Chapter II: Knowledge Utilization: A Historical And Conceptual Overview
In 1983 two books, Diffusion of innovations and Putting knowledge to
use, summarized the state-of-the-art in research on getting exemplary
programs, processes, products, or ideas used more widely. The key authors of
those books had written state-of-the-art publications twice before. Both
presented their analyses of the past, present, and future from
multidisciplinary and international perspectives. Both highlighted time lags
between the inception of products and the use of these.
They differed, however, in areas of emphases and approaches. While one
book emphasized societal changes, the other emphasized organizational changes.
One centered more on products and the concept of diffusion; the other centered
on research findings and knowledge utilization. From a methodological
perspective, one focused on models and paradigms; the other focused on factors
influencing use. One used meta-analysis research strategies and produced
ninety-one generalizations about the state of the art citing the numbers of
research studies supporting each. The other cited and summarized the
literature without identifying propositions and quantifying evidence. Neither
set of authors gave any indication of being aware of the other's
state-of-the-art works about to be published in the same timeframes. Why?
Perhaps the answers lay in the history behind the knowledge cycle and its
interrelated subfields.
The knowledge utilization literature traditionally has focused on
scientific knowledge and not intuitive, meditative, or experiential
knowledge. Its emphases has been on getting research results into practice and
only more recently expanded to include getting exemplary practices more widely
known and used. Because the literature on knowledge utilization is often
intermixed with research on the scientific knowledge cycle, it is important to
understand what is meant by the scientific knowledge cycle. The discussion
that follows leans heavily on the editorial work of Dr. Robert Rich, past
editor of the Knowledge journal, past president of the Society on Knowledge
Utilization, and editor of the book, The knowledge cycle. It also incorporates
Dr. Michael Q. Patton's interpretations of the kinds of research that help
create scientific knowledge within the many fields of formalized and validated
knowledge. Dr. Patton has written widely on the subject of research and
utilization-focused evaluation.
I. THE KNOWLEDGE CYCLE
The knowledge cycle consists of at least three components, also known
as interrelated subfields of study: knowledge creation, knowledge diffusion,
and knowledge utilization. When studies in the area of knowledge utilization
began, those subfields had not been defined, nor is there consensus today on
the boundaries of each study area. Without clear demarcations subfields
initially overlapped in some areas and remained fairly discrete in other
areas. While some interdisciplinary perspectives on the subfields did evolve
over time, prior to the sixties researchers basically replicated and extended
knowledge studies in their own disciplines. Therefore, their terminology,
methodology, and data interpretations reflect a discipline-specific
perspective. When researchers failed to define terms such as utilization,
readers could only guess at the intended meaning: "practical use," "conceptual
use," or "adaptive use." With hindsight, some of the differentiating
attributes of the subfields, amid the overlapping attributes and mixed
terminology, become evident.
A. Knowledge creation
Knowledge creation may stem from five differing kinds of formalized
research efforts: Basic Research, Applied Research, Summative Evaluations,
Formative Evaluations, and Action Research (Patton, 1990:150-162). Basic
research focuses on knowledge building among researchers while applied
research focuses on knowledge building specific to practice areas. Program
evaluation forms of research look at the outputs and outcomes of programs as
well as the processes that could be improved to make ongoing programs and
projects more effective. Action research is generally linked to the
organization within which it occurs and addresses that organization's specific
problems.
Products of knowledge creation efforts include: research findings,
demonstration results, program evaluation findings, and general purpose
statistics (Nelson, in Rich, 1981:58-60). Consensual validation from the
experts in a given field of study puts the stamp of scientific knowledge on
findings that have been tested and replicated by more than one group of
researchers. Knowledge creation may also encompass technology or tangible
prototypical products deemed worthy of transfer or mass manufacture.
Researchers who study how scientific knowledge is created represent
the disciplines of sociology of knowledge, intellectual history, the history
and the philosophy of science, and the sociology and the psychology of science
(Nelson, in Rich, 1981:41).
