Chapter VI: Models Of Knowledge Utilization
I. INTRODUCTION TO MODELS
A. Criteria for models
Models discussed in this study provide frameworks for representing the
factors or variables in the knowledge utilization process. Not only do the
models identify the key variables and their relationship to one another but
they also illustrate the sequence the variables follow for best results. While
the diffusion research literature as meta-analyzed by Rogers (1983), has a
system of propositions to support some of its models, the utilization-focused
models seldom do. This study presents first the early models overviewed by
other researchers and deemed widely accepted. Next it adds models from the
literature based on the following broad criteria:
--includes the major steps in the knowledge utilization process rather
than developing only one or two of those steps;
--the model links the utilization steps to the knowledge creation and
diffusion components of the knowledge cycle;
--if proposed prior to the eighties, the model has been referenced or
supported by other researchers.
Several authors have identified criteria for assessing models. Davis &
Salasin (1979, as referenced in Glaser 1983:418-419) proposed 12
characteristics for a good model of change. Those characteristics are:
practical, manipulable, economy of use, ease of communication, comprehensive,
synergistic, phased, individual components workable, flexible and versatile,
basis for subsequent evaluations, recognizes human characteristics, and calls
attention to how the change process influences the rest of the system.
Zaltman (1979:518-520), in discussing models of consumer behavior,
defined the properties of a model as follows: (1) capable of explanation as
well as prediction, (2) general, (3) high in heuristic power, (4) high in
unifying power, (5) internally consistent, (6) original, (7) plausible (have
face validity), (8) simple, (9) supported by facts, and (10) testable or
verifiable (at least in principle). The purpose of the model dictates the
degree to which each property is met within any given model.
While models help simplify the relationships between factors, they
also can sometimes mislead. Zaltman warns us that since models simplify,
it is easy to "draw artificial distinctions between concepts which in
actuality are inseparable" (Ibid, 517).
Glaser, Abelson, and Garrison (1983:418) remind us that models are
often hypothetical and heuristic and do not usually represent established laws
or verities. Models, they say, may stem from theory, experience, or validated
evidence.
B. Kinds of knowledge utilization models
There are many classification schemes for models in knowledge
utilization. Weiss (1979), writing from a public policy perspective, refers to
models driven by knowledge, problems, interactions, politics, tactics, or
enlightenment. Dunn (1980:517), also writing from the public policymaking
perspective, groups models as product-contingent, inquiry-contingent,
problem-contingent, structure-contingent, or process-contingent. Glaser,
Abelson, and Garrison (1983) refer to models as including the following
perspectives: research, development, and diffusion; social interaction;
problem-solving; planned change; and action research. Each of the three
breakdowns of models includes those that begin with the research product and
those that begin with the end user. Each breakdown includes an
interaction-based model. All three include a problem-oriented one.
There are still other ways to group models such as by end users:
researchers, public policymakers, administrators/ chief executive officers,
practitioners, the general public, or targeted consumers. Models could be
contrasted in terms of static vs. dynamic, systems-oriented vs. non-systems
oriented, progressive and non-progressive, integrated and not integrated. They
could be described contextually as related to individuals, organizations, and
societies. They may be grouped based on the research traditions from which
they are derived. They could be organized according to the phase of the
process to which they relate. Lastly, they could be delineated by the time
periods in which they first appeared in the literature.
The next section briefly highlights the more widely accepted models
overviewed by Glaser, Abelson, and Garrison (1983; Human Interaction Research
Institute, 1976) and by Weiss (1979). These models differ in their ability to
handle complex vs. simple areas of knowledge utilization. Some are linear
while others are not.
II. WIDELY ACCEPTED MODELS OF KNOWLEDGE UTILIZATION
Glaser, Abelson, and Garrison (1983:405-6) described five early and
widely accepted models. The first three were originally set forth in 1969 by
Havelock and the last two by Sashkin, Morris, and Horst (1973) as well as
others. Each model represents a different perspective and area of emphasis in
the knowledge utilization process.
A. Research, Development, and Diffusion Model
The first model referred to as research, development, and diffusion
(RDD) reflected the attitude that if research is made known and presented in
the right way, targeted audiences would use it. That model involves a sequence
of research, development, and packaging activities prior to dissemination,
large-scale planning, division of labor, separation of roles and functions,
and evaluation (Glaser, 1983:404). This is a linear model. It begins with the
research product and its packaging rather than the ultimate user and their
needs. The user has little, if any, input into the research design. The
two-communities mindset is well entrenched in this model. If a feedback loop
were added from the user to the researcher, that would be a beginning
enhancement but still not sufficient for today's complexities.
