Category Archives: Advocacy

Where Science Meets Policy Part 4: Writing a Policy Brief

Mary Fernandes, Elyse Mowle, & Melanie Arenson

Why do we need it?

As mentioned in a previous blog post, there is a well-known lack of consistent translation of scientific research into public policy. Researchers and policy-makers often have differing timescales and incentives that contribute to limited communication between the two groups. For example, policy-makers are often required to work under strict deadlines to produce immediate policy results, and their time-constraints frequently preclude them from staying up-to-date on the vast scientific literature pertaining to the issues they are interested in. As a result, research findings that are easily digestible are more likely to be read, utilized, and acted upon. Researchers have the ability to coherently summarize their work into a short document that provides clear recommendations for policy and practice. In fact, 79% of policy-makers identified policy briefs as valuable communication tools (Jones & Walsh, 2008).

So, what is a policy brief?

A policy brief is a short document that summarizes important research findings about a specific problem to a lay audience and makes recommendations for improving the identified problem. The document is typically focused on a single topic, and is no more than 2-4 pages or 1,500 words long. A policy brief is written with an audience in mind, and should be easy to understand without specialized knowledge or additional reading. Succinct, simple, and smart. The main goal of any policy brief is to convince the audience of the urgency of the problem, as well as to provide feasible, evidence-based solutions to it, and calling the policy-maker(s) to action.

Who is it for?

Policy briefs are used by local, national, and regional policy stakeholders. Other individuals or groups who have access to the policy making process (including nonprofits, government advisers, lobbyists, Think Tanks, and the media) also use policy briefs.

How do I write one?

First, identify the aim of your policy brief. What are you trying to achieve, or communicate to your reader? Next, consider your audience. What is their technical knowledge? How familiar are they likely to be with the issue? What information will they need? With your audience and aim in mind, target the key aspects that a policy-maker will want from your policy brief:

Title- It should be informative and short.
Summary- This is like an abstract, but without the jargon. It summarizes the overview of the problem and makes evidence-based recommendations. This section should appear on the top of the first page of your brief and it should draw the reader in.
Introduction- Provide an overview of the context of the problem. Identify a few salient points that provide support for the urgency of the topic. Also, give an overview of the research objectives, findings, and conclusions. Include why this problem is important to the audience, and if applicable, why previous efforts to solve the problem have failed.
Methods/Approach and Results- Here, explain the methodology used in the presented research as well as the results of the project(s). Distill the results into a few, key take-home messages. Be sure to simplify the language and avoid technical terms.
Conclusions- Provide clear conclusions based on the data, and express them in an assertive manner, without scientific jargon. Solidify the key take-away from the study.
Policy Recommendations- Propose solutions that are relevant to the stated policy problem. The brief should systematically and clearly describe the evidence in support of the proposed solutions. Recommendations should be specific and backed by the evidence you outlined. Ensure that your recommendations are appropriate for the audience. All solutions should be realistic and feasible (cost-effective, reasonable, etc.). State the next steps precisely.
References- Include a list of the references used and provide resources they might be helpful. A large list of references, akin to a research paper, is unnecessary and even unhelpful – this should be a small section of your brief!
Disclaimers- Just like in a presentation, detail any funding sources that contributed to the research presented. Also list contact details and institution disclaimers that might be necessary.
Visual aids/Infographics- Infographics and visual aids often make detail-heavy content more digestible and appealing.

When you’re done, ask yourself if the document answers these questions:

  • What is the purpose of the brief?
  • What problem does it hope to address?
  • What recommendations does it make to address the problem?
  • Does it pass the breakfast test? A good policy brief should be able to answer all of these questions and be read in the time that it takes to drink a coffee over breakfast.

Style Tips

  • Draw the reader in by starting with your conclusions. Clearly state what the problem is from the start.
  • Break up the text – use headings, bulleted lists, font or call-out boxes to highlight key points. Have healthy margins and plenty of white space.
  • Write using active rather than passive voice
  • Write for clarity and simplicity. Can you say in one sentence what you just said in two or three? Think “economy of words”. For example:
    • Did you use a bigger word when a smaller one would have worked? (“Operationalize” versus “define”)
    • Can you cut words or phrases without changing the meaning? (“Due to the fact that” versus “because”)

How to disseminate your policy brief?

