Although public policy and public administration are intuitively practical fields of scholarship, much public affairs research never affects practice. Previous studies have shown that one major predictor of whether a given research study or researcher achieves impact is the researcher's motivation to do so. Using data from a survey of 409 authors of articles in major public affairs journals, we present and test models of the determinants of researchers’ use motivations with regard to specific research studies and over the course of their careers. Results indicate that previous experience as a practitioner is positively associated with perceived career-long use motivation and rewards for use associated with tenure and promotion, although not with annual evaluations. In addition, project-specific use motivation is positively associated with perceived career-long use motivation, academic age, a study suggestion made by a practitioner, and methodological contribution. Motivations based on a desire to appear productive or on suggestions from researcher colleagues are negatively associated with study-specific use.
Points for practitioners
Academic motivation to affect policymaking is positively associated with rewards associated with tenure and promotion, although not with year-end evaluations.
Longer-serving researchers, and those with practitioner experience, report greater motivation to affect practice through their research.
AbreuMGrinevichV (2013) The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy42(2): 408–422.
2.
AllenLBrandAScottJ, et al. (2014) Publishing: Credit where credit is due. Nature508(7496): 312–313.
3.
AmaraNOuimetMLandryR (2004) New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication26(1): 75–106.
4.
AschhoffBGrimpeC (2014) Contemporaneous peer effects, career age and the industry involvement of academics in biotechnology. Research Policy43(2): 367–381.
5.
Atta-OwusuKFitjarRD (2021) What motivates academics for external engagement? Exploring the effects of motivational drivers and organizational fairness. Science and Public Policy49(2): 201–218.
6.
BaerlocherMONewtonMGautamT, et al. (2007) The meaning of author order in medical research. Journal of Investigative Medicine55(4): 174–180.
7.
Bandola-GillJ (2019) Between relevance and excellence? Research impact agenda and the production of policy knowledge. Science and Public Policy46(6): 895–905.
8.
BatesTAnićAMarušićM, et al. (2004) Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions: Comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms. Journal of the American Medical Association292(1): 86–88.
9.
BercovitzJFeldmanM (2008) Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science19(1): 69–89.
BirnholtzJP (2006) What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology57(13): 1758–1770.
12.
BoazAFitzpatrickSShawB (2009) Assessing the impact of research on policy: A literature review. Science and Public Policy36(4): 255–270.
13.
BogenschneiderKCorbettTJParrottE (2019) Realizing the promise of research in policymaking: Theoretical guidance grounded in policymaker perspectives. Journal of Family Theory and Review11(1): 127–147.
14.
BozemanBBretschneiderBLindsayS, et al. (2021) Practitioners’ Use of Public Affairs Research: The Importance of Intentionality. Center for Organization Research and Design Working Paper Series. Arizona State University Paper 21-017, November 2021.
15.
BozemanBFayDSladeCP (2013) Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer38(1): 1–67.
16.
BruceAO’CallaghanK (2016) Inside out: Knowledge brokering by short-term policy placements. Evidence and Policy12(3): 363–380.
17.
BührerSWroblewskiA (2019) The practice and perceptions of RRI—A gender perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning77: article 101717.
18.
CancianFM (1993) Conflicts between activist research and academic success: Participatory research and alternative strategies. The American Sociologist24(1): 92–106.
19.
CaplanN (1979) The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist22(3): 459–470.
20.
CastelvecchiD (15 May 2015) Physics paper sets record with more than 5,000 authors. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2015.17567.
21.
CherneyAHeadBBorehamP, et al. (2012a) Perspectives of academic social scientists on knowledge transfer and research collaborations: A cross-sectional survey of Australian academics. Evidence and Policy8(4): 433–453.
22.
CherneyAHeadBBorehamP, et al. (2013) Research utilization in the social sciences: A comparison of five academic disciplines in Australia. Science Communication35(6): 780–809.
23.
CherneyAPoveyJHeadB, et al. (2012b) What influences the utilisation of educational research by policy-makers and practitioners? The perspectives of academic educational researchers. International Journal of Educational Research56: 23–34.
24.
ChubbJDerrickGE (2020) The impact a-gender: Gendered orientations towards research impact and its evaluation. Palgrave Communications6(1): 72.
25.
ClarysseBTartariVSalterA (2011) The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy40(8): 1084–1093.
26.
DavisLLarsenMTLotzP (2011) Scientists’ perspectives concerning the effects of university patenting on the conduct of academic research in the life sciences. The Journal of Technology Transfer36(1): 14–37.
