Institute for Education Policy Studies
Graduate School of Education and Human Development

Influencing the Policy Process With Qualitative Research

Ray C. Rist, Ph.D.
The George Washington University

Reprinted with permission of the author and publisher from:
Rist, Ray C. (1994). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research.
In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.)
Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 545-557).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CENTER for POLICY STUDIES:
Graduate School of Education and Human Development

Influencing the Policy Process With Qualitative Research

Ray C. Rist
The George Washington University

Author's Note: The views expressed here are those of the author, and no
endorsement by the U.S. General Accounting Office is intended or should be inferred.

MORE than 20 years ago, James Coleman wrote, "There is no body of methods; no comprehensive methodology for the study of the impact of public policy as an aid to future policy." This now-famous quote still rings true. Indeed, one can argue that in the intervening decades, the tendency in policy research and analysis has become ever more centrifugal, spinning off more methodologies and variations on methodologies, more conceptual frameworks, and more disarray among those who call themselves policy analysts or see themselves working in the area of policy studies. A number of critics of the current scene of policy studies and the attendant applications of so many different methodologies have argued that any improvements in the techniques of policy research have not led to greater clarity about what to think or what to do. More charitably, it could be said that the multiplicity of approaches to policy research should be welcomed, as they bring different skills and strengths to what are admittedly difficult and complex issues.

Regardless of whether one supports or challenges the contention that policy research has had a centrifugal impact on the knowledge base relevant to policy making, the bottom line remains much the same: What policy researchers tend to consider as improvements in their craft have not significantly enhanced the role of research in policy making. Instead, the proliferation of persons, institutes, and centers conducting policy-related work has led to more variation in the manner by which problems are defined, more divergence in the ways in which studies are designed and conducted, and more disagreement and controversy over the ways in which data are analyzed and findings reported. The policy maker now confronts a veritable glut of differing (if not conflicting) research information.

A sobering but provocative counterintuitive logic is at work here: Increased personnel, greater allocation of resources, and growing sophistication of methods have not had the anticipated or demonstrated effect of greater clarity and understanding of the policy issues before the country. Rather, current efforts have led to a more complex, complicated, and partial view of the issues and their solutions. Further, as Smith (1991) would argue, this tendency to greater complexity has left both the policy makers and the citizens less able to understand the issues and to see how their actions might affect the present condition.

Whereas one may grant that early analyses, for example, in the areas of education or social welfare, were frequently simplistic and not especially sophisticated in either the design or application of policy methods, the inverse does not, in and of itself, work to the advantage of the policy maker. Stated differently, to receive a report resplendent with "state-of-the-art" methodologies and complex analyses that tease out every nuance and shade of meaning on an issue may provide just as little guidance for effective decision making as did the former circumstances. The present fixation on the technical adequacy of policy research without a commensurate concern for its utilization is to relegate that work to quick obscurity (Chelimsky, 1982).

If this admittedly brief description of the current state of policy research approximates the reality, then a fundamental question arises: Is the presumption correct that research cannot be conducted that is relevant to the policy process? It is my view that the presumption is not correct. Research can contribute to informed decision making, but the manner in which this is done needs to be reformulated. We are well past the time when it is possible to argue that good research will, because it is good, influence the policy process. That kind of linear relation of research to action simply is not a viable way in which to think about how knowledge can inform decision making. The relation is both more subtle and more tenuous. Still, there is a relation. It is my intent in this chapter to address how some of the linkages of knowledge and action are formed, particularly for the kinds of knowledge generated through qualitative research.¹

The Nature of Policy Decision Making

Policy making is multidimensional and multifaceted. Research is but one (and often minor at that) among the number of frequently contradictory and competing sources that seek to influence what is an ongoing and constantly evolving process. The emphasis here on policy making being a process is deliberate. It is a process that evolves through cycles, with each cycle more or less bounded, more or less constrained by time, funds, political support, and other events. It is also a process that circles back on itself, iterates the same decision issue time and again, and often does not come to closure. Choosing not to decide is a frequent outcome.

Such a description of the policy process suggests the need for a modification, if not a fundamental refraining, of the traditional understanding of policy making. In this latter, more traditional approach, decision making in the policy arena is understood as a discrete event, undertaken by a defined set of actors working in "real time" and moving to their decision on the basis of an analysis of their alternatives. Weiss (1982) has nicely summarized this notion of "decision making as an event":

Both the popular and the academic literature picture decision making as an event; a group of authorized decision makers assemble at particular times and places, review a problem (or opportunity), consider a number of alternative courses of action with more or less explicit calculation of the advantages and disadvantages of each option, weigh the alternatives against their goals or preferences, and then select an alternative that seems well suited for achieving their purposes. The result is a decision. (p. 23)

She also nicely demolishes this view when she writes:

Given the fragmentation of authority across multiple bureaus, departments, and legislative committees, and the disjointed stages by which actions coalesce into decisions, the traditional model of decision making is a highly stylized rendition of reality. Identification of any clear-cut group of decision makers can be difficult. (Sometimes a middle-level bureaucrat has taken the key action, although he or she may be unaware that his or her action was going to be--or was-- decisive.) The goals of policy are often equally diffuse, except in terms of "taking care of" some undesirable situation. Which opinions are considered, and what set of advantages or disadvantages are assessed, may be impossible to tell in the interactive, multiparticipant, diffuse process of formulating policy. The complexity of governmental decision making often defies neat compartmentalization. (p. 26)

Of particular relevance here is that the focus on decision making as an ongoing set of adjustments, or midcourse corrections, eliminates the bind of having to pinpoint the event--that is, the exact time, place, and manner--in which research has been influential on policy. Parenthetically, because the specifics can seldom be supplied, the notion that research should have an impact on decision making seems to have become more and more an article of faith. That researchers have so persistently misunderstood decision making, and yet have constantly sought to be of influence, is a situation deserving of considerably more analysis than it receives. So long as researchers presume that research findings must be brought to bear upon a single event, a discrete act of decision making, they will be missing those circumstances and processes where, in fact, research can be useful. However, the reorientation away from "event decision making" and to "process decision making" necessitates looking at research as serving an "enlightenment function" in contrast to an "engineering function" (see Janowitz, 1971; Patton, 1988; Weiss, 1988).