B. Knowledge diffusion
Researchers focusing on knowledge diffusion study communication
channels used to disseminate innovations, rates of adoption, earliness of
knowing about an innovation, innovativeness of members of a social system,
opinion leadership, who interacts with whom in diffusion networks, and
consequences of an innovation (Rogers, 1983:80-81). A meta-analysis of
several hundred diffusion studies has resulted in a set of propositions for
each significant study area.
Disciplines studying knowledge diffusion include communications
research, information science, library science, and sociology of science
(Nelson, in Rich, 1981: 41). Rogers (1983) described nine major disciplines as
making significant contributions: anthropology, education, early sociology,
rural sociology, public health and medical sociology, general sociology,
communications, marketing, and geography. Many diffusion studies have been
associated with the profit-making sector of society and with technological
advances or innovations (Ganz, in Rich, 1981:193).
C. Knowledge utilization
Researchers in knowledge utilization, according to Rich (1981:33),
seek to measure information pickup, processing, and application. Information
pickup means the process of retrieving or receiving information whether from a
data bank, a library shelf, a consultation session, or other means.
Information processing:
involves understanding the information, testing it for
validity and reliability, testing it against one's own
intuition and assumptions, and transforming the information
into a form that is usable....Testing does not necessarily
refer to formal experimental models; it may involve
cognitive procedures (Rich, 1981:34). The application part
of the knowledge utilization process may include rejection
of the information as well as acceptance.
Researchers in this area of study consider the results from diffusion
research and technology transfer findings along with their studies of planned
change, determining factors of use, and decision-making or problem solving
uses by policymakers, administrators, and practitioners. Products of knowledge
utilization may include, but are not limited to, models, factors, strategies,
and processes found most predictive of generating use. Researchers studying
utilization may focus on bringing about planned change in individuals,
organizations, or societies. They may also focus on practical use, perceptual
use, adaptive use, selective use, premature use, rejected use (i.e.,
deliberate nonuse), discontinued use, and misuse.
Researchers focusing on utilization include those affiliated with
disciplines or areas of study such as industrial psychology, motivational
psychology, psychology of thought processes, organizational theory, management
theory, social and political theory, as well as communications theory.
II. KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION AND USE: THE ROOTS
A. Greeks to the twentieth century
The intellectual tradition behind the studies of knowledge use and
production includes intellectual and diverse thinkers such as Aristotle,
Plato, Sir Francis Bacon, the Marquis de Condorcet, Henri Saint-Simon, Auguste
Comte, Thomas Henry Huxley, Matthew Arnold, Karl Marx, and Max Weber (Rich,
1981:7). More recently, leading scientists such as Adorno, D. T. Campbell,
Einstein, Habermas, Kuhn, Lazarsfeld, Lewin, Machlup, Merton, and Whitehead
have concentrated on this area (Rich, 1981:7).
Diverse thinkers contributed to the 20th century belief that the
advancement of civilization is interwoven with the advancements in knowledge
and its uses. Atkinson (1979b) and Rich, (1981:23) suggest that a social
contract or social compact evolved between the producers of knowledge
(philosophers, theorists, theologians, lawyers, scientists) and society. The
common unwritten understanding was that as long as knowledge producers
conducted studies consistent with societal goals and long-range interests,
they would enjoy a measure of independence and their institutions would
prosper (Rich, 1981:23).
B. Early twentieth to mid-twentieth century
Rogers (1983:40) traced the knowledge diffusion roots back to the
European beginnings of social science with Gabriel Tarde's 'Laws of
Imitation'(1903) and early anthropologists known as the British and
German-Austrian 'diffusionists'. North American roots began in the 1920's with
studies such as diffusion of agricultural innovations to farmers and spreading
new teaching ideas among school personnel. The 1943 hybrid-seed corn study by
Ryan and Gross, "more than any other study, influenced the methodology,
theoretical framework, and interpretations of later students" (Rogers,
1983:54). Rogers and Shoemaker (1983:47) tracked diffusion research studies
from the twenties through the seventies and illustrated the significant jump
in publications during the sixties. They attribute the jump to the
intellectual integration among the disciplines studying knowledge diffusion.
