Applying the full force of research and theory to social policy

Since its early beginnings, the field of psychology has stressed the value of using academic research to address pressing social issues and contribute to the public good, and it enjoys a long and rich legacy in working toward these goals. As early as the 1930s, with the rise of fascism in Europe, many academic psychologists expressed 'great interest in movement to apply psychology to political problems' (Krechevsky, 1936) and dedicated themselves to conducting scientific research to promote positive social change (see Morawski, 1986). Often regarded as the founder of social psychology, Lewin (1947) further stressed that it is not sufficient to do research simply for the sake of academic publication, and that academic research should ideally lead to some sort of social action. Scholars like Kenneth and Mamie Clark embodied these values by researching problems faced by racial minority youth and sharing this work with U.S. policymakers and litigators in the struggle for civil rights (Clark & Clark, 1947; see also Benjamin & Crouse, 2002; Clark et al., 2004).

Yet on some level, we must acknowledge that our impact in the public sphere has remained relatively limited. Indeed, we have 'yet to apply the full force of [psychological] research and theory to social policy' (Pettigrew, 1988, p. 206) and research psychologists 'are not as involved in social policy work as they once were or as they can be' (Omoto, 2012, p.805). Why is this? Why has psychology, as a discipline, not had the level of social or policy impact that we would ideally like it to have?

From scientific enterprise to meaningful impact

Although there are surely many answers to this question, admittedly, one answer is that we have not always done the best job of making our work accessible to public audiences, or finding ways for our research to be relevant and useful to policymakers, organisations, practitioners, and community members we seek to reach (see Miller, 1969; Schalet et al., 2020). As academic researchers, we are trained to focus on the scientific enterprise, with greater premiums placed on new theoretical insights and novel research findings than on how user-friendly or practical those insights or findings may be. We have developed skills in framing and testing hypotheses using rigorous research methods and advanced statistical procedures, yet most of us have never received training in how to translate academic research for the public, or how to cultivate collaborations with practitioners and organisations, which are the very skills we need to enhance the broader impacts of our work (Kaslow, 2015; Lewis & Wai, 2021; Tropp, 2018).

But if we were to ask our colleagues and students – not to mention ourselves – why we decided to pursue a career dedicated to psychological research, I suspect many of us have been driven by a desire to lend our scientific expertise to social issues and public debates, to somehow contribute to making the world a better place.

Indeed, as a graduate student, I remember scanning through the curriculum vitae of one of my graduate mentors and long-time collaborators, Thomas F. Pettigrew, who served as a member of the White House Task Force on Education and as a consultant to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights back in the 1960s. Pettigrew received his PhD in 1956, and many of his colleagues and collaborators – including his own graduate advisor, Gordon W. Allport – signed on to the well-known social science statement presented in the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education cases, which helped to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court of the need to desegregate American public schools (see Clark et al., 2004).

Reflecting on this legacy, I remember doubting that it would ever be possible for a researcher like me to have such meaningful real-world impact. The social problems loomed so large, the people in power seemed so remote, and the standards set within our discipline offered little room for error. Though I worked on field research as a graduate student in the late 1990s, I intuited that I needed to focus on the more 'basic' aspects of the work to be taken seriously as an emerging researcher, and I relegated the more 'applied' aspects to time reserved for extracurricular activities. As an assistant professor in the early 2000s, I received the not-so-subtle message from senior colleagues that it's 'nice' to engage in socially relevant work, but that type of work would certainly not earn me tenure. Especially given the stakes involved, the thought that my work could someday have real-world impact remained elusive, even though the desire for it has fueled my passion ever since.

Fortunately, the norms and values of our field appear to have started to shift in recent years. There is now more space for academic psychologists to be valued both for conducting rigorous research in pursuit of novel theoretical and empirical advancements, and for seeking to enhance the social relevance of their scholarship. Reward structures at academic institutions remain quite varied and are often lacking in demonstrating support for public impact, yet there seems to be greater appreciation for the many ways in which academic researchers can and do contribute to the public good.