Weiss (1979:427) also referencing Havelock (1969) describes a related
model, the knowledge-driven model. She points out that it derives from and is
used mostly by the natural sciences. It usually includes the following
sequence of events:
Basic Research -> Applied Research -> Development -> Application
"The assumption is that the sheer fact that knowledge exists presses it toward
development and use" (Ibid). While this works well for the natural sciences,
the social science knowledge--
...is not apt to be so compelling or authoritative as to
drive inevitably toward implementation....Social science
knowledge does not readily lend itself to conversion into
replicable technologies, either material or social. Perhaps
most important, unless a social condition has been
consensually defined as a pressing social problem, and
unless the condition has become fully politicized and
debated, and the parameters of potential action agreed upon,
there is little likelihood that policy-making bodies will be
receptive to the results of social science research (Ibid).
B. Social Interaction Model
The second model, the social interaction model, focuses on human relationships
and influencing strategies at each stage of the dissemination and adoption
processes (Glaser et al, 1983; Zaltman et al, 1977). The importance of
face-to-face contacts and of understanding communication networking and
psychological reference groups enter into this model. Note that in this model
the interaction begins from the researcher's perspective only at the
dissemination stage not at the research design stage.
The interactive model, according to Weiss (1979:428-9) and Zaltman
(1977:159), is not linear. Instead policymakers seek information, knowledge,
and opinions from a variety of sources including social scientists but not
limited to their research findings. Administrators, practitioners,
politi-cians, planners, journalists, clients, interest groups, aides, friends,
and social scientists may contribute information useful to policymaking.
Seldom though do they have conclusions specific to the policy issue nor do
they have convergent evidence. "In this model, the use of research is only one
part of a complicated process that also uses experience, political insight,
pressure, social technologies, and judgment" (Weiss, 1979:429).
In a study of innovation adoption Bingham, Freeman, and Felbinger
(1984) reported support for the interactive, nonlinear model. They said: "the
interactive terms made an independent contribution to the explained variance
in every case" (Ibid, 333). They added that in one instance the interactive
terms explained 60% of all of the variance. They recommended greater
attention be paid to developing and refining interactive models. These authors
also report that Downs and Mohr (1976:712-713) proposed that interactive
models would be best for developing an integrated theory of knowledge
utilization (Bingham et al, 1984:311).
C. Problem-Solving Model
Generally, in the problem solving model a problem exists, a decision
has to be made, and a gap in information, understanding, or knowledge exists
for making the decision. The pending decision drives the search for knowledge
and subsequent application of that knowledge. Goals are generally already
agreed upon and the research is to help identify and select appropriate means
to reach the goal. While in many instances knowledge is sought among existing
research findings, Weiss (1979:427) says, occasionally policymakers will
commission social science research to fill knowledge gaps. Sometimes those
gaps remain.
The model includes the following sequence of events.
Define pending decision --> Identify missing knowledge --> Acquire social
science research --> Interpret research for the decision context --> Choose a
policy
Lack of information can thwart the effects of this model; bypassing
this step also can thwart its effects. Weiss points out that occasional
studies have affected decision-making but usually on "relatively low-level
narrow-gauge decisions." Most studies seldom leave any discernible mark on the
direction or substance of policy (Ibid, 428). The extraordinary circumstances
that might influence policy decisions directly would include:
a well defined decision situation, a set of policy actors
who have responsibility and jurisdiction for making the
decision, an issue whose resolution depends at least to some
extent on information, identification of the requisite
informational need, research that provides the information
in terms that match the circumstances within which choices
will be made, research findings that are clear-cut,
unambiguous, firmly supported, and powerful, that reach
decision-makers at the time they are wrestling with the
issues, that are comprehensible and understood, and that do
not run counter to strong political interests (Ibid, 428).
The prevalence of this model of research utilization may account for
some of the disillusionment regarding the applicability of social science
research to social policy. "Because people expect research use to occur
through the sequence of stages posited by this model, they become discouraged
when events do not take the expected course" (Ibid).
Boyd and Menlo (1984:59-74) expanded the problem solving model.