Feller identified three reasons the federal government sponsored
studies in diffusion and utilization (in Rich, 1981:93). The policymakers
believe that innovation dissemination can help promote a higher rate of
economic growth. Defense and space-related research can benefit citizens in
other ways than originally intended. Mission agencies want to more rapidly
promote adoption and extension of their technologies, practices, and findings.
C. Mid-twentieth century to present
Some authors view the mid-sixties as the starting point for knowledge
utilization studies. Why? Johnson's Great Society and the War on Poverty
launched new health, education, and welfare programs at massive federal
expense. Those programs represented one way to improve the quality of life
for disadvantaged groups (Aaron, 1978; Patton, 1986; Wright, 1984: 4-5).
Because questions were raised about the effectiveness of those rapidly
launched or expanded programs, the government began turning more and more to
social science researchers for help (Aaron, 1978). The government increased
funding for program evaluation (Patton, 1986:18-21) and the uses being made of
research. Those studies paralleled the explorations into Program, Planning,
and Budgeting (PPB), Management by Objectives (MBO), and Zero-Based Budgeting
(ZBB) "to help bring economy, competence, rationality (and even less politics)
to the public arena" (Wright, 1984:5).
Roberts and Frohman (1978) contrasted the late fifties and late
sixties from the industrial research organization's perspective. They looked
at shifts in objectives, activities, and the mix and balance of skills.
Objectives shifted "from furthering scientific goals to satisfying market
needs....The ivy was swept from the walls and replaced by large panoramic
windows through which the researchers could see and be seen" (Ibid, 33).
Activities, they say, shifted from scientific research and
problem-solving domination to management techniques (e.g., formal plans,
goals, and control systems) and marketing practices (examine potential new
products, test proto-types in the marketplace). Researchers had to "sell the
seeds" in order to see the "fruits of their labors" used. "The myth that
technology sells itself on its own merits or that "new" technology is
inherently "good" was exploded" (Ibid, 34).
Passive and scientist-oriented research utilization
approaches--publications, symposia, speeches--shifted to active ones to
facilitate transfer of research outputs to managers and marketers. Research
organizations began developing better customer relations even when there was
no technology to push. The mix of skills grew to include marketing, business,
and finance skills as well as idea- generating ones.
Today researchers recognize knowledge utilization as a complex process
involving individuals, organizations, and societies as well as political,
socioeconomic, psychological, and other situational factors (Larsen,
1980:424). Knowledge utilization studies cross many disciplines and specialty
areas (Rich, 1981:41). Huberman (1987:589) describes the trends in knowledge
utilization as moving from a "naive, linear view of research utilization" to a
"more dynamic, transactional approach to knowledge utilization."
At the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Society for Knowledge Utilization
and Planned Change (April, 1990), President Backer defined the field as
encompassing the following: Knowledge transfer and utilization, technology
transfer, sociology of knowledge, organizational change, policy development,
and interpersonal and mass communications.
III. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE KU SUBFIELD
A. Strengths
The strengths in the budding knowledge utilization subfield are many.
First, it has breadth gained from multi-disciplinary studies. Second, it has
several state-of-the-art studies on putting knowledge to use that have been
consistently updated. Third, it is significantly represented in the
multidisciplinary journal, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, and Utilization
and researchers have access to journals specific to the diffusion or
technology transfer component (e.g., Journal of Technology Transfer,
Technology Transfer), and to the knowledge creation component (e.g. Knowledge
in Society). Fourth, many scholars who began studying knowledge utilization
have continued with it (Zaltman, 1987:1). Fifth, it has the Knowledge
Utilization Society that promotes research and scholarly study in knowledge
utilization and planned change. It fosters "research that can be effectively
translated into action on urgent social problems" (Backer, Rich, & Datta,
1989:317). Sixth, the government has funded studies in knowledge utilization
through several federal agencies.
