yin 1981 knowledge utilization as a networking process

7/28/2019 Yin 1981 Knowledge Utilization as a Networking Process

1/27

http://scx.sagepub.com/Science Communication

http://scx.sagepub.com/content/2/4/555The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/107554708100200406

1981 2: 555Science CommunicationRobert K. Yin and Margaret K. Gwaltney

Knowledge Utilization as a Networking Process

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Science CommunicationAdditional services and information for

http://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://scx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://scx.sagepub.com/content/2/4/555.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jun 1, 1981Version of Record>>

at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on November 9, 2011scx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://scx.sagepub.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/content/2/4/555http://scx.sagepub.com/content/2/4/555http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://scx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://scx.sagepub.com/content/2/4/555.refs.htmlhttp://scx.sagepub.com/content/2/4/555.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://scx.sagepub.com/content/2/4/555.full.pdfhttp://scx.sagepub.com/content/2/4/555.full.pdfhttp://scx.sagepub.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://scx.sagepub.com/content/2/4/555.full.pdfhttp://scx.sagepub.com/content/2/4/555.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://scx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/content/2/4/555http://scx.sagepub.com/


2/27

555

Knowledge Utilizationas a Networking Process

ROBERT K. YIN

The Case Study Institute, Inc.

Washington, D. C.

MARGARET K. GWALTNEY

AbtAssociates Inc.

Washington, D. C.

Trying to Improve R&D Management

How to make research ideas more &dquo;useful&dquo; has become of increasingconcern to federal R&D funding agencies. Especially in those caseswhere applied social research is sponsored by such agencies-e.g., theNational Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Educa-

tion, National Institute of Justice, and components of the NationalScience Foundation and National Institutes of Health-current R&D

investments are being more closely judged on the basis of their impacton actual practices or policies. In short, knowledge utilization hasbecome an important outcome for assessing the worthiness of appliedsocial research (Lynn, 1978).

Six Common &dquo;Interventions&dquo;

To increase knowledge utilization as an outcome, however, requiressome understanding of (and ability to manipulate) knowledge utiliza-tion as a process. To date, in spite of continued investigation over the

years, such an understanding has yet to produce an effective set of

Knowledge. Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, Vol. 2 No. 4, June 1981 555-580@ 1981 Sage Publications, Inc.

http://scx.sagepub.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/http://scx.sagepub.com/


3/27

556

interventions. The most common intervention has centered around the

dissemination of final reports from applied research. However, the

dissemination activities, often facilitated byan

information clearing-house, have been criticized for their low communication potential; thefinal reports do not necessarily reach the right target audiences, andservice providers and policy makers often encounter difficulties with the

readability and relevance of the reports. Similarly, though many R&Dawards are made with the stipulation that the grantee (or contractor)develop an individualized dissemination and utilization plan, such plansare generally oriented toward communication with other researchers

rather than with service providers or policy makers.Some agencies, such as those in education, have pursued yet another

intervention, the support of linkers-or field agents-usually throughawards to field organizations. The National Institute of Education, for

example, sponsors ten Research and Development Exchanges, locatedin independent educational organizations throughout the country. Inthis arrangement, individuals provide assistance to local school person-nel by disseminating research products, answering queries, and helpingto implement changes within districts or schools.

Finally, some interventions have been directed at the conduct of theresearch itself. Thus, R&D funding agencies have used a variety of

techniques, such as issuing programmatic guidelines to solicit morerelevant and timely research in the first place; imposing &dquo;user&dquo; panels asan advisory body to the research investigation; and sponsoring research

applications conferences to foster further communication betweenresearch producers and users.

The Need for a Coherent Strategy

These interventions have enjoyed partial success. Rarely, however,has an R&D funding agency been able to articulate or develop acoherent strategy for knowledge utilization,2 partly because our under-

standing of the knowledge utilization process has also been fragmentedand noncumulative. Few individuals would claim to know which

interventions work best under what conditions. The following articletherefore is aimed at:

. examining a fresh set of evidence on current knowledge utilization

activities;

. developing general insights into the knowledge utilization process; and

. deriving implications for improved R&D management policies as well as

for further research.



4/27

557

The most important finding from our work is that knowledge utilizationshould be viewed as a

networking process,in which individuals need to

be encouraged and supported in their interpersonal communicationsbehavior, and in which written reports play an important but neverthe-less secondary role.