I perhaps see these shifts in the values and norms of our discipline most clearly when I engage with early career scholars. More often than not, my conversations with younger generations of psychologists focus on how we can make our research matter, and what it takes to cultivate a trajectory toward having public impact. These conversations typically start with broad questions like 'where do I begin?' Here, I share some of the questions I tend to pose in response, for any reader who may wish to embark on their own path toward making research matter. I explore these questions in more depth in 2018's Making Research Matter: A Psychologist's Guide to Public Engagement.

What issue do I care most about?

One of the first things I encourage people to consider is the social problem or policy issue they care most about. In other words, if you could your research to inform any issue in the world, what would it be? Here, the more precise you can be, the better – for example, if you care about the effects of troubling economic conditions, what aspects of this issue are you most passionate about? How economic resources affect access to mental health services? How economic circumstances shape people's propensities to compete or cooperate in the larger society? Or the attributions people make for wealth or poverty?

There are numerous ways in which one's scholarly expertise could inform an issue; part of figuring out your path to having impact involves deciding upon the issues for which you are most willing to invest your time and energy, and what you have to say about those issues. You will soon find yourself crossing paths with like-minded individuals and organisations who are committed to the same issues, and this can swiftly lead to many additional opportunities for public engagement. By reflecting on the issues you care most about, and specifying the message you have to share, you can build a foundation for sustained involvement and impact.

Whom do I most wish to reach?

When we think about having public impact, we may initially envision seeing our name or that of a colleague in the media. Clearly, this can be an effective way to broaden the reach of our work, and there are many approaches we can use to share our message through the media, such as through writing op-ed pieces or blog entries for high-profile news outlets, being interviewed for radio or television, or publishing a book for a popular audience. But there are also many other outlets through which we can share our message outside of academic circles.

For instance, we might want our research to inform public policy at the local, state, or national levels, which might lead us to reach out to legislators, policy advocates, or government agencies to have impact. Alternatively, we might seek to have impact in the realm of the law, such as by serving as an expert witness, or by strategising with litigators about how scientific evidence might be used in court cases. We might also wish to have impact on community programs and social institutions through cultivating partnerships with schools, health care systems, places of worship, or other community-based organisations. Reflecting on the kinds of impact we wish to have can help us to determine the people and organisations we most wish to reach.

Who could benefit most from the expertise I have to offer?

Ask yourself: who needs to know what I know? Policymakers? practitioners? community organisers? members of the broader public? Perhaps you have come across a quote in the newspaper by a community leader or state official about the very issue you care about, or you might come across a report from a government agency or policy advocates where you can easily envision adding to the conversation they've already begun. There are likely to be many actors and organisations already working on the issues you care about, ranging from civic organisations at the local level, to policy organisations on the national stage, or non-governmental organisations working internationally. In my experience, individuals and organisations are usually quite open to hearing from someone with scholarly expertise who can contribute meaningfully to their ongoing efforts and goals.

How well do I know these actors and their goals?

Still, before picking up the phone or sending an email, take stock of how well you do (or don't) understand the goals and needs of the person or organisation with whom you wish to connect.  How confident are you that you understand what these individuals, institutions, or communities need, from their own perspective?

I believe one of the common pitfalls we academics face in our attempts to reach non-academic audiences involves our tendency to underestimate differences between academic and non-academic cultures and how much 'translation' of our research is actually necessary. To make our research matter outside of academia, we must shift how we talk about our work and why it matters. Understandably, given our disciplinary training, we are likely to have grown accustomed to talking about the value of our research in terms of what people in our discipline want to know – such as how the research extends our understanding of some aspect of human functioning, motivation, or behaviour. 

Instead, when we seek to translate our research to non-academic audiences, we need to explain why the research matters for their specific goals, and how the research might help them to achieve these goals – such as getting a piece of legislation passed, winning a court case, publishing a front-page story, implementing a policy, or changing an institutional practice. The more knowledgeable we are about our audiences' goals and needs, the more effective and impactful we can be in sharing the expertise we have.  

What kind of relationship do I wish to have with those I wish to reach?

