elizabeth C. & Crowley, Max & Taylor Scott, J., 2024. "Use of research evidence in U.S. federal policymaking: A reflexive report on intra-stage mixed methods," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:106:y:2024:i:c:s0149718924000715
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102469
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718924000715
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102469?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:106:y:2024:i:c:s0149718924000715. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.