Studying Knowledge Utilization

Service Providers as Knowledge Users

The knowledge utilization process may be different, depending uponthe &dquo;user&dquo; of ideas. Current R&D management policies have tended tooverlook that users fall into at least three categories:

Policy makers, or those who must make decisions about resource alloca-

tions, program support, or new legislation and regulations;

Citizens, or those who are consumers of the services or who may other-

wise be affected by government policies; and

. Service providers, or those who are involved in the operation of actual

services-e.g., schools, police services, health facilities, and social service

programs.

Although a specific individual may assume all three roles at one time or

another,the needs and orientations of each

typeof user are

different,thereby implying potentially distinctive knowledge utilization processes.Our investigation was aimed at examining only one of these types of

users: service providers. This choice was based on two motivations.

First, whether in education, criminal justice, social services, transporta-tion, health, or general purpose state and local government, these

persons occupy key positions in any attempts to improveAmerican life

through improved services (e.g., Yin and Yates, 1975). Such a &dquo;service

delivery&dquo; orientation is embedded in the missions of many federalagencies, making knowledge utilization potentially relevant to a wide

variety of policy problems. Second, one of us had previously inves-

tigated the peculiar problems of knowledge utilization in local services

(see Yin, 1976, 1978); the current study represented a further oppor-tunity to build upon this line of research.

This distinction among types of users also helps to clarify the resultsof previous research on knowledge utilization. In particular, each type

of user may put knowledge to a different &dquo;use&dquo;: making decisions or



5/27

558

Figure 1: DifferencesAmong Three Types of Knowledge Users

implementing new practices. Whereas policy makers are primarilyconcerned with the making of decisions, citizens are concerned with

both decisions and practices, and service providers are dominantlyconcerned with implementing new practices (see Figure 1).

Thus, the extensive work on the utilization of evaluation findings atthe state and federal levels (e.g., Patton, 1980;Alkin, 1979; and Cook et

al., 1980) is more appropriate to situations where policy makers orcitizens are the intended users. Similar are the studies ofthe information

sources consulted by federal policy makers (e.g., Caplan et al., 1975) orstate legislators (e.g., Bissell, 1979). In these situations, where decisions

may be an admittedly fragmented activity (e.g., Cohen and Garet, 1975;and Weiss, 1980), the knowledge user may consult numerous sources ofinformation and may be unable to attribute specific decisions to specificsources of knowledge. Indeed, knowledge utilization by policy makersand citizens may be more likely to follow Weisss (1979) &dquo;enlight-enment&dquo; model. In this model, the relevant knowledge may emanate



6/27

559

from a mixture of scientific and nonscientific sources (Lindblom andCohen, 1979); moreover, utilization may result in changes in the waythat

peoplethink about a situation or

phenomenon,and

not justin their

decision-making (e.g., Rein and White, 1977).In contrast, the problems of service providers are related to the

implementation of a practice. Service providers also may be consumersof information in the enlightenment sense, and they may have a need tomake decisions. However, the most relevant knowledge usually includesinformation about a set of service behaviors. This type of knowledgeutilization has been investigated extensively in the past (e.g., Havelock,

1969; Sieber, 1974; Glaser, 1976;and

Campeauet

al., 1979),and an

appreciation for the following conditions has emerged:

. The source of knowledge may be the experience of other service providers(hence craft- or practice-based knowledge) rather than a formal research

inquiry;

. Professional associations may play an important role in diffusing knowl-

edge among service providers (e.g., Bingham et al., 1977);. The usable knowledge may involve the implementation of some new

procedure in a practice setting (or an affirmation of some old procedure)and hence may go beyond the simple reporting of an idea; and

. Certification requirements, regulations governing service practices, and

training and degree programs for service providers can all serve as barriersor facilitators for knowledge utilization (Yin, 1976).

In summary, the focus in the following investigation was on knowl-

edge utilization by service providers. The results may have implicationsfor situations where policy makers or citizens are the main knowledgeusers. However, our suspicion is that the knowledge utilization processdiffers sufficiently, depending upon the type of user, that separateinvestigations should be conducted with regard to each type.

Methods of Study

Our study covered current experiences in two types of services:

services for the elderly, and primary and secondary education. These

services were selected because they represented different settings in

which local agencies have tried to improve services through knowledge



7/27

560

utilization.3 Within each service, attention was focused on a common

situation, where:

. social science knowledge (i.e., knowledge based on social sciences as

opposed to engineering or technological inquiries),

. produced by an external source (an individual or organization outsideof a local agency),

. was to be applied to local agency operations.

