Politics of neutrality: intermediaries and research use in civics programming

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Mariah Kornbluh

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Politics of neutrality: intermediaries and research use in civics programming‘, part of the Evidence & Policy Special Issue: Research (Mis)use and Mis/Disinformation in and around Education.

Public education has become a political environment fraught with misinformation in the United States.  Book bans, educational gag orders and outright educator censorship influence (sometimes heavily) local school district policy. International efforts have highlighted that civics education offers a unique avenue in educating for a ‘just’ democracy. However, global trends and mounting national pressure highlights the curriculum’s vulnerability to being censored, constricted and outright distorted.

The problem: ‘neutrality’ perpetuating research misuse within civics education

Engaging in discourse on social issues and events that are relevant to students’ lives is an incredibly valuable method for them to gain needed civics skills. Yet, educators operate in an oppressive policy context that dissuades such practices and politicises historic events. Civics education has historically promoted neutrality as a pedagogical good which often manifests in a ‘both-sideism’ framework. This framework prioritises presenting ‘both sides’ of a social issue, often to the detriment of accuracy. Such an approach has been critiqued when 1) specific issues have overwhelming scientific evidence (i.e., climate change), but are presented as ‘open questions’, contributing to misinformation, and 2) such a format can set the stage for false equivalences in discourse around social injustice. Thus, the quest for ‘neutrality’ is a contested pedagogical approach within civics education, yet it has not been explored through the lens of research misuse.

Continue reading →

Implementation, improvement, knowledge mobilisation: what is the best way to get research evidence into healthcare practice?

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Judith Dyson, Laura Swaithes, Helen Nankervis, Una Kerin and Fiona Cowdell

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Knowledge-to-care: is there a best way of support practitioners to getting evidence into practice? An ongoing debate‘.

Getting evidence into practice is a stubborn problem. The most common approaches we see in the published literature are badged i) implementation science (ImpS), ii) improvement science (ImpR) and iii) knowledge mobilisation (KMb) with a lot of authors also citing the need for iv) public patient involvement and engagement (PPIE) and v) co-designing (Co-D) strategies to support best practices with stakeholders (usually healthcare practitioners, patients and commissioners). The questions we sought to address was: What is the best approach to improving quality of care. What strategies do we choose to improve care under what circumstances? To answer this conundrum, we conducted two reviews of the literature: top down (consulting theoretical papers from well-known authors in these fields) and bottom up (using a systematic search to sample papers from each of these fields). We held workshops with people who identified as being an expert in any of the five approaches listed above and then distributed a survey with these and similar experts.

Continue reading →

Fighting misinformation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what we still need to learn

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Maithreyi Gopalan and Francesca Lopez

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Countermeasures to misinformation: lessons from the social sciences and applications to education in the United States‘, part of the Evidence & Policy Special Issue: Research (Mis)use and Mis/Disinformation in and around Education.

In today’s polarised political climate, misinformation about education has fueled book bans, educational gag orders and teacher self-censorship – developments that threaten the integrity of our public education system. From debates about critical race theory to evidence-based teaching practices, false or misleading claims spread rapidly, shaping policy decisions at school, district, state and federal levels.

Despite the urgency of this problem, there is remarkably little research on how misinformation spreads in education or how to effectively counter it. In a new study published in Evidence & Policy, we comprehensively review and synthesise evidence from about 400 studies published broadly in the social sciences between 2010 and 2024 to identify what we know (and don’t know) about fighting misinformation in the uniquely decentralised world of US public education.

Research shows that false information spreads faster and more broadly than true information online, making this work especially urgent. While scholars continue to debate how best to define and study misinformation, we adopt a broad, inclusive definition of misinformation encompassing both intentional and unintentional false or misleading information consistent with prevailing expert guidance. We use the term misinformation throughout the review to describe the full spectrum of inaccurate or distorted information, regardless of intent and are particularly focused on uncovering remedies to mitigate ‘systemic misinformation’ that operates through mis-, dis- and mal-information channels.

Continue reading →

Far-right mother organisations and their crusade against public education

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Danfeng Soto-Vigil Koon, Huriya Jabbar, Kiah Combs, Mira McDavitt, Tamra J. Malone and Teresa Leyva

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Mama bears in the belly of the beast: Moms for Liberty disinformation campaigns in California’, part of the Evidence & Policy Special Issue: Research (Mis)use and Mis/Disinformation in and around Education.

Far-right extremism – often characterised by nativism, religious fundamentalism, White supremacy and misogyny – is on the rise worldwide. And education has become a key battleground. The thought of far-right extremism often conjures images of angry young men, but the attack on public education in the United States and associated democratic institutions (such as local and regional elected school boards) has actually been spearheaded by a highly coordinated mothers’ organisation, Moms for Liberty.

Showing up at state houses and school board meetings to oppose sex education, challenge accurate and inclusive teaching of history, ban books, accuse teachers of sexually grooming children and oust educational leaders, Moms for Liberty projects a loud voice intent on reshaping education. Research on their tactics and consequences is growing, but far less attention has been paid to how they build support through disinformation in progressive states like California, where Moms for Liberty leaders describe themselves as vanguards ‘in the belly of the beast’.

Our study situates Moms for Liberty within a longer history of far-right women’s movements in the United States and internationally. We examine their organisational structure, activities, core messages and long-term strategies.

Continue reading →

How can we tell if citizen participation actually works? A new framework for measuring impact

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Franziska Sörgel, Nora Weinberger, Julia Hahn, Christine Milchram and Maria Maia

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Assessing the effectiveness of citizen participation: the development of an impact scheme’.

Citizen participation has become central to research policy, yet we rarely ask the crucial follow-up question: what difference does it actually make? In our recent Evidence & Policy article, we propose an impact scheme that helps to move participation from a well-intentioned ritual to a practice with measurable, meaningful effects.   

