With material from a Swedish study of the utilization of social research in city welfare agencies, the author advocate a sociological analysis of the utilization contexts where use of research takes place. The bases of compliance in the organization and the position of the agencies in regard to conflicts in social welfare politics are shown to have great importance for the way organizations use and invest in knowledge, and case studies show that these factors can change the type of impact of research.
The language of current utilization research tends to treat differences in research use as quantitative differences or as differences in the “functions” or “modes” of research use. The authors point to the hierarchical distribution of knowledge and research use, the activity of users, and the way conflicts influence research utilization as important issues for the explanation of research utilization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ANDERSEN, H.
(1984) “Forskningsudvikling og Kundskabsanvendelse.”Copenhagen School of Economics. (mimeo)
2.
BLUME, S. S.
(1987) “Social science in Whitehall: two analytical perspectives,” in M. Bulmer (ed.) Social Science Research and Government. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
3.
BRANTE, T.
(1986) “Changing perspectives in the sociology of science,” in U. Himmelstrand (ed.) The Sociology of Structure and Action, Vol. 1. London: Sage.
4.
BULMER, M.
(1981) “Applied social research: a reformulation of `applied' and `enlightenment' modes.”Knowledge3 (2): 187-209.
5.
BULMER, M.
(1986) “The use and abuse of social science,” in M. Bulmer (ed.) Social Science and Social Policy. London: Allen & Unwin.
6.
De MARTINI, J.
and L. WHITBECK (1986) “Knowledge use as knowledge creation.”Knowledge7: 383-396.
7.
DUNN, W. N.
(1980) “The two-communities metaphor and models of knowledge use.”Knowledge1 (4): 515-536.
8.
HOLZNER, B.
and E. FISHER (1979) “Knowledge in use: considerations in the sociology of knowledge application.”Knowledge1 (2): 219-244.
9.
HUBERMAN, M.
(1987) “Steps toward an integrated model of research utilization.”Knowledge8 (4): 586-611.
10.
KIRK, S.
(1979) “Understanding research utilization in social work,” in CSWE Sourcebook on Research Utilization. A. Rubin and A. Rosenblatt (eds.) New York: Council of Social Work Education.
11.
LARSEN, J.
(1980) “Knowledge utilization: what is it?”Knowledge1 (3):421-442.
12.
MARCH, J.
(1978) “Bounded rationality, ambiguity and the engineering of choice.”Bell Journal of Economics9: 587-608.
13.
MARIN, B.
(1981) “What is `half-knowledge' sufficient for—and when?”Knowledge3 (1): 43-60.
14.
MEYER, J. W.
and W. R. SCOTT (1983) Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
NILSSON, K.
and S. SUNESSON (1988a) Konflikt, Kontroll, Expertis. Att Använda Social Forskning. Lund Studies in Social Welfare Research, Vol. I. Lund: Arkiv.
16.
NILSSON, K.
and S. SUNESSON (1988b) “Conflict and control strategies of research utilization: organizations and utilization contexts.” (submitted for publication).
17.
NOWOTNY, H.
(1982) “Nützliches Wissen—Verwertung sozialwissenschaftlicher Ergebnisse in Abhängigkeit wechslender Konfliktfelder.”Berlin. (mimeo)
18.
PREMFORS, R.
(1979) “Social research and policy making: an overview,” in Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift, pp 281-288.
19.
RORTY, R.
(1982) The Consequences of Pragmatism. Brighton, England: Harvester.
20.
SUNESSON, S.
, K. NILSSON, B. ERICSON, and B. JOHANSSON (forthcoming) “Intervening factors in the utilization of social research.”Knowledge in Society.
21.
THERBORN, G.
(1978) What Does the Ruling Class Do When It Rules?London: New Left Books.
22.
VAN de VALL, M.
and C. BOLAS (1981) “A paradigm of social policy research (SPR) in advanced social systems: an empirical analysis.”Revue Internationale de Sociologie17 (1): 93-111.
23.
WEISS, C. H.
(1977) “Introduction,” in C. H. Weiss and M. Bucuvalas (eds.) Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington, MA: Lexington-Heath.
24.
WEISS, C. H.
(1978) “Improving the linkage between social research and public policy,” in L. E. Lynn (ed.) Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
25.
WEISS, C. H.
(1979) “The many meanings of research utilization.”Public Administration Rev. (September-October).
26.
WEISS, C. H.
(1980) “Knowledge creep and decision accretion.”Knowledge1 (3): 381-404.
27.
WEISS, C. H.
(1981) “Use of social science research in organizations: the constrained repertoire theory,” in H. D. Stein (ed.) Organization and the Human Services. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.
28.
WEISS, C. H.
(1987) “Congressional committee staffs (do, do not) use analysis,” in M. Bulmer (ed.) Social Science Research and Government. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
29.
WEISS, C. H.
and M. BUCUVALAS (1980a) “Truth tests and utility tests: decisionmakers' frame of reference for social science research.”Amer. Soc. Rev.45: 302-313.
30.
WEISS, C. H.
and M. BUCUVALAS (1980b) Social Science Research and Decision-Making. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
31.
WEYMANN, A.
, L. ELLERMANN, and M. WINGENS (1986) “A research program on the utilization of the social sciences,” in F. Heller (ed.) The Use and Abuse of Social Science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
32.
WITTROCK, B.
(1984) “Social science into social policy.” in H. Nowotny (ed.) Social Concerns for the 1980s. Vienna: Eurosocial.
33.
WITTROCK, B.
(1985) “Knowledge and policy—eight models of interaction,” in H. Nowotny and J. Lambiri-Dimaki (eds.) The Difficult Dialogue Between Producers and Users of Social Science Research. Vienna: Eurosocial.
