This article addresses the problems of exploring the use of research in the policy process.
Measuring the impact or outcomes of policy research raises complex methodological and
conceptual issues. How the task is approached and what measures are used depend, for example,
on how the nature of the policy-making process is conceived, on what functions research is
presumed to play in the making of policy, and on the way in which the relationship between
research and policy is presented. Drawing on the wider literature in this field, this article
describes and illustrates the three main methods that have been used for studying research use
in the policy arena—impact studies, insider accounts, and case studies—and examines their
strengths and weaknesses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arkava, M., & Lane, T. (1983). Beginning social work research. London: Allyn & Bacon.
2.
Barnes, M., & Wilson, T. (1984). Dissemination of in-house research in LASSDs. Research, Policy and Planning, 2, 19-24.
3.
Barnes, M., & Wilson, T. (1986). The internal dissemination and impact of in-house research in social services departments. Research, Policy and Planning, 4, 19-24.
4.
Benjamin, B. (1973). Research strategies in social services departments of local authorities in Great Britain . Journal of Social Policy, 2, 13-26.
5.
Berry, S. (1982). The role of research: A discussion paper. Research and Information Unit, Nottinghamshire Social Services Department.
6.
Booth, T. (1979). Research and policy making in local authority social services. Public Administration , 57, 173-186.
7.
Booth, T. (1981). Collaboration between health and social services, Part I: A case study of joint care planning . Policy and Politics, 9, 23-49.
8.
Booth, T. (1988). Developing policy research. Aldershot, England: Gower.
9.
Bruyn, S. (1966). The human perspective in sociology: The methodology of participant observation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
10.
Bulmer, M. (1982). The uses of social research: Social investigation in public policy-making. London: Allen & Unwin.
11.
Campbell, D., & Earlebacher, A. (1970). How regression artifacts in quasi-experimental evaluations can mistakenly make compensatory education look harmful. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), Disadvantaged child (pp. 185-210). New York: Brunner/Mazel .
12.
Caplan, N. (1975). The use of social science information by federal executives. In G. Lyons (Ed.), Social research and public policies (pp. 183-198). Hanover, NH: Public Affairs Center, Dartmouth College .
13.
Caplan, N. (1977). A minimal set of conditions necessary for the utilization of social science knowledge in policy formulation at the national level. In C. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making, Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath .
14.
Caplan, N., Morrison, A. , & Stambaugh, R. ( 1975). The use of social science knowledge in policy decisions at the national level: A report to respondents. Ann Arbor : Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan .
15.
Chinoy, E. (1964). The case study method. In J. Gould & W. Kolb (Eds.), A dictionary of the social sciences. London: Tavistock.
16.
Cicirelli, V. (1970). The relevance of the regression artifact problem to the Westinghouse-Ohio evaluation of Head Start: A reply to Campbell and Earlebacher. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), Disadvantaged child (pp. 211-215). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
17.
Cicirelli, V., Evans, J. , & Schiller, J. ( 1970). The impact of Head Start: A reply to the report analysis . Harvard Educational Review, 40, 105-129.
18.
Clarke, R. (n.d.). Penal policy-making and research in the home office [Mimeo]. Home Office Research Unit.
19.
Cohen, D., & Garet, M. (1975). Reforming educational policy with applied social research. Harvard Educational Review, 45(1), 17-43.
20.
Deakin, N. (1982). Research and the policy-making process in local government. Policy and Politics, 10, 303-315.
21.
Evans, J., & Schiller, J. (1970). How preoccupation with possible regression artifacts can lead to a faulty strategy for the evaluation of social action programs: A reply to Campbell and Earlebacher. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), Disadvantaged child (pp. 216-220). New York: Brunner/ Mazel.
22.
Gans, H. (1968). The participant-observer as a human being: Observations on the personal aspects of field work. In H. Becker (Ed.), Institutions and the person (pp. 300-317). Chicago: Aldine .
23.
General Accounting Office. (1984). Designing evaluations (Methodology Transfer Paper No. 4, Program Evaluation and Methodology Division. Washington, DC: Author.
24.
Gold, R. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36, 217-223.
25.
Goode, W., & Hatt, P. (1952). Methods in social research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
26.
Hall, P., Land, H., Parker, R., & Webb, A. (1975). Change, choice and conflict in social policy. London: Heinemann.
27.
Heady, J. (1977). To investigate and to publish (Report to the Trustees of the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust . York, England: JRMT.
28.
Hoaglin, D., et al. (1982). Data for decisions. Cambridge, MA: Abt.
29.
Junker, B. (1960). Field work . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
Knorr, K. (1977). Policymakers' use of social science knowledge: Symbolic or instrumental? In C. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 165-182). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
31.
Leigh, A. (1977). The work of social services researchers and its impact on social policy. Social and Economic Administration, 11, 97-116.
32.
Lovelock, R., Reinach, E. , & Roberts, G. ( 1977). Using the findings. Adoption and Fostering , 3, 49-52.
33.
Lynn, L. (1977). From national security to mental health: Making analyses count in government. Evaluation, 4, 165-177.
34.
Mitchell, J. (1983). Case and situation analysis. Sociological Review, 31, 207.
35.
Moser, C., & Kalton, G. (1958). Survey methods in social investigation . London: Heinemann.
36.
Pahl, R. (1977). Playing the rationality game: The sociologist as a hired expert. In C. Bell and H. Newby (Eds.), Doing sociological research (pp. 130-148). London: Allen & Unwin.
37.
Patton, M., Grimes, P., Guthrie, K., Brennan, N. , French, B., & Blyth, D. (1977). In search of impact: An analysis of the utilization of federal health evaluation research . In C. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 141-164). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
38.
Premfors, R. (1979). Social research and public policy making: An overview. Statsventenskaplig Tidskrift, 4, 281-290.
39.
Rich, R. (1977). Uses of social science information by federal bureaucrats: Knowledge for action versus knowledge for understanding. In C. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 199-212). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
40.
Rothman, J. (1980). Social R and D: Research and development in the human services. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
41.
Schwartz, M., & Schwartz, C. (1955). Problems in participant observation . American Journal of Sociology, 60, 343-353.
42.
Smith, M., & Bissell, J. (1970). Report analysis: The impact of Head Start. Harvard Educational Review, 40, 51-104.
43.
Thomas, P. (1985). The aims and outcomes of social policy research. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
44.
Weiss, C. (1977). Research for policy's sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3, 521-545.
45.
Weiss, C., & Bucuvalas, M. (1977). The challenge of social research to decision making. In C. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
46.
Weiss, C., & Bucuvalas, M. (1980). Social science research and decision-making . New York: Columbia University Press.
47.
Weymann, A., Ellermann, L. , & Wingens, M. ( 1986). A research program on the utilization of the social sciences. In F. Heller (Ed.), The use and abuse of social science. London: Sage.
48.
White, S. (1970). The national impact study of Head Start. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), Disadvantaged child (pp. 163-184). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
49.
Williams, W., & Evans, J. (1969). The politics of evaluation: The case of Head Start. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 385, 118-132.