Their prescriptive model for knowledge utilization in problem solving has
three realms: cognitive, instrumental, and the psychosocial. The
instrumental realm has seven stages: (l) situational problem (with tactical
seeking questions and choices), (2) problem situation (with strategy seeking
questions and choices), (3) general inquiry statement, (4) knowledge-seeking
question (that if not answered can lead to new areas of scholarly inquiry),
(5) scientific generalization (with consideration of ontological and
epist-emological issues), (6) practice generalization (emphasizing ontological
issues), and (7) design generalization (emphasizing valuation issues). The
cognitive realm relates to each stage with its thinking styles, thinking
formats, process knowledge, repertoire use, verbal language usage, etc. The
psychosocial realm adds the feelings, needs, personality characteristics,
dynamics, norms, pressures, and so forth to round out the model.
D. Planned Change Model
The fourth model, the planned change model, assumes that "change
occurs through a consciously controlled, sequential, and continuous process of
data generation, planning, and implementation" and that stabilization and
support of the changes are important (Glaser, 1983:405). Because this model
stems from research on organizational change, it is not unusual that Weiss
does not mention this model in her discussion of models applicable to
policymakers.
E. Action Research Model
The fifth model, the action research model (as defined by Patton),
resembles the planned change and problem-solving models while emphasizing
research creation by, and research use within, the same organization. Critics
of this model complain that efforts are not always made to transfer knowledge
from action research projects into the knowledge pool for all organizations to
readily access. On the other hand, this model has the advantage of increasing
use among potential users housed in the same organization as the researchers.
"Due to an emphasis on trust and control, individual managers in the public
sector will tend to use predominantly that research which is produced within
their own organizations. Thus, it is natural to expect that R&D managers will
also be R&D users" (Rich & Goldsmith, 1982: 432).
F. Widely accepted models and the prosumer approach
The prosumer approach captures the best elements of each of the widely
accepted models. The prosumer approach is flexible, beginning with either the
problem or the consumer-need-based product. It is interactive and
interdependent not just during dissemination and use but throughout every
phase of the knowledge cycle. It includes planned change but is not restricted
to planned change as its only form of change. The prosumer approach encourages
research within organizations as well as between and among organizations.
Unlike action research based on tall hierarchical organizational structures,
the prosumer approach emphasizes flat structures. Communication is open in
all directions. Responsibility, power, and control is shared. The prosumer
approach suggests ways to help evidence from many sources converge into a
common body of knowledge on a subject.
III. OTHER MODELS IN THE LITERATURE
A. Systems-oriented models
Several models have a heavy systems orientation. The characteristics
of systems models according to Glaser, Abelson, and Garrison (1983) include:
(1) interactive components such as inputs, transformations, and outputs; (2)
"a dynamic flow of 'signals' (i.e., messages) or 'effects' (i.e., influences),
(3) a feedback system for modifying activities, (4) boundaries among the
supersystem, system, and subsystem, and (5) a controlling mechanism."
Glaser et al (1983:406-407) reviewed the following:
--Closed vs. bipolar loop problem-solving model (Havelock, 1977)
--Framework on innovating in organizations (Munson and Pelz, 1980)
--Innovation factor system (Souder & Rubenstein, 1976)
--Cybernetic societal guidance model (Etzioni, 1965)
--Systematic assessment of new technology model (Dobrov, 1978)
--Social network technical/political/cultural cycles model (Tichy, 1980)
--Technology delivery crisis model (Wenk, 1979)
--A formula-type model, e.g., A VICTORY/Decision determinants analysis
(Davis, 1971/1978; Davis and Salasin, 1975/1979)
The A Victory model has been tested, refined, and renamed the decision
determinants analysis (DDA). It originally consisted of nine factors that
created the anachronym, A VICTORY: Ability, Values, Idea/Information,
Circumstances, Timing, Obligation, Resistance, and Yield. The model was
envisioned as useful for accounting for organizational behavior related to the
use of either promising new knowledge or validated innovative
procedures/practices/products. Forty questions concerning the potential
change situation and a basic working list of about fifty prescriptive
suggestions accompany the model (Glaser, et al, 1983:30; Davis and Salasin,
1975).
Within an action research context, A. W. Clark (1975) described the
client and practitioner relationship at the system rather than individual
level. Each is in a separate and closed system that can become open and
interdependent. The bases of interdependence is the task system, external
system, value system, reward system, and power system. The technical systems
surrounding the client, practitioner, and action researcher also influence
interdependency. The study emphasizes the need for exchange with adequate
rewards for each party in the relationship.