We regard success in this situation as one of the major concerns offederal R&D management policy.

This common situation was studied through a series of case studies,whose full methodology will be reported in a subsequent article (see Yinet al., forthcoming). The purpose of the case studies was not to surveythe extent of knowledge utilization, or even to produce a typology of

knowledge utilization. Rather, the case studies were intended to trace

specific experiences with knowledge utilization, in order to develop an

understanding of how and why knowledge utilization occurred. Thus,exemplary cases of knowledge utilization were the primary targets of

investigation,4 covering three case studies of social science research

projects whose results were widely used by service providers in the fieldof aging; and three case studies of interorganizationalarrangements thathave facilitated knowledge utilization in primary and secondaryeducation.

Although the case studies covered different services and had differentunits of analysis, the research objective was the same: to explain whyknowledge utilization occurred. Each case study therefore required adefinitive rendition of the &dquo;facts&dquo; of the case, and then a compellingexplanation of these facts in light of possible alternative explanations.The prevalent within-case explanations then were compared across thecases in the same service (education or aging), to determine whether a

general explanation for successful knowledge utilization-in eachservice-could be developed. Finally, the explanations for each servicewere compared, to determine whether an overall, general explanationwas possible.5 The following section presents both the within-serviceand across-service explanations.



8/27

561

Case Studies ofKnowkdge Utilization

Services

forthe

ElderlyAll three case studies focused on &dquo;research projects&dquo;-i.e., situations

where funds had been awarded to undertake a research activity. The

descriptions below are brief summaries of the full case studies, which

appear elsewhere in published form.6Individual Cases. In the first case, a transportation planning hand-

book (along with supplementary training materials) was produced bythe Institute of PublicAdministration (IPA) as a result of a six-yeareffort (1973-1979). The project produced other significant products,including a state-of-the-art report, but the handbook was the mostrelevant utilization product. The handbook takes a transportationplanner or operator through the major steps in implementing a demand-

responsive transportation system for the elderly. In such a system,senior citizens make a reservation with a central dispatch office, whichthen organizes a bus route for the following day. The route and the

special vehicle are usually operated independently of any regular transitservice.

Since its completion, the handbook has been widely distributed, withseveral thousand copies having been printed by IPA, the U.S.Adminis-tration onAging, and the U.S. Department of Transportion.Across the

country, local transportation planners and service operators have usedthe handbook, and many ofthese experiences are documented in the fullcase study. The final result is that there are now numerous, new

transportation services for the elderly.Although these services couldhave been built without the information in the IPA handbook, it hasbeen a key source for designing and implementing the services. To this

day, the original IPA research investigators continue to answer inquiriesabout their work, and to distribute related materials, even though theformal research project has ended.

In the second case, a functional assessment methodology was

developed by the Center for the Study ofAging and Human Develop-ment at Duke

University.The

projectalso took six years to

complete(1971-1977), and its main product was a questionnaire and methodologywhereby the functional status of an elderly person can be established.Such a comprehensive assessment procedure, administered without the

necessity for a clinician, had not existed previously.



9/27

562

The questionnaire and methodology have been used by a variety oflocal service providers, and for a variety of applications. The assessmenttool

maybe used: as an &dquo;intake&dquo;

instrument,to determine whether an

elderly person needs formalized care; as a community planning device,to determine the needs of the elderly in a given geographic area; and as ameasurement tool for evaluating a specific service innovation, such asthe &dquo;channeling&dquo; experiments now underway within the Department ofHealth and Human Services.

Again, the full case study describes many of these uses. Users of theassessment tool still meet at Duke University every year, to exchangenew

experiences and lessons. The Duke investigators also continue todistribute copies of the instrument and instructions, even though theformal project award has ended. Finally, the methodology has been

extensively used for policy-making, and not just service provision. TheU.S. GeneralAccounting Office has been the most prominent user,incorporating the instrument and methodology into its assessment ofthe national needs of elderly persons.

In the third case, an instructional manual to assist local organizations

in creating an inventory of nursing homes was developed by the UrbanInstitute (1975-1979). Such an inventory may be used by the elderly, aswell as their relatives and service providers, to select a specific nursinghome within a small geographic area. Prior to the instructional manual,decisions about nursing homes were made without adequate informa-tion about either the array of nursing homes or the differences amongthem.