B. Weaknesses: Information access
At one time staying updated depended on the researcher using an
informal network (Larsen, 1980:422). There were no formal mechanisms for
coordinating the growing volumes of literature on research utilization. One
had to search through countless discipline-specific resources and guess
whether unrelated book titles might have a chapter related to the desired
subject (Larsen, 1980:422). Even with computerized databases accessing
information is complicated because of terminology. For instance, although the
journal Knowledge has existed since 1979, database searches by this author
using knowledge or research or information and dissemination or use or
utilization produced only four of the many related articles from the journal.
While diffusion as a key word would have extracted a few more, still indexers
and users have a long way to go in matching needs with resources.
C. Weaknesses: Few empirical studies, few tested models, much redundancy
Until more recent times researchers used linear models, single outcome
measures, and limited definitions of utilization (Larson in Rich, 1981:151;
Huberman, 1987:589). They did not fully grasp at that time the complexity of
knowledge utilization. Adaptive use, discontinued use, disuse, and misuse were
not even part of the utilization researcher's vocabulary. However,
researchers evidently did recognize some of the difficulties in designing
empirical studies because there are few of them in comparison with conceptual
ones (Rich, 1981; Glaser et al, 1983; Wright, 1984). Many of the theoretical
models proposed are relatively young, untested, or uncompared (Wright, 1984).
Both Rogers (1983) and Huberman (1987:587) identified the redundancy among
studies and lack of newness within knowledge utilization studies.
D. Weaknesses: Biases
Rogers speaks of two major forms of bias related to studies of
knowledge production and use: proinnovation bias and an individual-blame vs.
system-blame bias (1983:92). The proinnovation bias, Rogers says, is an often
unrecognized and unstated assumption that innovations should be diffused and
adopted. Such assumptions have led researchers:
...to ignore the study of ignorance about innovations, to
underemphasize the rejection or discontinuance of
innovations, to overlook re-invention, and to fail to study
antidiffusion programs designed to prevent the diffusion of
"bad" innovations (Rogers, 1983:92).
Recipients of funds for research are more likely, Rogers says (1983:103), to
"side with the change agencies that promote innovations rather than with the
audience of potential adopters." This sometimes leads to individual-blame bias
rather than system-blame even when appropriate.
Roe (1988) adds still other biases in describing criticisms of
diffusion research which overlap with knowledge utilization research. He
points to (1) the tactics and goals of modernization and (2) the attempts to
generalize from American research and experience to "patterns of cultural and
social change prevalent within developing nations" (Ibid, 50).
The weaknesses are affected by a number of unresolved issues and
underlying factors.
IV. FACTORS AFFECTING STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Research traditions affect what is studied, how it is studied, and who
one works with in studying the subject (Rogers, 1983:85). That fact is both
the greatest strength and greatest weakness of studies in knowledge
utilization. It is a strength in that it promotes replication of studies and
consensual validation of the paradigms developed in a given discipline. On the
other hand, it narrows rather than broadens subjects studied and methods used
in conducting the studies. It discourages use of alternative approaches to
research studies. Although some research traditions may be primarily
associated with one or two universities, these transcend any one university
setting and form an "invisible college" (Ibid, 43). Prior to the sixties many
of the disciplines studying diffusion practices focused on one kind of
innovation and studied in relative isolation (Ibid, 46). In the sixties, with
its proliferation of government-funded research and subsequent research
utilization projects, researchers began studying more intensely the results of
diffusion studies from other research traditions.
The government's funding patterns for research have contributed to the
peaks and valleys in knowledge creation, dissemination, and use.
Funding sources and levels affect the volume of research, the numbers and
quality of personnel to conduct utilization studies, the quality of equipment,
the quality of facilities, and the quality of scientific information to
disseminate and to use (Nelson, in Rich, 1981:49-63).