Viewing policy research as serving an enlightenment function suggests that policy researchers work with policy makers and their staffs over time to create a contextual understanding about an issue, build linkages that will exist over time, and strive constantly to educate about new developments and research findings in the area. This is in contrast to the engineering perspective, where it is presumed that sufficient data can be brought to bear to determine the direction and intensity of the intended policy initiative, much as one can develop the specifications for the building of a bridge. If the policy direction is sufficiently explicit, then the necessary information relevant to the development of the policy can be collected, so this view would contend, and the policy actions can be deliberate, directed, and successful.

These comments should not be taken as a diatribe against research or an argument that knowledge counts for naught. Quite the contrary. Systematic knowledge generated by research is an important and necessary component in the decision-making process. Further, it is fair to note that there is seldom enough research-based information available in the policy arena. William Ruckelshaus once noted that although he was the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, he made many decisions when there was less than 10% of the necessary research information available to him and his staff. The relevance and usefulness of policy research will not become apparent, however, unless there is a reconsideration of what is understood by decision making in the policy process. A redefinition is needed of the context in which to look for a linkage between knowledge and action. Unpacking the nature of the policy cycle is the strategy employed here to address this redefinition of policy decision making.

The Policy Cycle and Qualitative Research

There are two levels of decision making in the policy arena. The first involves the establishment of the broad parameters of government action, such as providing national health insurance, establishing a national energy policy, restructuring the national immigration laws, or reexamining the criteria for determining the safety and soundness of the country's financial institutions. At this level and in these instances, policy research input is likely to be quite small, if not nil. The setting of these national priorities is a political event, a coming together of a critical mass of politicians, special interest groups, and persons in the media who are able among them to generate the attention and focus necessary for the items to reach the national agenda.

"Iron triangles" built by the informal linking of supporters in each of these three arenas are not created by the presence or absence of policy research. One or another research study might be quoted in support of the contention that the issue deserves national attention, but it is incidental to the more basic task of first working to place the issue on the national agenda. If one wishes to influence any of the players during this phase of the policy process, it is much more likely to be done through personal contact, by organizations taking positions, or through the creation of sufficient static in the policy system (for example, lining up special interest groups in opposition to a proposal, even as there are groups in favor). This works to the benefit of the opposition in that media coverage will have to be seen to be "balanced" and coverage of the opposition can create the impression that there is not the strong unified support for a position that otherwise would seem to be the case.

Once the issue is on the agenda of key actors or organizations within the policy establishment, there are possibilities for the introduction and utilization of policy research. It is here at this second level of policy making--the level where there are concerns about translating policy intentions into policy and programmatic realities--that I will focus in this chapter.

The framework in which the contributions of policy research in general and qualitative research in particular can best be understood is that of the policy cycle, a concept that has been addressed for more than a decade (see, e.g., Chelimsky, 1985; Guba, 1984; Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980; Rist, 1989,1990,1993). 1 will develop my discussion of the policy cycle here according to its three phases--policy formulation, policy implementation, and policy accountability. Each of these three phases has its own order and logic, its own information requirements, and its own policy actors. Further, there is only some degree of overlap among the three phases, suggesting that they do merit individual analysis and understanding.

The opportunities for qualitative research within the policy cycle are thus defined and differentiated by the information requirements at each phase. The questions asked at each phase are distinct, and the information generated in response to these same questions is used to different ends. It is to a detailed examination of these three phases of the policy cycle and the manner in which qualitative research can inform each phase that I now turn.

Policy Formulation

Nakamura and Smallwood (1980) define a policy as follows: "A policy can be thought of as a set of instructions from policy makers to policy implementors that spell out both goals and the means for achieving those goals" (p. 31). How is it that these instructions are crafted, by whom, and with what relevant policy information and analysis? The answers can provide important insights into the process of policy formulation. Nakamura and Smallwood offer a relevant departure point with their description of the actors involved in policy formulation:

In general, the principal actors in policy formulation are the "legitimate" or formal policy makers: people who occupy positions in the governmental arena that entitle them to authoritatively assign priorities and commit resources. These people include elected officials, legislators, and high-level administrative appointees, each of whom must follow prescribed paths to make policy.... Since these formal policy makers represent diverse constituencies--electoral, administrative, and bureaucratic--the policy making process offers many points of access through which interest groups and others from arenas outside government can exercise influence. Thus policy making usually involves a diverse set of authoritative, or formal, policy makers, who operate within the govern- mental arena, plus a diverse set of special interest and other constituency groups from outside arenas, who press their demands on these formal leaders. (pp. 31-32)

As the formulation process begins, there are a number of pressing questions. Answering each question necessitates the compiling of whatever information is currently available plus the development of additional information when the gaps are too great in what is currently known. The information needs can generally be clustered around three broad sets of questions. Each of these clusters is highly relevant to policy formulation; in each there are important opportunities for the presentation and utilization of qualitative research.