More recently, several authors have pointed to the systems approach as
the best way to organize and account for the social impacts of science. Those
impacts may be behavioral, structural, or intensity of penetration of science
on social action (Cozzens, 1987:315). Holzner, Dunn, and Shahidullah (1987)
describe the social system of knowledge as "the complex of institutions,
organizations, occupations, and their norms, social roles, and resources that
constitute the social arrangements within which knowledge-related activities
are conducted" (Ibid, 182-183). While their view of the social system of
knowledge institutionalizes the validation of information and the quality of
knowledge, they do not restrict the system to only scientific knowledge.
They say: "it makes little sense to call all codified professional expertise
scientific, yet this type of information is of vital importance to the
functioning of the knowledge system" (Ibid, 183).
What constitutes appropriate knowledge is determined in various
domains of the knowledge system. Those domains include industrial
engineering, mass communications, medicine, education, agriculture, and so
forth. Some domains have clearly "specialized and differentiated structures,
while others have more diffuse structures" (Ibid, 187). The domains identify
the standards and the "degree of reliance on scientific knowledge" (Ibid,
187).
Institutions and organizations in the knowledge system, Holzner and
others say, facilitate or limit the impact science has on society in six
areas: "(1) the structure of science specialties, (2) scientific conclusions
and evidence, (3) scientific methodologies, (4) science-based technologies,
(5) science-based policies and organizational designs, and (6) structure of
scientific institutions" (Ibid, 188).
Augsburg workshop participants who reviewed this proposed knowledge
system said: "we must distinguish among science as a mode of thought, science
as an archive of knowledge, science as new research results, and science
embodied in trained manpower" (Cozzens, 1987:314).
The functions of the knowledge system that occur across and within
different domains, according to Holzner, Dunn, and Shahidullah (1987),
include: knowledge production, knowledge structuring, knowledge storage,
knowledge distribution, knowledge utilization, and knowledge mandating. Those
functions occur in different domains such as industry, agriculture, education.
They believe the advantages of adopting a knowledge system perspective for
designing impact indicators include: (l) enables "measuring of causal
interconnectedness"; (2) enables the "transition to a multidimensional
indicator system"; (3) "can identify the pathways of impacts and can assist in
the identification of areas of policy intervention... or points of leverage";
(4) "can yield indicators relevant to the multiple and at times conflicting
goals of actors at all levels and regions of the system" (Ibid, 180).
B. Policy-oriented models
Weiss (1979) described four additional models, all policy-oriented:
political, tactical, enlightenment, and intellectual enterprise. Under the
political model, policy-makers use research to support their predetermined
position. "When research is available to all participants in the policy
process, research as political ammunition can be a worthy model of
utilization" (Weiss, 1979:429). Under the tactical model, policymakers use
the fact that they are sponsoring the research to demonstrate responsiveness
and excuse their delayed actions in terms of waiting for the research results.
They may also use research to deflect criticism for unpopular policy outcomes.
Support of research may also lead to building a constituency of academic
supporters who can assist under congressional reviews.
In the enlightenment model users of research cannot pinpoint a
specific study or group of studies on which their policies or decisions are
based. "The imagery is that of social science generalizations and orientations
percolating through informed publics and coming to shape the way in which
people think about social issues....Research sensitizes decision makers to
new issues and helps turn what were nonproblems into policy problems" (Weiss,
1979:429).
Deficiencies associated with this model include the promulgation of
invalid as well as valid generalizations. Incomplete, inadequate,
oversimplified, and wrong findings, Weiss says, often seep into the ground
waters of knowledge along with the quality research studies. The percolating
process sometimes is so long that the research results may be out of date by
the time they arrive or they may never reach the policy makers. Then too, "as
more studies are done, they often elaborate rather than simplify. They
generate complex, varied, and even contradictory views of the social
phenomena under study, rather than cumulating into sharper and more coherent
explanation" (Ibid, 430).
Social science research is used also as one of the intellectual
pursuits of society (Ibid, 430-431). "Social science and policy interact,
influencing each other and being influenced by the larger fashions of social
thought" (Ibid, 430). Emerging policy interest in a social issue often leads
to appropriations of research funds that subsequently attract social
scientists to certain areas of study or confinements within those areas of
study. "Later, as social science research widens its horizons, it may
contribute to reconceptualization of the issue by policy makers. Meanwhile,
both the policy and research colloquies may respond, consciously or
unconsciously, to concerns sweeping through intellectual and popular
thought"(Ibid).
