Politics of neutrality: intermediaries and research use in civics programming

Intermediary actors navigate a complex political ecological landscape in which specific policies, contexts and sociopolitical events create 'pull factors' in the curation, suppression and dissemination of information utilised to inform school decision-making (Lubienski et al, 2014). Applying the political ecology framework of Scott and colleagues (2018), this article explores the role of politics and power structures in the dissemination and utilisation of research evidence within civics educational programming.

Data sources include 84 interviews conducted with 39 intermediary actors (non-profits, state departments, university centres, philanthropies, and for-profit sectors) and 45 educational decision-makers (principals, subject coordinators and lead teachers). Data analysis involved qualitative (thematic analysis) methods to unpack power narratives.

The positionality of the intermediary actors, the local district climate, and larger state and national politics fostered a desire to select research that supported civics programming identified as 'neutral'. Such curriculum avoided discourse around pressing social issues, maintained the status quo and focused on the historic foundations of government rather than a more applied action focus. Rationales justifying such decision-making emphasised the importance of stepping in to protect educators from potential community and parental backlash.

Pre-emptive gatekeeping contributes to research misuse, as civics scholarship has documented the value of discussing social issues relevant to young people's lives (Clay and Rubin, 2020). Such decision-making has notable implications in relation to critical programming that is reflective of and fully meets the needs of students lived realities (Mirra and Garcia, 2017).