The first set of information needs revolves around an understanding of the policy issue at hand. What are the contours of this issue? Is the problem or condition one that is larger now than before, about the same, or smaller? Is anything known about whether the nature of the condition has changed? Do the same target populations, areas, or institutions experience this condition now as earlier? How well can the condition be defined? How well can the condition be measured? What are the different interpretations and understandings about the condition, its causes and its effects? The issue here, stated differently, is one of the ability of policy makers to define clearly and understand the problem or condition that they are facing and for which they are expected to develop a response.

Charles Lindblom (1968) has nicely captured some of the conceptual complexity facing policy makers as they try to cope with the definition of a policy problem or condition:

Policy makers are not faced with a given problem. Instead they have to identify and formulate their problem. Rioting breaks out in dozens of American cities. What is the problem? Maintaining law and order? Racial discrimination? Incipient revolution? Black power? Low income? Lawlessness at the fringe of an otherwise relatively peaceful reform movement? Urban disorganization? Alienation? (p. 13)

The second cluster of questions focuses on what has taken place previously in response to this condition or problem. What programs or projects have previously been initiated? How long did they last? How successful were they? What level of funding was required? How many staff members were required? How receptive were the populations or institutions to these initiatives? Did they request help or did they resist the interventions? Did the previous efforts address the same condition or problem as currently exists, or was it different? If it was different, how so? If it was the same, why are yet additional efforts necessary? Are the same interest groups involved? What may explain any changes in the present interest group coalition?

The third cluster of questions relevant to the policy formulation stage of the cycle focuses on what is known of the previous efforts and their impacts that would help one choose among present-day options. Considering trade-offs among various levels of effort in comparison to different levels of cost is but one among several kinds of data relevant to considering the policy options. There may also be data on the time frames necessary before one could hope to see impacts. Trade-offs between the length of the developmental stage of the program and the eventual impacts are relevant, particularly if there are considerable pressures for short-term solutions. The tendency to go to "weak thrust, weak effect" strategies is well understood in these circumstances. Alternatively, if previous efforts did necessitate a considerable period of time for measurable outcomes to appear, how did the policy makers in those circumstances hold on to the public support and keep the coalitions intact long enough for the results to emerge?

Qualitative research is highly relevant to the information needs at this stage in the policy cycle. Studies on the social construction of problems, on the differing interpretations of social conditions, on the building and sustaining of coalitions for change, on previous program initiatives and their impacts, on community and organizational receptivity to programs, on organizational stability and cohesion during the formulation stage, and on the changing nature of social conditions are all germane to the questions posed here.

There is an additional contribution that qualitative work can make at this stage of the policy process, and it is that of studying the intended and unintended consequences of the various policy instruments or tools that might be selected as the means to implement the policy (Salamon, 1989). There is a present need within the policy community to ascertain what tools work best in which circumstances and for which target populations. Very little systematic work has been done in this area--which frequently leaves policy makers essentially to guess as to the trade-offs between the choice of one tool and another.

Information of the kind provided by qualitative research can be of significant help in making decisions, for example, about whether to provide direct services in health, housing, and education or provide vouchers to recipients, whether to provide direct cash subsidies or tax credits to employers who will hire unemployed youth, and whether to increase funding for information campaigns or to increase taxes as strategies to discourage smoking. These are but three examples where different policy tools are available and where choices will have to be made among them.

Key among the activities in the policy formulation stage is the selection of the most appropriate policy strategy to achieve the desired objective. Central to the design of this strategy is the selection of one or more tools available to the government as the means to carry out its intentions. Qualitative studies of how different tools are understood and responded to by target populations is of immense importance at this stage of the policy process.

Unfortunately, although the demand for analysis of this type is great, the supply is extremely limited. The qualitative study of policy tools is an area that is yet to be even modestly explored within the research community.

Although qualitative research can be relevant at this stage, it is also the case that its applications are problematic. The basic reason is that seldom is there enough time to both commission and complete new qualitative research within the existing window of opportunity during policy formulation. Thus the applications have to rely on existing qualitative research--and that may or may not exist. Here is one key means by which good, well-crafted qualitative work on topical social issues can find its way into the policy arena. As policy makers start on the formulation effort, their need to draw quickly on existing work puts a premium on those research studies that have worked through matters of problem definition, the social construction of problems, community studies, retrospective assessments of prior initiatives, and so on.

The problematic nature of the applications of qualitative research at this stage is further reinforced by the fact that seldom are research funds available for studies that address the kinds of questions noted above in the three clusters. If the problem or condition is not seen to be above the horizon and thus on the policy screen, there is little incentive for a policy maker or program manager to use scarce funds for what would appear to be nonpragmatic, "theoretical" studies. And by the time the condition has sufficiently changed or become highly visible as a social issue for the policy community, qualitative work is hard-pressed to be sufficiently time sensitive and responsive. The window for policy formulation is frequently very small and open only a short time. The information that can be passed through has to be ready and in a form that enhances quick understanding.

The above constraints on the use of qualitative research at this stage of the policy cycle should not be taken as negative judgments on either the utility or the relevance of such information. Rather, it is only realistic to acknowledge that having the relevant qualitative research available when it is needed for policy formulation is not always possible. As noted earlier, this is an area where there are potentially significant uses for qualitative studies. But the uses are likely to come because of scholars and researchers who have taken on an area of study for their own interest and to inform basic understandings in the research community, rather than presuming before they begin that they would influence the formulation process. It is only the infrequent instance where there is sufficient time during the formulation stage for new qualitative work to be conducted.