C. Integrated organization-oriented model
Michael Huberman (1987) developed an integrated model of research
utilization that is based on a confirmatory study conducted in a Swiss
setting. His beginning steps to the development of a superordinate conceptual
model integrates the instrumentalist and transactional paradigms that lie on
either extreme of a conceptual continuum in research utilization. The
instrumentalist paradigm assumes a passive, reproductive use of research
information "housed within a Weberian organization" (Ibid, 590). The
transactional or conflict-theoretic perspective, on the other hand, assumes an
active strategic use of research, one that transforms information "to preserve
cognitive consonance or to legitimate interventions within a 'bargained'
social environment" (Ibid). He illustrates how each paradigm is partially
valid and are "empirically interwoven in ways that are also conceptually
plausible from a cognitive, social-psychological, and intraorganizational
perspective" (Ibid).
Huberman's integrated model has four parts: (1) General Model, (2)
Organizational Model: Researchers, (3) Organizational Model: Users, and (4)
Dissemination Effort Model. Each breakdown represents a set of major
variables and their hypothesized interrelationships. The General Model
outlines the major variables. The organizational factors within the researcher
and user contexts drive the linkage/coupling variable set. The degree of
linkage between researchers and users directs the intensity and quality of the
dissemination effort. That effort produces costs to researchers and a positive
or negative impact for users. Secondary effects may occur from the
dissemination effort or from the impact/use. In a separate more classic-based
chain of actions, use is not directly dependent on what disseminators do. That
chain flows from the users and predictors of local use to the impact/use
variable set without direct linkages or dissemination efforts.
When looking at the model from the researchers' perspective, the
organizational factors include the researchers' experience level with
diffusion and utilization as well as the status and associated rewards or
disincentives for promoting diffusion and utilization. The researchers'
nesting in their home organization, Huberman says, relates to hierarchical
level, stability, proximity to influential units or persons, relative
centrality or marginality of the researchers' conceptual and methodological
stance. From the users' perspective, the organizational factors relate to
experience with research, the status of research in the organization,
familiarity with or mastery of the scientific research, and characteristics of
organizations.
Linkage and coupling from the researchers' perspective and the users'
perspective are interdependent. Details about the intermediaries are given on
the researchers model. Those include credibility, communication skills,
mastery of substance of study, degree of infrastructure, and level of
involvement.
Impact on users may be positive or negative, durable or not.
Potentially positive uses include conceptual, instrumental, and strategic
use. Negative ones include confusion, uncertainty, delayed action,
intra-organizational tensions or conflicts. Other user-related factors under
impact/use include the extent of use, scope of impact, relative influence, and
degree of transformation vs. fidelity. Impact on researchers may also be
positive or negative; though in Huberman's model, impacts are described in
terms of conceptual, attitudinal effects, instrumental effects, and costs. The
costs relate to quality of the study or other tasks, conflicts, prestige,
credibility, and negative effects on career.
The last of the four breakdowns of the integrated model centers on the
dissemination effort. This breakdown elaborates on the researcher and user
contexts, the linkage mechanisms, predictors of local use, and the actual
dissemination effort. Among the researcher contextual factors are the
user-centeredness of the study and the orientation towards diffusion and
utilization in the study. Among the user contextual factors are perceptions
about the study's worth, influence, realism, and linkage to needs or
priorities. The credibility or reputation of the research team, commitment of
key leaders, and the presence or absence of an institutional mandate factor
into the user contextual variables set.
Huberman separates from the user contextual variable set the following
predictors of local use: users' understanding of the main findings, time and
resources devoted to their use, compatibility with organizational objectives
or users' opinions, and their perceived quality or validity. These predictors
cluster differently for different user publics.
Of the variables listed under the dissemination effort Huberman says
"the strongest, most systematic correlations are found for the list under D &
U savviness: user-specific products, multiple channels, redundancy and
reinforcement, use of personal contacts, and different types of
follow-through. Research on communication and on attitude change heightens
the face validity of these factors, many of which have found their way into
advertising and political consultation" (Ibid, 604-5).
