We organize and critique the last 20 years of empirical research on policy utilization of academic social science, offering eight recommendations for future research: (1) improvement in utilization measures; (2) greater alignment on constructs of interest; (3) greater address of different national contexts; 4) study of mechanisms connecting academic research to policymakers; (5) incorporation of knowledge on information search; (6) attention to differences between utilization of policy, social, and physical science in different sectors; (7) evaluative inquiry on the effects of research utilization; and (8) investigation of the value of research in addressing different classes of societal problems.
AkcigitU.HanleyD.Serrano-VelardeN. (2021). Back to basics: Basic research spillovers, innovation policy, and growth. The Review of Economic Studies, 88(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdaa061
2.
AllcottH.GentzkowM. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
3.
AmaraN.OuimetM.LandryR. (2004). New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication, 26(1), 75–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547004267491
4.
AndrewsL. (2017). How can we demonstrate the public value of evidence-based policy making when government ministers declare that the people ‘have had enough of experts’?Palgrave Communications, 3, 11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0013-4
5.
AudretschD. B.AcsZ. J. (1991). Innovation and size at the firm level. Southern Economic Journal, 57(3), 739–744. https://doi.org/10.2307/1059787
6.
AveyP. C.DeschM. C. (2014). What do policymakers want from us? Results of a survey of current and former senior national security decision makers. International Studies Quarterly, 58(2), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12111
7.
BartonC. J.WangQ.AndersonD. M.CallowD. A. (2021). Synchronizing the logic of inquiry with the logic of action: The case of urban climate policy. Sustainability, 13(19), 10625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910625
8.
BédardP. O.OuimetM. (2012). Cognizance and consultation of randomized controlled trials among ministerial policy analysts. Review of Policy Research, 29(5), 625–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2012.00581.x
9.
BernardR.WutichA.RyanG. W. (2017). Analyzing qualitative data (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
10.
BlakeS. C.OttosonJ. M. (2009). Knowledge utilization: Implications for evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2009(124), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.311
11.
BoazA.PawsonR. (2005). The perilous road from evidence to policy: Five journeys compared. Journal of Social Policy, 34(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279404008530
12.
BogenschneiderK.CorbettT. J.ParrottE. (2019). Realizing the promise of research in policymaking: Theoretical guidance grounded in policymaker perspectives. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12310
13.
BozemanB.BretschneiderS.LindsayS.DidierN.et al. (2021) Practitioners’ Use of Public Affairs Research: The Importance of Intentionality (Working Paper Series No.21-017). Center for Organization Research and Design, Arizona State University.
14.
BozemanB.BretschneiderS.LindsayS.NelsonJ.P.DidierN. (2023). Reports of practitioners’ use of public affairs faculty published research. Studies in Higher Education, 48(5), 719–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2184787
15.
BozemanB.FayD.SladeC. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 1–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9281-8
16.
BozemanB.YoutieJ.FukumotoE.ParkerM. (2019). When is science used in science policy? Examining the importance of scientific and technical information in national research council reports. Review of Policy Research, 36(2), 262–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12324
17.
BroadK. (2002). Producing and using climate forecasts: Bridging the supply and demand gap in climate forecast production and use. In GlantzM.H. (Ed.), La Niña and its Impacts: Facts and Speculation (pp. 246–271). United Nations University Press.
18.
BroströmA.McKelveyM. (2018). Engaging experts: Science-policy interactions and the introduction of congestion charging in Stockholm. Minerva, 56(2), 183–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9331-3
19.
BruceA.O’CallaghanK. (2016). Inside out: Knowledge brokering by short-term policy placements. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 12(3), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426416x14688669171927
BushV. (1945). Science the endless frontier, A report to the President. United States Government Printing Office.
22.
CaillaudS.DoumergueM.PréauM.HaasV.KalampalikisN. (2019). The past and present of triangulation and social representations theory: A crossed history. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 16(3), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2019.1605272
23.
CampbellD. T.FiskeD. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
24.
CampitelliG.GobetF. (2010). Herbert Simon’s decision-making approach: Investigation of cognitive processes in experts. Review of General Psychology, 14(4), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0021256
25.