  • Share with key players in the policy field. Have copies ready for policy-makers whom you meet with.
  • Share with other stakeholders who might influence the policy-making process (see our ‘Science Meets Policy: Part 1’ post for information about stakeholders). If emailing, mention in the body of the email why the brief will be useful to them. Make sure that the subject of your email is concise, says everything that you want to convey, and eye-drawing (ex. “Importance of Science Influencing Policy: A Policy Brief).
  • Strategically plan the timing of your dissemination (i.e. during preparations for policy shifts, while there is media attention, etc.).
  • Submit the brief to journals that specify a call for briefs (https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/ipp/call-for-policy-briefs).
  • Combine with other communication methods such as posters and presentations at conferences.
  • Use social media to disseminate your brief (e.g. newsletters, Facebook, Twitter).

Further Resources

  1. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/594.pdf
  2. https://www.researchtoaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/PBWeekLauraFCfinal.pdf
  3. https://www.mhinnovation.net/sites/default/files/downloads/resource/Tool6_PolicyBrief_14Oct2015.pdf
  4. https://www.spssi.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.ViewPage&pageId=1698
  5. http://blogs.lshtm.ac.uk/griphealth/files/2017/01/Policy-briefs-guide_2015.pdf

Sample Briefs

  1. https://www.rch.org.au/uploadedFiles/Main/Content/ccch/Policy_Brief_24_web.pdf
  2. https://www.emerald-project.eu/fileadmin/websites/emerald/media/Policy_briefs/11._Service_user_and_care_giver_involvement_in_mental_health_system_strengthening_in_Nepal.pdf

References
Jones, Nicola & Walsh, Cora. (2008). Policy Briefs as a Communication Tool for Development Research. ODI Background Notes.

Positioning Your Research as a Graduate Student to Address Social Injustices

By Kevin Wagner and Gabriel Velez

Social injustices involve power relations and unequal access to privileges based on domination and subordination (Miller, 1999; Prilleltensky & Gonick, 1996). Examples abound across the globe, and given their prevalence and impact on human suffering, conducting research to address social injustices are particularly important. As a graduate student, it can feel like there are so many problems in the world and there’s nothing we can do about it. A first step in this journey is recognizing the problems we are most passionate about, identifying our role and resources to address the problem, and then acting in our roles as emerging psychologists. This article is how to do that as grad researchers in psychology by offering an overview of the dissemination and implementation (D&I) literature as a guide to position research to address social injustices. It emerges from our own reflecting, asking ourselves, how can we position our research as graduate students to address social injustices? Below we draw from the D&I literature to outline four guidelines to position research as a graduate student to address social injustices.

Tenet One: Planning Your Research

Bartholomew & Mullen (2011) assert that effective research is guided by theory and empirical evidence. Planning your research to address social injustices means selecting appropriate theories and understanding what empirical evidence provides a strong foundation; design research based on theory to provide sound structure to your investigation. One common framework from the D&I literature to develop change programs is intervention mapping, which includes six core steps: 1) describing the problem (e.g., a phenomenon related to social injustices), 2) developing metrics to measure change (how will you measure the impact of your research, program, or intervention on addressing social injustices?), 3) implementing theory-based intervention to promote change, 4) organizing materials to produce the program cogently, 5) implementing the program with fidelity and with support from others, and 6) creating an evaluation plan to assess the effectiveness of the program (Bartholomew & Mullen, 2011).

Tenet Two: Conducting Your Research

Whether qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods, a critical component of research with a social-justice focus is attentiveness to positionality, diversity, and validity. The many facets require more space than we have here, but we believe it is important to highlight that the research process itself must reflect and be forthright about the social justice orientation of the researcher (Morrow, 2005; Ponterotto, Mathew, & Raughley, 2013). Specifically, best practices to consider for reflection include, 1) cultural competence of the researchers, 2) research focus, 3) selection of research design, 4) composition of research team, 5) power dynamics with participants, and 6) data collection and analysis (Fassinger & Morrow, 2013).

Tenet Three: Disseminating Your Research

Disseminating your research is necessary to share your message and involves spreading information to targeted audiences using determined strategies (Tabak, Khoong, Chambers, Brownson, 2012). In the context of social injustice, it is vital to have your research accessible to relevant stakeholders that can utilize it, such as policy makers, clinicians, advocates, educators, and community members. Of course, sharing your research to non-academic audiences means you will need to communicate academic findings as if you were not an academic. This is difficult, especially when we don’t usually get trained to write that way, so this may involve some self-learning through reading instructional blog posts, finding exemplar writers in your area, and examining APA policy statements. You should also anticipate and plan to address potential barriers, such as costs, time, relationships, and partnerships needed to disseminate your research.

