Knowledge Utilization and Public Policy Processes: A Literature Review

For many social science researchers, influencing policy makers and/or decision makers is an intended result or expectation of their research. Development researchers are no exception, least of all because they want to know if their research has had an impact on people's everyday lives in terms of poverty, food insecurity, malnutrition or environmental sustainability […] As a result, IDRC's Evaluation Unit is undertaking a study that will examine these main questions: (1) what constitutes policy influence in IDRC's experience; (2) to what degree and in what way has IDRC-supported research influenced public policy; and (3) what factors and conditions have facilitated or inhibited the public policy influence potential of IDRC-supported research projects. This study will serve two main purposes: (1) to provide learning at the program level which can enhance the design of projects and programs to increase policy influence where that is a key objective; and (2) to create an opportunity for corporate level learning which will provide input into strategic planning processes as well as feedback on performance. […]

As part of the study, this paper presents the main bodies of work that address the issue of research influence on policy. A considerable literature exists detailing the nature of policy processes, and on whether and how research does or does not inform public policy. There are numerous frameworks and/or models found within the literature to help explain or represent knowledge utilization in decision-making, as well as frameworks explaining how policy change occurs. The first section of the literature review presents an overview of the knowledge utilization literature including its views on the use of knowledge and research in decision-making. The two most enduring findings from this literature are discussed: (1) Caplan's theory regarding the behavioural differences or "cultural gap" between researchers and policy makers; and (2) Weiss' "enlightenment function" of research. As well, various ideas and meanings of 'research' and 'use' are also considered. The second section provides a synopsis of the various policy process frameworks. These include: (1) linear; (2) incrementalism; (3) interactive; (4) policy networks; (5) agenda-setting; (6) policy narratives; and (7) policy transfer.

Each of these conceptualizations has different implications for the extent to which research is able to influence policy, and for how research could be designed to influence policy. Moreover, each has different implications for who are considered to be the main decisions makers in society, and/or to whom the research should be addressed. Further, while much of this literature reflects Northern or developed country settings, some acknowledges the diversity of policy contexts throughout the world.

The final section of this paper will address a number of issues. Few studies examine issues related to research quality and/or completeness in terms of considering the analysis in relation to policy development. Additionally, the notion of perceived influence brought forth by Diane Stone looks at the use of inappropriate evaluation indicators, political patronage and the selective use of research for legitimization rather than policy development (Stone, personal communication, 2001). Krastev's concept 'faking influence' also recently emerged which addresses issues related to the idea that perhaps it is not the strength of the research institution of or the research itself, but the weakness of the other players that allows for 'policy influence'. This posits the question, has this research, or research institution, truly influenced policy, or is the research being utilized merely because policy makers need solutions and these are the only available solutions? The issue of quality, along with the issues of perceived influence and faking influence, lead us to question whether policy influence should always be construed as a positive development outcome? Finally, this paper explores issues associated with two new areas, which for the purpose of this paper will be called generally as 'new policy fields' and 'new policy environments'. New policy fields covers those fields related to such things as information and communication technologies (ICTs), genetics and tobacco control. New policy environments that encompass policy fields which may not be considered as new (i.e., economics, environment, health and education), but are being developed in newly independent states (e.g., Ukraine, countries in Central Asia). The question here is how the policy processes in these areas work to either facilitate or inhibit the use of research in new policy fields or new policy environments.

[Introduction taken from paper]