If and when we do reach out to others, we might also consider the kind of relationship we wish to have, or the role we wish to play, as we engage with those we seek to reach (Pettigrew, 1967; Pielke, 2007). Many academic researchers see their role as one simply focused on sharing scientific knowledge with individuals and organisations who might benefit from their work. Other academic researchers may instead wish to become more directly involved in working with organisations to achieve their goals. For instance, some may use their expertise to help government agencies and non-governmental organisations consider the strengths and weaknesses of varied policy options; alternatively, others may support agencies and organisations in the design, implementation, and evaluation of their programs, or by advocating for specific policy decisions in light of the scientific evidence.

Regardless of what we choose, we should aim to have open discussions with our non-academic colleagues about the nature and depth of our involvement, ways in which our objectives are or are not aligned, and what we are or are not willing to do as part of our collaboration, to develop a shared understanding of our respective roles and minimise potential confusion or frustration on either side later on.

What kinds of activities do I find fulfilling?

I also encourage people to consider the kinds of activities that interest them most, the skills they have to offer, and the ways in which they work best. For example, do you prefer being in the spotlight, or working behind the scenes? Working independently or on teams with others? Focusing on concrete goals in the short term or envisioning broader goals over the long term?

Providing answers to any and all of these questions can help to guide you toward making contributions that you find fulfilling, and that play to your strengths, thereby enhancing the likelihood that you'll want to stay engaged with the issue over time. This is not to say that we shouldn't also attempt to develop new skills, or that we'll automatically know the activities for which we are best suited. As with many things, each of our paths may involve a process of trial and error, through which we come to recognise those activities we find most compelling and for which we are particularly well-suited, as well as those for which we may seek to develop greater skill.

Personally, I tend to gravitate toward 'behind the scenes' activities that involve conversation and mutual exchanges of ideas, such as translating psychological science for policy advocates and non-governmental organisations – as compared to activities that involve 'being in the spotlight' and more direct confrontation and argumentation, such as delivering expert testimony in a courtroom or getting into the fray of public debates. For me, it is particularly gratifying to sit down with organisational leaders and learn about their goals and needs, to distil academic research in ways that can support them in achieving their goals, and to help them envision how they can practically incorporate new insights from the academic literature into their programs and practices. 

It is this orientation that drove me to work with peacebuilding organizations to assess outcomes of reconciliation programs in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda, and to develop accessible guides and tools for organisations seeking to augment their bridge-building programs with principles from intergroup contact theory and research. Listening to the concerns of teachers and school administrators – and learning more about the challenges they face – led me to develop and deliver workshops on racial bias and intergroup processes for educators, and to prepare a research brief on interracial contact in schools for the U.S.-based National Coalition on School Diversity.

Gaining a deeper understanding of legal and policy debates concerning how racial categories are perceived and used has helped me to communicate more effectively when speaking at briefings on racial prejudice and discrimination in the halls of the U.S. Congress, and when serving as an expert reviewer for amicus briefs submitted by civil rights litigators to the U.S. Supreme Court, in relation to past and current cases concerning the use of race in university admissions (see 'Web resources' box).

Through these kinds of professional experiences, I have learned more about how legislators, litigators, educators, and policy advocates think about the issues at play, which has often fueled ideas for new research directions and enhanced my ability to speak to the value of psychological research when I engage in other types of public-facing activities, such as granting media interviews or writing for popular outlets.

Is this the right time for me, or the right opportunity?

At the same time as we feel eager to make a difference and take advantage of the opportunities that come our way, we may also have some reservations about actively pursuing public impact. Given our already full schedules and long lists of academic responsibilities, concerns about the added time and energy it would take to achieve a broader impact could loom large. In light of such concerns, we should set realistic expectations for ourselves and keep in mind that our professional lives can have many chapters as our work schedules ebb and flow. At any given moment, we might therefore ask ourselves: Is this really the right time for me to work toward having public impact, or do I have too much on my plate right now? How might pursuing public impact pull me away from other obligations and goals that are priorities for me?

