View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Reports of Practitioners' Use of Public Affairs Faculty Published Research

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Reports of Practitioners' Use of Public Affairs Faculty Published Research
Language: English
Authors: Bozeman, Barry, Bretschneider, Stuart, Lindsay, Spencer (ORCID 0000-0001-8368-7933), Nelson, John P. (ORCID 0000-0002-3010-2046), Didier, Nicolas (ORCID 0000-0002-8904-5111)
Source: Studies in Higher Education. 2023 48(5):719-732.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Public Affairs Education, College Faculty, Faculty Publishing, Research Utilization, Authors, Policy, Individual Characteristics, Writing for Publication
DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2023.2184787
ISSN: 0307-5079
1470-174X
Abstract: Using a unique dataset built around published papers in top quality public policy, public administration and program evaluation journals, we find that 29.7% of respondent authors indicate that the knowledge from their articles was used by policymakers or public administrators. These data are used to test for different patterns of use for policy vs management knowledge. Findings suggest that journal quality positively affects policy use but negatively affects management use and that topics suggested by practitioners affect management use but not policy use. The researchers' degree of motivation to have their work used is important in both types of knowledge use. Overall, the results suggest there may be greater spillovers to practical use derived from standard academic publishing pursuits than generally believed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1388449
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGy9k1-crpmahq0oyhr-AYyAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDL2gdwn9e4nWXBgL1QIBEICBm3qgAcYhMbIwbFoLdz3iXgGVaWllOheEjsnZjv31CDcCK1fSNoWfbCVJPGd7mF2i3KFjhRpQXs30iEjJnYKW4pYwpuT8zW7t00p6yxTu4Tb4XcVGBZTK091M9l6TfdEFQeIg6YHLlhzx7HO9g-QzbytJXuQnH1p2MwnxDg994KJuu-EzDflFUYQENd8sJOSDp7WymrH0rqABC87b
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0163673414;she01may.23;2023May15.06:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0163673414-1">Reports of practitioners' use of public affairs faculty published research </title> <p>Using a unique dataset built around published papers in top quality public policy, public administration and program evaluation journals, we find that 29.7% of respondent authors indicate that the knowledge from their articles was used by policymakers or public administrators. These data are used to test for different patterns of use for policy vs management knowledge. Findings suggest that journal quality positively affects policy use but negatively affects management use and that topics suggested by practitioners affect management use but not policy use. The researchers' degree of motivation to have their work used is important in both types of knowledge use. Overall, the results suggest there may be greater spillovers to practical use derived from standard academic publishing pursuits than generally believed.</p> <p>Keywords: Knowledge utilization; research use; public affairs practitioners; research authors; public affairs research</p> <hd id="AN0163673414-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Perkmann, et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref1">49</reflink>]) define academic engagement as 'knowledge-related interactions by academic researchers with non-academic organizations, as distinct from teaching and commercialization.' They follow this by examining relevant literature on entrepreneurship, business and economic activity, implying that academic engagement entails university-industry relations. We feel this perspective is too limited.</p> <p>In the present study, descriptive and exploratory in nature, we examine academic public affairs faculty reports of the use of their published research by practitioners. We do not match these reports against accounts provided by practitioners because of the preliminary nature of this study and limited resources did not permit us to be more comprehensive. We are also interested not only in use, or reported use, but also researchers' perceptions and motivations. Later studies will, we hope, match practitioner and research perceptions and thusly validate use.</p> <p>There is considerable evidence that academic social science researchers can and often do make significant contributions to knowledge used in public affairs (Gornitzka [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref2">21</reflink>]; Chen [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref3">15</reflink>]; Smith, Fernie, and Pilcher [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref4">55</reflink>]). There is less evidence of factors governing the reported use and we examine possible factors here.</p> <p>Research under the heading 'knowledge utilization' [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>] (e.g. Hughes and Kitson [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref6">25</reflink>]; Perkman, et al. 2021) examines factors mitigating practitioners' use of academic social science, but research on this topic remains scant. In part this is because studies of the use of research are so diffuse and fragmented, many focused on uses of knowledge in technological innovations and in commerce, and many focused on the uses of physical science and engineering research or making no distinction between physical science and engineering research and social sciences research (Hughes and Kitson [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref7">25</reflink>]; Perkmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref8">49</reflink>]). While the distinctions between the physical and social science are apparent to most, the knowledge utilization patterns differ nearly as much in the physical sciences and engineering, in part because so much of engineering is rationalized by its applicability. These differences in motivation, focus and personality have been documented for some time (e.g. Shepherd [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref9">53</reflink>]; Kerr, Von Glinow, and Schriesheim [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref10">27</reflink>]), but more recent work also shows differences and are in many ways as stark as differences between sciences and social sciences. However, and especially relevant for the study of the social sciences and public affairs, the social sciences pursue and provide public and social value different from science and engineering (e.g. Olmos-Peñuela, et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref11">44</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref12">45</reflink>]; Muhonen, Benneworth, and Olmos-Peñuela [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref13">39</reflink>]) and have different perceptions of value of their work (Bonaccorsi, Chiarello, and Fantoni [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref14">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>In studying knowledge utilization, it is necessary to consider not only differences between social sciences and physical sciences and engineering but also smaller differences between public affairs research and other social sciences research. Since literature on differences between socials sciences research and physical sciences is well established (Garvey, Lin, and Nelson [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>]; Suls and Fletcher [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref16">56</reflink>]) suffice it to say, as noted by Bastow, Dunleavy, and Tinkler ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref17">6</reflink>]), that the influence of social sciences research resides in the realm of human behaviors and social systems (e.g. organizations, social networks) created by human beings. While public policy and administration scholarship closely resemble many realms of social science scholarship, it differs by taking into account political and policy processes and contexts and, thus, may be especially relevant to practitioners working on those contexts. Similarly, at least some of the research published in public affairs journals aims to influence public policy and administration practice (Shulock [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref18">54</reflink>]). Thus, improved knowledge about the use patterns of this subset of social science research may prove helpful to its effective production and application.</p> <p>Much of the knowledge utilization literature focuses broadly on various information sources, both formal and informal channels of communication, and examines not only the direct use of policy-related research but also the use in shaping attitudes and general perceptions (Henry and Mark [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref19">24</reflink>]). Here, we focus specifically on the use of specific published research articles. In some respects, this is a conservative test of practitioners' use given that many observers feel that published work is rarely used in any straightforward manner but, rather, requires filtering, brokering and gatekeeping (Moyson, Scholten, and Weible [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref20">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>As we describe in our methods section, the analytical unit is the research publication itself rather than the single researcher. Each observation is one published journal article. We examine research publications for a five-year period in seven different social science journals, chosen purposefully to represent general versus policy-specific publications and journals more focused on public policy as compared to those more focused on public administration. As is the case in most instances of research use in public policy and administration, almost all the research studies we examine are produced by academic faculty (Ness [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref21">41</reflink>]). Before elaborating on our specific hypotheses or methods, we first examine below some of the most closely related literature, studies of the use of social science and policy research in public policy and administration.