Mapping the Course for Testing Strategies to Improve Research Use in Legal Contexts - Suggested Citation - Sidhu 2026

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Bintang

Mapping the Course for Testing Strategies to Improve Research Use in Legal Contexts by Anupreet Sidhu and the William T. Grant Foundation synthesizes evidence on how decision-makers in courts can use research. It distinguishes passive communication approaches from active strategies that enable deliberation, debate, or co-creation. The discussion draws on prior studies of training, peer review, judicial learning communities, and scientific evidence manuals, and outlines design considerations for studies measuring research use and its impact on judicial decision-making and youth outcomes.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages11

Reading Time28 min

AccessFree to download

Strategies to Improve Research Use in Courts

Background on the Foundation’s Research Use Focus Area

Active vs. Passive Strategies

Training and Scientific Methods for Judges

Peer Learning, Conferences, and Learning Communities

Knowledge Producer–Practitioner Connections

Mapping the Course for Testing Strategies to Improve Research Use in Legal Contexts Anupreet Sidhu William T. Grant Foundation Suggested Citation Sidhu, A. (2026) . Mapping the course for testing strategies to improve research use in legal contexts. William T. Grant Foundation. [https://wtgrantfoundation](https://wtgrantfoundation). org/digest/mapping-the-course-for-testing-strategiesto-improve-research-use-in-legal-contexts SIDHU • 2026 I n the Foundation’s use of research evidence focus area, we support studies examining new and established strategies to improve the use of research evidence among decision-makers, leaders, and managers that shape policy and youth-serving institutions to ultimately improve youth outcomes. Raquel Muñiz’s (2025) essay on improving research use in the courts provides a rich context of the court system, shares a review of the existing research, and lays out potential research directions to pursue. Here, we augment these broader research needs with additional discussion of strategies to improve research use in the legal context, followed by key considerations when designing and conducting studies to improve research use, particularly types, measures, and impact of research use. Strategies to Improve Research Use in Courts The Foundation’s research interests focus primarily on examining strategies to improve decision-makers’ use of research evidence. As described in our application guidelines, strategies comprise “replicable methods, activities, relational approaches, or policies that are intended to improve the use of research evidence or to maximize its positive impact on decision-making and youth outcomes”(William T. Grant Foundation, n.d.) . Based on what we know from the literature on research use, passive approaches to communicating research evidence often have limited effectiveness (Langer et al., 2016; Oliver et al., 2022) . Rather, active strategies that allow for deliberation, debate, or co-creation may lead to better understanding of and engagement with research among decision-makers (McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013) . Muñiz’s recommendations align well with these findings from the literature. Inher essay, Muñiz (2025) argues that conceptualizing strategies to improve research use in courts requires a deep understanding of the court system, its relationships, and its unique organizational context. With this knowledge, researchers may adapt strategies that are relevant to the legal context and can permeate and persist within a complicated system like the courts. This might include intentional approaches that encourage active engagement with research through training and dialogue, by expanding networks, and partnerships. Prior research illuminates openings for such strategies. For instance, Lehman and colleagues (1988) found that, compared to legal education alone, additional training in scientific methods can improve reasoning abilities to evaluate the quality of research and therefore make better-informed decisions. Another study, by Kovera et al. (2000), assessed whether judges rely on a study’s peer review status and internal validity to make admissibility assessments. The findings underline the need to assess different operationalizations of scientific training for judges in addition to undergraduate or graduate coursesand continuing legal education. In a formal attempt to train federal judges in scientific methods, the Federal Judicial Center distributed copies of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (Federal Judicial Center, 2000; Kovera & McAuliff, 2000; Walker & Monahan, 1996) . This guide includes information on statistical inference, survey research, and regression analysis, and may improve research use in judicial decision-making. While not yet empirically tested, this strategy relies on passive dissemination and is unlikely to be effective. In contrast, strategies that facilitate peer-learning and engagement around newly learned research are

FAQs

What is the central focus of the document?

The document focuses on testing and mapping strategies that improve how courts use research evidence in legal contexts.

Why does the document emphasize active strategies over passive ones?

It argues that passive dissemination often has limited effectiveness, while active strategies such as deliberation, debate, or co-creation can improve understanding and engagement with research.

What design considerations does the document highlight for future studies?

It points to key considerations when designing studies, including types of research use, measures, and the impact of research use in legal and judicial decision-making settings.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Bintang