I’ve been involved in a number of these discussions and activities over the years, probably because in my career I’ve demonstrated both a willingness and (fortunately) an ability to play an active role in various dimensions of the communications policymaking process.  This is, I assume, also why I was invited to contribute to this topic here.  So I’ll try to offer a few observations and opinions about the place of communication research in communications policymaking.

First, it seems reasonable to say that the relevance and stature of our field, both within academia and beyond, is to some extent a function of our ability to meaningfully engage with – and influence – the relevant policy issues of our day.  Such engagement, I believe, can pay dividends within academia in a variety of forms, including faculty lines, faculty salaries, research funds, and doctoral student support.  I believe it can similarly contribute to increased external stakeholder support, such as grants, consulting opportunities, media coverage, and non-academic employment opportunities.  So, I think it’s in the long-term best interests of the field on a variety of fronts that we work to play a more prominent role in the policy arena.

If we don’t, other fields will.  Actually, whether we do or not, other fields will, as the increasingly inter-disciplinary nature of contemporary communications policy questions is attracting scholars from other fields and disciplines, such as economics, science and technology studies, and computer science.  So, the reality is we are already in competition with other fields and disciplines to play a meaningful role in communications policymaking.  All the more reason to be proactive.

The irony, though, is that while it may be in the long-term best interests of the field to try to play a more prominent role in policymaking, it’s not entirely clear that it’s in the short-term best interests of the individual faculty member. For instance, one risks getting tagged with the dreaded “applied” researcher label by one’s colleagues (this remains a bit of a scarlet A at some institutions).  As such, you might find your career trajectory affected – both within your current academic unit or in terms of your efforts to move up the ladder to higher quality institutions.  The communication field is, of course, incredibly diverse; and so there are plenty of schools and departments in our field for whom this kind of engagement with policymaking has never been seen as part of their identity or mission.

Also, being an engaged policy researcher frequently involves responding to research questions or issues raised by policymakers; and in so doing you run the risk of being criticized for not being very pro-active in your research agenda, or for allowing  your research to be constrained by the (possibly misguided) assumptions or priorities held by policymakers.  Again, this is something that can affect your career trajectory.

And finally, not all policy research projects lend themselves to publication in academic journals.  Consequently, there is the possibility that you’ll end up spending a significant amount of time on a project that won’t pay too many dividends in your academic career.

And so, while I think the field as a whole is coming around to recognizing the importance of being more policy relevant, it’s going to take quite a while for the academic faculty incentive and reward system to line up accordingly.  No one’s ever accused academia of moving quickly.

So, for the foreseeable future, the incentives to engage as a researcher in the policymaking process need to be largely self-generated.  And there are a variety of incentives worth mentioning, ranging from the opportunity to make a few extra bucks from time to time; to the opportunity to reach and inform an audience beyond the fairly small and narrow audience that reads our journals and books; to the satisfaction that comes from trying to contribute to the solving of interesting real world problems.  Personally, I’ve found some of these incentives to be quite powerful; but of course it ultimately all depends on what exactly it is you want out of your academic career.

Assuming, then, that engaging with policymaking is something you want to do, the next question then is how do you do it? How does one inject one’s (presumably policy-relevant) research into the policymaking process?

There are a lot of potential paths that can be traveled here. Personally, I’ve found linking up with individuals or organizations that do this sort of thing regularly to be an effective strategy.  That is, be sure to disseminate your research not only to your academic colleagues, but to members of the public interest and advocacy communities, foundations, NGOs, and relevant industry associations.  These folks are not only good at getting relevant research in front of policymakers (presuming it’s research that supports their policy position), they’re also better than we are at recognizing which aspects of our research have the greatest policy relevance. I’ve experienced a number of instances in which a finding I didn’t see as particularly interesting was seen by a member of a public interest organization as quite important.

Also, keep an eye out for calls for papers from those small, often DC-based conferences that a select few academic units, research centers, foundations, and NGOs sponsor with the specific goal of bringing policy researchers, policy advocates, and policymakers together.  These conferences typically don’t follow any kind of predictable timetable.  They emerge out of a particular funding opportunity or in response to a particular policy issue.  You’ve probably noticed that you don’t see too many FCC or congressional staffers at ICA.