It should be stressed here that the restrictions on the use of qualitative work during the formulation phase of the policy cycle come much more from the nature of the policy process than from the nature of qualitative work. The realities of the legislative calendar, the short lives of most senior political appointees in any one position, the mad scramble among competing special interest groups for their proposals to be addressed and acted upon, and the lack of concentration by the media on any issue for very long all inhibit the development of research agendas that address the underlying issues. This is ironic because it is clear that the country will face well into the foreseeable future the issues of health care allocation and quality, immigration controls and border security, educational retraining of dislocated workers, and youth unemployment, to name but four areas that have heretofore persistently stayed near or at the top of the national policy agenda. Basic, in-depth qualitative work in these and other key areas could inform the policy formulation process for years to come. But the pressures and structural incentives in the policy system all go in the other direction. To wit: Develop short-term proposals with quick impacts to show responsiveness and accommodate all the vested interests in the iron triangle.

In sum, with respect to this first phase of the policy cycle, qualitative research can be highly influential. This is particularly so with respect to problem definition, understanding of prior initiatives, community and organizational receptivity to particular programmatic approaches, and the kinds of impacts (both anticipated and unanticipated) that might emerge from different intervention strategies. This information would be invaluable to policy makers. But, as noted, the use of the material can be hindered by such factors as whether or not the information exists, is known to the policy community, and is available in a form that makes it quickly accessible. Overcoming these obstacles does not guarantee the use of qualitative research in the formulation process, but one can be strongly assured that if these obstacles are present, the likelihood of the use of qualitative material drastically diminishes.

Policy Implementation

The second phase of the policy cycle is that of policy implementation. It is in this stage that the policy initiatives and goals established during policy formulation are to be transformed into programs, procedures, and regulations. The knowledge base that policy makers need to be effective in this phase necessitates the collection and analysis of different information from that found in policy formulation. With the transformation of policies into programs, the concern moves to the operational activities of the policy tool and the allocation of resources. The concern becomes one of how to use the available resources in the most efficient and effective manner in order to have the most robust impact on the program or condition at hand. As Pressman and Wildavsky (1984) have written in this regard:

Policies imply theories. Whether stated explicitly or not, policies point to a chain of causation between initial conditions and future consequences. If X, then Y. Policies become programs when, by authoritative action, the initial conditions are created. X now exists. Programs make the theories operational by forging the first link in the causal chain connecting actions to objectives. Given X, we act to obtain Y. Implementation, then, is the ability to forge subsequent links in the causal chain so as to obtain the desired results. (p. xxii)

The research literature on policy and program implementation indicates that that is a particularly difficult task to accomplish (see, e.g., Hargrove, 1985; Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984; Yin, 1985). Again, quoting Pressman and Wildavsky:

Our normal expectations should be that new programs will fail to get off the ground and that, at best, they will take considerable time to get started. The cards in this world are stacked against things happening, as so much effort is required to make them work. The remarkable thing is that new programs work at all. (p. 109)

It is in this context of struggling to find ways of making programs work that the data and analyses from qualitative research can come into play. The information needs from qualitative research at this stage of the policy cycle cluster into several areas. First, there is a pressing need for information on the implementation process per se. Qualitative researchers, through case studies, program monitoring, and process evaluations, can inform program managers responsible for the implementation of the policy initiative.

Qualitative work can focus on such questions as the degree to which the program is reaching the intended target audience, the similarities and contrasts in implementation strategies across sites, the aspects of the program that are or are not operational, whether the services slated to be delivered are in fact the ones delivered, and the operational burdens placed on the institution or organization responsible for implementation (i.e., Is there the institutional capacity to respond effectively to the new policy initiative?). The focus is on the day-to-day realities of bringing a new program or policy into existence. This "ground-level" view of implementation is best done through qualitative research. The study of the rollout of an implementation effort is an area where qualitative work is at a clear advantage over other data collection strategies.

A second cluster of research questions amenable to qualitative work in the implementation arena focuses on the problem or condition that prompted the policy or program response in the first place. No problem or condition stands still, simply because the policy community has decided to take action on what was known at the time the decision was made. Problems and conditions change both before and after a policy response is decided upon. Thus the challenge for qualitative researchers is to continue to track the condition, even as the implementation effort swings into action. Qualitative work can provide ongoing monitoring of the situation--whether the condition has improved, worsened, remained static; whether the same target population is involved as earlier; whether the condition has spread or contracted; and whether the aims of the program still match the assumptions and previous understandings of the condition. Qualitative work can provide an important reality check for program managers as to whether the program is or is not appropriate to the current condition. Qualitative work that monitors the condition in real time can play a key role in the continuous efforts of program managers to match their services or interventions to the present circumstances.

The third cluster of necessary policy questions during this implementation phase of the policy cycle focuses on the efforts made by the organization or institution to respond to the initiative. Here, for example, qualitative data would be relevant for learning how the organizational response to the condition or problem has been conceptualized. Are the social constructions of the problem that were accepted at the policy formulation stage by federal policy makers accepted during implementation by the program managers and staff months later and perhaps thousands of miles away? What has been the transformation of the understandings that have taken place when the policy or program is actually being implemented? Do the policy makers and the program implementation folks accept the same understandings as to the intent of the policy--let alone the same understandings of the problem that the policy is suppose to address?

Another aspect of this need for qualitative data concerns the organizational response. Here questions would be asked that address the expertise and qualifications of those responsible for the implementation effort, the interest shown by management and staff, the controls in place regarding the allocation of resources, the organizational structure and whether it adequately reflects the demands on the organization to respond to this initiative, what means exist in the organization for deciding among competing demands, the strategies the organization uses to clarify misunderstandings or ambiguities in how it defines its role in implementation, and, finally, what kinds of interactive information or feedback loops are in place to assist managers in their ongoing efforts to move the program toward the stated objectives of the policy. It is information of precisely this type on the implementation process that Robert Behn (1988) notes is so critical to managers as they struggle to "grope along" and move toward organizational goals.