CapanoG.MalandrinoA. (2022). Mapping the use of knowledge in policymaking: Barriers and facilitators from a subjectivist perspective (1990–2020). Policy Sciences, 55, 399–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09468-0
CastilloE.La LondeP. G.OwensS.ScottJ.DeBrayE.LubienskiC. (2021). E-advocacy in the information market: how social media platforms distribute evidence on charter schools. Urban Education, 56(4), 581–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920953885
CherneyA.HeadB.BorehamP.PoveyJ.FergusonM. (2012a). Perspectives of academic social scientists on knowledge transfer and research collaborations: A cross-sectional survey of Australian academics. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 8(4), 433–453. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426412x660098
30.
CherneyA.HeadB.BorehamP.PoveyJ.FergusonM. (2012b). What influences the utilisation of educational research by policy-makers and practitioners?: The perspectives of academic educational researchers. International Journal of Educational Research, 56, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.08.001
31.
CherneyA.HeadB.BorehamP.PoveyJ.FergusonM. (2013). Research utilization in the social sciences: A comparison of five academic disciplines in Australia. Science Communication, 35(6), 780–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013491398
32.
CherneyA.HeadB.PoveyJ.FergusonM.BorehamP. (2015). Use of academic social research by public officials: Exploring preferences and constraints that impact on research use. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 11(2), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426514x14138926450067
33.
CinelliM.De Francisci MoralesG.GaleazziA.QuattrociocchiW.StarniniM. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(9), e2023301. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
34.
CooperA.BenL. (2010). Some Canadian contributions to understanding knowledge mobilisation. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 6(3), 351–369. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426410x524839
35.
DansereauF. (1995). A dyadic approach to leadership: Creating and nurturing this approach under fire. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(4), 479–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90022-5
36.
DesmaraisB. A.HirdJ. A. (2014). Public policy’s bibliography: The use of research in US regulatory impact analyses. Regulation & Governance, 8(4), 497–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12041
37.
DouglasM.WildavskyA. (1983). Risk and Culture: An Essay on the selection of technological and Environmental Dangers. University of California Press.
38.
DunningD.AndersonJ. E.SchlösserT.EhlebrachtD.FetchenhauerD. (2014). Trust at zero acquaintance: More a matter of respect than expectation of reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(1), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036673
39.
D’EsteP.Ramos-VielbaI.WoolleyR.AmaraN. (2018). How do researchers generate scientific and societal impacts? Toward an analytical and operational framework. Science and Public Policy, 45(6), 752–763. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy023
40.
EllisD.CoxD.HallK. (1993). A comparison of the information seeking patterns of researchers in the physical and social sciences. Journal of Documentation, 49(4), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026919
41.
EtomaruI.BisasoR.Nakayiwa-MayegaF. (2022). Fostering knowledge translation in Africa’s flagship universities: A case of Makerere University. Higher Education Research & Development, 41, 1060–1074. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1887093
42.
EzrahiY. (1990). The Descent of Icarus: Science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Harvard University Press.
43.
EzrahiY. (2004). Science and the political imagination in contemporary democracies. In JasanoffS. (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 254–273). Routledge.
44.
EzrahiY. (2012). Imagined democracies: Necessary political fictions. Cambridge University Press.
45.
FellerI.AilesC. P.RoessnerJ. D. (2002). Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: Evidence from engineering research centers. Research Policy, 31, 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00119-6
46.
FellerI.RoessnerJ. D. (1995). What does industry expect from university partnerships?Issues in Science and Technology, 12(1), 80–84.
47.
FletcherM.DimitratosP.YoungS. (2018). How can academic-policy collaboration be more effective? A stewardship approach to engaged scholarship in the case of SME internationalization. Transnational Corporations, 25(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.18356/2e0185bc-en
48.
FotheringhamM.GorterT.BadenhorstA. (2021). Enhancing impact: A model for policy development research. Policy Design and Practice, 4(3), 372–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1961377
49.
FrenchR. D. (2018). Lessons from the evidence on evidence-based policy. Canadian Public Administration, 61(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12295
GraffyE. A. (2008). Meeting the challenges of policy-relevant science: Bridging theory and practice. Public Administration Review, 68(6), 1087–1100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00957.x
53.
GustonD. H. (2000). Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge University Press.
54.