</p> <hd id="AN0163673414-3">An overview of knowledge utilization literature</hd> <p>Almost all studies we consider here are about university-based researchers, and we give special emphasis to empirical studies, including not only aggregate data studies but also case studies and experiential reports. When we examine conceptual models of knowledge utilization we examine both conceptual and empirical studies, giving somewhat more emphasis to the latter which seems in most instances to be somewhat more relevant to our own empirical work.</p> <p>As recognized in the earliest work on research utilization in public policy and administration, the bodies of work produced and (sometimes) used come from, broadly speaking, 'two communities,' ones quite different from one another. Caplan describes this separation as a 'theory of two communities' in which he argues that merely connecting researchers and practitioners to communicate about public administration's needs is not sufficient because they are inherently different from each other (Caplan [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref22">14</reflink>]). Academic knowledge production differs from practitioner expectations, and practitioner knowledge use differs from academic expectations (Caplan [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref23">14</reflink>]) The contexts, cultures, and values that separate each 'community' need more than communication to bridge; they require translation (Caplan [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref24">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>In recent years, the two communities theory has been increasingly challenged as overly simplistic. Wingens ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref25">64</reflink>]), for example, argues that painting the respective communities with such a broad brush, as different cultures, is unrealistic. Furthermore, Newman, Cherney, and Head ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref26">42</reflink>]) specifically refute Caplan's theory, finding that communication does happen between the two communities, and that there is much greater interaction between practitioners and academic researchers than he depicted. There is substantial heterogeneity within both academia and government, including impact-interested and impact-disinterested researchers (Abreu and Grinevich [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref27">1</reflink>]) and research-interested and research-eschewing practitioners (Bogenschneider, Little, and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref28">11</reflink>]). Moreover, research use has been shown to vary across practitioner ranks and roles (Landry, Lamari, and Amara [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref29">33</reflink>]; Ouimet et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref30">46</reflink>]). The research results presented here run counter to Caplan's theory and suggest, as we discuss below, a need to move beyond this conceptualization.</p> <p>According to Sun and Feng ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref31">57</reflink>]), difficulties in practitioners' use of research are less due to cultural differences than the simple fact that 'research takes time, but policy makers want information now (1159).' Research, they say, takes time in significant part due to lengthy peer-review processes and researchers' frequent unwillingness to communicate until research has been published. Shanley and López ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref32">52</reflink>]) argue that the incentive structure for researchers must be revised to encourage researchers to engage more actively in dissemination practices.</p> <p>A key issue in the knowledge utilization literature is defining 'use.' Perhaps most familiar is the framework offered by (Pelz, Yiner, & Cutler, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref33">48</reflink>]) and adapted by (Weiss [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref34">62</reflink>]), distinguishing among three major conceptualizations of use: instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic (Lavis, Ross, & Hurley, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref35">35</reflink>]). As explained by Valente et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref36">60</reflink>]), instrumental use occurs when results are used for specific problems or policies; conceptual use occurs as the general shaping of policy discourse over time; and symbolic use occurs when research is used only as justification after the fact, having no real influence over decision-making.</p> <p>Another influential model of research utilization, one focusing specifically on research developed by academics and used by policymakers, is Landry, Amara, and Lamari ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref37">32</reflink>]) six-stage consecutive model, an adaptation of Knott and Wildavsky's ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref38">29</reflink>]) earlier work. The model describes use as progressing from simple or elementary recognition of research to its instrumental application in developing or changing public policy. Research that is used is likely to only reach the first few stages. Research that reaches the latter stages of use become more infrequent, yet more influential in policymaking. The Landry model is one of the most frequently cited conceptualizations of use in the literature (e.g. Almeida and Báscolo [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref39">3</reflink>]; Belkhodja and Landry [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref40">8</reflink>]; Cherney and McGee [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref41">16</reflink>]; Davidson [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref42">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Much of the knowledge utilization literature is based on identifying and empirically testing factors that both facilitate and hinder knowledge translation. These factors are frequently conceptualized as either individual or organizational factors. Organizational factors include the degree to which the organization or the user sets research utilization as a priority (Weiss [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref43">63</reflink>]). Specifically, the degree to which they devote time and resources for members to find, acquire and apply research findings is considered relevant to utilization (Rodríguez et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref44">51</reflink>]). Furthermore, the specific policy-domain of the organization is also a factor influencing use (Amara, Ouimet, and Landry [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref45">4</reflink>]). Klenk and Wyatt ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref46">28</reflink>]) argue that the level of transparency and responsiveness of organizational processes influences the effectiveness of researcher-practitioner networks.</p> <p>Characteristics of practitioners are also influential in determining their level of research utilization. Individual attitudes toward scholarly research influence whether they seek out and use it (Pittman and Almeida [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref47">50</reflink>]). The practitioner's skills at identifying, accessing and comprehending scholarly research also influence use (Zardo and Collie [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref48">65</reflink>]). Specifically, educational training received by the practitioner influences the likelihood of research utilization, with higher levels of use by those with doctoral degrees or a research-oriented master's degrees (Akinbinu & Tiamiyu, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref49">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Practitioners with greater influence within the organization are more likely to engage in research utilization (Rodríguez et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref50">51</reflink>]). But the individual's ability to influence change also pertains to the match of the research to the practitioner's specific need and, relatedly, to the nature and applicability of the research prescriptions.</p> <p>Regarding the relationship between practitioners and academics, most knowledge utilization scholars cite lack of interaction as a major barrier to use (Heinsch [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref51">23</reflink>]; Koontz [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref52">30</reflink>]; Arnott, Neuenfeldt, and Lemos [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref53">5</reflink>]). Interaction allows researchers and practitioners to form a dialog that ultimately leads to priority and agenda-setting (Kothari, MacLean, and Edwards [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref54">31</reflink>]). Increasing the amount of interaction between practitioners and researchers also contributes to increased trust (Belton [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref55">9</reflink>]). However, as Lemos et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref56">36</reflink>]) note interaction can pose significant personal costs on participants. There are many different ways in which researchers and practitioners may interact (Muhonen, Benneworth, and Olmos-Peñuela [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref57">39</reflink>]), and some forms of outreach may be more efficacious than others in particular circumstances (Broström and McKelvey [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref58">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another frequently cited factor in research utilization is that of the researchers' access to practitioners. Oliver and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref59">43</reflink>]: pg. 2) found that 'timely access to good quality and relevant research evidence' was one of the most influential factors limiting effective research utilization. Access is generally viewed as an organizational factor rather than an individual one (Bédard [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref60">7</reflink>]). Access presumes that there is relevant information available for practitioners, but they are unable, either through constraints of time or resources to find it.