The instructional manual has been widely disseminated to voluntary

and community organizations, the staffs of which then develop a specificinventory. Though the inventory must be updated, the need for suchinformation is so great that there was a long list of requests for theinstructional manual, even before the final version was printed. Once

again, many of these applications have been documented in the full case

study.Why Utilization Occurred. Each of the case studies independently

established the facts ofthe case and the reasons for utilization. In spite of

differences among the cases, certain common features neverthelessstood out.

The most important characteristic, in all cases, was the interactiverole played by the principal investigators or research teams.Althoughthe research resulted in written products, in every case the investigators



10/27

563

became important contacts for relevant research information. Thesecontacts served a dual function: Preliminary information could betransmitted to potential users, and users could communicate nuancesabout their problems that could then lead to a modified research

approach.The evolution of this interactive role resulted in the formation of

what may be regarded as a social network. Thus, each project took on a&dquo;life of its own,&dquo; with the research team (or principal investigator) per-ceived to be the center of extensive communication activities. The net-

work was social in that individuals knew each other personally, and not

merely by reputation (e.g.,as a result of

readingabout another

personswork).Although formal documents were needed to corroborate specificideas, the important aspect of the network was that it was based on two-

way communications, in which individuals could consult each other ona variety of topics, and not merely be exposed to the recommendationsof specific documents. In this sense, the relevant focus of utilizationseemed to be people, and not reports.

The research investigators interactive role was highlighted in the

followingsituation: Ifa

potentialuser had a

particular problem,the user

could contact the research team, known to be investigating topicsrelated to the problem, to discuss pertinent issues. The investigators, in

turn, did not simply report the outcomes of a specific research effort; onthe contrary, well-formed investigators will communicate to a user awide range of information, reflecting both the investigators own workand the relevant research that might have been done by others. The

investigator, in short, can respond to the users specific problem,

synthesize existing research, and transmit the relevant information.Such a role is similarly filled when investigators are asked to perform as

expert witnesses-as in the case where testimony is given before a

legislative committee.In each case study, the development of this type of social network was

a result of activities undertaken during the course of the research

projects. Thus, the research investigators designed and conducted theirresearch at the same time that numerous communications were being

made with potential users. Some users attended workshops andconferences, at which the preliminary research was reported; other userswere part of the research, providing test sites and opportunities for

developing the final products. These network-building activities oc-curred throughout the life history of the research projects. This finding



11/27

564

contrasts strongly with the dominant, linear view of utilization, in whichutilization is assumed to follow and be separate from the process of

knowledge production (e.g.,see the

knowledge-driven and problem-solving models of utilization described by Weiss, 1979).As a second major characteristic, utilization also occurred in these

three cases because the research produced &dquo;usable materials&dquo;-i.e.,handbooks, manuals, questionnaires, instruments, and other socialscience tools. In this sense, the three research projects reflect the

&dquo;development&dquo; phase of social science research.Although research

reports were written and published in academic journals, the main

object of utilizationwas

a usable material that could be directly appliedto a practice setting. These materials were the research products thatwere subjected to widespread dissemination; interestingly, in none of thethree cases did the formal, &dquo;final report&dquo; fall into this category.8Such

reports, used for accountability purposes and for reporting furtherdetails about the research, did not purport to be usable products, andtheir dissemination was mainly limited to the sponsoring agencys files.

In summary, the three case studies showed that research results were

used by service providers because of the following conditions: ( 1 )Research investigators performed in an interactive role throughout theconduct of the research, establishing and maintaining contacts with

potential users; and (2) the research products included directly usable

materials-handbooks, manuals, questionnaires, and other social sci-ence tools. The case studies also showed that utilization efforts did not

necessarily focus on the final reports from the research projects. In fact,such final reports were not widely disseminated, nor were they intended

to be read by service providers.

Primary and Secondary Education

Avariety of systems for promoting knowledge utilization hasemerged in the field of education. These systems include the NIE-supported educational labs and centers, dissemination networks such asthe National Diffusion Network

(NDN),and other local

organizationalarrangements.One especially promising interorganizational arrangement to have

developed in the last fifteen years consists of a state department ofeducation (SEA), a regional education agency (REA),9 and localschool districts (LEAs). The REA, a unit of government, 10 is the main

organization in this arrangement in terms of providing knowledge



12/27

565

utilization services.Although the functions performed by REAs mayvary within and across states, the services typically involve:

. Inservice training, during which LEA personnel are brought together for

workshops, conferences, and training sessions;

. Consultant assistance, which involves an individual acting as a linkingagent and providing personal assistance relevant to a specific LEA prob-lem ; and

. Information retrieval (IR) services, which make materials available on awide range of topics, based on requests made either in person or over the

telephone.