HeadB.FergusonM.CherneyA.BorehamP. (2014). Are policy-makers interested in social research? Exploring the sources and uses of valued information among public servants in Australia. Policy and Society, 33(2), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.04.004
HeinrichC. J.GoodA. (2018). Research-informed practice improvements: exploring linkages between school district use of research evidence and educational outcomes over time. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(3), 418–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1445116
Hinrichs-KrapelsS.BaileyJ.BouldingH.DuffyB.HeskethR.KinlochE.PollittA.RawlingsS.van RijA.WilkinsonB.PowR.GrantJ. (2020). Using policy labs as a process to bring evidence closer to public policymaking: A guide to one approach. Palgrave Communications, 6, 101. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0453-0
59.
IonG.StînguM.MarinE. (2019). How can researchers facilitate the utilisation of research by policy-makers and practitioners in education?Research Papers in Education, 34(4), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1452965
60.
JannW.WegrichK. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. In FischerF.MillerG. J.SidneyM. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis (pp. 43–62). CRC Press.
61.
JanousekC. L.BlairR. (2018). Theory–practice exchange in local government management: Perspectives of practitioners and scholars. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(7), 730–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074017725597
62.
JasanoffS. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers. Harvard University Press.
63.
JasanoffS. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press.
64.
JasanoffS. (2014). Science and public reason. Routledge.
65.
JasanoffS.SimmetH. R. (2017). No funeral bells: Public reason in a ‘post-truth’ age. Social Studies of Science, 47(5), 751–770. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0306312717731936
66.
JenningsE. T.HallJ. L. (2012). Evidence-based practice and the use of information in state agency decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur040
67.
JohnsonJ. G.BusemeyerJ. R. (2010). Decision making under risk and uncertainty. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science, 1(5), 736–749. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.76
68.
KahnemanD.SlovicP.TverskyA. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.
KitagawaF.LightowlerC. (2013). Knowledge exchange: A comparison of policies, strategies, and funding incentives in English and Scottish higher education. Research Evaluation, 22(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs035
71.
KlineS. J. (1995). Conceptual Foundations for multidisciplinary thinking. Stanford University Press.
72.
KnightC.LightowlerC. (2010). Reflections of ‘knowledge exchange professionals’ in the social sciences: Emerging opportunities and challenges for university-based knowledge brokers. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 6(4), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426410x535891
LandryR.LamariM.AmaraN. (2003). The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00279
75.
LandryR.AmaraN.LamariM. (2001). Climbing the ladder of research utilization: Evidence from social science research. Science Communication, 22(4), 396–422. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1075547001022004003
76.
LightowlerC.KnightC. (2013). Sustaining knowledge exchange and research impact in the social sciences and humanities: Investing in knowledge broker roles in UK universities. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 9(3), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426413x662644
77.
LindblomC. E.CohenD. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. Yale University Press.
78.
LingardB. (2013). The impact of research on education policy in an era of evidence-based policy. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2013.781515
79.
LodahlJ. B.GordonG. (1973). Differences between physical and social sciences in university graduate departments. Research in Higher Education, 1(3), 191–213. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40194654
80.
LoganJ. O.GrahamI. D. (1998). Toward a comprehensive interdisciplinary model of health care research use. Science Communication, 20(2), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1075547098020002004
81.
Martín-MartínA.Orduna-MaleaE.ThelwallM.Delgado López-CózarE. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
82.
MatthewsP.RutherfoordR.ConnellyS.RichardsonL.DuroseC.VanderhovenD. (2018). Everyday stories of impact: Interpreting knowledge exchange in the contemporary university. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 14(04), 665–682. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426417x14982110094140
83.
MazzucatoM. (2018). The value of everything: Making and taking in the global economy. PublicAffairs.
84.
McNallyR.AlborzA. (2004). Developing methods for systematic reviewing in health services delivery and organization: An example from a review of access to health care for people with learning disabilities. Part 1. Identifying the literature. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 21(3), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2004.00512.x
85.
MeagherL.LyallC.NutleyS. (2008). Flows of knowledge, expertise and influence: A method for assessing policy and practice impacts from social science research. Research Evaluation, 17(3), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820208x331720
86.
MilburnT. W.BillingsR. S. (1976). Decision-making perspectives from psychology: Dealing with risk and uncertainty. American Behavioral Scientist, 20(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276427602000107
87.
MilesM.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
88.
MongeP. R.RothmanL. W.EisenbergE. M.MillerK. I.KirsteK. K. (1985). The dynamics of organizational proximity. Management Science, 31(9), 1129–1141. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.9.1129
89.
MooneyC. (2005). The Republican war on science. Basic Books.
90.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2007). Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. The National Academies Press.