</p> <p>To summarize, there are a variety of factors affect practitioners' utilization of academic social science and policy research, but the thread running through most of the literature is the importance of the ability to communicate, including access, timing, and mutual understanding. There are many different types and degrees of research use, and the incidence of each is likely to vary both with practitioner attributes and with research and researcher attributes. We discuss in greater detail the literature on particular relevant attributes below.</p> <hd id="AN0163673414-4">Research questions and hypotheses</hd> <p>Before turning to hypotheses, we present a conceptual model that frames and organizes the research. Figure 1 below provides the conceptual model.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Model of research use by policymaker position.</p> <p>Figure 1 illustrates three categories of attributes of research use. The leftmost column contains attributes of research (and researchers) that are likely to influence the extent and variety of research use. The center column displays different varieties of public policy and public administration practitioners who may use research. The third column displays different ways in which research may be used – as the primary input to a decision, as one of many inputs to a decision, or as a general conceptual framing tool, in policymaking and in management. We expect research attributes to affect both the types of practitioners that use research and the extent to which research is put to each type of use. We also expect practitioner type to affect use type. For example, most obviously, public administrators would be more likely to engage in management uses.</p> <p>Within research attributes, we emphasize three categories of variables that we feel are likely to affect whether an academic research article is used by public policy and administration practitioners. The first two are characteristics of the article itself, including the journal in which it is published and its year of publication, characteristics of the author(s), ones related not only to position and career stage but also productivity. We examine authors' gender on the expectation that the use of research, as is the case with so many behaviors, is potentially related to gender and (as discussed below) previous research suggests that gender is related to perceived credibility.</p> <p>We view both the frequency and type of communication, including choices of communications media as affecting use. Again, there is considerable research on relation of communications variables to knowledge utilization and our study draws ideas from this previous research as well as examines some communications issues not explored in previous studies.</p> <p>In the interest of space, we do not provide separate hypotheses for each of these general determinants of research use but, rather, rely on ample findings from related literature.</p> <hd id="AN0163673414-5">Do communication approaches affect use of research?</hd> <p>While there is not directly related research to inform this hypothesis, we expect that management applications will involve more personal communication and perhaps more long-standing relationships, especially if the user is a public administrator. Typically, political officials tend to have fewer ongoing relations with academic researchers and, thus, may well be more attracted to highly visible media (e.g. television, magazines, newspapers) reports about research. While scholarly journals are not 'highly visible media,' journal attributes may matter as well for both indirect and direct reasons. Indirectly, journal quality may proxy for quality and importance of research, with more important research more likely to influence policy. Directly, higher-quality journals may be better known to policymakers (Desmarais and Hird [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref61">19</reflink>]). Some journals, e.g. the <emph>Public Administration Review</emph>, aim for practitioner relevance, and, analogously, researchers who publish in applied journals have been shown in the physical and engineering sciences to engage more with industry (Tartari and Bresch [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref62">58</reflink>]; Zi and Blind [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref63">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>Hyp 1A: Determinants of the reported use of policy research are a function of the types of communications media employed for the research. If the research is reported in mass media, there will be a positive effect on reported use.</p> <p>Hyp 1B: With reported management uses, direct contact between the user and the researchers will be more influential than indirect communications through formal media.</p> <p>Hyp 1C: Determinants of reported policy research use will vary according to officials' positions.</p> <hd id="AN0163673414-6">Do individual characteristics affect use of research?</hd> <p>It seems plausible that the researcher who has worked as a practitioner will retain contacts and those contacts will more often be with management-focused public administrators. Typically, very few academic researchers have work experience as political (elected or appointed) officials and, moreover, there are many more public administration officials than political officials. Thus, researchers can be expected to have fewer contacts with political officials than with career civil servants. Gulbrandsen and Thune ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref64">22</reflink>]) found that past work experience among science and technical academics has little impact on facilitating or hindering knowledge use.</p> <p>Hyp 2A: If the researcher has previously worked as a practitioner, that experience will have a positive effect on use in management processes.</p> <p>Hyp 2B: A researcher's previous work experience as a practitioner is not likely, to affect use in the policy processes.</p> <p>If we are correct in assuming that research use will relate to social ties, then we may expect that more experienced researchers have had more time to develop social ties with practitioners and, thus, may be more likely to have their research used by them. Likewise, productivity should be positively related to use because of the increased visibility conferred by productivity.</p> <p>Hyp. 3. For both management and policy research, use will be positively related to the career years and productivity indicators of the researcher.</p> <p>Gender may affect use due to prevailing gender biases in academia and government, but directionality is unclear. On one hand, privileging of male researchers may result in greater visibility or success in nonacademic engagement (Landry et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref65">34</reflink>]; Walker et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref66">61</reflink>]). On the other, however, some research indicates that women may be more heavily pressured into engagement and dissemination activities (Jensen et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref67">26</reflink>]; see also Chubb and Derrick [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref68">17</reflink>]). Some prior research impact studies show no gender effect at all (Thomas and Ormerod [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref69">59</reflink>]). Thus, we offer no hypothesis about the effects of gender, but we include it as a control variable.</p> <hd id="AN0163673414-7">Sample design and survey implementation</hd> <p>The data for this study come from an original survey, Truth to Power (T2P) survey, developed and implemented through the Center for Organization Research and Design (CORD) at Arizona State University's School of Public Affairs from November 2020 through February 2021.</p> <p>The basic unit of analysis for the study was a research article author combination drawn from selected peer reviewed journals associated with public management, policy analysis and program evaluation. The research team began with five journals; <emph>Public Administration Review</emph> (PAR), the <emph>Journal of Public Administration: Research and Theory</emph> (JPART), the <emph>Journal of Policy Analysis and Management</emph> (JPAM), <emph>Research Policy</emph> (RP), and the <emph>Milbank Quarterly</emph> (MQ). Both PAR and JPART represented high-quality public management journals, JPAM was a high-quality general policy and program evaluation journal, while RP and MQ represented high-quality domain specific policy journals. For each journal, all research articles published between 2015 and 2019, excluding editorials, opinion pieces, and book reviews, were selected. For each article, the team collected information about the lead author, including their university affiliation at the time of publication (excluding practitioners and postdoctoral fellows). This resulted in 223 articles from PAR, 156 from JPART, 114 from JPAM, 142 from RP, and 92 from MQ, giving a total of 727. In order to broaden the nature of the sample we then added two evaluation journals to our sampling frame, the <emph>American Journal of Evaluation</emph> (AJoE) and <emph>Evaluation Review</emph> (ER). For these two journals, we selected the first 50 research articles from 2019 to 2015, again excluding editorial, opinion pieces and book reviews. This generated an initial sampling frame consisting of 826 articles drawn from 7 different journals. The next step associated with building our sampling frame was to identify second and third authors for each article already identified. This was done to improve our potential response rate for articles by having multiple contacts associated with each article. In total while there were 826 articles, we identified 1536 authors.