From Evidence to Action: When Research Helps Inform Policy
INFO researchers are informing the regulations and legislation that shape access to technology, education, and public life
Photo licensed by Adobe Stock
In 1997, Jonathan Lazar was a second-year PhD student helping John Bertot, at that time an assistant professor, collect data from thousands of public libraries for a study on internet connectivity—one of the largest datasets of its kind in information science. Neither knew that the research would later be cited in a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case (U.S. v. American Library Association, Inc.) about how libraries were adapting to a new technology. Bertot, now dean of the College of Information (INFO), was trying to answer research questions that could potentially help inform policy.
That pattern has defined INFO for decades: treat publication as an intermediate step, not an endpoint, and ask research questions that matter to the people making decisions. Sometimes, as with the U.S. v. ALA Supreme Court case, the research itself gets cited without direct involvement from faculty. Other times, INFO faculty engage directly—through written comments on proposed federal rules, testimony before lawmakers, and involvement as legislation and regulations take shape. It’s a kind of impact that traditional academic metrics rarely capture. Citation counts like the h-index don’t show when research shapes a regulation, sets a legal precedent, or gives policymakers evidence they can act on immediately. But for the people, organizations, and communities affected, that’s often the impact that matters most.
From Research to Regulation
When federal agencies draft regulations, they open public comment periods, and all stakeholders are encouraged to respond. “You don’t have to wonder, ‘What are the questions they have?’” says Lazar, now an INFO professor and executive director of the Maryland Initiative for Digital Accessibility (external link, opens in a new tab) (MIDA). “The agencies ask specific questions and seek public input.”
Years ago, Lazar and his students, in collaboration with INFO professor Paul Jaeger, published “Up in the Air: Are Airlines Following the New DOT Rules on Equal Pricing for People with Disabilities When Websites Are Inaccessible?” in Government Information Quarterly. The research showed that inaccessible airline websites were costing blind travelers money, since booking by phone often meant paying a higher fare than the one posted online. When the U.S. Department of Transportation opened a rulemaking on airline website accessibility, Lazar submitted the published paper as part of the public comment period. The final rule—which required airlines to make websites accessible by conforming to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and to involve people with disabilities in usability testing—cited his research directly.
Testimony works differently, but with the same goal: getting scientific evidence in the right place at the right time to help inform decision-making. Lazar has testified 18 times before committees in the Maryland House of Delegates and Senate, plus multiple written testimonies at the federal level—some purely informational, like hearings held by the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, others tied to specific bills. In each case, he grounds his testimony in information science research, and importantly, he clearly notes that he is speaking only in his personal capacity, and not speaking on behalf of the University of Maryland or the University System of Maryland. Testifying before Maryland’s House Ways and Means Committee on a bill requiring accessible instructional technology in K-12 schools, he made the case succinctly: “It’s both a cost savings bill and a civil rights bill. It protects the rights of students with disabilities to have equal access to technology for learning.” He pointed to similar technical and process requirements that had worked successfully elsewhere.
A Model Others Can Use
MIDA has built a repeatable approach around this work: produce strong research, track where decisions are being made, and respond with evidence when agencies, legislators, and organizations need answers.
Bern Jordan, INFO associate research engineer and MIDA’s associate director of policy, helped write MIDA’s response to a recent Title II rulemaking under the Americans with Disabilities Act, requiring state and local governments—including public universities—to make web and app content accessible. One question asked whether password-protected course content needed to be accessible when posted, or only once a student requested an accommodation. Jordan and disability advocacy groups nationally argued that requesting an accommodation and waiting wasn’t enough. The Justice Department agreed and removed the exception.
For Jordan, the consequences reach beyond any one course. “There are a number of people with disabilities who don’t study at a university because it’s such an extra burden for them to be a self-advocate.” Accessibility by default does more than support students already enrolled. It changes who sees college, technology, and public services as truly open to them.
That’s the larger point, and MIDA’s work makes it concrete: INFO research doesn’t stop at publication. It helps shape the rules universities follow, the products companies build, the services governments provide, and the opportunities people can actually use—evidence decision-makers can use, when they need it, with impact on people and communities.