V. SELECTED ISSUES AFFECTING STUDIES OF KU
Several issues surface when one studies knowledge utilization. The
five chosen represent some of the complexity and global scope associated with
knowledge utilization studies. Rogers highlighted the first issue in
discussing the proinnovation bias. Is research inherently good and should its
results be promoted and used? Other issues equally important are: Who should
have access to and control of knowledge, especially when produced with public
funds? Is scientific knowledge the only form of knowledge worthy of
significant transfer and dissemination efforts? What constitutes use? What
research methodology should be used in studying knowledge utilization?
A. Is research inherently "good" and should its results be promoted
and used?
"Yes," say those who still believe social progress is inextricably
linked to scientific and technological advances. "Yes," say change
agencies and government agencies with a mission. Researchers say, "yes",
provisionally; "use research if it is reliable and valid." Some imply that the
research must also be generalizable or conducted under selected methodologies.
Besides the soundness of the research, other factors add to the provisional
answer of researchers. If the research reflects societal biases, such use
could serve to reinforce rather than help eliminate those biases. Other
researchers say that if the researchers collected the data unethically (e.g.,
in Nazi death camps), then no matter how sound the research study, nor how
well designed and conducted, research should not be used (Leiter, 1989).
Organizations holding patents for their research discoveries may have
a different attitude about the inherent goodness of research. It is good for
their organization's survival and growth rather than for the public good.
Therefore, they may deny use or demand compensation for use. Members of the
public who have suffered the consequences of applied scientific and
technological knowledge are questioning the efficacy of use. While on the one
hand they enjoy the improved standard of living such use can bring, they
reject the destructive and disabling features of some products and processes.
Consider, for example, the differing effects on society of the atom bomb,
pesticides, genetic engineering, institutionalization, deinstitutionalization,
and sociologically planned communities (Dickson, 1984).
The proinnovation bias that Rogers (1971:78,79 & 1983:92-94)
identified among diffusion research studies assumes that new products or
practices are inherently better than established ones; delay or rejection of
innovations, therefore, may imply that late adopters or nonadopters are
laggards, irrational, or conservative.
Roberts and Frohman (1978:33-34) in contrasting the changes in
industrial research activities believed that the myth of inherent goodness had
been exploded. Active marketing of research results rather than passive
production was now required. New technology was not inherently good unless it
met some consumer need.
Glaser (1983) reminds us that knowledge can be used to harm as well as
to help. "It can put new tools into the hands of misguided or oppressive,
powerful people" (Ibid, 4). Even when knowledge is used for beneficial
purposes, harmful secondary consequences can occur. "Frequently, as a
technology becomes more widely diffused and used, such secondary consequences
increase proportionately faster than the primary benefits" (Glaser, 1983:4).
Because of harmful effects that sometimes result from the use of
innovations, Dickson suggests (1984:222) that the price of unrestricted
scientific and technological progress may be too high. This leads us to the
next issue.
B. Who should access and control knowledge, especially when produced
by public funds?
The question of access to and control of knowledge is a continuing and
changing issue of international scope. The answers to the control question
have implications for what is studied, when it is studied, how it is studied,
where it is studied, how much it is studied, who studies it, and how those
studies are funded. The answers also have implications for who has access to
and uses the results.
Debaters of the issue range from scientists to politicians, from
policymakers to chief executive officers, and from practitioners to consumers
(Dickson, 1984). After all, knowledge in this lauded information society and
information age, is a commodity, especially to universities and industries.
Dickson adds that it is power for the military and imperialism for foreign
policymakers.
Who, therefore, should control knowledge: its production and use?
Scientists? The universities, corporations, or organizations from which the
knowledge is derived? Perhaps the government should control access and use.
If so, whose government should have control, developed nations only? Or should
the people, the taxpayers, the public control it; and if so, how?
