Given the evidence that supports the long-term importance of strong early attachments, it’s surprising and perhaps disturbing that so little has come of it. It’s a rare policy or practice that has been directly inspired or informed by attachment theory or the research in its tradition, despite the decades of published research. You’d think that such a powerful body of work would make waves in all kinds of areas, from parenting to professional child care, but…..not so much.
So much of the disconnect between research and policy stems from a lack of communication between the laboratory and the real world. Parents, teachers, and legislators aren’t exactly devouring the latest issue of Child Development (jeez, I can barely keep up with reading it these days, and it’s my own field’s flagship journal), and scientists are rarely skilled at seeking publicity for their research findings. So when I came across a reference to the National Scentific Council on the Developing Child, I got very excited.
The NSCDC is a panel of experts who are charged with condensing relevant child development research into manageable, understandable bullet points for use by policymakers and the lay public. They have published working papers on a variety of issues, including one entitled Young Children Develop in an Environment of Relationships that is based partly on research in attachment. Among the points they make are the following:
When I read this brief, all I could think was–YES! Finally! Now maybe issues like family leave, working mothers, and subsidized child care can become informed discussions of what’s best for children, rather than oversimplified political talking points. (Of course, this brief was written in 2004, and I haven’t exactly seen my colleagues all over CNN. Yet. Small steps….)
(And trust me, I’m not as naive as I sound–I understand the financial implications of the programs that brief is alluding to. But I’d like to get scientists in on that part of the discussion, too–a discussion of the financial costs versus the costs in children’s mental health, and the long-term implications of policies that ignore the child in favor of the budget.)
So, the gap is narrowing. Science is doing its job–we’re making the breakthroughs, we’re looking for the answers (and publishing them, at least when they answer big enough questions). Groups like this Council are delivering the results to the doors of the people who make the big decisions, who write the legislation, and who decide what issues to take on in their election campaigns. Will they listen?
Change like that often comes from the bottom up and helping the public understand what they do and why it matters is part of the job for publicly funded scientists, IMO. But scientists are not only unskilled at getting information out, as you point out, but they are often hostile to the media or try to avoid them altogether. Getting scientists to speak to the media, to speak with an eye towards application, to not hedge and qualify to the point of near-incomprehensibility, and to not dis or downplay each others’ work (creating confusing for lay readers) can be difficult.
The ivory tower can’t have it both ways. Researchers can’t disdain the media, as many do, and complain their work doesn’t get the attention it deserves. Yeah, the media has to oversimplify. Yeah (and this is especially true in psychological research) we’ll often jump on the flashiest bits of complex research and play those up. Yeah, we’ll boil years of work down to a few nuggets. But that’s what the job and the reading/watching public require. Work with it. (And watch this get worse, as struggling newspapers lay off their most skilled specialists and let a handful of generalists write on all topics.)
I am annoyed by researchers who act as if keeping taxpayers informed about their work is somehow beneath them. This also fuels public anger towards academia, which many view as out of touch.
Perhaps universities should provide media training for researchers.
Well, I suppose that’s why I love the idea of this Council so much. I doubt the members find it beneath them to inform the public–or they wouldn’t serve.