In reporting preliminary results after 12 months of data collection,
Huberman said that "the models have performed well in the field" (Ibid). Some
unbundling and refinement of variables has been needed. He indicates that
initial confirmation exists for the "nonpertinence of factors not included on
the model, which is itself another validation index" (Ibid, 606). The 1987
initial data analysis also reinforced the credibility of the linkage theorem
of research dissemination.
D. Practitioner-oriented models
Two models in particular stand out among practitioner-oriented models:
(1) the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM) and the progressive or
scientist-practitioner model. While the CBAM does not link its utilization
component readily with the research creation and dissemination components of
the knowledge cycle, it has features worthy of consideration for subsequent
model development. This author chose to place it in the practitioner
framework, even though it could have just as easily been placed under the
organizational framework, because of its teacher orientation.
1. Concerns-based adoption model (CBAM)
The concerns-based adoption model (CBAM) addresses the organizational
and individual perspectives of innovation adoption (Hall, Wallace, & Dossett,
1973 in Loucks & Hall, 1977). This model stems from the educational system and
has been used primarily with teachers. Two important dimensions pervade the
model: (1) the affective dimension, i.e., concerns about the innovation; and
(2) the behavioral dimension, i.e., skill and sophistication levels in the use
of the innovation. The model juxtaposes a broad sequence of self-related,
task-related, and impact-related concerns about the innovation with the
sequential skill development in the use of the innovation: orienting,
managing, and integrating.
In a more detailed form the model consists of seven stages of concern
about the innovation and eight levels of use of the innovation. The stages of
concerns begin with lack of awareness and then move into the information,
personal, management, consequence, collaboration, and refocusing. The
informational stage of concern relates to the general nature of the innovation
and its present uses. The personal concern involves reflection on what in the
present role needs to change to use the innovation. The management concern
stage encompasses logistical issues related to the pending change. The
consequence stage is concerned with the impact on the practitioner's audience,
i.e., students, clients, patients, etc.. In the next stage the potential user
is concerned about collaboration needs and benefits surrounding the
innovation. Then the last concern relates to broadening one's perspective
regarding the innovations' relationship to other similar ones. A key question
that may arise at this stage is: Would another innovation achieve the same
goals more effectively?
The levels of use of the innovation associated with the CBAM are:
nonuse, orientation, preparation, mechanical use, routine, refinement,
integration, and renewal. From nonuse the potential user orients himself or
herself to the innovation and decides whether to adopt it (unless it is
mandated already). Next the potential user prepares for adoption whether
through training, resource development, procedural modification, and so forth.
Mechanical use precedes routine use and "reflects lack of effective management
and lack of anticipation of more than day-to-day needs, problems and events"
(Loucks & Hall, 1977). From an established routine for problem handling
surrounding the innovation, the teacher moves on to refinement of usage,
including eliciting feedback from recipients of the changes, e.g., students.
In the last two levels of innovation use, the user integrates usage with other
practitioners and looks for other innovations to supplement or perhaps even
replace the innovation.
2. Progressive model
The roots for the progressive or scientist-practitioner model are
embedded in the 1949 Boulder Conference sponsored by the National Institute of
Mental Health and the American Psychological Association (under David Shakow's
leadership). That conference focused on curriculum development for educating
students in clinical psychology and drew representatives from 71
universities, mental health agencies, and allied professions. Barlow, Hayes,
and Nelson (1986:4-10) state that this consensus-building event put the stamp
of approval on the logic and integrity of the scientist-practitioners' model.
Their book describes the attempts to implement the model and the factors in
the growing field of psychotherapy that thwarted full implementation at that
time. Obstacles included: (1) disillusionment with traditional research
methods for the clinical setting, (2) little control over the training of
psychotherapists, and (3) limited use of traditional research methods by
practitioners since the conference.
Prior to that conference Frederick C. Thorne published in American
Psychologist (1947) his views on how the practice of clinical psychology would
develop. Although it didn't develop that way, his ideas are relevant to
envisioning new directions in knowledge utilization for the rehabilitation
field.
Formerly, clinical technology was mainly empirical, i.e., based on
study and 'experience' rather than experiment....Ideally, diagnosis
(description) and treatment of each individual case may be regarded as a
single and well-controlled experiment. The treatment may be carefully
controlled by utilizing single therapeutic factors, observing and recording
results systematically, and checking through the use of appropriate
quantitative laboratory studies. In addition to the general scientific
orientation to the individual case there are frequent opportunities in
clinical practice to conduct actual experiments to determine the validity of
diagnosis or the efficacy of treatment....Individual clinicians are encouraged
to apply experimental and statistical methods in the analysis of case results
and larger scale analyses are made of the experience of the whole clinic over
a period of years. Thus, the clinician comes to regard each individual case
as part of a larger sample (Ibid, 159-160, quoted in Barlow, Hayes, and
Nelson, 1986:5).