Tenet Four: Implementing Your Research

Once you have conducted your research and generated knowledge, implementation entails applying it to make a difference (Tabak et al., 2012). There are always barriers to doing this. Considerations include: how can the research inform actual policy and practice; what are barriers within applied connects; is the local political and social climate going to be supportive; will a community be receptive to or want to participate in a community-based intervention (Klein & Sorra, 1996)? Observing the organization, conducting surveys, and making connections with desired organizations – that is, studying and caring about the local context – can help you successfully implement the research.

Conclusion:

Social injustices are rife but can be studied and addressed through a psychological lens. As graduate students we were simultaneously in a position of vulnerability (e.g., advisors, programs, student debt) and privilege (e.g., highly educated; access to university/professional resources). Therefore, in many ways graduate student researchers are in a unique position to be keenly aware of injustices and have the resources to make a real difference. Some of these resources can be found in relevant professional and community organizations, such as APAGS subcommittees (e.g., Science, Committee for the Advancement of Racial and Ethnic Diversity, Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, Advocacy Coordinating Team). Having an overall guiding framework can help provide structure and clarity in how to draw on these supports. Therefore, we have offered a brief overview of the D&I literature as a first step for other graduate students interested in delving further into questions of social justice and integrating them into their own work and development. With this goal in mind, we end with a list of some resources for further exploration.

Further Resources for Exploration:

  1. Journals/Volumes
  2. Articles for General Reflection
  3. Organizations

References:

Bartholomew, L. K., & Mullen, P. D. (2011). Five Roles for Using Theory and Evidence in the Design and Testing of Behavior Change Interventions. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 71, S20-S33.

Fassinger, R., & Morrow, S. L. (2013). Toward Best Practices in Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed-Method Research: A Social Justice Perspective. Journal for Social Action in Counseling & Psychology, 5(2), 69-83.

Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The Challenge of Innovation Implementation. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055-1080.

Miller, D. (1999). Principles of Social Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research in Counseling Psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250-260.

Ponterotto, J. G., Mathew, J. T., & Raughley, B. (2013). The Value of Mixed Methods Designs to Social Justice Research in Counseling and Psychology. Journal for Social Action in Counseling & Psychology, 5(2), 42-68.

Prilleltensky, I., & Gonick, L. (1996). Polities Change, Oppression Remains: On the Psychology and Politics of Oppression. Political Psychology, 17(1), 127-148.

Tabak, R. G., Khoong, E. C., Chambers, D. A., & Brownson, R. C. (2012). Bridging Research and Practice: Models for Dissemination and Implementation Research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43(3), 337-350.

About the Authors:

Kevin Wagner is a second year Ph.D. student in counseling psychology at the University of Texas at Austin (Email).

Gabriel Velez is a fifth year Ph.D. candidate in Comparative Human Development at the University of Chicago (Email).

APA Responds to the Argosy Crisis

APA responds to the Argosy University Crisis

As a surreal situation unfolds at Argosy University and its campuses around the country, APA desires to help as much as possible within our powers. We have been busy devoting considerable resources to impacted individuals and working with various stakeholders.

Late last night, our APA President and the Chair of our Council Leadership Team issued a joint statement that read in part: “Our principal charge is to protect students and the public by promoting consistent quality in the teaching of psychology…We are developing a nimble advocacy strategy…Moreover, we are in constant contact with relevant agencies and other affected accreditors, so that we stay apprised of the rapidly changing terrain…If Argosy closes, the next step will be to work with Argosy and any programs or institutions, arranging teach-out or transfer plans….APA is committed to continuing to do all within its scope as an accreditor to facilitate these transitions.”

We are keeping a new page updated regularly: www.apa.org/apags/argosy. It contains answers to a number of commons questions; instructs affected students on how to advocate; and provides some resources and links.  One of these resources is the Psychology Student Action Center, which our APAGS staff set up to respond to people in real time to the extent we can keep pace. Please share the page with anyone who may need it.

It is important that members of the psychology community do all we can to recognize the significant ways that Argosy students and faculty have been affected by the actions and circumstances surrounding their education at Argosy University. Students and faculty are the innocent bystanders to what has been happening.

My hope is that the intensity of this situation will diminish quickly and that new paths may emerge soon.

–Eddy Ameen, PhD, Associate Executive Director of Early Career and Graduate Student Affairs at the American Psychological Association in Washington, DC.

