This study examines the socio-organizational model of science-policy knowledge transfer. Using social network analysis, the authors study how interactions between researchers-policy makers affect utilization of research by policy makers in a boundary organization designed to mediate between research and policy communities. Two types of social interactions with independent effects on utilization are identified. Policy makers with more direct contacts with researchers are more likely to utilize research. Policy makers interacting more with other policy makers regarding research are also more likely to utilize it. This indicates the importance of policy makers’ embeddedness in social networks and the importance of external reputation of boundary organizations for successful knowledge transfer.
AdlerP. S.KwonS. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospect for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27, 17-40.
2.
AmaraN.OuimetM.LandryR. (2004). New evidence on instrumental, conceptual and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication, 1, 75-106.
3.
AnandB. N.KhannaT. (2000). Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 295-315.
4.
ArgoteL.IngramP. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 150-169.
5.
BackerT. E. (1991) Knowledge utilization: The third wave. Science Communication, 12, 225-240.
BorgattiS. P.FosterP. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29, 991-1013.
8.
BurtR. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
9.
BushV. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, 48, 231-264.
10.
CarmeliA.CohenA. (2001). Organizational reputation as a source of sustainable competitive advantage and above normal performance: An empirical test among local authorities in Israel. Public Administration & Management: An Interactive Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 6, 122-165.
11.
CarmeliA.TishlerA. (2005). Perceived organizational reputation and organizational performance: An empirical investigation of industrial enterprises. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1), 13-30.
12.
CashD. W.ClarkW. C.AlcockF.DicksonN. M.EckleyN.GustonD.. . . MitchellR. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 8086-8091.
FreemanL. (1979). Centrality in social networks. Conceptual clarifications. Social Networks, 1, 215-239.
15.
GanoG. L.CrowleyJ. E.GustonD. (2007). “Shielding” the knowledge transfer process in human service research. Journal of Public Administration, 17, 39-60.
16.
GoberP. (2006). Metropolitan Phoenix. Place making and community building in the desert. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
17.
GoberP.KirkwoodC.BallingR.EllisA.DeitrickS. (2010). Water planning under climatic uncertainty in Phoenix: Why we need a new paradigm. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100, 356-372.
18.
GoldenbergJ.HanS.LehmannD. R.HongJ. W. (2009). The role of hubs in the adoption process. Journal of Marketing, 73, 1-13.
19.
GustonD. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26, 299-408.
20.
HackettE. J.ParkerJ. N. (in press). Leadership of scientific groups. In BainbridgeW. S. (Ed.), Leadership in science and technology: A reference handbook. London, England: Sage.
21.
HolmesJ.ClarkR. (2008). Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation. Environmental Science & Policy, 11, 702-711.
22.
HubermanM.ThurlerG. (1991). From research to practice. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang SA.
23.
InkpenA. C.BeamishP. W. (1997). Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 22, 177-202.
24.
InkpenA. C.TsangE. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30, 146-165.
25.
KlerkxL.LeeuwisC. (2008). Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure: Experiences with innovation intermediaries. Food Policy, 33, 260-276.
26.
KnottJ.WildavskyA. (1980). If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem?Science Communication, 1, 537-578.
27.
LahsenM.NobreC. (2007). The challenge of connecting international science and local level sustainability: The case of the LBA. Environmental Science & Policy, 10, 62-74.
28.
LandryR.AmaraN.LamariM. (2001). Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy, 30, 333-349.
29.
LandryR.AmaraN.OuimetM. (2007). Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 561-592.
30.
LandryR.LamariM.AmaraN. (2003). Extent and determinants of utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Administration Review, 63, 191-204.
31.
LinN. (2002). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32.
MandellM. B.SauterV. L. (1984). Approaches to the study of information utilization in public agencies. Knowledge, 6, 145-164.
33.
ManleyK. (2002). The systems approach in innovation studies. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 9, 94-102.
34.
MarsdenP. V. (1990). Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 435-463.
35.
McNieE. (2007). Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy, 10, 17-38.
36.
MillerC. (2001). Hybrid management: Boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26, 478-500.
37.
NahapietJ.GhoshalS. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242-266.
38.
NowotnyH.ScottP.GibbonsM. (2001). Re-thinking science. KNowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
39.
OhC. H.RichR. (1997). Explaining the use of information in public policy making. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 9, 3-35.
40.
O’MahoneyS.BechkyB. A. (2008). Boundary Organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 422-459.
41.
ParkerJ. N.VermeulenN.PendersB. (2010). Collaboration in the new life sciences. London, England: Ashgate.
42.
Perry-SmithJ. E.ShalleyC. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28, 89-106.
43.
RiccucciN. M.MorseR. S. (2010). Bill Gibson and the art of leading across boundaries. Public Administration Review, 70, 434-442.
44.
RodM. R. M.PaliwodaS. J. (2003). Multi-sector collaboration: A stakeholder perspective on a government, industry and university collaborative venture. Science and Public Policy, 30, 273-284.
45.
SarewitzD.PielkeR. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy, 10, 5-16.
46.
SchmochS. (2007). Double-boom cycles and the comeback of science-push and market-pull. Research Policy, 36, 1000-1015.
47.
SchneiderA. L. (2009). Why do some boundary organizations result in new ideas and practices and others only meet resistance? Examples from juvenile justice. American Review of Public Administration, 39, 60-79.
48.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
49.
WhiteD.CorleyE. A.WhiteM. (2008). Water managers’ perceptions of the science-policy interface in Phoenix, Arizona: Implications for an emerging boundary organization. Society & Natural Resources, 21, 230-243.
50.
WhiteD.WutichA.LarsonK.GoberP.LantT.SennevilleC. (2010). Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: water managers’ assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater. Science and Public Policy, 37, 219-232.