Agras and Berkowitz (1980) subsequently developed a model around the
scientist-practitioner which Raymond Kent (1985) later adapted. These model
builders refer to the model as a progressive model of clinical research. The
model begins with an assessment of the status of the given intervention field
and of sources from whence new techniques may emerge, such as clinical
innovation, basic research, or new theoretical developments. Then
practitioners research via clinical observations and uncontrolled clinical
tests while scientists begin with basic theoretical and laboratory research.
Each may generate new interventions or measurement that may be subjected to
short-term outcome studies that compare the new procedures to no treatment.
For component analysis either single subject studies or group and
laboratory studies may be conducted by the practitioner and the scientists
respectively. Then the effectiveness of the intervention is compared with
alternative interventions in short-term comparative outcome studies. Once
passed those tests, the new intervention may be considered from an efficiency
or long-term perspective. The final steps in the model involve evaluation of
training methods or methods of dissemination and subsequent evaluation of the
field efficacy of the new interventions.
The progressive model, also referred to as the integrated applied
research model, while comprehensively and systematically going far beyond the
current reality of most intervention research, is not unrealistic (Kent,
1985). "Each of the stages of research is attainable and indeed should
eventually be accomplished for treatments that become clinical standards.
Above all, the model shows the interactions among several sources of
information and evaluation" (Ibid, 3).
Kent's version of the model intertwines research and practice closely
in the short-and long-term perspectives as well as at several levels: the
conceptual, the observational, the experimental, and the interpretive. His
article promotes practitioner involvement in advancing the state of the art as
a research consumer and a practical scientist. He provides questions to pose
to research studies and describes varied approaches to single-subject designs.
He ends his article with a description of the body of knowledge a practitioner
needs to be an effective change agent. Barlow, Hayes, and Nelson (1986) also
identify the research strategies that can be more readily conducted by
practitioners in contrast to the more traditional modalities of research
scientists.
Halgin (1986) identified ways training clinics could restructure their
educational approaches to assure graudates recognize the value of
scientist-practitioners. "Course work, clinical and research supervision, and
conferences should teach students that being clinical practitioners, consumers
of research, and research innovators are not separate and independent roles"
(Goldried, 1984:479 cited in Ibid).
Phillips (1989) acknowledged six major obstacles to the
scientist-practitioner model along with the importance of collaboration among
researchers and practitioners. He identified the knowledge, skills, and
attitudes needed by researchers and practitioners to successfully collaborate.
Those include researchers recognizing that the world of practice is the
scientists only true laboratory and that its boundaries do not respect those
of their disciplines. For practitioners it includes recognizing the gambling
status of practice and the need to maximize gains and minimize losses from
applications of science to practice.
Persons (1991) identified the benefits of the scientist-practitioner
model and ways researchers could better align their psychotherapy outcome
studies to more accurately represent current practices of psychotherapy. She
offered a case formulation approach to psychotherapy research that would take
into account the individualization and idiographic practices in psychotherapy
rather than relying on only standardized and atheoretical approaches.
E. Consumer-oriented models
While the marketing model is applicable to organizations, it is
geared more to individuals in a given community or society. Often it is linked
to tangible products. Fine (1981), however, suggested it was equally
applicable to services, ideas, and social issues or causes for both the
nonprofit and profit-making sectors of society.
Consumers and their needs are the focal point of the marketing model
and each of its components. Identifying and satisfying the consumer's needs
is interwoven into every feature of the marketing mix. Marketing strategists
such as McCarthy and Perreault (198 ) have identified the four p's--product,
place, promotion, and price--as the key controllable variables of a marketing
mix that is in turn tailored to specific customers [people]. McCarthy and
Perreault define product as the "need-satisfying offering of a firm"(Ibid,
288). In the marketing mix, product takes on an expanded meaning to encompass
the concept of the right product for the target market. It includes the
product's features, accessories, installation, instructions, service,
warranty, product lines, packaging, and branding.