Where Science Meets Policy Part 2: How to Write Academic Papers for a Broad Range of Stakeholders

Mary Fernandes, Renee Cloutier, Travis Loughran, Melanie Arenson

If you’re here after our last post on “Involving Stakeholders in Every Step of Your Research”, welcome back! In our last post, we discussed what a stakeholder is, why we should involve
them in our research work, and how we can efficiently do so. However, we shouldn’t stop there! One next step to increasing the impact that your research has on policy is to effectively convey your completed work to these invested stakeholders. This can be hard to do, so below are a few tips that might make this easier.

First, write with stakeholders in mind.
In order to write a paper that will affect public policy, first ask yourself the questions, “who will read this?”, and, “who will be affected by this?” (Purdue University, OWL). Frame your scientific paper with this audience in mind, whether it be policy makers, insurance companies, businesses, local citizens, patients, or providers. Remembering your unique audience will allow you to communicate your work at the level of your reader. With the policy implications of your work in mind, you might also carefully consider the right journal to submit to. For example, you could choose to submit your work to a journal that is less niche than you might normally submit to and more general or policy focused.

Always lead with the “why”, not the “what”.
Then, ask yourself why your work should matter to your stakeholders. Discuss these reasons succinctly and clearly to grab your stakeholders’ attention before describing what it is you did. By failing to address the “why”, you might lose your stakeholders from the very beginning. But how do you ensure that your reasons for your study line up with those of your stakeholders? How do you identify what your “why” is?

Figuring that out will require you to really understand your stakeholders’ concerns. Hopefully, you were able to use the above strategies to include stakeholders while planning your research, but if you did not, it’s not too late to do so. Speak to them with a goal of truly understanding their principal concerns. Ask them questions about what they would like to see solutions to. Discuss your project with them and inquire about their feedback and unique insights into the usefulness of your work. Once you have a clear idea of what policy problems your project can tackle, lead with it. Keep in mind that a policy problem is not always the same as a scientific problem.

Continue reading →

CARED Perspectives: Voter Suppression and Wellbeing

By Lincoln Hill, MA

This blog post is a part of the series, “CARED Perspectives,” developed by the APAGS Committee for the Advancement of Racial and Ethnic Diversity. This series will discuss current events and how these events relate to graduate students in psychology. If you are interested in contributing to the CARED Perspectives series, please contact Lincoln Hill.

polling stationThe 2018 United States midterm elections ushered in record-breaking voter turnout with 49.4% of possible voters casting a ballot in the elections compared to just 36.7% in 2014. Following the election, media coverage heavily focused on this notable turnout and the many progressive policy proposals and surge of diverse candidates. However some of the biggest news stories that emerged from the election period centered on voter suppression. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defines voter suppression as “measures to make it harder for Americans—particularly black people, the elderly, students, and people with disabilities—to exercise their fundamental right to cast a ballot.” With increased attention to claims of voter roll purges, poll closures, gerrymandering, and biased voter ID laws, voter suppression poses a violation to constitutional rights as well as human rights. These measures disproportionately affect racial minority and other marginalized communities, obstruct healthy democracy, and challenge the dignities and well-being of those directly impacted.

When individuals are denied opportunities to actively participate in decision-making processes that impact their well-being and environment such as democratic elections, they are deprived of their basic human rights. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Hence, voter suppression and disenfranchisement (the state of being deprived the right to vote) remain in discordance with these universal standards.

From a social ecological perspective, health is not solely influenced by individual traits and factors, but also the social environment within which individuals reside. Common political issues such as education and healthcare policies directly influence an individual’s social world. As such, voter suppression tactics that hinder civic engagement also hinder opportunities for individuals to participate in altering their environments by voting on integral issues –which quite literally impacts their health and well-being.

As psychologists-in-training, we should position ourselves as staunch advocates for voting rights and protections. We must ensure that all citizens have the ability to participate in decision-making processes, thus preserving their dignity and value as citizens and community members.

Steps you can take as a graduate student to advocate for the preservation of voting rights:

  • Educate yourself and others about restrictive voting laws and policies by state
  • Contact your local government representatives and hold them accountable for suppressive voting measures
    • Advocate for voter registration expansion
  • Create voting information guides
  • Participate in community outreach opportunities to inform citizens of voter suppression tactics and pressing issues that may influence their health and wellbeing
  • If you are concerned about yours or others’ voting rights being violated, the ACLU recommends contacting the Election Protection Hotline (866-OUR-VOTE), the Department of Justice Voting Rights Hotline (800-253-3931), or an attorney
  • Volunteer at your next local election poll and advocate on behalf of other voters for equitable treatment

For more information and additional advocacy tips: