Intervening factors in the utilization of social research

Sunesson, Sune; Ericson, Birgitta; Johansson, Börje; Nilsson, Kjell

doi:10.1007/bf02737074

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Firstly, it is important to mention that only a few of these empirical studies have concerned the instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic use altogether. In fact, the three types of research use are included altogether in only four out of nine empirical studies that are presented in Table 1 (Knorr 1977;Sunesson et al 1989;Van de Vall and Bolas 1982;Whiteman 1985). In these four empirical studies, types of research use are measured in a different way.…”

Section: Empirical Studies Pertaining To the Types Of Research Usementioning

confidence: 99%

New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies

Amara¹,

Ouimet²,

Landry

2004

Science Communication

354

364

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article addresses three questions: What is the extent of instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic use of university research in government agencies? Are there differences between the policy domains in regard to the extent of each type of use? What are the determinants of instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic use of university research? Based on a survey of 833 government officials, the results suggest that (1) the three types of use of research simultaneously play a significant role in government agencies, (2) there are large differences between policy domains in regard to research utilization, and (3) a small number of determinants explain the increase of instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of research in a different way.

show abstract

Section: Empirical Studies Pertaining To the Types Of Research Usementioning

confidence: 99%

New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies

Amara¹,

Ouimet²,

Landry

2004

Science Communication

354

364

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although scholars have long been interested in instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic uses of science, few empirical studies have examined such uses systematically. Most studies have relied on case studies rather than surveys, and few have included instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic uses together (Knorr, ; Sunesson, Nilsson, Ericson, & Johansson, ; Van de Vall & Bolas, ; Whiteman, ). One exception is the work by Amara, Ouimet, and Landry () measuring instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic use of academic research across a large number of governmental actors in different Canadian national and provincial agencies.…”

Section: Use Of Science In Collaborative Planning and Government Polimentioning

confidence: 99%

The Science–Policy Nexus in Collaborative Governance: Use of Science in Ecosystem Recovery Planning

Koontz

2019

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Across many social-ecological systems, policy makers and scholars increasingly call for science to inform policy. The science-policy interface becomes especially complex as collaborative approaches include multiple stakeholders working together across jurisdictions. Unfortunately little is known about how much and how science is used in collaborative governance for social-ecological systems. This exploratory study examines instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic use of science in a science-rich collaborative planning case in the Puget Sound, USA. It also examines the influence of science, relative to other factors, in collaborative planning, and what factors affect it. Results from a survey and document analysis indicate the prevalence of conceptual use of science, with relatively little symbolic use. Some factors promoting conceptual and instrumental use discourage symbolic use. Overall, while science is seen as influential in this science-rich context, its influence is balanced by local stakeholder preferences and contextual information. 协作式治理中科学与政策的复杂关系：生态系统恢复规划中的科学应用许多社会-生态系统中，政策制定者和学者都不断呼吁用科学影响政策。科学与政策的交界变得尤为复杂，因为协作措施涉及不同管辖范围内的利益相关者共同合作。遗憾的是，很少有研究聚焦于科学在协作式治理(针对社会-生态系统)中的使用方式和使用程度。本篇探索文章检验了美国普吉特海湾一项充分使用科学的协作规划案例中，科学的工具性使用、概念性使用和象征性使用。本文还检验了科学(与其他因素相关)在协作规划中的影响力，以及哪些因素会影响协作规划。从一项调查和记录分析得出的结果显示，对科学的概念性使用较为普遍，相对而言象征性使用则很少。一些促进概念性使用和工具性使用的因素会阻止象征性使用。总的来说，尽管科学在这一充分使用科学的背景下被视为影响力代表，但其影响力会受到地方利益相关者偏好和背景信息的平衡。关键词: 环境, 治理, 区域治理, 污染 El nexo entre ciencia y política en la gobernanza colaborativa: el uso de la ciencia en la planificación de la recuperación ecológica En muchos sistemas socio-ecológicos, los creadores de políticas y los académicos piden cada vez más que la ciencia informe la política. La interfaz ciencia-política se vuelve especialmente compleja ya que los enfoques de colaboración incluyen múltiples partes interesadas que trabajan juntas en todas las jurisdicciones.Lamentablemente, se sabe poco acerca de cuánto y cómo se utiliza la ciencia en la gobernanza colaborativa para los sistemas socioecológicos. Este estudio exploratorio examina el uso instrumental, conceptual y simbólico de la ciencia en un caso de planificación colaborativa rico en ciencia en Puget Sound, EE. UU. También examina la influencia de la ciencia, en relación con otros factores, en la planificación colaborativa y qué factores la afectan. Los resultados de una encuesta y el análisis de documentos indican la prevalencia del uso conceptual de la ciencia, con un uso simbólico relativamente pequeño. Algunos factores que promueven el uso conceptual e instrumental desalientan el uso simbólico. En general, si bien la ciencia se considera influyente en este contexto rico en ciencia, su influencia se equilibra con las preferencias de las partes interesadas locales y la información contextual.

show abstract

“…There is a range of different traditions which discuss related topics, but in different ways. Scholarship rooted in political science has engaged with questions such as to what extent policymakers are receptive to scientific knowledge (Landry et al 2003), and which different functions academic research can play in policy processes (Van de Vall and Bolas 1982; Sunesson et al 1989). The notion of evidence-based policy has played a central role in such debates, as a contested ideal of transfer of objective evidence from the sphere of science to that of policy (Leicester 1999; Pawson 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging Experts: Science-Policy Interactions and the Introduction of Congestion Charging in Stockholm

Broström

McKelvey

2017

Minerva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyzes the conditions for mobilizing the science base for development of public policy. It does so by focusing upon the science-policy interface, specifically the processes of direct interaction between scientists and scientifically trained experts, on the one hand, and agents of policymaking organizations, on the other. The article defines two dimensions – cognitive distance and expert autonomy – which are argued to influence knowledge exchange, in such a way as to shape the outcome. A case study on the implementation of congestion charges in Stockholm, Sweden, illustrates how the proposed framework pinpoints three central issues for understanding these processes: (1) Differentiating the roles of, e.g., a science-based consultancy firm and an academic environment in policy formation; (2) Examining the fit between the organizational form of the science-policy interface and the intended goals; and (3) Increasing our understanding of when policymaker agents themselves need to develop scientific competence in order to interact effectively with scientific experts.

show abstract

Intervening factors in the utilization of social research

Cited by 7 publications

References 7 publications

New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies

New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies

The Science–Policy Nexus in Collaborative Governance: Use of Science in Ecosystem Recovery Planning

Engaging Experts: Science-Policy Interactions and the Introduction of Congestion Charging in Stockholm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About