Place involves getting the right product to the target market when and
where it is wanted. Place includes the channels and locations for
distribution of the product as well as the use of middlemen/women, and the
levels of service. Promotion involves personal and mass selling, advertising,
publicity, and other forms of promotion that stimulate interest, trial, or
purchase/use by final customers or others in the channel. In the area of
price, strategic decision areas relate to objectives, the level over the life
cycle of the product, flexibility, geographic terms, discounts, and
allowances. The main objective is to make the price right for the customer
and for the company's survival and growth.
The four controllable variables--product, place, promotion, and
place--lay within the circle of uncontrollable variables. The uncontrollable
variables include the environment--cultural, social, political, legal,
economic, and technological, competitive--and the resources and objectives of
the company or organization. The marketing model encompasses the assessment
of need, market strategy (target market and market mix), market plan, plan
implementation, and evaluation. More and more the consumer has become an
integral part in the selection of products, their design, their promotion, and
marketing.
F. Other models and the prosumer approach
The prosumer approach, like the systems models, includes (1)
interactivity, (2) dynamic flow of influences, (3) feedback, and (4)
controlling mechanisms for debating and developing consensus about knowledge
on a given subject. Boundaries associated with closed systems, however, are
deemphasized in the open-system oriented prosumer approach. The social system
of knowledge as envisioned by Holzner, Dunn, and Shahidullah are compatible
with the prosumer approach as long as the domains of consumer knowledge are a
prominent consideration along with the other domains.
The prosumer approach, from the policymaker's viewpoint, makes
research results available to all interested individuals. It uses public
forums and media announcements regarding consensus panel results to help
minimize misinformation that comes through the percolating process.
The integrative organization-oriented model of Huberman in which he
trys to bridge the gaps between the extremes of the research utilization
conceptual continuum is laudable. However, it needs the benefits of the
scientist-practitioner conceptualization, and the prosumer approach to
maximize the bridging and truly become superordinate.
The prosumer approach supports the mindset and structural changes
recommended under the scientist practitioner model. It also supports the
consumer-driven marketing strategies now in vogue.
SUMMARY:
Chapter 6 has overviewed a variety of knowledge utilization models.
Some of those models begin with the research product while others begin with
the potential users. They range from simple to complex and from
consumer-oriented to policymaker-oriented. Many reflect the two communities
theory of knowledge utilization that views users and researchers as residing
in two differing and alien cultures requiring linkers or integrators. They
also reflect elements, such as "interaction," "problem-oriented," "planning,"
and "interdependency" of a prosumer approach. The practitioner-oriented
models pointed to the importance of professionals contributing to knowledge
production as well as use. The marketing model pointed to the importance of
consumers in the entire process. The integrative organizational model linked
the instrumentalist and transactional extremes of research utilization models.
While Huberman viewed his model as potentially superordinate, its omission of
the scientist-practioner conceptualization and the prosumer mindset leaves it
less likely to reach superordination. The knowledge system model also
broadened the scope of past models; however, it too falls short by not looking
at new ways of relating in the process of knowledge production and use.
The prosumer approach captures the best of all the models. It is
flexible for changing times and changing conditions. Its uniqueness lies in
the ways roles and relationships interact to maximize the production and use
of knowledge and technology to improve the quality of life of people with
disabilities.
The prosumer approach is interactive and interdepend-ent throughout
creation, diffusion, and use of knowledge and not just dissemination and use.
The prosumer approach suggests ways to help evidence from many sources
converge into a common body of knowledge on a subject. The structures
associated with the prosumer approach are relatively flat rather than
hierarchically tall so that influencing is not just one-way but two-way and
geometrically beyond.
The prosumer approach looks at the problem solving approach to
knowledge utilization as valuable when repre-sentatives of all groups affected
participate, when literature bases and expertise are equally accessible to all
affected parties, and when consumers understand the knowledge cycle and how
they can best participate in it. The prosumer approach does not restrict
itself to a sequence of stages but rather multiple entry points and exit
points. The planned change model does not serve the knowledge utiliza-tion
field well when survival depends on grasping opportuni-ties and adapting
rapidly to changing environmental condi-tions. Flexibility is not its
strength. The prosumer model, on the other hand, is flexible to changing
times and changing conditions. Because it is characterized by a way of
relating with respect to knowledge production and use, it adapts readily to
internal and external complexities.
A LOOK AHEAD:
Chapter 7 identifies problems with current models and identifies
trends that affect the future state of the art in knowledge utilization.
|
.gif){kind=spacer}