</p> <p>The resulting sample frame clearly exhibits selection toward 'academic' prestige and quality. In fact while a number of the 1536 authors had working in agency, none of them were currently employed as practitioners. Some work has suggested that these factors motivated researchers but not practitioners suggesting any positive findings might suggest revising out thinking. Maybe academics being academic could impact practice?</p> <p>The survey focused on the career research experiences of the individual author. Here questions asked about how important their work being used in practice mattered both early in their careers and over the course of their entire careers. We also asked about the institutional incentives for promotion and tenure, including what role work with practitioners played. We asked whether the subject had ever been 'cold contacted' by a practitioner and to identify the most recent instance where their research was used in practice. The survey ended with a set of standard demographics questions about the author's rank, gender, race, the year they received their degree and whether they had ever worked as a practitioner.</p> <hd id="AN0163673414-8">Survey implementation</hd> <p>The survey process was implemented through Qualtrics as an online survey. It was initiated with an alert letter. Several days following the alert letter, an invitation email was sent to only the first authors of each article, including a link to the Qualtrics survey. After one week a second invitation with a link to the survey was sent to all non-responding first authors plus second and third authors associated with the non-responding first author article. After another week, a final, third invitation with a survey link was sent to all remaining non-responding first, second and third authors. Before conducting the survey, a pretest survey was conducted, including an alert letter, initial invitation and one follow-up invitation for 27 authors to obtain feedback on the survey instrument.</p> <p>The actual implementation of the survey occurred between January 28 and February 22, 2021. Ultimately 184 individual authors from the frame did not receive the alert and/or initial invitations due to bad email addresses. This reduced the overall sample frame down to 817 articles and 1352 authors. The overall strategy of reaching out to second and third authors resulted in information on 113 articles for which no first author responded and 21 redundant responses where second or third authors responded to a single article. Our final sample consisted of 388 unique articles from 430 author responses. Overall, our response rate on articles is 47.5%. For all authors, it is 30.3%. For first authors, it is 33.7%, second authors 25.8% and third authors 22.5%. The authors represented in the sample were all university academics and 54% had email addresses associated with the United States. The other 46% were international, mostly from Europe with 7% from the UK, 5% from Denmark, 5% from the Netherlands and 2.5% from Italy. The list of affiliations also suggests that more prestigious universities and/or department likely related to the high quality of the journals forming the sampling frame.</p> <hd id="AN0163673414-9">Developing the dependent variables for management use and policy use</hd> <p>The types of use variables were based on survey responses and included uses in shaping management, shaping policy, changing management, changing policy, framing management agendas, and framing policy agendas. The factor analysis yields two factors, one deemed as representing policy impacts and the other management impacts. After conducting a principal factor extraction from polychoric correlations, we conducted a varimax rotation criterion. The results for each are shown in Table 1, along with the retained factor scores that serve as dependent variables for, respectively, policy and management use.</p> <p>Table 1. Factor analyses of use variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Factor 1 (Policy)</td><td>Factor 2 (Management)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Shaping Policy</td><td char="."><bold>.8058</bold></td><td char=".">.4140</td></tr><tr><td>Shaping Management</td><td char=".">.4953</td><td char="."><bold>.7626</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Changing Policy</td><td char="."><bold>.8496</bold></td><td char=".">.4166</td></tr><tr><td>Changing Management</td><td char=".">.3547</td><td char="."><bold>.8590</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Framing Policy</td><td char="."><bold>.8113</bold></td><td char=".">.3544</td></tr><tr><td>Framing Management</td><td char=".">.3975</td><td char="."><bold>.7858</bold></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Bolded results are the strong loadings that show which variables load on which factors.</p> <hd id="AN0163673414-10">The independent variables</hd> <p>The independent variables were organized into characteristics related to the author, characteristics related to the article/journal, characteristics associated with timing and initiation of communications with practitioners, and variables identifying communication strategies associated with various channels aimed at promoting attention by practitioners.</p> <p>There are four variables associated with authors and four variables to identify motivations of the author for the work. The first was the first author's H-index taken at the time the sample frame was constructed from Google Scholar. This measure captured academic/general impact of the author's research. Google Scholar uses a much broader definition for the types of works cited than Nexis Uni (formerly Lexis Nexis Academic) or Web of Science, including project reports. The second was the year the author received their highest degree, capturing age and experience in the field. Third was a variable to indicate the author's gender. The last variable was an indicator of whether the author has worked for at least 12 months as a practitioner.</p> <p>There were four variables associated with motivation. Each used a four-point Likert scale running from 0 for not important, 1 for somewhat important, 2 for very important and 3 for most important. One focused on the author's motivation to have the work used in practice. Another considered the author's personal values and a third asked the author to consider general social and political values. The final motivations asked if the topic had been suggested by a practitioner.</p> <p>This study also collected variables designed to assess traditional notions of impact, including citations to the article taken at the time the sample frame was constructed and the Web of Science 2019 impact factor associated with the journal in which the paper was published.</p> <p>There were four binary independent variables associated with communications. Three identified when the communication occurred, before starting the research, during the research process and after publication. The fourth variable indicated if the communication had been initiated by a practitioner or not. The final set of variables indicated which communication channels were used to promote the article. Five binary variables captured this by considering blogs, personal websites, university or institutional websites, news articles and/or social media. Table 2 summarizes all the independent variables.</p> <p>Table 2. Descriptive statistics for dependent and independent variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Variable</td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>Mean</td><td>Std. dev.</td><td>Minimum</td><td>Maximum</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Policy Factor</td><td char=".">389</td><td char=".">0.0954</td><td char=".">0.321</td><td>−0.4828</td><td char=".">1.261</td></tr><tr><td>Management Factor</td><td char=".">389</td><td char=".">0.1083</td><td char=".">0.325</td><td>−0.4913</td><td char=".">1.286</td></tr><tr><td>H-Index</td><td char=".">349</td><td char=".">21.476</td><td char=".">22.45462</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">237</td></tr><tr><td>Degree Year</td><td char=".">409</td><td char=".">1857.929</td><td char=".">523.4813</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">2021</td></tr><tr><td>Practitioner</td><td char=".">387</td><td char=".">0.253</td><td char=".">0.4354245</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Motivation for Use</td><td char=".">395</td><td char=".">1.422</td><td char=".">0.7811142</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>Motive. Soc/Pol Values</td><td char=".">393</td><td char=".">2.256</td><td char=".">0.7475184</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>Motive Personal Values</td><td char=".">387</td><td char=".">1.596</td><td char=".">1.004029</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>Motive from Practitioner</td><td char=".">385</td><td char=".">0.293</td><td char=".">0.6956595</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>Citations</td><td char=".">409</td><td char=".">34.5061</td><td char=".">50.30062</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">405</td></tr><tr><td>Impact Factor</td><td char=".">409</td><td char=".">3.9632</td><td char=".">1.070207</td><td char=".">1.447</td><td char=".">5.351</td></tr><tr><td>Communication-before</td><td char=".">390</td><td char=".">0.3333</td><td char=".">0.4720101</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Communication-during</td><td char=".">390</td><td char=".">0.4128</td><td char=".">0.4929735</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Communication-after</td><td char=".">390</td><td char=".">0.4384</td><td char=".">0.4968359</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Communication-Practitioner</td><td char=".">390</td><td char=".">0.1974</td><td char=".">0.3985753</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0163673414-11">Regression results</hd> <p>A standard OLS regression model was used, regressing each of the two factor-based variables (factor scores) on the independent variables. Tests for heteroscedasticity confirmed that there was an issue of unequal variance, so robust standard errors are reported for assessing sampling uncertainty. Variance inflation analysis indicates no significant issues of multicollinearity. The results are provided in Tables 3 and 4, focusing respectively on Reported Impacts on Policy and Impacts on Management.