By Mary Hyde

Evidence enthusiasts convened at The Brookings Institution on Dec. 1 to participate in the release event for a new book, Show Me the Evidence, written by Ron Haskins and Greg Margolis. One of many salient points made by Haskins during this event was the fact that the federal tiered-evidence initiatives have integrated social science research into public policy conversations in unprecedented ways.

Getting scientific evidence a seat at this policy-making table has been a revolutionary endeavor undertaken by a tenacious network of committed individuals in both the public and private/nonprofit sectors. These early successes have been achieved despite what Haskins and others at the launch event described as a “conflict of cultures.”

Ideology may trump data at the end of most days in the public policy arena, but maintaining a space for all perspectives in the dialogue may get us closer to solving our country’s most intractable social problems.

Building a body of scientific evidence takes time. Study results are typically complex and contingent, rarely definitive. The social programs held up today by Jon Baron’s Top Tier Evidence Initiative or funded as part of a tiered-evidence initiative (e.g., home visiting models) were tested and refined over several years of research. In contrast, the norms of the public policy arena demand clear-cut and quickly generated answers that can be used in complex decision-making processes whose timelines are rarely aligned with those of social science research agendas.

Service providers and social innovators like those participating in the Corporation for National and Community Service Social Innovation Fund often view knowledge-building through very different lenses – valuing untested strategies, practitioner wisdom and first-hand experience over scientific findings that either offer little practical guidance in the face of pressing need or are perceived as irrelevant to the issues they are facing in their communities.

Bridging these conflicting cultural norms will be critical to the future success of these tiered-evidence initiatives. Reaching agreement about how much evidence is enough to make those high-stakes decisions about expanding, modifying, or eliminating social programs will require the same level of commitment demonstrated by the group of trailblazers Haskins and Margolis pay homage to in their book.

Creating cross-cultural learning norms within our institutions may help keep evidence at the table in the coming years. Establishing such norms will require researchers, policymakers, and service providers to recalibrate their expectations of one another and themselves. In addition, the various sources of knowledge that these groups typically ascribe value to will require mutual understanding and respect.

Ideology may trump data at the end of most days in the public policy arena, but maintaining a space for all perspectives in the dialogue may get us closer to solving our country’s most intractable social problems.

Mary Hyde is the Deputy Director of Research and Evaluation at the Corporation for National and Community Service.