Individual Cases. Three interorganizational arrangements of this

type (SEA-REA-LEA) were the subject of separate case studies. 11Eachof the three arrangements was considered successful in facilitating theuse of new information, products, and ideas by teachers and adminis-trators in local school systems. The three interorganizational arrange-ments were:

. The Educational Improvement Center-South (EIC-South) in Sewell, New

Jersey, linked with the New Jersey Department of Education and theschool districts in the southern portion of the state;

. The Northern Colorado Educational Board of Cooperative Services

(BOCS) in Longmont, Colorado, linked with the Colorado Department ofEducation and the school districts in the suburban area north and west

of Denver; and

.

The Wayne County Intermediate School District (ISD) in Wayne,Michigan, linked with the Michigan Department of Education and theschool districts in Wayne County.

Because state, regional, and local needs differ among these three

arrangements, the substantive areas on which the services have focused

also vary. The financial support also is different within each arrange-ment, and this difference not only affects the types of services that each

agencycan

provide, but also affectsthe

demands madeon the REA

byeducational practitioners.The EIC-South, for example, operates in New Jersey under legisla-

tion that limits the EICs to providing knowledge utilization services.Atthe same time, the needs of local schools have been determined in large

part by other state-legislated requirements. For example, the Public



13/27

566

School EducationAct of 1975 called for a &dquo;thorough and efficient&dquo;

(T&E) system of education and required districts to set educational

goals and objectives, to conduct a needs assessment, to implementprograms to correct weaknesses in the educational program, and to

evaluate their progress in attaining their stated goals. The EIC-South

provides a variety of services to schools to help them comply with theT&E law.Although the EIC also responds to other needs that originateat the local level, compliance with state mandates has become a primaryconcern of school districts and therefore is emphasized in many of theservices that the EIC-South offers.

In contrast, the Northern Colorado BOCS operates within a state

where local school district autonomy has been a long-standing tradition.The autonomy of local boards of education is guaranteed by a stateconstitutional provision that prohibits either the states general assem-

bly or board of education from prescribing curriculum materials. Thus,the services provided by the Northern Colorado BOCS are entirelydetermined by local priorities.All of the BOCS in Colorado have beenestablished at the discretion of local school boards; the BOCS may

develop service programs only after specific needs have been identifiedand the financial commitment of local school boards has been secured.

In short, the Colorado SEA considers the BOCS an arm of local school

districts, rather than an arm of the SEA.Although a minimal amount of

funding ($10,000 per year) is given to each BOCS by the state

department, the majority of funds for the BOCS must come from localschool boards and from special state and federal grants.

The interorganizational structure for the Wayne County ISD differsin

yetanother way. The ISDs in

Michigan,like the EICs in New

Jersey,were established by state law as independent governmental units.However, unlike New Jersey, Michigans ISD activities include class-room services in special education and vocational-technical education,as well as data processing services, in addition to knowledge utilizationservices. Other than establishing these general service categories and

providing state-aid formula funds, the state board of education and the

Michigan Department of Education do not set specific educational

prioritiesfor the ISDs or local school districts.

Thus,the

Wayne CountyISD generally responds to locally identified needs. Independent sourcesof funds for the Wayne County ISD-local property tax levies, state aid,and state and federal grant funds-allow the ISD to take greater risks in

designing its overall program and, in some ways, to be more innovativein its approach to providing knowledge utilization services than the firsttwo cases.



14/27

567

The full case studies describe the knowledge utilization servicesin each of these three REAs (Yin and Gwaltney, 1981). The cases

especiallyfocus on the inservice

training, linking agentor consultant

assistance, and information retrieval services previously mentioned.

Why Utilization Occurs. The success of the three interorganizationalarrangements has depended to a large extent on the organizationalstructure that has been developed for each REA. For example, becausethe Wayne County ISD receives funds from local property tax levies, itis assured a large and predictable funding base, which therefore ensuressome continuity in services. Moreover, the authority given the ISD to

offer administrative (e.g., computational) and special education servicesappears to have created a greater demand for knowledge utilizationservices.