</p> <p>Table 3. Regression results for determinants of reported impact on policy.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Independent</td><td /><td>Robust</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Variables</td><td>Coef.</td><td>St. err</td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><italic>P</italic>><italic>t</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Author Characteristics</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> H-Index</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.001</td><td char=".">0.100</td><td char=".">0.917</td></tr><tr><td> Female*</td><td char=".">0.068</td><td char=".">0.040</td><td char=".">1.700</td><td char=".">0.090</td></tr><tr><td> Degree Year</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td>−0.070</td><td char=".">0.940</td></tr><tr><td> Worked as Practitioner</td><td char=".">0.026</td><td char=".">0.038</td><td char=".">0.680</td><td char=".">0.496</td></tr><tr><td>Motivations</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Use**</td><td char=".">0.054</td><td char=".">0.025</td><td char=".">2.200</td><td char=".">0.029</td></tr><tr><td> Practitioner Suggested</td><td>−0.014</td><td char=".">0.037</td><td>−0.380</td><td char=".">0.703</td></tr><tr><td> Personal Values</td><td>−0.005</td><td char=".">0.018</td><td>−0.290</td><td char=".">0.770</td></tr><tr><td> Soc/Pol Values*</td><td char=".">0.042</td><td char=".">0.023</td><td char=".">1.770</td><td char=".">0.078</td></tr><tr><td>Article/Journal</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Citations</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td>−0.780</td><td char=".">0.438</td></tr><tr><td> Journal Impact**</td><td char=".">0.050</td><td char=".">0.020</td><td char=".">2.450</td><td char=".">0.015</td></tr><tr><td>Communications</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Before starting</td><td char=".">0.057</td><td char=".">0.049</td><td char=".">1.160</td><td char=".">0.248</td></tr><tr><td> During</td><td char=".">0.014</td><td char=".">0.041</td><td char=".">0.340</td><td char=".">0.734</td></tr><tr><td> After Publication</td><td char=".">0.060</td><td char=".">0.041</td><td char=".">1.490</td><td char=".">0.138</td></tr><tr><td> Initiated by Practice**</td><td char=".">0.154</td><td char=".">0.063</td><td char=".">2.460</td><td char=".">0.014</td></tr><tr><td>Channels</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Blog</td><td char=".">0.028</td><td char=".">0.097</td><td char=".">0.290</td><td char=".">0.772</td></tr><tr><td> Personal Website</td><td>−0.037</td><td char=".">0.075</td><td>−0.490</td><td char=".">0.624</td></tr><tr><td> Univ. Website</td><td>−0.017</td><td char=".">0.070</td><td>−0.240</td><td char=".">0.813</td></tr><tr><td> News Article***</td><td char=".">0.197</td><td char=".">0.074</td><td char=".">2.680</td><td char=".">0.008</td></tr><tr><td> Social Media</td><td>−0.040</td><td char=".">0.064</td><td>−0.620</td><td char=".">0.535</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept**</td><td>−0.368</td><td char=".">0.181</td><td>−2.040</td><td char=".">0.042</td></tr><tr><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>312</td></tr><tr><td><italic>R</italic>-Square</td><td char=".">0.207</td></tr><tr><td>Root MSE</td><td char=".">0.301</td></tr><tr><td><italic>F</italic>-Stat. <italic>P</italic> value</td><td char=".">0.002</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note: * indicates significance at 90% level; ** indicates significance at 95% level; *** indicates significance at 99% level.</p> <p>Table 4. Regression results for determinants of reported impact on management.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Independent</td><td /><td>Robust</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Variables</td><td>Coef.</td><td>St. err</td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><italic>P</italic>><italic>t</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Author Characteristics</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> H-Index</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td>0.001</td><td char=".">−0.250</td><td char=".">0.803</td></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td char=".">−0.065</td><td>0.040</td><td char=".">−1.610</td><td char=".">0.108</td></tr><tr><td> Degree Year</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td char=".">−0.610</td><td char=".">0.543</td></tr><tr><td> Worked as Practitioner</td><td char=".">−0.037</td><td>0.047</td><td char=".">−0.800</td><td char=".">0.422</td></tr><tr><td>Motivations</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Use*</td><td char=".">0.045</td><td>0.026</td><td char=".">1.750</td><td char=".">0.082</td></tr><tr><td> Suggested by Practice**</td><td char=".">0.090</td><td>0.040</td><td char=".">2.240</td><td char=".">0.026</td></tr><tr><td> Practitioner Suggested</td><td char=".">−0.003</td><td>0.017</td><td char=".">−0.170</td><td char=".">0.865</td></tr><tr><td> Soc/Pol Values</td><td char=".">−0.023</td><td>0.025</td><td char=".">−0.890</td><td char=".">0.375</td></tr><tr><td>Article /Journal</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Citations</td><td char=".">0.001</td><td>0.000</td><td char=".">1.360</td><td char=".">0.175</td></tr><tr><td> Journal Impact**</td><td char=".">−0.049</td><td>0.022</td><td char=".">−2.210</td><td char=".">0.028</td></tr><tr><td> Communications</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Before starting</td><td char=".">0.062</td><td>0.046</td><td char=".">1.340</td><td char=".">0.183</td></tr><tr><td> During</td><td char=".">0.008</td><td>0.038</td><td char=".">0.220</td><td char=".">0.824</td></tr><tr><td> After Publication**</td><td char=".">0.102</td><td>0.040</td><td char=".">2.550</td><td char=".">0.011</td></tr><tr><td> Initiated by Practice</td><td char=".">−0.061</td><td>0.066</td><td char=".">−0.930</td><td char=".">0.352</td></tr><tr><td>Channels</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Blog</td><td char=".">−0.051</td><td>0.093</td><td char=".">−0.550</td><td char=".">0.583</td></tr><tr><td> Personal Website</td><td char=".">0.061</td><td>0.081</td><td char=".">0.750</td><td char=".">0.455</td></tr><tr><td> Univ. Website</td><td char=".">0.048</td><td>0.071</td><td char=".">0.690</td><td char=".">0.493</td></tr><tr><td> News Article</td><td char=".">0.025</td><td>0.075</td><td char=".">0.340</td><td char=".">0.736</td></tr><tr><td> Social Media</td><td char=".">−0.012</td><td>0.058</td><td char=".">−0.210</td><td char=".">0.837</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept*</td><td char=".">0.274</td><td>0.148</td><td char=".">1.860</td><td char=".">0.064</td></tr><tr><td><italic>N</italic></td><td /><td /><td>312</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>R</italic>-Square</td><td /><td /><td>0.144</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Root MSE</td><td /><td /><td>0.314</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>F</italic>-Stat <italic>P</italic> value</td><td /><td /><td>0.001</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Note: * indicates significance at 90% level; ** indicates significance at 95% level; *** indicates significance at 99% level.</p> <p>Reported Research Impacts on Policy were predicted (<emph>p</emph> = <.05) by authors' motivation to have their articles used by practitioners, journals' impact factors, having communications initiated by practitioners, communication in newspapers and magazines, and communications in social media (negative coefficient). The model explained 0.207 of the variance in the dependent variable.</p> <p>With regard to Reported Research Impacts on Management, the results were similar in many respects, including as significant predictors researchers' motivation to have their research used by practitioners, journal impact factors (negative coefficient), having communications initiated by practitioners, communication in newspapers and magazines and communications between the research and practitioner after the research was published.</p> <p>Regarding Hypotheses 1A, 1B and 1C, concerning determinants of use of research for, respectively, policy and management issues, the determinants are more similar than expected. Not surprisingly, for both types of researchers' motivation to actually have their research used by practitioners proved a major factor. Likewise, having the research suggested by practitioners was, for both types of use, quite positive in its effects. However, several of our other expectations proved off the mark. For both, not just policy applications as hypothesized, communication of the research in conventional mass media (newspapers, magazines, television), proved strongly positive. The quality and impact of the journal works in opposite ways, promoting policy use but retarding management use. For Hypotheses 2A and 2B, relating previous experience as a practitioner, this proved insignificant for both types of use. This non-finding cannot be dismissed merely as a data limitation inasmuch as 25% of respondents report having had experience as a policy or public administration practitioner (certainly a high percentage, but not unexpectedly so when considering the fact that all journals focus on policy and administration, fields where practitioner experience often is prized). These results are consistent with those reported by Gulbrandsen and Thune ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref70">22</reflink>]) for scientific and technical academics. This suggests that while there is no benefit associated with the work experience, it also does not result in a penalty potentially associated with less experience in the research field.