27.
D’EstePPerkmannM (2011) Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer36: 316–339.
28.
D’EstePRamos-VielbaIWoolleyR, et al. (2018) How do researchers generate scientific and societal impacts? Toward an analytical and operational framework. Science and Public Policy45(6): 752–763.
29.
DingWChoiE (2011) Divergent paths to commercial science: A comparison of scientists’ founding and advising activities. Research Policy40(1): 69–80.
30.
EzrahiY (1990) The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
GreenbergDS (1967) The Politics of Pure Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
32.
GreenbergDS (2001) Science, Money, and Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
HaeusslerCSauermannH (2016) The Division of Labor in Teams: A Conceptual Framework and Application to Collaborations in Science. Working Paper 22241. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
34.
HagstromWO (1964) Traditional and modern forms of scientific teamwork. Administrative Science Quarterly9(3): 241–263.
35.
HeadB (2015) Toward more evidence-informed policy making?Public Administration Review76(3): 472–484.
36.
HeadBFergusonMCherneyA, et al. (2014) Are policy-makers interested in social research? Exploring the sources and uses of valued information among public servants in Australia. Policy and Society33(2): 89–101.
37.
HeinkUMarquardEHeubachK, et al. (2015) Conceptualizing credibility relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science-policy interfaces: Challenges and opportunities. Science and Public Policy42(5): 676–689.
38.
HuygheAKnockaertM (2015) The influence of organizational culture and climate on entrepreneurial intentions among research scientists. Journal of Technology Transfer40: 138–160.
39.
JensenPRouquierJBKreimerP, et al. (2008) Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy35(7): 527–541.
40.
JonesRDGriffithKAUbelPA, et al. (2016) A mixed-methods investigation of the motivations, goals, and aspirations of male and female academic medical faculty. Academic Medicine91(8): 1089–1097.
41.
KenneyMGoeWR (2004) The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford. Research Policy33(5): 691–707.
42.
KnightCLightowlerC (2010) ‘Reflections of ‘knowledge exchange professionals’ in the social sciences: Emerging opportunities and challenges for university-based knowledge brokers. Evidence and Policy6(4): 543–556.
43.
KovacsJ (2012) Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citation-based evaluative metrics make (pseudo)honorary authors from honest contributors of every multi-author article. Journal of Medical Ethics39(8): 509–512.
44.
KowalczewskaKBehagelJ (2019) How policymakers demands for usable knowledge shape science–policy relations in environmental policy in Poland. Science and Public Policy46(3): 381–390.
45.
KrickE (2015) Negotiated expertise in policy-making: How governments use hybrid advisory committees. Science and Public Policy42(4): 487–500.
46.
LandryRLamariMAmaraN (2003) The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Administration Review63(2): 192–205.
47.
LandryRSaïhiMAmaraN, et al. (2010) Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy39(10): 1387–1403.
48.
LarivièreVDesrochersNMacalusoB, et al. (2016) Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science46(3): 417–435.
49.
LawsonCSalterAHughesA, et al. (2019) Citizens of somewhere: Examining the geography of foreign and native-born academics’ engagement with external actors. Research Policy48(3): 759–774.
50.
LingardB (2013) The impact of research on education policy in an era of evidence-based policy. Critical Studies in Education54(2): 113–131.
51.
MatthewsPRutherfoordRConnellyS, et al. (2018) Everyday stories of impact: Interpreting knowledge exchange in the contemporary university. Evidence and Policy14(4): 665–682.
52.
MeagherLLyallCNutleyS (2008) Flows of knowledge expertise and influence: A method for assessing policy and practice impacts from social science research. Research Evaluation17(3): 163–173.
53.
MertonRK (1942) The normative structure of science. In: MertonRK (ed.) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 267–278.
54.
MulliganAMabeM (2011) The effect of the internet on researcher motivations behaviour and attitudes. Journal of Documentation67(2): 290–311.
55.
NelsonJPLindsaySLBozemanB (2021) The Last 20 Years of Empirical Research on Government Utilization of Academic Social Science Research: A State-of-the-Art Review. Center for Organization Research and Design Working Paper Series. Arizona State University Paper 21-01, 8 December 2021.
56.
NewmanJCherneyAHeadB (2016) Do policy makers use academic research? Reexamining the two communities theory of research utilization. Public Administration Review76(1): 24–32.
57.
