What Do Decision-Models Tell Us About Information Use?

Lindquist has argued that organizations or networks, for that matter, are often in different decision modes - routine, incremental, or fundamental. Each involves a different level of scrutiny and debate over the integrity of its policy underpinnings: [1] routine decision regimes focus on matching and adapting existing programs and repertoires to emerging conditions, but involves little debate on its logic and design, which is built into the programs and repertoires; [2] incremental decision-making deals with selective issues as they emerge, but does not deal comprehensively with all constituent issues associated with the policy domain; and [3] fundamental decisions are relatively infrequent opportunities to re-think approaches to policy domains, whether as result of crisis, new governments, or policy-spillovers. Where fundamental decisions are concerned, it is important to note that that they are anticipated and followed by incremental or routine regimes. There is a connection to this line of thinking with the agenda-setting model described just above. Decisions emanating from the 'choice opportunities' that arise as policy windows open, however briefly, may involve either limited or significant change, or perhaps none at all. […]

If one believes that the vast majority of decision-making in a policy area over time is routine or incremental, then there is a built-in bias against the use of research by policy-makers. There will be greater interest in useful data and analysis that deals with incremental issues as they arise, and the findings from ongoing research must achieve influence through enlightenment and percolation. Conversely, the greatest demand for, and receptivity to, research comes in anticipation of fundamental policy decisions, or following sharp regime shifts.

[Summary taken from Lindquist, forthcoming, Discerning Policy Influence: Framework for a Strategic Evaluation of IDRC-Supported Research. To be published by IDRC. p. 19-20]