</p> <p>Regarding Hypothesis 3, the effects of researchers' career years and productivity are minimal and not significant and, indeed, none of the demographic attributes of researchers have effects on reported use. In some respects, that can be viewed as positive. Both women and men are about equally likely to report their research used and, more surprising perhaps, career age and researchers' academic productivity seem to have no bearing on reported use. Focusing on policy relevance and the quality of the journal and its influence may shield the potential user from inappropriate inferences associated with personal characteristics. While impersonality can be a drawback in the use of published research – as opposed to commissioned research or co-produced or guided research – may in one sense be an advantage: blunting the usual human tendency for persons, in this case public affairs practitioners, to affiliate and give attention according to personal symmetry and matching (Pandey et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref71">47</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0163673414-12">Conclusion</hd> <p>Many studies of academic engagement exclude the very activity that most occupies the time and resources of university faculty members – published research. Many studies of knowledge utilization, both academic research and other sources of knowledge, assume that use is contingent on relationships and more often involves tailor-made products, such as consulting report, as opposed to the day-to-day academic research, performed routinely. This notion is clearly a distortion of the use of academic research on public policy and administration. A rather substantial percentage of such published research is, at least by the accounts of those producing it, used by policymakers and public officials. Thus, while a great deal of academic engagement relies on fieldwork, not all of it does. Moreover, published research is the lifeblood of nearly all university faculty in research-intensive universities; if academic research is used by practitioners, as our respondents indicate, then perhaps social engagement activities align with one of the most fundamental requirements of higher education, research for publication.</p> <p>One gains additional insight with a more fine-grained approach to understanding the type of academic research that is a putative candidate for utilization. However, ours is just the beginning for those focusing on research utilization with higher granularity. Classifying reported use in terms of management processes versus policy serves only as a crude beginning. In terms of policy and public administration utilization, the level of government could be important. Perhaps national government issues are sufficiently different from sub-national ones that this could make a difference in use patterns. It could also prove useful to compare patterns of use between academic researchers and researchers in other settings, including government research operations and private consulting firms. It stands to reason that persons working in academia would have different contacts and social networks than others and, similarly, those working in government research operations likely have easier and more routine access. Use of consultants' work might well be affected by whether the practitioners' organizations have commission or paid for the work. It is interesting that despite our efforts at diversifying our sample through inclusion of evaluation journals our sample still did not include non-academics.</p> <p>One of the more encouraging findings of our study is the reported extent of research utilization. If we consider that our focus here is not on consulting papers or commissioned work and, instead, on disparate publications in formal literature, then the fact that more than one-third of researchers report that their work has, in some respect, been put to use by practitioners means that the work is not, from a practical application standpoint, falling on fallow ground. If we consider further that it is certainly the case that research work is, in some instances, used by practitioners without the knowledge of the producers of the research, then the rate of use is in all likelihood even higher than is reported here.</p> <p>Many questions remain to be answered, of course. For example, how exactly is the research work applied and, most importantly, to what effect? As we know from previous studies, this is an exceedingly difficult question to answer since most uses of research are for background and agenda setting rather than direct application. Thus, the actual impact of any single study is quite difficult to measure. However, the difficulty of measurement does not lessen its importance.</p> <p>As noted above, the potential for key omitted variables is a major limitation of this work. Along with that, drawing the sample of authors and articles from top-rank publications likely produced a selection bias. This bias is toward higher 'academic' quality and 'prestigious' authors and institutions. Furthermore, this is a single cross-sectional sample. This limitation suggests caution in interpreting our results as anything more than exploratory and descriptive. That said, we do find the results consistent with previous work (e.g. Gulbrandsen and Thune [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref72">22</reflink>]) and reasonable. Most importantly, this study is limited by its focus only on the producer of the research. Very little research has examined both the producer and the user of research to determine different perspectives on motives, mechanisms and effects. But when we are able to match the attributes of the user to the producer many of the questions raised here will surely have more satisfying answers.</p> <hd id="AN0163673414-13">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <p>Correction Statement</p> <p>This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2200657)</p> <ref id="AN0163673414-14"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> We use the term 'knowledge utilization' because it has come into common usage for those studying the application of social, behavioral, and policy research to public affairs (e.g., Marsh and Glassick [37]; Neilson [40]; Blake and Ottoson [10]). In common academic parlance, the term does <emph>not</emph> include the usage of physical or natural sciences research.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0163673414-15"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abreu, M., and V. Grinevich. 2013. " The Nature of Academic Entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the Focus on Entrepreneurial Activities." Research Policy 42 : 408 – 22. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref49" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Akinbinu, Temitope, and Mutawakilu Tiamiyu. 2016. Attitude of Civil Servants Towards the Use of Research Information in Policymaking in Selected Ministries in Lagos State, Nigeria.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref39" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Almeida, Celia, and Ernesto Báscolo. 2006. " Use of Research Results in Policy Decision-Making, Formulation, and Implementation: A Review of the Literature." Cadernos de saude publica 22 : S7 – 19. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311 (2006001300002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref45" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Amara, Nabil, Mathieu Ouimet, and Réjean Landry. 2004. " New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies." Science Communication 26 (1): 75 – 106. doi: 10.1177/1075547004267491.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref53" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Arnott, James C., Rachel J. Neuenfeldt, and Maria Carmen Lemos. 2020. " Co-Producing Science for Sustainability: Can Funding Change Knowledge Use? " Global Environmental Change 60 : 101979. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101979.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref17" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bastow, Simon, Patrick Dunleavy, and Jane Tinkler. 2014. The Impact of the Social Sciences: How Academics and Their Research Make a Difference. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref60" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bédard, Pierre-Olivier. 2015. " The Mobilization of Scientific Evidence by Public Policy Analysts: Path Analysis and Predicted Probabilities." SAGE Open 5 (3): 1 – 15. doi: 10.1177/2158244015604193.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref40" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Belkhodja, Omar, and Réjean Landry. 2007. "What Factors Induce Canadian Health Organizations' Managers And Professionals To Use Research Results? - A Path Analysis Model." ASAC 2007 Conference, 45–65. Ottawa, Ontario: ResearchGate.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref55" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Belton, Kathy L. 2016. "Research in the Role of Trust in an Evolving Network for Knowledge Translation." PhD diss., University of Alberta.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blake, Sarah C., and Judith M. Ottoson. 