Policy Accountability

The third stage in the policy cycle comes when the policy or program is sufficiently mature that one can address questions of accountability, impacts, or outcomes. Here again, the information needs are different from those in the two previous stages of the policy cycle. The contributions of qualitative research can be pivotal in assessing the consequences of the policy and program initiative. Just as the questions change from one part of the policy cycle to another, so too does the focus of the qualitative research necessary to answer these same questions.

First there is the matter of what the program or policy did or did not accomplish: Were the objectives for the program met? Qualitative research can specifically help in this regard by addressing, for example, whether the community and police were actively working together in a neighborhood "crime watch" program, whether the appropriate target audience of homeless persons in another program received the health services they were promised, and whether in a third program youth were given the type and quantity of on-the-job training that resulted in successful placements in permanent positions.

When a program reaches the stage that it is appropriate to discuss and assess impacts, qualitative research provides a window on the program that is simply not available in any other way. Qualitative research allows for the study of both anticipated and unanticipated outcomes, changes in understandings and perceptions as a result of the efforts of the program or policy, the direction and intensity of any social change that results from the program, and the strengths and weaknesses of the administrative/organizational structure that was used to operationalize the program. Policy makers have no equally grounded means of learning about program impacts and outcomes as they do with qualitative research findings.

These grounded means of knowing also carry over into what one might traditionally think of as quantitative assessments of policy. Qualitative work can provide to program managers and policy makers information on how confident they can or should be in the measures being used to determine program influence. Although the intent may be that of a highly reliable and replicable instrument that allows for sophisticated quantification, it is the qualitative work that can address the issue of validity.

The issues of reliability and validity are well known in the research literature and need not be reviewed here. Suffice it to say that policy makers and program managers have been misled more than once by investing a great deal of time and effort on their instrumentation without equal emphasis on answering the question of whether their measures were the appropriate ones to the problem or condition at hand. Studies of school desegregation and busing or health care in nursing homes are but two areas where a heavy emphasis on quantifying outcomes and processes have left key aspects of the condition undocumented and thus unattended to by those who should have been paying attention.

There is an additional aspect of this first cluster of information needs that merits special attention vis-a-vis qualitative research. This has to do with whether the original objectives and goals of the policy stayed in place through implementation. One message has come back to policy makers time and again: Do not take for granted that what was intended to be established or put in place through a policy initiative will be what one finds after the implementation process is complete. Pro- grams and policies make countless midcourse corrections, tacking constantly, making changes in funding levels, staff stability, target population movements, political support, community acceptance, and the like.

It is through the longitudinal perspective of qualitative work that such issues can be directly addressed. Blitzkrieg assessments of programs are simply unable to pick up the backstage issues and conflicts that will inevitably be present and that may directly influence the direction and success of the program (Rist, 1980). To ignore staff turnover in a program that is highly staff-intensive in the provision of services, for instance, is to miss what may be the key ingredient in any study of implementation. But recognizing that it may be an issue in the first place is one of the ways in which qualitative work distinguishes itself from other research strategies.

The second cluster of information needs that emerge when a program is being assessed for impacts and outcomes is that of addressing whether and what changes may have occurred in the problem or condition. Central to any study of outcomes is the determination of whether in fact the condition itself has changed or not and what relevance the program or policy did or did not have to the present circumstances.

Although it is rudimentary to say so, it is worth stating explicitly that problems can change or not, totally independently of any policy or program initiative. Conceptually what we have is a situation in which impacts could or could not have occurred, and the consequence would be change or no change in a program or condition.

For example, a positive outcome of a policy could be no worsening of a condition, that is, no change in the original status that first prompted the policy response. Developing local intervention programs that stalled any growth in the number of child abuse cases could be considered a positive outcome. The key question is, of course, whether the evidence of no growth can be attributed to the intervention program or some other factor that was affecting the community independent of the intervention program itself, such as broad media coverage of a particularly savage beating of a child and, in the aftermath, considerable additional media coverage of how parents can cope with their urges to injure their children.

Qualitative work in this instance could focus on such impacts as the outreach efforts of the program to attract parents who had previously abused their children; efforts to reach parents who are seeking help to build better skills in working with their children; patterns and trends in child abuse as discussed by schoolteachers, day-care providers, and others who have ongoing and consistent contact with children; and whether and how parents are now coping with the stresses that might cause them to abuse their children.

The above discussion also generates an additional area in which qualitative work can assist at this stage of the policy cycle. It is the close-in and intensive familiarity with the problem or condition that comes from conducting qualitative work that would allow the researcher to make judgments on whether the situation is of a magnitude and nature that further action is necessary. If the study indicates that the problem or condition is diminishing in severity and prevalence, then further funding of a programmatic response may not be necessary. As a contrary example, the data from qualitative work may suggest that the condition has changed directions--that is, moved to a new target population--and a refocusing of the program is necessary if it is to be responsive.

Social conditions do not remain static, and the realization that the characteristics of a condition can change necessitates periodic reexamination of the original policy intent (policy formulation). Qualitative researchers can position themselves so that they can closely monitor the ongoing characteristics of a condition. With this firsthand and close-in information, they are well suited to suggest any necessary changes to both the policy formulation and implementation strategies for subsequent intervention efforts.

The third information need at this stage of the policy cycle where qualitative work can be of direct use comes with the focus on accountability. Here qualitative work can address concerns of management supervision, leadership of the organization with clear goals in mind, the attention to processes and procedures that would strengthen the capacity of the organization to implement the policy initiative effectively, the use of data-based decision making, and the degree of alignment or congruence between the leadership and the staff. All of these issues speak directly to the capacity of an organization to mobilize itself to provide effective service to its customers. If the organization is not positioned to do so, then there are clear issues of accountability that rest with the leadership.