Regarding scientists' control, Woodrow Wilson expressed concern about
the role of nonelected experts in government:
What I fear is a government of experts. God forbid that in
a democratic society we should resign the task and give
government over to the experts. What are we for if we are
to be scientifically taken care of by a small number of
gentlemen who are the only men who understand the job?
Because if we don't understand the job, then we are not free
people (Quoted in Wright, 1984:2 and in Rich, 1979a:18).
President Eisenhower in his farewell message in 1960 echoed
that same concern "public policy could itself become the
captive of a `scientific-technological elite'"(Quoted in
Rich & Rydell, 1979 cited in Rich, 1981:26).
Dickson (1984) describes the scientists' control in the fifties and
sixties in terms of cultural authority that subsequently faced challenges from
the anti-science movement of the seventies. The latter movement demanded
environmental impact regulations and impact studies as part of the scientific
process. The eighties saw the pendulum swing back in the anti-anti-science
movement. Its emphasis was economic impact. Dickson believes industrial and
academic leaders are pointing to the scientific method as the key to future
international competitiveness of U.S. industry while at the same time
"tightening private control over the channels through which research results
are transferred from the laboratory to the outside world" (Dickson, 1984:313).
Dickson (1984) argues for a new politics of science, one that moves
toward a democratic strategy. Such a strategy would minimize secrecy and
promote open discussions publicly about research priorities, findings, and
use. It is a strategy for science that encourages public participation in
decisionmaking about knowledge production and use. It recognizes the
scientists' expertise in technical and purely scientific matters while giving
the layperson a voice in the social and political arena (Dickson, 1984:260).
C. Is scientific knowledge the only kind of knowledge worthy of major
dissemination or transfer efforts?
While there is no consensus on the definition of science much less
scientific knowledge, generally that term has come to connote knowledge
obtained and tested through the scientific method. The scientific method
according to Webster consists of:
Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of
knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a
problem, the collection of data through observation and
experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
(1981).
Those principles and procedures vary in interpretation among the various
fields of study. The scientific method, therefore, may involve research that
is inductive or deductive, quantitative or qualitative, value-laden or
non-value-laden, laboratory-based or field-based, experimental or
non-experimental, pluralistic or nonpluralistic, theory confirming or theory
disconfirming. What is widely accepted about the scientific method is who
practices it: researchers who are most often found in academic settings.
Though not everyone would agree, there are forms of knowledge besides
"scientific" knowledge. There is knowledge passed down from generation to
generation through apprenticeships, parenting, and mentoring. There is
knowledge gleaned individually from daily life experiences and from
reflection on professional practices. There is legal knowledge, banking
knowledge, pastoral knowledge, and common sense that differ from scientific
knowledge. There is also knowledge that some businesses have used to increase
profits in competition with less informed businesses. And there is knowledge
gleaned from exemplary practices.
Should equal efforts be made to identify and transfer exemplary
practices as well as exemplary research findings? Several governmental
agencies such as the Department of Education do sponsor exemplary practices
projects. Those projects set criteria for exemplary practices in
organizations and help promote the adoption of such practices. Should such
efforts be increased or should exemplary research findings be the primary
target for knowledge transfer?
What about knowledge gleaned from individuals practicing and
reflecting on their professional work? Should equal attention be given to
linking the work of fulltime researchers and fulltime practitioners? Or
should emphasis be placed on making each part-time in both worlds of practice
and research? Or should their worlds remain miles apart? Several authors
suggest that practitioners objectively observe, document and reflect on
actions taken and their consequences, and subsequently report the results. In
this way they too could contribute to the development of knowledge. Schon
(1983) details how this could be done from the reflective practitioner
perspective while Barlow, Hayes, and Nelson (1983) as well as Agras and
Berkowitz (1980), and Kent (1985) detail models and methods from a
scientist-practitioner perspective.