These organizational characteristics, however, only set the contextfor the success of the actual knowledge utilization services.Althoughutilization depends, in all three cases, on a favorable organizationalcontext, other characteristics of the knowledge utilization services aremore directly relevant when looking for explanations ofwhy knowledge

utilization occurs. This situation is evident when looking at all threeinterorganizational arrangements; despite differences in organizationalstructure, knowledge utilization was found to occur in a similar mannerfor each of the three arrangements.

The most prominent pattern found was the existence of informal, inter-

personal networks, where individuals in the REA, together with teach-ers and administrators in local school districts, have developed andmaintained strong ties. Important also has been the emphasis on

sustained personal involvement throughout the knowledge utilizationprocess. Interpersonal linkages have been important in building credi-

bilty and awareness among potential clients, and in creating a willing-ness and readiness on the part of users to request and receive specificservices.

The interpersonal networking in each ofthe three interorganizationalarrangements has two components. First, individuals in the REAare in

continual communication with educational practitioners, apart from

any specific service being offered. In two REAs, for example, most of thestaff had prior experience as administrators or teachers in the localschool districts served by the REAs.As a result, the staff understoodlocal needs and had developed prior contacts with their potential clients.

Similarly, consultants in an REA may maintain contact with the local

professional association for the service provider role that they once held.For example, a staff person in the Wayne County ISD, who had been an



15/27

568

elementary school principal, serves on the advisory board of the statesassociation of elementary school principals. Once again, informalactivities such as these facilitate personalized contact with the REA andcreate greater interest in its knowledge utilization services.

Second, when a particular service is requested, personal assistance is

provided to users until the request has been brought to a satisfactoryconclusion. This assistance includes:

. discussion of the problem with the user, leading to a refined problemdefinition;

. assistance in the selection ofmaterials, products,

or other information

relevant to the problem;

. assistance in adapting such materials to suit the particular LEA situation;

. other implementation assistance; and

. follow-up calls to determine whether additional assistance is needed.

All of these activities rely on an interpersonal network. The networkis strong in that those in local school districts know the staff of the REA

personally and therefore are not offended by receiving assistance froman outside source. The networking also means that service providers canfeel a greater &dquo;ownership&dquo; of the products or ideas that they use.

In addition to the networking, an important characteristic is the

availability of relevant and high quality materials, curriculum products,and other information for use by service providers. The findings suggest,however, that high quality information alone would not have assuredutilization. Rather, the existence of a social network

throughwhich the

materials and information were disseminated to users permittedextensive knowledge utilization to occur. Moreover, it should be notedthat the REAstaff often developed new products or adapted existingones to fit the specific needs of administrators and teachers. Thus,

although a high quality product is the focus of utilization, such a

product can be the result of intensive personal involvement on the partof the REA staff and service providers.

Insummary, increasing knowledge

utilization as an outcome in-

volved a social network in each of the three cases. Thus, the knowledgeutilization process did not depend merely on the dissemination ofinformation to meet individuals needs. Building and maintaininginterpersonal communications throughout the knowledge utilization

process have been instrumental in assuring the success of that process.



16/27

569

Cross-Service Lessons

Similar lessons may be derived from both sets of case studies. The

lessons appear to hold even though the two sets of case studies coverdifferent situations, one dealing with services for the elderly, and theother with primary and secondary education, and even though one dealswith the direct results of &dquo;research projects&dquo; and the other with an

interorganizational arrangement of service agencies.The most subtle lesson is that utilization of social science results, in

these service settings, must be seen as a continuous process. Communi-cation between the producers and users of new ideas does not occur in a

truncated fashion-i.e., after a particular research idea has beencreated. Contacts are maintained throughout the development of newideas. Furthermore, these contacts are not necessarily limited to thenarrow set of ideas being developed, but can include information

responsive to a wider range of related situations faced by a user. Byimplication, R&D management policies must be geared to this con-tinuous process. Thus, policy interventions designed to boost utilizationalso may have to occur on a continuing basis.