Qualitative researchers who come to know an organization thoroughly and from the inside will be in a unique position from which to address the treatment and training of staff, reasons for attrition and low morale, the service-oriented philosophy (or lack of it) among the staff and leadership, the beliefs of the staff in the viability and worthiness of the program to address the problem, the quality and quantity of information used within the program for decision making, and the like. These are true qualitative dimensions of organizational life. It is essential that these be studied if judgments are to be made on the efficiency and effectiveness of any particular programmatic strategy. These judgments become central to subsequent decisions on the potential selection of a policy tool that would require a similar program intervention.

There are clear concerns of management accountability that must be discussed and assessed whenever programs are to be funded anew or redirected. Some of these concerns deal directly with impacts on the problem or condition, whereas others focus on the internal order and logic of the organization itself. Stated differently, it is important during the accountability phase to determine the degree to which any changes in the condition or problem can be directly attributed to the program and whether the program optimized or suboptimized the impact it had. Likewise, it is important to ascertain whether the presence (or absence) of any documented impacts is the result of the coherence of the policy formulation or the nature of program implementation. Finding that instance where coherent and robust policy initiatives are operationalized within a well-managed organization necessitates the complex assessment of what impacts can be attributed to the policy and what to its successful implementation. Qualitative research has a perspective on how to undertake this kind of assessment that other research approaches do not and for which the other approaches would have to rely heavily on proxy measures.

Policy Tools

The analysis thus far has focused on the nature of the policy cycle and how each phase of the cycle has different information requirements for policy makers and program managers. The effort has been to document how qualitative research can play an active and positive role in answering the information needs at each of these phases and for both the policy makers and the program managers. In this section, the attention shifts to a focus on what are termed policy tools.

Such an emphasis is important because a deeper understanding of the tools available to government and how each can be more or less effectively used to achieve policy objectives can clearly inform all three stages of the policy cycle. Key to the efforts in policy formulation is the selection of an appropriate tool--be it a grant, a subsidy, a tax credit, a loan, a new regulation, the creation of a government-sponsored enterprise, or the provision of direct services, to name but 7 of the more than 30 tools currently used by government.

The selection of one tool rather than another is a policy choice for which few guiding data are available. Further, research to help policy makers in this regard is extremely sparse. Policy makers decide either based on past experience with a tool ("We used tax credits before, let's use tax credits again") or because they have a clear proclivity for or against a particular tool (conservatives would resist direct government services and seek instead a tool that locates the activity in the private sector, e.g., grants for the construction of public housing or the privatization of all concessions in national parks). It is safe to assert that neither qualitative nor quantitative researchers have shown much interest in this area. Beyond the works of Linder (1988), Linder and Peters (1984,1989), May (1981), and Salamon (1981, 1989), there is not much research, either theoretical or empirical, to be cited.

What follows is an effort to identify four areas where qualitative work could be highly valuable to discussions regarding policy tools. For each of these areas, there is at present a nearly complete research void. It should be stressed that the short discussion to follow is not meant to be a definitive statement on how qualitative work can address the information needs of policy makers as they choose among tools, nor is it the definitive research agenda on the strengths and weaknesses of different tools.

It needs to be restated that few researchers of any persuasion have moved into this difficult but highly policy-relevant area. The reasons for this hesitancy are outside the bounds of this discussion, but it is clear that the policy analysis and research communities have, with few exceptions, steered wide of this port of inquiry. Building primarily on the works of Linder, Peters, and Salamon, what follows is offered as a modest agenda for those qualitative researchers who are interested in exploring new and untested ways of involving qualitative work within the policy arena. A more elaborate and detailed research agenda in this area is still well over the horizon.

As noted, four areas amenable to qualitative study will be briefly discussed. These are resource intensiveness, targeting, institutional constraints, and political risks. The tentativeness of this proposal has to be stressed yet again. There may well be multiple other ways in which to frame the qualitative study of policy tools. What follows here is predicated on the previous discussion regarding the policy cycle. The framework for the qualitative study of policy tools is essentially a matrix analysis, whereby each of these four areas can be studied in each of the three phases of the policy cycle. All 12 combinations will not be individually addressed here; rather, the focus will be on the four broad areas that can help to clarify the trade-offs among tools.

Resource intensiveness refers to the constellation of concerns involving the complexity of the operations, the relative costliness of different options, and the degree of administrative burden that different tools place on organizations. Tools vary widely in their complexity, their demands on organizations for technical expertise to administer and manage, their direct and indirect costs by sector, and the degree to which they are direct or indirect in their intent. And just to complicate matters more, the mix of these concerns for any given tool will shift as one moves from one phase of the policy cycle to another. Keeping the financial costs low and federal involvement to a minimum, for example, may be high priorities in Washington during the policy formulation stage, but these will also have the consequences during the policy implementation stage of serving few of the eligible target population, adding complexity through mandated state administration, and reducing direct impacts. Managing toxic waste clean-ups is but one example that is somewhat parallel to this brief scenario.

For qualitative researchers, the challenges here are multiple, not the least because they would necessitate more direct attention to organizational analysis. But there is also the clear opportunity to ask questions within organizations and to assess organizational capacity in ways that have not traditionally been done. Administrative burden has not been a topic of much (if any) qualitative research, but it is a very real consideration in the policy arena. Learning more of how to conceptualize this concern, how it is understood at various levels of government and within the private sector, and how different tools vary in this regard would be of considerable interest to policy makers in departments as well as those responsible for regulator and administrative oversight in organizations such as the Office of Management and Budget in the White House.