2009. " Knowledge Utilization: Implications for Evaluation." New Directions for Evaluation 124 : 21 – 34. doi: 10.1002/ev.311.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bogenschneider, Karen, Olivia M. Little, and Kristen Johnson. 2013. " Policymakers' Use of Social Science Research: Looking Within and Across Policy Actors." Journal of Marriage and Family 75 (2): 263 – 75. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bonaccorsi, A., F. Chiarello, and G. Fantoni. 2021. " SSH Researchers Make an Impact Differently. Looking at Public Research from the Perspective of Users." Research Evaluation 30 (3): 269 – 89. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvab008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Broström, A., and M. McKelvey. 2018. " Engaging Experts: Science-Policy Interactions and the Introduction of Congestion Charging in Stockholm." Minerva 56 (2): 183 – 207. doi: 10.1007/s11024-017-9331-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caplan, Nathan. 1979. " The Two-Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilization." American Behavioral Scientist 22 (3): 459 – 70. doi: 10.1177/000276427902200308.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, Shuangye. 2015. " Boundary Objects and Boundary Brokering to Make the Research-Policy-Practice Nexus Possible: The Case of the Chinese Higher Education Field." Higher Education Policy 28 (4): 441 – 57. doi: 10.1057/hep.2015.13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cherney, Adrian, and Tara Renae McGee. 2011. " Utilization of Social Science Research: Results of a Pilot Study among Australian Sociologists and Criminologists." Journal of Sociology 47 (2): 144 – 62. doi: 10.1177/1440783310386831.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chubb, J., and G. E. Derrick. 2020. " The Impact A-Gender: Gendered Orientations Towards Research Impact and Its Evaluation." Palgrave Communications 6 : 72. doi: 10.1057/s41599-020-0438-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davidson, Katherine. 2011. "The Research to Practice Gap in the Identification and Instruction of Students at Risk for Reading Disabilities: Teachers' Perspectives." PhD diss. University of Western Ontario.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Desmarais, B. A., and J. A. Hird. 2014. " Public Policy's Bibliography: The use of Research in US Regulatory Impact Analyses." Regulation and Governance 8 (4): 497 – 510. doi: 10.1111/rego.12041.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garvey, William D, Nan Lin, and Carnot E. Nelson. 1970. " Communication in the Physical and the Social Sciences: The Processes of Disseminating and Assimilating Information Differ in These Two Groups of Sciences." Science 170 (3963): 1166 – 73. doi: 10.1126/science.170.3963.1166.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gornitzka, Åse. 2013. " The Interface Between Research and Policy–A Note with Potential Relevance for Higher Education." European Journal of Higher Education 3 (3): 255 – 64. doi: 10.1080/21568235.2013.816469.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Taran Thune. 2017. " The Effects of Non-Academic Work Experience on External Interaction and Research Performance." The Journal of Technology Transfer 42 (4): 795 – 813. doi: 10.1007/s10961-017-9556-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heinsch, Milena. 2018. " Exploring the Potential of Interaction Models of Research Use for Social Work." The British Journal of Social Work 48 (2): 468 – 86. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcx034.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henry, Gary T., and Melvin M. Mark. 2003. " Beyond Use: Understanding Evaluation's Influence on Attitudes And Actions." American Journal of Evaluation 24 (3): 293 – 314. doi: 10.1177/109821400302400302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes, Alan, and Michael Kitson. 2012. " Pathways to Impact and the Strategic Role of Universities: New Evidence on the Breadth and Depth of University Knowledge Exchange in the UK and the Factors Constraining its Development." Cambridge Journal of Economics 36 (3): 723 – 50. doi: 10.1093/cje/bes017.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jensen, P., J. B. Rouquier, P. Kreimer, and Y. Croissant. 2008. " Scientists Who Engage with Society Perform Better Academically." Science and Public Policy 35/7 : 527 – 41. doi: 10.3152/030234208X329130.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerr, S., M. A. Von Glinow, and J. Schriesheim. 1977. " Issues in the Study of "Professionals" in Organizations: The Case of Scientists and Engineers." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 18 (2): 329 – 45. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(77)90034-4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klenk, Nicole Lisa, and Stephen Wyatt. 2015. " The Design and Management of Multi-Stakeholder Research Networks to Maximize Knowledge Mobilization and Innovation Opportunities in the Forest Sector." Forest Policy and Economics 61 : 77 – 86. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.06.008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knott, J., and A. Wildavsky. 1980. " If Dissemination Is the Solution, What Is the Problem ?." Knowledge 537 – 578. doi: 10.1177/107554708000100404.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koontz, Tomas M. 2019. " The Science–Policy Nexus in Collaborative Governance: Use of Science in Ecosystem Recovery Planning." Review of Policy Research 36 (6): 708 – 35. doi: 10.1111/ropr.12362.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kothari, Anita, Lynne MacLean, and Nancy Edwards. 2009. " Increasing Capacity for Knowledge Translation: Understanding How Some Researchers Engage Policy Makers." Evidence & Policy 5 (1): 33 – 51. doi: 10.1332/174426409X395402.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landry, Réjean, Nabil Amara, and Moktar Lamari. 2001. " Utilization of Social Science Research Knowledge in Canada." Research Policy 30 (2): 333 – 49. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00081-0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landry, R., M. Lamari, and N. Amara. 2003. " The Extent and Determinants of the Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies." Public Administration Review 63 (2): 192 – 205. doi: 10.1111/1540-6210.00279.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landry, R., M. Saïhi, N. Amara, and M. Ouimet. 2010. " Evidence On How Academics Manage Their Portfolio of Knowledge Transfer Activities." Research Policy 39 : 1387 – 403. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.08.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lavis, J. N., S. E. Ross, and J. E. Hurley. 2003. " Examining the Role of Health Services Research in Public Policymaking." The Milbank Quarterly 125 – 154. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.00005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lemos, Maria Carmen, Kimberly S. Wolske, Laura V. Rasmussen, James C. Arnott, Margaret Calcic, and Christine J. Kirchhoff. 2019. " "The Closer, the Better? Untangling Scientist–Practitioner Engagement, Interaction, and Knowledge Use." Weather, Climate, and Society 11 (3): 535 – 48. doi: 10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0075.1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, David D., and Judith M. Glassick. 1988. " Knowledge Utilization in Evaluation Efforts: The Role of Recommendations." Knowledge 9 (3): 323 – 41. doi: 10.1177/107554708800900301.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moyson, Stéphane, Peter Scholten, and Christopher M. Weible. 2017. " Policy Learning and Policy Change: Theorizing Their Relations from Different Perspectives." Policy and Society 36 (2): 161 – 77. doi: 10.1080/14494035.2017.1331879.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muhonen, R., P. Benneworth, and J. Olmos-Peñuela. 2020. " From Productive Interactions To Impact Pathways: Understanding the Key Dimensions in Developing SSH Research Societal Impact." Research Evaluation 29/1 : 34 – 47. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvz003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neilson, Stephanie. 2001. Knowledge Utilization and Public Policy Processes: A Literature Review. Ottowa, Canada : IRDC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ness, Erik C. 2010. " The Role of Information in the Policy Process: Implications for the Examination of Research Utilization in Higher Education Policy." In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, edited by John C. Smart, 1 – 41. Dordrecht : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newman, Joshua, Adrian Cherney, and Brian W. Head. 2015. " Do Policy Makers Use Academic Research? Reexamining the 'Two Communities' Theory of Research Utilization." Public Administration Review 76 (1): 24 – 32. doi: 10.1111/puar.12464.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliver, Kathryn, Simon Innvar, Theo Lorenc, Jenny Woodman, and James Thomas. 2014. " A Systematic Review of Barriers to and Facilitators of the Use of Evidence by Policymakers." BMC Health Services Research 14 : 1 – 12. Article no. 2. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olmos-Peñuela, J., P. Benneworth, and E. Castro-Martinez. 2014a. " Are 'STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus'? Challenging Disciplinary Stereotypes of Research's Social Value. " Science and Public Policy 41 (3): 384 – 400. doi: 10.1093/scipol/sct071.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olmos-Peñuela, J., P. Benneworth, and E. Castro-Martínez. 2015. " What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an 'Openness' Approach." Minerva 53 (4): 381 – 410. doi: 10.1007/s11024-015-9283-4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ouimet, M., P. O. Bédard, J. Turgeon, J. N. Lavis, F. Gélineau, F. Gagnon, and C. Dallaire. 