91.
NelsonR. R. (1974). Intellectualizing about the Moon-Ghetto metaphor: A study of the current malaise of rational analysis of social problems. Policy Sciences, 5(4), 375–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00147227
92.
NelsonR. R. (1977). The Moon and the Ghetto: An essay on public policy analysis. W.W. Norton & Company.
NewmanJ. (2014). Revisiting the “two communities” metaphor of research utilisation. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 27(7), 614–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpsm-04-2014-0056
NewmanJ. (2020). Increasing the ability of government agencies to undertake evidence-informed policymaking. Evidence Base, 2020, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.21307/eb-2020-005
98.
NewmanJ.CherneyA.HeadB. W. (2016). Do policy makers use academic research? reexamining the “two communities” theory of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12464
99.
NewmanJ.CherneyA.HeadB. W. (2017). Policy capacity and evidence-based policy in the public service. Public Management Review, 19(2), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1148191
100.
O’BrienD. (2005). University—Government policy linkages and the knowledge-based approach to internation development. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d’études du développement, 26(1), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2005.9669029
101.
OreskesN.ConwayE. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press.
102.
OrrK.BennettM. (2012). Public administration scholarship and the politics of coproducing academic-practitioner research. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02522.x
103.
OuimetM.BédardP. O.TurgeonJ.LavisJ. N.GélineauF.GagnonF.DallaireC. (2010). Correlates of consulting research evidence among policy analysts in government ministries: A cross-sectional survey. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 6(4), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426410x535846
104.
PalmerC. L.CraginM. H. (2009). Scholarship and disciplinary practices. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42, 163–212.
PattynV.BlumS.FobéE.Pekar-MilicevicM.BransM. (2022). Academic policy advice in consensus-seeking countries: The cases of Belgium and Germany. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88, 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852319878780
107.
PerkmannM.SalandraR.TartariV.McKelveyM.HughesA. (2021). Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011-2019. Research Policy, 50, e104114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104114
108.
PerkmannM.TartariV.McKelveyM.AutioE.BrostromA.D’EsteP.FiniR.GeunaA.GrimaldiR.HughesA.KitsonM.KrabelS.LlerenaP.LissoniF.SalterA.SobreroM. (2013). Academic engagement and Commercialization: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42, 426–442. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2088253
109.
PetrescuC.LambruM. (2021). Using evidence in shaping disability policy in Romania: The case of sheltered workshops. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 17(2), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16146970604672
110.
PhippsD. J.ShapsonS. (2009). Knowledge mobilisation builds local research collaborations for social innovation. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 5(3), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426409x463767
111.
PhoenixJ. H.AtkinsonL. G.BakerH. (2019). Creating and communicating social research for policymakers in government. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 98. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0310-1
112.
PielkeR. A. (1999). Who decides? Forecasts and responsibilities in the 1997 Red River flood. Applied Behavioral Science Review, 7(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1068-8595(00)80012-4
113.
PielkeR. A.Jr. (2007). The honest broker: Making Sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press.
114.
Pizmony-LevyO.McDermottM.CopelandT. T. (2021). Improving ESE policy through research-practice partnerships: Reflections and analysis from New York City. Environmental Education Research, 27(4), 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1890696
115.
PorterT. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton University Press.
116.
PriceD. K. (1965). The scientific estate. Harvard University Press.
117.
RamirezM. D.EricksonN. (2014). Partisan bias and information discounting in economic judgments. Political Psychology, 35(3), 401–415. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43783743
118.
RanchodR.VasC. (2019). Policy networks revisited: Creating a researcher–policymaker community. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 15(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426417x15139342679329
RoseD. C.KennyC.HobbsA.TylerC. (2020). Improving the use of evidence in legislatures: The case of the UK Parliament. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 16(4), 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426420x15828100394351
121.
SáC. M.LiS. X.FaubertB. (2011). Faculties of education and institutional strategies for knowledge mobilization: An exploratory study. Higher Education, 61(5), 501–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9344-4
122.
SanniM.OluwatopeO.AdeyeyeA.EgbetokunA. (2016). Evaluation of the quality of science, technology and innovation advice available to lawmakers in Nigeria. Palgrave Communications, 2, 16095. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.95
SchmittN.StultsD. M. (1986). Methodology review: Analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F014662168601000101
127.
SchutteJ. G.LightJ. M. (1978). The relative importance of proximity and status for friendship choices in social hierarchies. Social Psychology, 41, 260–264. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033563
128.