At present, a concept such as administrative burden is ill defined and subject to widely varying interpretations. In the absence of any systematic research, one person's definition and experience with "administrative burden" is as good as any other person's--and maybe better if he or she has more institutional or organizational influence. Additional examples concerning such concepts as "operational complexity" and "institutional capacity" are readily apparent.

Targeting refers to the capacity of the policy tool to be aimed at particular populations, problems, or institutions for whom the tool is primarily intended. A tool that, for example, seeks to help homeless persons who are mentally ill and also veterans would be highly targeted. Such a tool would be differentiated from a tool that is either diffuse or low in target specificity, for example, a tax credit for the interest earned in individual retirement accounts.

There are several key aspects of the targeting issue for a policy tool that qualitative researchers could address. First, there is the matter of the precision of the targeting. Qualitative researchers, in reference to the example just given, could help policy makers work through the strategies and definitional problems inherent in determining who is or is not homeless, who has or has not been diagnosed as mentally ill, and how to screen homeless veterans for service when documentation, service records, and so on are all likely to be lost or when persons simply cannot remember their own names.

A second aspect of targeting in selecting a policy tool is that of the amenability of the tool to adjustment and fine tuning. If the characteristics of the target population start to change, can the tool be adjusted to respond to this change? Flexibility in some instances would be highly desirable, whereas in others it may be irrelevant. For example, it would be beneficial to choose a policy instrument that responds to fluctuations and variations in the refugee populations coming into the United States, whereas it would be unnecessary in the instance of an entitlement program for which age is the only criterion for access to services.

Qualitative studies of different populations targeted by tools and the need (or lack thereof) of specificity in the targeting would be highly useful in policy formulation. There is also the opportunity in this area to explore whether those who have been targeted by a program believe this to be the case. Establishing community mental health centers could have some in the target population coming because of the "community health" emphasis, others coming for the "mental health" emphasis, and still others not showing up at all because they are not certain whose community is being referred or because they would never want anyone in their own neighborhood to know they have mental health problems. Linking services to target populations in the absence of such qualitative information suggests immediately the vulnerability and precariousness of presuming to establish service centers without the detailed knowledge of the populations for whom the effort is intended.

The example of community mental health centers leads to a third consideration in the targeting area--that of adaptability across uses. Can community mental health centers also serve other needs of the designated population, for example, nutrition and education, as well as serve as centers for entirely other target populations who are in the same residential vicinity? Can they serve as centers for the elderly, for latchkey children, for infant nutrition programs, and so on? The issue is one of flexibility and acceptance as well as neutrality in the perceptions of the other target groups. There may be groups who would not want to come to a mental health center, but who would be quite pleased to meet in a church or at a school. Gaining insight on these matters is clearly important as decisions are made on the location and mix of community services to be offered at any one location. Qualitative studies on these issues can inform policy makers and program managers in ways that will clearly affect the success or failure of different strategies.

Institutional capacity refers to the ability of the institution to deliver on the tasks that have been delegated to it. When a policy option clearly relies on a single institution to achieve certain objectives--for example, using the public schools as the vehicle to teach English to non-English-speaking children--there has to be some degree of certainty that the institution has the capacity to do so. Countless experiences with different policy initiatives have shown time and again that some institutions simply did not have, at the time, the capacity to do what was expected of them.

Further, there can be constraints placed on the institution that make it difficult if not impossible for the objective to be achieved. In addition to the more readily anticipated constraints of funding, staff availability, quality of facilities, and low political support, there are also constraints associated with the degree of intrusiveness the institution can exercise as well as the level of coerciveness allowed. The hesitancy of policy makers to allow intrusive efforts by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes has a clear impact on the ability of the organization to do so. The same can be said with respect to the IRS on the matter of coerciveness. Policy makers have simply decided to keep some organizations more constrained than others in carrying out their functions, for fear of abuse. Policy tools that have to rely on voluntary compliance or are framed to have an indirect effect face constraints different from those where these do not apply.

Qualitative research into the domain of institutional constraints and how it is that these constraints play out in the relation of the organization to the fulfillment of its mission is not, to my knowledge, now being done. It may be argued that it is not necessary, as the constraint dimension for any policy tool is too removed from research influence. That is, any constraints on an organization are more philosophical and ideological than operational. Yet the issue of institutional capacity and what does or does not hinder the ability of the organization to achieve its stated objectives is important to understand explicitly. If policy makers establish the parameters around an organization to the degree that it can never clearly achieve its goal (e.g., the IRS and unpaid back taxes), then there is a built-in level of failure that ought not be ignored and for which the institution should not be held accountable.

Political risk is the fourth dimension of the study of policy tools where qualitative research can directly contribute. Here the issues cluster around concerns of unanticipated risk, chances of failure, and timing. The selection of a policy tool is made with some outcome in mind--either direct or indirect. Yet there is always the possibility of unanticipated outcomes--again either direct or indirect. ne selection of a tool necessarily has to take into account the risk of unknown outcomes and how these might affect the success of the policy.

Qualitative research, by the nature of its being longitudinal, done in naturalistic settings, and focused on the constructions of meaning developed by participants, is in a unique position from which to assess the possibility of tools having the impacts intended by policy makers. Low risk of unknown outcomes--for example, in increasing the security at U.S. federal courthouses--eliminates some level of uncertainty from the decision that does not happen when the risk of unknown outcomes is quite high, such as moving to year-round school schedules or as was learned when the movement to deinstitutionalize the mentally ill resulted in tens of thousands of mentally ill persons being left on their own with no means of support or treatment.

