From Education to Advocacy and Activism: Alternative Approaches for Translating Family Science to Policy

• Author: Elaine A. Anderson,Bethany L. Letiecq
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12274
• Published date: 01 October 2017
• Date: 01 October 2017

B L. L George Mason University

E A. A University of Maryland

From Education to Advocacy and Activism:

Alternative Approaches for Translating Family

Science to Policy

Historically, translational family science frame-

works focused on policy have delimited the roles

family scientists can play and the approaches

they can implement within the scientic realm.

In this article, we call for an expanded trans-

lational research-to-policy framework that

is inclusive of such roles as policy educa-

tor, scholar-advocate, and scholar-activist. We

argue that, depending on the policy topic or con-

text of one’s research, different approaches and

roles are needed to move family research to pol-

icy, especially when working with marginalized

and disenfranchised families. We then present

3 approaches to family policy engagement,

particularly at the local and state levels: family

impact seminars, deliberative policy processes,

and community-based participatory research.

Each approach positions the family scientist to

perform different roles—from policy educator

to scholar-advocate to scholar-activist—in their

translational work. We offer our reections

across roles and approaches and provide rec-

ommendations for future translational family

science in the policy arena.

Human Development and Family Science, Thompson Hall

1101, 4400 University Drive, MS 4C2, George Mason Uni-

versity, Fairfax,VA 22030 (bletiecq@gmu.edu).

Key Words: Family policy research, policy education,

scholar-activism, scholar-advocacy.

Family scientists can play myriad roles and uti-

lize different approaches as they work to trans-

late family research within the policy arena. Dis-

cussions of the roles of family policy researchers

were brought to the fore in the late 1970s follow-

ing calls for an explicit family policy agenda in

the United States (Feldman, 1979). Indeed, fam-

ily policy was the focus of the 1978 National

Council on Family Relations annual meeting,

which culminated in the publication of a special

issue on family policy published in the Journal

of Marriage and the Family (McDonald & Nye,

1979). In many ways, these earlier discussions

mirror discussions we continue to have today,

particularly regarding the proper roles of family

scientists in the policy arena.

In their seminal work, Nye and McDonald

(1979) provided a translational framework for

family policy research that includes three dis-

tinct approaches: family evaluation research,

family impact analysis, and an approach they

coined research for family policy. This latter

approach goes beyond analyzing the effects that

policies have on families (evaluation) and edu-

cating policymakers about family impacts (fam-

ily impact analysis) to analyzing what families

need from public policies to function well. In

this way, Nye and McDonald recognized the

bidirectionality of translational science as a pro-

cess in which family scientists can use various

approaches and perform various roles as they

Family Relations 66 (October 2017): 729–740 729

DOI:10.1111/fare.12274