If viewed as a continuous process, the findings concerning the social

networking and interactions are more readily understandable. Humancommunication links are needed to accommodate the dynamic transferof information, in which continued fine-tuning of information supplyand demand occur. In other words, the social interactions are the basisfor creating a marketplace for ideas, in which both the suppliers (i.e.,research producers) and consumers (i.e., users of research products) can

participate. This dynamic system cannot be as easily or effectivelysustained through the transfer of written documents, which by their verynature do not permit two-way communication.As summarized in one

insightful statement about the transfer process (NationalAcademy of

Sciences, 1967):

The transfer process requires explicit attention very early in the develop-ment process as soon as some possibility of technical success becomes

apparent. It is well established that the best way to transfer some new

types of technology is through the movement of knowledgeable people ...It may be necessary, for example, for the originator of an idea to himselffollow his brainchild into development, testing, or final production or

utilization. Or, alternatively, operating people may have to be broughtinto the laboratory temporarily to learn the new technology early and toinfluence its development from the user standpoint.



17/27

570

Finally, within this marketplace, the actual research products cannotbe ignored. The products must still be of sufficient quality and flexibilityto

be applied to service situations. Thecase

studies suggest, however,that such products do not usually take the form of the traditionalresearch report. Rather, directly usable materials are the more relevant

product. 12In brief, the cross-service lessons have raised a key distinction that

has previously been underemphasized. This is the distinction between

persons as opposed to products as the vehicles for utilization.Althoughthis distinction has been given passing mention (e.g., Knott and

Wildavsky, 1980, mention &dquo;moving people&dquo; vs. &dquo;moving information&dquo;in a dissemination activity), the serious implications for future R&D

management policies and for further research have not been explored.These will be described next.

LookingAfresh at Knowledge Utilization

These findings suggest a different view of the knowledge utilization

process. Instead of a strictly linear sequence, in which knowledge is first

produced and then utilized, the evidence suggests that knowledgeutilization is a continuous process, starting when research starts.

Second, as a two-way communications process, the role of humaninteractions rather than the mere transmission of documents appears to

be critical. In all, successful utilization seems to be based on the buildingand maintenance of social networks, a view that provides the basis for

reassessing existing R&D management policies as well as for specifyingthe needs for further research.

Implications for R&D Management Policies

The networking viewpoint may be used first to reexamine the six

policy interventions previously identified in the introductory section

of this article. Figure 2 lists these interventions according to the degreethat they appear to meet two conditions: the ability to sustain acontinuous process, and the focus on human interactions. The figureshows that most of the interventions, as currently used, are weak in that

they are limited to the final phase of a research project or are focused on

written reports. Of the six interventions, only two-the support of

linkers and the imposition of user panels-are promising on both of the



18/27

571

Figure 2: R&D Management Interventions JudgedAccording to Network Criteria

desired criteria. The other four, as currently used, do not readily meetboth criteria, although substantial changes in design might make any ofthe four more promising.At least two additional interventions that have not yet been widely

applied also become prominent when these networking criteria are used.The first involves midstream dissemination and utilization activities.

The three case studies on services for the elderly, for example, revealedthat utilization occurred throughout the duration of the research

projects. These activities meant that the research could be redesigned



19/27

572

and adapted where appropriate to assure greater relevance to userneeds. Some of the early utilization activities included incorporatingobservations from user sites as an

integral partof the

earlyresearch

activities; maintaining mailing lists and other communications devices;and presenting work-in-progress information at national conferencesand association meetings.

The second intervention to be considered by federal R&D fundingagencies is to assess, during the proposal review process, the utilization

capabilities of those individuals or organizations that are to receivefederal support. This intervention has been tried informally by someoffices within the

Departmentof Education which have asked indi-

viduals who submit research proposals to include references to priorcontacts with service providers. Such information may indicate the

personal network of which the proposed project staff is a part. In arelated manner, the proposed staff for research or demonstration

projects might be asked to include, augmenting their traditional resume,information about their prior utilization experiences.All these promising interventions-linkers, user panels, midstream

dissemination and utilization activities, and determining the priorutilization history of key personnel-can be used singly or in mixedcombinations. However, more information is still needed to determinethe most effective operational characteristics. For instance, user panelsmay be applied on a project-by-project basis. Nevertheless, such panelsmay prove to be too insular and some broader approachmay be needed.

Similarly, user panels might not be appropriate for all types of researchactivities (our suspicion, in fact, is that they are best applied to projects

where a usable material, and not just a research report, is to be the endresult).

In addition, the linkage context within which the intervention

operates is important. Different linkage systems-e.g., interorganiza-tional arrangements-are possible, and any single intervention is likelyto operate differently in different systems. Thus, an interventions abilityto facilitate knowledge utilization is partially dependent on the specificlinkage system of which it is part. Thus, R&D funding agencies cannot

assess interventions in isolation, but must also appreciate the particularlinkage context that is involved.

