Welcome to part 2 of “Research into Action.” When last I wrote, I was reminding researchers that their research does not need to just gather dust on a bookshelf (including the virtual bookshelf). Div. 37 continues to promote evidence-based policy. Last time, I mentioned the
congressional briefing on homelessnessopens in new window
that we co-sponsored. We also recently co-sponsored a
congressional briefing on school gun violenceopens in new window
in the wake of the Parkland shooting. These are just some examples of YOUR annual membership dollars hard at work to make a difference by translating research into advocacy efforts. APA just had a cover story on
advocacy
.
Because lawmakers prefer to promote evidence-based policies, we can play a pivotal role by providing them the research they need to advance their agenda. Last time, I linked you to examples of how research informed several federal policies. Identify a lawmaker – or lawmakers - you believe has the ability to affect change. (It is ideal for you to be one of their constituents so that you can make the issue relevant for their state or region.) Capitalize on that lawmaker’s agenda. Identify how your research has direct relevance to the lawmaker’s constituency. Do your homework: study their websites, call their local offices, watch what issues they care about, and search for common ground. Your research might just contribute an answer to something on which they have been working!
Don’t see something from scouring their websites? What are the statistics on prevalence in their communities for the problem area that you research? What is the estimated impact of that issue in their communities? Does your research inform recommendations of what could help reduce that prevalence or mitigate the impact? You can make it relevant to them. You are doing them a favor by bringing timely and relevant expertise. Lawmakers don’t want to hear that something is a problem without suggested solutions — emphasis on plural solutions to allow lawmakers to consider options for what could foreseeably be implemented. This part is what is known as “the ask” — what specifically can they do to make the problem better? Asks can include items such as co-sponsoring legislation and funding local nonprofits who are already working to combat the problem.
Once you see how you can make yourself relevant to the lawmaker, package a 30-second elevator message. In other words, boil down how you think your research could solve a problem that means something to their agenda and is relevant to their constituencies. You can’t always count on having a long period of time to meet with a lawmaker, and that’s why the elevator speech is important. Imagine you bump into a legislator on an elevator ride...What is the most essential element you want to convey? If you can distill its impact and relevance for them, you may just make that lawmaker want to pause to hear more, maybe even give you two full minutes. (Georgia Center for Nonprofits has an example of a two-minute ask.) If you aren’t sure how impactful your 30-second pitch is, practice it on others until you feel like you can hit the highlights on why you have research knowledge and a possible solution to something that would advance their agenda.
Need help? Get some training and ideas (see the Frameworks Instituteopens in new window for examples). Often researchers must persuade funders of their researchers, so consider the time you spend preparing for meeting with or writing legislators time well-spent.