NewmanJCherneyAHeadB (2017) Policy capacity and evidence-based policy in the public service. Public Management Review19(2): 157–174.
58.
Olmos-PeñuelaJCastro-MartínezED’EsteP (2014) Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents. Research Policy43(4): 696–706.
59.
OuimetMLandryRZiamS, et al. (2010) Correlates of consulting research evidence among policy analysts in government ministries: A cross-sectional survey. Evidence and Policy6(4): 433–460.
60.
PattynVBlumSFobéE, et al. (2022) Academic policy advice in consensus-seeking countries: The cases of Belgium and Germany. International Review of Administrative Sciences88(1): 26–42.
61.
PayumoJMooreDEvansM, et al. (2019) An evaluation of researcher motivations and productivity outcomes in international collaboration and partnerships at a U.S. research-intensive university. Interdisciplinary Journal of Partnership Studies6(2): article 4.
62.
PerkmannMSalandraRTartariV, et al. (2021) Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011–2019. Research Policy50(1): 104–114.
63.
PerkmannMTartariVMcKelveyM, et al. (2013) Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy42(2): 426–442.
64.
Pizmony-LevyOMcDermottMCopelandTT (2021) Improving ESE policy through research–practice partnerships: Reflections and analysis from New York City. Environmental Education Research27(4): 595–613.
65.
PolanyiM (1962) The republic of science. Minerva1(1): 54–73.
66.
PonomariovBL (2008) Effects of university characteristics on scientists’ interactions with the private sector: An exploratory assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer33(5): 485–503.
67.
PorterTM (1995) Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
68.
RennieDFlanaginAYankV (2000) The contributions of authors. Journal of the American Medical Association284(1): 89–91.
69.
RoseDCKennyCHobbsA, et al. (2020) Improving the use of evidence in legislatures: The case of the UK parliament. Evidence and Policy16(4): 619–638.
70.
Scheulke-LeechBA (2013) Resources and research: An empirical study of the influence of departmental research resources on individual STEM researchers’ involvement with industry. Research Policy42(9): 1667–1678.
71.
SchutMvan PaassenALeeuwisC, et al. (2014) Towards dynamic research configurations: A framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes. Science and Public Policy41(2): 207–218.
72.
ShulockN (1999) The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used why do we produce so much of it?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management18(2): 226–244.
73.
SquevinPAubinD (2022) Policy advice utilization in Belgian ministerial cabinets: The contingent importance of internal and external sources of advice. International Review of Administrative Sciences. Epub ahead of print 20 June 2022. DOI: 10.1177/00208523221097540.
74.
StuartTEDingWW (2006) When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology112(1): 97–144.
75.
TartariVPerkmannMSalterA (2014) In good company: The influence of peers on industry engagement by academic scientists. Research Policy43(7): 1189–1203.
76.
TeirlinckPDelangheHPadillaP, et al. (2013) Closing the policy cycle: Increasing the utilization of evaluation findings in research technological development and innovation policy design. Science and Public Policy40(3): 366–377.
77.
ThomasROrmerodN (2017) The (almost) imperceptible impact of tourism research on policy and practice. Tourism Management62: 379–389.
78.
WalkerLALawrenceNSChambersCD, et al. (2019b) Supporting evidence-informed policy and scrutiny: A consultation of UK research professionals. PLoS ONE14(3): e0214136.
79.
WalkerRMChandraYZhangJ, et al. (2019a) Topic modeling the research–practice gap in public administration. Public Administration Review79(6): 931–937.
80.
WeberM (1958 [1917]) Science as a vocation. Daedalus87(1): 111–134.
81.
WehrensRBekkerMBalR (2011) Coordination of research policy and practice: A case study of collaboration in the field of public health. Science and Public Policy38(10): 755–766.
82.
WeissCH (1979) The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review39(5): 426–431.
83.
WeissCH (1991) Policy research: Data ideas or arguments? In: WagnerPWeissCHWittrockBWollmanH (eds) Social Sciences and Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 307–332.
84.
Weiss-GalIGalJSchwartz-TayriTM (2017) Teacher researcher and … policy actor? Social work academics’ involvement in social policy. Social Policy and Administration51(5): 776–795.
85.
WylieSAJalbertKDosemagenS, et al. (2014) Institutions for civic technoscience: How critical making is transforming environmental research. The Information Society30(2): 116–126.
86.
ZhangLSivertsenGDuH, et al. (2021) Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research. Scientometrics126: 8861–8886.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
