The Last 20 Years of Empirical Research on Government Utilization of Academic Social Science Research: A State-of-the-Art Literature Review

• Published date: 01 September 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231172923
• Author: John P. Nelson,Spencer Lindsay,Barry Bozeman
• Date: 01 September 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231172923

Administration & Society

2023, Vol. 55(8) 1479 –1528

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997231172923

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

The Last 20 Years of

Empirical Research on

Government Utilization

of Academic Social

Science Research:

A State-of-the-Art

Literature Review

John P. Nelson1, Spencer Lindsay1,

and Barry Bozeman1

Abstract

We organize and critique the last 20 years of empirical research on policy

utilization of academic social science, offering eight recommendations

for future research: (1) improvement in utilization measures; (2) greater

alignment on constructs of interest; (3) greater address of different

national contexts; 4) study of mechanisms connecting academic research

to policymakers; (5) incorporation of knowledge on information search; (6)

attention to differences between utilization of policy, social, and physical

science in different sectors; (7) evaluative inquiry on the effects of research

utilization; and (8) investigation of the value of research in addressing

different classes of societal problems.

1Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Corresponding Author:

John P. Nelson, Center for Organization Research and Design/School for the Future of

Innovation of Society, Arizona State University, PO Box 875603, Tempe, AZ 85287-5603,

USA.

Email: john.p.nelson@asu.edu

1172923AAS0010.1177/00953997231172923Administration & SocietyNelson et al.

research-article2023

1480 Administration & Society 55(8)

Keywords

research utilization, evidence-based policy, research mobilization, science

for policy, policymaking

Scholars and practitioners have a shared interest in the utilization of aca-

demic research in public policy and public administration. On the academic

side, many scholars desire to improve policy and practice through their

research, and the promise of societal value is one of the primary justifications

for social and financial support of research (Bush, 1945; Guston, 2000; Price,

1965; e.g., National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,

and Institute of Medicine, 2007). Meanwhile, appeal to (ostensibly) univer-

sally accessible, thus universally compelling, fact is one of the primary ways

in which modern governments justify their authorities and actions (Ezrahi,

1990, 2004, 2012; Jasanoff, 1990, 2014; Porter, 1995); and technological

infrastructures of observation, analysis, and intervention are essential to the

functioning of modern states (Jasanoff, 1990; Scott, 1998). Recent contesta-

tions about “alternative facts,” lamentations about the rise of a “post-truth”

politics, and arguments about “following the science” only illustrate the cen-

trality of truth claims to modern ideals of political legitimacy (Jasanoff &

Simmet, 2017). If the authority to define and speak for truth were not still

important, no one would be fighting over it.

But despite the importance of truth concepts in modern ideas of politics

and governance; the status of science as privileged speaker of truth; and the

shared interests of scholars and policymakers in maintaining the compact

between government and science, policy utilization of scientific research

remains difficult. This is particularly true in the social sciences. For social

science, public institutions and policy decisions are often objects and not

merely contexts for research, experimentation, and implementation; systems

and phenomena are complex and heterogeneous; values and goals diverge

between different stakeholder groups; and the viability of scholarly ideas

often cannot be tested without large-scale trial (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993;

Kline, 1995; Lindblom & Cohen, 1979; Nelson, 2011). Much social science

ostensibly about or relevant to policy is never used (R. Landry et al., 2001).

Many policymakers and public administrators do not find much research use-

ful (or find it at all; Avey & Desch, 2014; Bogenschneider et al., 2019; Rose

et al., 2020). Many scholars feel their research is unjustly disregarded for the

sake of political expediency (see, e.g., Mooney, 2005; Oreskes & Conway,

2010). And when research is used, the results are not necessarily what either

policymakers or scholars would desire (Barton et al., 2021; Broad, 2002;

Nelson et al. 1481

Pielke, 1999; Rayner & Sarewitz, 2021; Sarewitz et al., 2004; Scott, 1998).

This is true even of public policy and public administration research, intui-

tively relevant to public affairs and familiar to research utilization

researchers.

In this circumstance, the scholar by disposition, training, and culture

defaults to more research to illuminate what is going on and what can be done

about it. Literature on the roles and uses of science in policy and politics is

voluminous, but a limited amount of it focuses on when, how, with what

effects, and why policymakers and public administrators become acquainted

with and make use of academic public affairs research. Academic research

deserves special attention because it is uniquely organizationally insulated

from policymaking and public administration. Academia is the primary pro-

ducer of non-use-inspired basic research in “Bohr’s Quadrant” (Stokes,

1997), that is, work not overtly directed toward the needs of an immediate

client or commissioner. Only academics primarily report their work through

scholarly journals, and only academics are primarily rewarded for publica-

tions. The insulation of academic public affairs research simultaneously

reduces such research’s obligatory use orientation and contributes to its repu-

tation as the gold standard of robust and neutral knowledge that (perhaps

paradoxically) should guide policymaking. Yet knowledge about use of this

knowledge is fragmentary and incomplete.

A substantial body of research on use of research more generally in poli-

cymaking, public administration, and the private sector does exist, going

under various headings including “evidence-based” or “evidence-informed”

policy or practice, “knowledge utilization,” “knowledge mobilization,” and

“academic engagement.” This literature focuses to a large extent, though not

entirely, on use of physical, engineering, biological, and environmental

research. This overall literature has been reviewed and summarized in several

different ways. Many reviews synthesize upshots for research-policymaking

relations from this broad literature (e.g., Blake & Ottoson, 2009; Capano &

Malandrino, 2022; French, 2018; B. Head, 2016; Newman, 2020). D’Este

et al. (2018) parse apart and summarize knowledge on the different constructs

studied in the general knowledge mobilization literature, and Perkmann et al.

(2013, 2021) perform a similar task for literature on academic engagement

with industry. However, no comprehensive analysis and summary of the con-

structs studied specifically with respect to policy use of public affairs

research, and of present empirical knowledge on these constructs, exist. This

is an important gap because the literature on this distinctive topic is fairly

fragmentary, characterized by no well-established and consistent language or

theoretical framework, and in certain ways highly parochial. A comprehen-

sive and detailed survey of this field of work would permit construction of