SchwartzB.Ben-HaimY.DacsoC. (2011). What makes a good decision? Robust satisficing as a normative standard of rational decision making. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 41(2), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2010.00450.x
129.
Scott-FindlayS.Golden-BiddleK. (2005). Understanding how organizational culture shapes research use. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 35(7), 359–365. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005110-200507000-00008
130.
ScottJ. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.
131.
SheehanM.GaravanT. N.MorleyM. J. (2020). Transformational leadership and work unit innovation: A dyadic two-wave investigation. Journal of Business Research, 109, 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.072
132.
SimonH. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769
133.
SimonH. A. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In GreenbergerM. (Ed.), Computers, communications, and the Public Interest (pp. 38–72). The Johns Hopkins University Press.
134.
SimonH. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization, 1(1), 161–176.
135.
SimonH. A. (1983). Reason in human affairs. Stanford University Press.
136.
SimonH. A. (2019 [1996]). Social planning: Designing the evolving artifact. In The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed., pp. 139–167). The MIT Press.
137.
StevensA. (2011). Telling policy stories: An ethnographic study of the use of evidence in policy-making in the UK. Journal of Social Policy, 40(2), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279410000723
138.
StokesD. E. (1997). Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Brookings Institution Press.
ThomasR.OrmerodN. (2017). The (almost) imperceptible impact of tourism research on policy and practice. Tourism Management, 62, 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.02.009
141.
TilburyC.BigbyC.FisherM.HughesM. (2021). Australian social work research: An empirical study of engagement and impact. British Journal of Social Work, 51(2), 752–771. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcaa170
142.
VakkariP. (2005). Task-based information searching. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 413–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440370110
143.
Van LooyB.CallaertJ.DebackereK. (2006). Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing?Research Policy, 35(4), 596–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.02.003
144.
VecchioR. P. (1982). A further test of leadership effects due to between-group variation and within-group variation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.200
145.
VilkinsS.GrantW. J. (2017). Types of evidence cited in Australian Government publications. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1681–1695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2544-2
146.
WalkerL. A.LawrenceN. S.ChambersC. D.WoodM.BarnettJ.DurrantH.PikeL.O’GradyG.BestmannS.KythreotisA. P. (2019). Supporting evidence-informed policy and scrutiny: A consultation of UK research professionals. PLoS One, 14(3), e0214136. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214136
147.
WalkerR. M.ChandraY.ZhangJ.WitteloostuijnA. (2019). Topic modeling the Research-Practice gap in public administration. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 931–937. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13095
148.
WeissC. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431. https://doi.org/10.2307/3109916
149.
WeissC. H. (1991). Policy research: Data, ideas, or arguments? In WagnerP.WeissC. H.WittrockB.WollmanH. (Eds.), Social Sciences and modern states: National experiences and theoretical crossroads (pp. 307–332). Cambridge University Press.
150.
Weiss-GalI.GalJ.Schwartz-TayriT. M. (2017). Teacher, researcher and . . . policy actor? Social work academics’ involvement in social policy. Social Policy and Administration, 51(5), 776–795. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12196
151.
WestR. F.MeserveR. J.StanovichK. E. (2012). Cognitive sophistication does not attenuate the bias blind spot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 506–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028857
152.
WhitmireE. (2002). Disciplinary differences and undergraduates’ information-seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(8), 631–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10123
WilkinsonH.GallagherM.SmithM. (2012). A collaborative approach to defining the usefulness of impact: Lessons from a knowledge exchange project involving academics and social work practitioners. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 8(3), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426412x654040
WoolcottG.KeastR.PickernellD. (2020). Deep Impact: Re-conceptualising university research impact using human cultural accumulation theory. Studies in Higher Education, 45(6), 1197–1216. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1594179
157.
YinglingD. L.MallinsonD. J. (2020). Explaining variation in evidence-based policy making in the American States. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 16(4), 579–596. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419x15752577942927
158.
YoutieJ.BozemanB.JabbehdariS.KaoA. (2017). Credibility and use of scientific and technical information in policy making: An Analysis of the information bases of the National Research Council’s Committee reports. Research Policy, 46(1), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.11.001
159.
YuH. H. (2020). Effective academic–practitioner collaboration on gender research in federal law enforcement: The value of a coproduction process. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(3), 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318801499