Finally, what about knowledge gained from daily experiences by
consumers: clients, students, patients, significant others? Should they have
a more active role in contributing to the body of knowledge? Are they used
actively throughout the research process including the validation of research
findings? Reason and Rowan (1981) point to signs of change in research
methodology across fields of inquiry. Participatory research they say is
needed. Consumers need to be involved in the entire research process rather
than merely as subjects. There are societal changes that also point to taking
more seriously the involvement of all parties in producing and using goods,
services, and knowledge. Some of those changes include consumerism, the
self-help movement, the growing global economy, increased individual
responsibility, and power shifts based on knowledge access, production, and
use.
D. What constitutes use and the purview of knowledge utilization
studies?
Definitions of knowledge utilization differed so much among
researchers in the seventies that in 1977 Weiss questioned:
Is 'use' the adoption of research recommendations intact,
the nudging of a decision in the direction suggested by
research findings, the reinforcement of a likely decision by
research, the consideration of research findings (even if
these are overwhelmed by other considerations in the
situation), rethinking the nature of the policy issue,
redefining informational needs? What kind of use is 'real'
use? And how much is enough (Weiss, 1977:213 cited in
Larsen, 1980:425)?
In 1981 Jack Knott and Aaron Wildavsky suggested from a policymaker's
perspective a range of uses. Uses begin when the research findings reach the
potential user's in-basket and end with the desired impact on the agency's
consumer population. Their chart of standards for use includes reception,
cognition, reference, effort, adoption, implementation, or impact. By
reception they mean the policymaker has the policy-relevant information on his
or her desk rather than in a file or on the desk of someone else. Cognition
refers to the actual reading, digesting, and understanding of the material.
Reference implies a change in the frame of reference of the policymaker
because of the new information. Effort furthers the utilization stages to
encompass influencing actions and adopting the study's recommendations.
Adoption implies that policy results from the policy-relevant information.
Implementation takes adoption integrally into practice. Impact means the
yielding of tangible benefits to citizens.
While few usage studies in the past centered on deliberate nonuse,
misuse, selective use, and premature use, perhaps it is time that the subfield
of knowledge utilization expands its range to be more comprehensive. Larsen
states that nonutilization is a legitimate area of study and important beyond
the policymaking studies in knowledge utilization (Larsen, in Rich, 1981:153;
Larsen & Werner, 1981; Zaltman, 1980; Dunn, 1980). In defining what
constitutes use the timing, time period, and consequences also enter the
picture.
The consequences of use is a relatively new focus for researchers and
needs greater attention. As the impact of personal computers and global
networking is felt, the 1990's may very well witness a new interpretation of
knowledge and its uses. Hopefully, mixed terms surrounding adaptive use such
as modified use, cooptive use, and reinvented use will become standardized by
then.
E. What research methodology should be used to study knowledge
utilization?
The relationship between research methods and research findings has
been touted by researchers representing differing disciplines. In fact, many
disciplines are identified by their research methods, and those researchers
often believe the 'how' of the study is more important than the findings.
Unlike those disciplines the subject matter for utilization studies crosses
disciplines and even transcends them. As one might expect its methodology is
not guided primarily by the classical laboratory approach typical of the
natural sciences nor by any one field research method used in the social
sciences.
In a review of the five major inquiry systems used in scientific
methodology, Ratcliffe (1983) said, no one method works for all problems. Well
structured and simple problems require one method while ill defined and
complex problems require another. Some methods begin with theories while
others begin with observations. Some methods synthesize; others create
opposition. Some methods are best for transdisciplinary problems. What is key
to selection, he says, is understanding each method and what it does best.
The deductive inquiry system (Leibnizian) begins with theories and
then proceeds to fact gathering. It is well suited to structured and simple
problems. Validity is linked to proof for a proposition, the scientific
reputation of the inquirer, and internal or logical consistency (Ratcliffe,
1983:152-153). The inductive inquiry system (Lockean) is the "prototype of the
experimental, consensual approach to inquiry" (Ibid, 154). Empirical work
leads to theorizing rather than vice versa. Its strength is its rich data
base; its weaknesses include the fact that widespread agreement among the
scientific community cannot guarantee the validity of any given paradigm
(Ibid).