One other aspect of the political risk factor that qualitative research can address is the sustainability of the policy initiative. Close-in studies of the operational life of a policy initiative can gain a perspective on the commitment of those involved, their belief in the worthiness of the effort, the amount of political support they are or are not engendering, and the receptivity of the target population to the effort. If all these indicators are decidedly negative, then the sustainability of the initiative is surely low. It is difficult to achieve success in policy efforts in the best of circumstances; it is that much harder when all the indicators point in the opposite direction. Qualitative research should have a distinct window from which to judge matters of political risk. Understanding of the participants, willingness to assume the causal linkage posited in the policy itself, and the degree of risk of unknown outcomes all influence the likelihood that any policy tool will achieve its intended results.

Concluding Observations

In reviewing this assessment of the contributions of qualitative work to the policy process, it is apparent that the contributions are more in the realm of the potential than the actual. There is no broad-based and sustained tradition within contemporary social science of focusing qualitative work specifically on policy issues, especially given the real time constraints that the policy process necessitates. Yet it is also clear that the opportunities are multiple for such contributions to be made. The issue is chiefly one of how to link those in the research and academic communities who are knowledgeable in conducting qualitative research studies to those in the policy arena who can commission such work and who will make use of the findings. The analysis of different strategies for building these linkages would require a separate paper; suffice it to say here that much hard thinking and numerous exploratory efforts will be required for the potential to become the actual. The issues of institutional cultures, academic reward systems, publication requirements, funding sources, and methodological limitations are but five among many that will have to be addressed if the linkages are to be built. And even beyond the resolution of (or at least the careful thinking about) these issues is the fundamental question of whether there is the will to bring qualitative work directly into the policy arena. Much of what has been written here will remain speculative unless and until there is some consensus among the practitioners of qualitative research that making this transition is worthwhile. The policy community is, I believe, ready for and would be receptive to anything those in the qualitative research community could offer, should they choose to make the effort to do so.

Note

¹ I want to stress early on that in this chapter I will not seek to develop distinctions among various conventionally used terms for qualitative research. Thus, in the pages that follow, terms such as qualitative work, qualitative research, and qualitative methods will all be used to denote the same frame of reference. I most frequently use the term that appears in the title of this handbook, qualitative research. I leave it to other authors in this volume to develop those distinctions as appropriate. I would also note, in defense of not trying to specify in much detail just exactly what the meaning is behind the use of any one of these terms, that early reviewers of this chapter suggested at least four other terms I might use in lieu of those I have. These terms included naturalistic, constructionist, interpretive, and ethnographies. I am sure that the delineation of distinctions has an important place in this book; it is just not my intent to do so here.

I also want to note early on that I am not going to try to differentiate among various qualitative data collection strategies, or means of analysis, as to their particular spheres of potential influence. Thus in this chapter I will not try to indicate what policy relevance or influence one might expect from case studies (and there are multiple variations in this single area alone) in contrast, for example, to multimethod studies. My intent is to place qualitative work broadly within the policy arena, not to develop a prescriptive set of categories about which methods or modes of analysis are likely to lead to what types of influence.

CENTER for POLICY STUDIES:
Graduate School of Education and Human Development

Influencing the Policy Process
With Qualitative Research

REFERENCES

Behn, R. D. (1988). Managing by groping along. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 7(4).

Chelimsky, E. (1982). Making evaluations relevant to congressional needs. GAO Review, 17(l).

Chelimsky, E. (1985). Old patterns and new directions in program evaluation. In E. Chelimsky (Ed.), Program evaluation: Patterns and directions. Washington, DC: American Society For Public Administration.

Guba, E. G. (1984). The effect of definitions of policy on the nature and outcomes of policy analysis. Educational Leadership, 42(2).

Hargrove, E. (1985). The missing link: The study of the implementation of social policy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Janowitz, M. (1971). Sociological methods and social policy. New York: General Learning Press.

Lindblom, C. E. (1968). The policy making process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Linder, S. H. (1988). Managing support for social research and development: Research goals, risk, and policy instruments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 7(4).

Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1984). From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3).

Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1989). Instruments of government: Perceptions and contexts. Journal of Public Policy, 9(1).

May, P. J. (1981). Hints for crafting alternative policies. Policy Analysis, 7(2).

Nakamura, R. T., & Smallwood, F. (I 980). The politics of policy implementation. New York: St. Martin's.

Patton, M. Q. (1988). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation (3rd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Rist, R. C. (1980). Blitzkrieg ethnography: On the transformation of a method into a movement. Educational Researcher 9(2).

Rist, R. C. (1989). Management accountability: The signals sent by auditing and evaluation. Journal of Public Policy, 9(3).

Rist, R. C. (Ed.). (1990). Program evaluation and the management of government: Patterns and prospects across eight nations. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Rist, R. C. (1993). Program evaluation in the United States General Accounting Office: Reflections on question formulation and utilization. In R. Conner el al. (Eds.), Advancing public policy evaluation: Learning from international experiences. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Salamon, L. M. (1981). Rethinking public management: Third-party government and the changing forms of government action. Public Policy, 29(3).

Salamon, L. M. (1989). Beyond privatization: The tools of government action. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Smith, J. A. (1991). The idea brokers: Think tanks and the rise of the new policy elite. New York: Free Press.

Weiss, C. H. (1982). Policy research in the context of diffuse decision making. In R. C. Rist (Ed.), Policy studies review annual. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Weiss, C. H. (1988). Evaluations for decisions: Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Evaluation Practice, 9(l).

Yin, R. K. (1985). Studying the implementation of public programs. In W. Williams (Ed.), Studying implementation. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.