Alternatively, we can also consider the ways in which the time and energy we invest in working toward having public impact can complement our research, teaching, or professional training, or help us to build a foundation for our future academic and professional goals. Either way, it can often be useful to take a step back and reflect on how our desire to make a difference fits within the broader constellation of our professional goals, so that we feel grounded and certain about whichever outreach activities we choose to take on.

Am I sufficiently confident that the science is ready?

As academic scholars, we tend to feel more comfortable speaking in terms of generalities and probabilities rather than in terms of specifics and absolutes. As a consequence, it might feel unnerving to think that a journalist might publicise our research without revealing its nuances, or that a policymaker or community organisation might choose a particular course of action based on seemingly preliminary research findings.

Here, it can be useful for us to remember that we don't necessarily need to have to have all the answers, and that the level of knowledge and expertise we do have can still be quite useful. Indeed, I have been reminded many times by journalists and reporters that there are many other people in the world, without any academic credentials or scientific expertise, who would be more than happy to be quoted in the media; by comparison, those of us who have dedicated many years of our lives to studying specific psychological processes and phenomena surely have some valuable insights to offer. As long as we are honest in sharing our expertise while maintaining our scientific integrity, we can simply explain what we know or don't know, including where gaps exist between existing knowledge in the research literature and the answers or information others might want.

Concluding thoughts

Actively working to make our research matter can be exciting and invigorating, and it can often give deeper meaning to the academic work we do. Collectively, as a discipline, we have only begun to cultivate the presence and influence we could potentially have in the public sphere, speaking to the broader relevance of psychological research for people's lives and society at large. Growing numbers of academic psychologists now actively maintain a dual commitment to psychological science and its relevance outside of academia, at the same time as we witness greater value being granted to impactful research within the mainstream of our field. As such, the time is ripe for academic psychologists to renew our commitment to conducting rigorous scientific research and identifying ways in which we can support many segments of society in putting this research to good use. 

Professor Linda R. Tropp, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, and Faculty Associate, School of Public Policy, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
[email protected]

Key sources

Benjamin, L.T. & Crouse, E.M. (2002). The American Psychological Association's response to Brown v. Board of Education: The case of Kenneth B. Clark. American Psychologist, 57, 38-50.
Clark, K.B., Chein, I. & Cook, S.W. (2004). The effects of segregation and the consequences of desegregation: A social science statement. American Psychologist, 59, 495–501.
(reprint of the social science brief filed with the Supreme Court in October, 1952)
Clark, K.B. & Clark, M.P. (1947). Racial identification and preference among Negro children. In T.M. Newcomb & E.L. Hartley (Eds.) Readings in Social Psychology (pp. 169-178). New York: Holt.
Kaslow, N.J. (2015). Translating psychological science to the public. American Psychologist, 70, 361-371.
Krechevsky, I. (1936, May 26). Telegram to Science Service. SPSSI Files. Archives of the 
History of Psychology, Akron, OH.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1, 143–153.
Lewis, N.A. & Wai, J. (2021). Communicating what we know and what isn't so: Science communication in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16, 1242-1254.
Miller, G.A. (1969). Psychology as a means of promoting human welfare. American 
Psychologist, 24(12), 1063–1075.
Morawski, J.G. (1986). Psychologists for society and societies for psychologists: SPSSI's place among professional organizations. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 111-126.
Omoto, A.M. (2012). Social policy: Barriers and opportunities for personality and social 
psychology. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 804-829). Oxford University Press.
Pettigrew, T.F. (1967). SPSSI as honest broker. SPSSI Newsletter, 117.
Pettigrew, T.F. (1988). Influencing policy with social psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 44, 205-219.
Pielke, R.A. (2007).  The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schalet, A.T., Tropp, L.R. & Troy, L.M. (2020). Making research usable beyond academic circles: A relational model of public engagement. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 20, 336–356.
Tropp, L.R. (Ed.) (2018). Making research matter: A psychologist's guide to public engagement. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Web resources

www.lindatropp.com
Reconciliation programmes in Bosnia and Rwanda
Cultivating Contact | American Immigration Council
Welcoming America
National Coalition on School Diversity
Cases concerning the use of race in university admissions
Fisher v. University of Texas
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College