And, of course, make sure your research is accessible online, through your university or personal web page, or through hubs like the SSRN or Academia.edu. Policy-relevant research generally doesn’t have as long a shelf life as some other types of academic research; and as we all know, academic journals are incredibly slow.  Moreover, neither policymakers nor policy advocates have the time to read these journals.  So don’t rely on journals to help inject your work into the policymaking process.

And, a final note of caution: be ready to have your work torn to shreds by whichever stakeholder(s) come out on the short end of your findings/conclusions.  These criticisms may not be fair, and they might even get personal.  But the stakes are a lot higher in policymaking than they are in academia, so a very thick skin is a must.

In 2008, after some substantial acquisitions on the European television audience measurement front, Nielsen proudly informed its clients that it now controlled three quarters of the world’s television currency data.  But again, traditional television ratings represent only the tip of the iceberg for a company that is also a primary source of information about video sales (Nielsen VideoScan), book sales (Nielsen BookScan), video game sales (Nielsen Games), music consumption (Nielsen SoundScan), newspaper audiences (Scarborough Research), mobile device usage (Nielsen Mobile Media) and Web traffic (Nielsen NetRatings).  Nielsen has even begun competing head to head with Arbitron in the measurement of radio audiences (Nielsen Radio Audience Measurement).

And yet there remain many more media audiences – or at least aspects of these audiences –  to capture.  Today, Nielsen’s growth involves expansion across three dimensions.  The first is geographic.  For instance, Nielsen now provides television audience data in over 30 countries around the world.  The company’s NetRatings service has established panels and site-centric measurement systems in countries around the world, to the extent that Nielsen now claims to monitor 90 percent of global Internet activity.

The second dimension involves expansion across platforms.  One of Nielsen’s most significant ongoing initiatives is the development of its Anytime, Anywhere Media Measurement (A2/M2) system, which seeks to provide comprehensive audience data integrated across the “three screens” (television, computer, mobile device) by which the bulk of electronic media consumption takes place.  Nielsen also measures audiences for what it calls the “fourth screen” – location-based video outlets such as those found in health clubs, bars, gas stations, and elevators. As new media platforms enter the mediascape, Nielsen is there.

And the third, and perhaps least discussed, involves expansion across the criteria by which audiences are valued.  That is, today, buying media audiences has become about much more than simply buying audience exposure. Data on the size and demographics of the audience that consumed a particular piece of media content represent only scratches the surface of audience understanding in today’s rapidly changing media environment.  Today, advertisers and marketers also want information about how engaged those audiences were, how well they recalled what they consumed, and how their behaviors were affected (to name just a few of the emerging currencies).

Nielsen is continuing to expand to meet these demands as well.  For instance, Nielsen recently invested in a firm called NeuroFocus, which specializes in applying brainwaves research to the analysis of advertising and content effectiveness.  And just this month, Nielsen acquired an online audience measurement firm called GlanceGuide, whose primary product is an “attentiveness score” for online video content.  Nielsen IAG measures the extent to which television audiences recall the details of the programs they watched.  And Nielsen BuzzMetrics measures how much online conversation is taking place about various media products – both in advance of and after they are released.

The obvious question that arises from this scenario is whether it is a good or a bad thing for one firm to play such a dominant role in the construction of media audiences.  Even Congress has looked into this question.  I’m not going to try to answer the question of whether this situation is good or bad.  It’s too big a question to try to answer here. But what I will say is that this situation may very well be inevitable.  Media companies and advertisers hate uncertainty, and what a sole audience measurement service provides is a bit less uncertainty. Competing providers means competing – often contradictory – numbers.  And such contradictions equal uncertainty.  This isn’t to say that Nielsen’s numbers are necessarily right.  But as long as everyone involved chooses to treat them as right, uncertainty is reduced.  Such are the somewhat bizarre machinations of the audience marketplace.