The last decade has seen an explosion of participatory formats designed to gather citizen and stakeholder feedback on science and innovation policy. From citizens’ assemblies to co-creation workshops, public dialogue has become the new punctuation mark in research agendas and beyond. Nevertheless, a fundamental problem persists: we lack systematic ways to measure whether these processes genuinely influence research priorities or merely provide a democratic façade with little real impact. This gap matters enormously for both research institutions that invest resources in participation and for citizens who provide their time and expertise. 

Continue reading →

Youth research as real school improvement

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Adam M. Voight, Rosalinda Godinez, Xiaona Jin, Amirhassan Javadi, Marissa J. Panzarella and Katelyne J. Griffin-Todd

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘The effects of youth participatory action research on education policy: a mixed methods study of three dozen high school projects‘, part of the Evidence & Policy Special Issue: The Role of Youth-Led Research in Policy Change.

Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) has long been celebrated for how deeply it engages young people in understanding – and acting on – the issues that shape their educational lives. But increasingly, practitioners and policymakers are recognising something larger: YPAR is not simply a youth development strategy or an engagement initiative. It is an emerging two-in-one approach that strengthens both young people and the institutions that serve them. When students conduct rigorous, locally grounded research and bring their findings to decision-makers, they simultaneously build the very ‘future-ready’ skills that educators value while generating evidence that can help schools improve.

Our study published in Evidence & Policy presents the strongest empirical demonstration of this school-level impact to date. Drawing on data from 36 discrete YPAR projects in high schools across the U.S. Midwest, it is – based on our review of the literature – the largest analysis ever conducted on the setting-level effects of YPAR. This scale matters. Much of what we previously knew about YPAR’s institutional influence came from one-off case studies or anecdotes about a particularly successful project. Those accounts are important, but they leave open a crucial question: under what conditions does youth-led research catalyse real change in schools?

By looking across dozens of projects rather than a handful, our study offers the first systematic evidence of the patterns, strategies and contexts that predict whether students’ research leads to changes in school policy, practice or culture.

Continue reading →

Evidence & Policy 2025 Carol Weiss Award

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment

We are thrilled to announce the prize for the 2025 Carol Weiss Award winning paper published in Evidence & Policy. The Carol Weiss Prize is in honour of Dr Carol Weiss, the first North American Editor of Evidence & Policy, and a pivotal contributor and thinker to our field. The award is given every two years to early career contributors to the journal.

This award cycle, we are delighted to announce that the winners of the 2025 Carol Weiss Prize are Lise Moawad and Dr Sebastian Ludwicki-Ziegler for their Evidence & Policy article, ‘Social studies, technology assessment and the pandemic: a comparative analysis of social studies-based policy advice in PTA institutions in France, Germany and the UK during the COVID-19 crisis’.

Continue reading →

New Evidence & Policy issue – Volume 21: Issue 4

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment

The editorial team of Evidence & Policy is pleased to see the publication of our fourth and final issue for 2025, Evidence & Policy Volume 21: Issue 4. This issue has a lot of work focused on how political elites use and are impacted by evidence in the policymaking process. A major thread through this work is that while evidence has an impact, there are important limitations.

The first piece examines programs designed to support scientists and engineers in engaging in public policy, specifically studying the state of Virginia. Through surveys and interviews of program leaders, the study finds evidence of perceived impact, though limits in the ability to implement evidence-based approaches.

The second article also finds impact and its limitation, but this time using policy documents. They find that policy think tanks draw from academic expertise more readily than governments.

Continue reading →

Supporting effective collaboration in large transdisciplinary research teams

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Taru Silvonen and Ges Rosenberg

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Optimising teamworking processes in an ongoing research consortium: a qualitative study’.

Considering collaboration is needed to solve complex societal problems, why are the structures that can help teams work together so often overlooked in research settings?

Complex research projects often require large teams with a wide range of expertise to work together. Working across disciplines and professional boundaries can be exciting but also comes with its own challenges, as shown by research in team science. These challenges are particularly present in transdisciplinary partnerships that aim to tackle evolving societal challenges, which makes our work relevant beyond academic teams. While interdisciplinary teams combine knowledge from different fields, transdisciplinary teams aim to create real-world change by involving both academic and non-academic partners. This provides opportunities for peer learning as well as bridging thinking between different perspectives. However, an appreciation of different ways of working, thinking, and communicating within a team will be required.

Our Evidence & Policy article shares insights from a UK-based research consortium called TRUUD (Tackling Root Causes Upstream of Unhealthy Urban Development), which focuses on creating healthier urban environments to reduce non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in the UK. TRUUD consists of 40+ academics in a transdisciplinary consortium, meaning it does not just combine academic disciplines – it also includes practitioners and stakeholders working together to solve real problems. Our qualitative study explores what helps large, complex teams work well together, especially in transdisciplinary (TD) settings, and how to overcome common challenges (i.e. building shared understanding and navigating conflict).

Continue reading →

Knowledge sharing in integrated care teams: why bringing people together isn’t enough

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Vicky Ward

In this blog post Vicky Ward responds to questions from Co-Editor-in-Chief, Dan Mallinson about her recent publication, ‘Knowledge practices in integrated care: an examination of health and social care teams using collective knowledge creation theory’.

Integrated care is commonly seen as the means to bridge gaps between organisations, services and professions across the health and care landscape and improve care. The promise is compelling: bring health and social care practitioners together, and they’ll share their expertise to create holistic, joined-up care for people with complex needs. Simple, right?

Not quite. After spending over two years observing case management meetings across five integrated teams, I found that knowledge sharing was far messier than the policy rhetoric suggests. My research drew on organisational knowledge creation theory to reveal four patterns that help explain why this is the case.

Continue reading →