The synthesis inquiry system (Kantian) views theory and data as
inseparable. It requires many perspectives on the problem and observations to
produce valid information. Validity lies in the "degree of fit between the
theory (deductive conceptualization) of the problem and the empirical evidence
(fact net) specified as relevant by the theory" (Ibid, 155). This approach
bodes well with ill structured and complex problems. Its strength lies in its
use of alternatives and its weaknesses lie in its "inherently difficult,
imprecise, and time-consuming approach" (Ibid, 155).
The dialectic inquiry system (Hegelian) produces theoretical
opposition on a given problem. Data sets expose the assumptions regarding the
nature of the individual, society, and the world that informs each theoretical
perspective. The intense conflict reveals to the public what might be obscured
in systems of inquiry that emphasize scientific community agreement (Ibid,
156). This system works best on difficult, complex, ill structured problems
with which there is little agreement and poorly on well defined and well
structured problems.
The relative inquiry system (Singerian) takes a holistic, synthetic,
and transdisciplinary approach to problems that are continuing to unfold
(Ibid, 157). This system is useful for studying other systems of inquiry.
Science and human inquiry are not separate. Validity is only approximate and
lies in the comprehensiveness of data from relevant populations and
disciplines involved in the problem. Its weaknesses relate to "its enormous
complexity and breadth of focus, and the potentially prohibitive costs of its
application to substantive, 'wicked' social problems" (Ibid, 158).
In addition to discussions of multiple approaches to inquiry,
Ratcliffe argues convincingly that qualitative and quantitative, subjective
and objective forms of research are not on extremes. Instead they are
integral to one another regardless of the methodology selected. Numbers and
words are part of the same phenomena. Theory, data, method, and measurement
are equally dependent on subjective and objective behaviors.
Because of the complexity of the process, knowledge utilization
studies should not be limited to only one major methodology. Larsen says
(1981:154-159; 1980:424-429) that with the addition of cognitive processes to
the study of knowledge utilization, direct observations cannot be the only
method used. Indirect studies for conceptual uses or latent uses must be
employed rather than the classic laboratory approach. Nor can single
indicator studies be as useful as those focused on multiple indicators. Rich
(1981:38) suggests the need to reassess the use of utilization as the
dependent variable. He suggests that it is more appropriately used in
research studies as "an intervening variable: use for what and for what
purpose?"
SUMMARY:
The knowledge cycle consists of knowledge creation, diffusion, and
utilization. Differing periods of time have given differing emphases to each
component of the cycle. Knowledge utilization as differentiated from knowledge
diffusion dates back to the sixties. At that time early models used a simple
linear view of knowledge use. Today the complexities and the dynamic,
transactional aspects of knowledge utilization have become more widely
recognized. Strengths associated with the budding field of knowledge
utilization include its multi-disciplinary approach, its dedicated
researchers, its journal, its society, and its funding. Weaknesses include
difficulties in information access, few empirical studies, few tested models,
much redundancy, and biases.
Issues affecting studies of knowledge utilization include debates over
inherent goodness of research results, who should access and control knowledge
publicly funded and produced, kinds of knowledge worthy of use, definitions of
use, purview of utilization studies, and best research methods. The
prosumerism approach to knowledge production and use sides on these issues
with equal access and control of knowledge, consideration of experiential as
well as scientific knowledge, use of a wide range of research methods, and
user control and responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the research
results.
A LOOK AHEAD:
With the historical overview of knowledge utilization in
mind, Chapter Three focuses on knowledge utilization within the Department
of Education with emphasis on rehabilitation and more specifically, the
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. It identifies
the ways federal programs involve people with disabilities in the process of
knowledge production and use.
|
.gif){kind=spacer}