2010. " Correlates of Consulting Research Evidence among Policy Analysts in Government Ministries: A Cross-Sectional Survey." Evidence and Policy 6 (4): 433 – 60. doi: 10.1332/174426409X478734.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pandey, S. K., A. E. Smith, S. Pandey, and O. A. Ojelabi. 2022. " Reimagining Race and Gender in Public Administration and Public Policy: Insights from an Interdisciplinary Systematic Review." Public Administration Review 83 (1): 14 – 34. doi: 10.1111/puar.13570.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelz, D. C., M. Yiner, and S. J. Cutler. 1978. " Major social issues: A multidisciplinary view." In Some expanded perspectives on use of social science in public policy, edited by J. M. Yinger and S. J. Cutler, 346 – 357. New York : Free Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perkmann, M., R. Salandra, V. Tartari, M. McKelvey, and A. Hughes. 2021. " Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011-2019." Research Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104114.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pittman, Patricia, and Celia Almeida. 2006. " Cross-Sector Learning among Researchers and Policy-Makers: The Search for New Strategies to Enable Use of Research Results." Cadernos de Saúde Pública 22 : 97 – 108. doi: 10.1590/S0102-311X2006001300019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodríguez, Daniela C., Connie Hoe, Elina M. Dale, M. Hafizur Rahman, Sadika Akhter, Assad Hafeez, Wayne Irava, et al. 2017. " Assessing the Capacity of Ministries of Health to Use Research in Decision-Making: Conceptual Framework and Tool." Health Research Policy and Systems 15, article no. 65. doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0227-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanley, Patricia, and Citlalli López. 2009. " Out of the Loop: Why Research Rarely Reaches Policy Makers and the Public and What Can Be Done." BioTropica 41 (5): 535 – 44. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00561.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shepherd, C. R. 1961. " Orientations of Scientists and Engineers." Pacific Sociological Review 4 (2): 79 – 83. doi: 10.2307/1388676.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shulock, Nancy. 1999. " The Paradox of Policy Analysis: If It Is Not Used, Why Do We Produce So Much of It? " Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18 (2): 226 – 44. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199921)18:2<226::AID-PAM2>3.0.CO;2-J.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, Karen, Scott Fernie, and Nick Pilcher. 2020. " Aligning the Times: Exploring the Convergence of Researchers, Policy Makers and Research Evidence in Higher Education Policy Making." Research in Education 110 (1): 38 – 57. doi: 10.1177/0034523720920677.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suls, Jerry, and Barbara Fletcher. 1983. " Social Comparison in the Social and Physical Sciences: An Archival Study." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44 (3): 575 – 80. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.44.3.575.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun, Xiangwen, and Yongyan Feng. 2010. " Study on Principles of Knowledge Translation." In The Conference on Web Based Business Management, 1155 – 61. Chengdu, China : Scientific Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tartari, V., and S. Bresch. 2012. " Set Them Free: Scientists' Evaluations of the Benefits and Costs of University-Industry Research Collaboration." Industrial & Corporate Change 21 : 1117 – 47. doi: 10.1093/icc/dts004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, R., and N. Ormerod. 2017. " The (Almost) Imperceptible Impact of Tourism Research on Policy and Practice." Tourism Management 62 : 379 – 89. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.02.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valente, Adriana, Tommaso Castellani, Maja Larsen, and Arja R. Aro. 2015. " Models and Visions of Science–Policy Interaction: Remarks from a Delphi Study in Italy." Science and Public Policy 42 (2): 228 – 41. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scu039.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker, L. A., N. S. Lawrence, C. D. Chambers, M. Wood, J. Barnett, H. Durrant, L. Pike, G. O'Grady, S. Bestmann, and A. P. Kythreotis. 2019. " Supporting Evidence-Informed Policy and Scrutiny: A Consultation of UK Research Professionals." PLoS ONE 14/3 : e0214136. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiss, Carol H. 1979. " The Many Meanings of Research Utilization." Public Administration Review 39 (5): 426 – 31. doi: 10.2307/3109916.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiss, Carol H. 1982. " Policy Research in the Context of Diffuse Decision Making." The Journal of Higher Education 53 (6): 619 – 39. doi: 10.2307/1981522.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wingens, Matthias. 1990. " Toward a General Utilization Theory: A Systems Theory Reformulation of the Two-Communities Metaphor." Science Communication 12 (1): 27 – 42. doi: 10.1177/107554709001200103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zardo, Pauline, and Alex Collie. 2014. " Predicting Research Use in a Public Health Policy Environment: Results of a Logistic Regression Analysis." Implementation Science 9, article no. 142. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0142-8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zi, A., and K. Blind. 2015. " Researchers' Participation in Standardization: A Case Study from a Public Research Institute in Germany." Journal of Technology Transfer 40 : 346 – 60. doi: 10.1007/s10961-014-9370-y.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Barry Bozeman; Stuart Bretschneider; Spencer Lindsay; John P. Nelson and Nicolas Didier</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref71"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1388449
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Reports of Practitioners' Use of Public Affairs Faculty Published Research
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bozeman%2C+Barry%22">Bozeman, Barry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bretschneider%2C+Stuart%22">Bretschneider, Stuart</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lindsay%2C+Spencer%22">Lindsay, Spencer</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8368-7933">0000-0001-8368-7933</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nelson%2C+John+P%2E%22">Nelson, John P.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3010-2046">0000-0002-3010-2046</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Didier%2C+Nicolas%22">Didier, Nicolas</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8904-5111">0000-0002-8904-5111</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Studies+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Studies in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2023 48(5):719-732.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Affairs+Education%22">Public Affairs Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Publishing%22">Faculty Publishing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Utilization%22">Research Utilization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authors%22">Authors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Policy%22">Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Characteristics%22">Individual Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+for+Publication%22">Writing for Publication</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03075079.2023.2184787
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0307-5079<br />1470-174X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Using a unique dataset built around published papers in top quality public policy, public administration and program evaluation journals, we find that 29.7% of respondent authors indicate that the knowledge from their articles was used by policymakers or public administrators. These data are used to test for different patterns of use for policy vs management knowledge. Findings suggest that journal quality positively affects policy use but negatively affects management use and that topics suggested by practitioners affect management use but not policy use. The researchers' degree of motivation to have their work used is important in both types of knowledge use. Overall, the results suggest there may be greater spillovers to practical use derived from standard academic publishing pursuits than generally believed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1388449
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1388449
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03075079.2023.2184787
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 719
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Public Affairs Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Publishing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Utilization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Authors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individual Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing for Publication
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Reports of Practitioners' Use of Public Affairs Faculty Published Research
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bozeman, Barry
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bretschneider, Stuart
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lindsay, Spencer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nelson, John P.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Didier, Nicolas
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0307-5079
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1470-174X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 48
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Studies in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1