Further Research

Further research should be aimed at identifyingthe critical aspects ofthe four promising interventions-e. g., linkers, user panels, midstream



20/27

573

activities, and determination of the prior utilization history of keypersonnel-as well as developing other possible alternatives. The mostdifficult aspect of this research, however, may be to assess eachintervention within its broader context, or linkage system. For ex-

ample, the interorganizational arrangements in education were the

linkage systems within which individual linking agents operated. The

arrangements, as we have noted, had an important effect on the successof specific knowledge utilization activities. However, the realizationthat knowledge utilization involves an intervention operating within a

linkage context imposes an additional burden on the standard research

approaches.Much of the existing research fails to account for this context. For

example, recent studies of the utilization offinal reports (e.g., Rothman,1980; and Weiss and Bucuvalas, 1980) implicitly assume the linear

progression from research production to research utilization, and

intermingle uses by policy makers with uses by service providers. Thesestudies of report utilization cannot be generalized to the full utilization

process. Thus, judgments about the desirable features of such reports

(Rothman, 1980)or about how decision makers view and

interpretsuch

reports (Weiss and Bucuvalas, 1980) may provide only abstract

guidance about the future production of these types of reports-i.e.,guidance not specific to any linkage system.

In contrast, new investigations are needed about the patterns of

linkage systems that are the context for these interventions. Twodimensions of such systems are important: simple vs. differentiated

systems, and interpersonal vs. interorganizational systems. These

dimensions begin to capture the diversity of the utilization process; theyalso imply the need for diverse research designs.Simple vs. Differentiated Systems.As a communications process,

utilization involves the transfer of information between two points-e.g., from one individual to another. In its simplest form, the study ofutilization requires the definition of: (1) a transmitter of information, (2)a receiver of information, (3) a channel that links the transmitter and

receiver, and (4) a description of the information being transmitted

(Havelock, 1969).For the purposes of affecting policy or practice, this simple system

must be further differentiated (e.g., Lazarsfeld and Reitz, 1975). Thetransmitter of information may be an expert, or bearer of specializedknowledge, whereas the receiver-of information may be a policy makeror service provider. This distinction between the roles and specializedskills of the receiver and transmitter should not be underestimated.



21/27

574

Whereas the simple communications system involves individuals ofsimilar training and value orientation, this differentiated communica-tions system calls attention to the fact that the transmitting and

receiving individuals may belong to different professional communitieswith different professional norms. Communication between such

individuals, even in a straightforward dyadic form, can be made difficultbecause the individuals use different concepts and terminologies in their

professional language, and because the individuals may not necessarilyshare compatible communications channels.

Interpersonal vs. Interorganizational Systems. Linkage systemsinvolve a further complication: The relevant linkages may be interper-sonal or interorganizational (or both). The importance of this dis-tinction has generally been overlooked in the existing literature (e.g.,DisseminationAnalysis Group, 1977).

Interpersonal systems involve communications or social systems ofsolo &dquo;practitioners&dquo; (e.g., doctors, lawyers, professors, and consumers).The systems may be informal (e.g., &dquo;invisible colleges&dquo;-see Crane,

1972), or they may be formal and membership-based (e.g., a profes-sional

association). Regardlessof these differences, the individual

person is the key unit of the system, and the communication processesmay be analyzed in terms of the traditional approach to the diffusion ofideas (e.g., Rogers and Shoemaker, 1962; and Rogers, 1962).

In contrast, interorganizational systems involve linkages betweentwo or more organizations. Such systems also may involve keyinterpersonal relationships, but the role behavior of an individual isconstrained, sometimes to a great degree, by the norms and regulationsof the

organizationto which the

individual belongs. Thus, the UnitedNations represents a system of participating governments; though thework of the UN is conducted by individual representatives, the majoragreements and linkages are formalized in terms of intergovernmentalpacts.

Besides interpersonal and interorganizational systems, there are alsomixed types of systems.An information clearinghouse, such as ERIC,has both an organizational and an individually based component. The

ERIC service is thus an organizational unit, whereas the ERIC usersare usually unaffiliated individuals making independent inquiries of theorganizational unit. Similarly, most types of inservice training pro-grams organized by universities or independent labs but attended byindividual service providers might be included in the mixed category.

Diversity of Linkage Systems. If these two sets ofdimensions alone-

simple vs. differentiated, and interpersonal vs. interorganizational-are



22/27

575

Figure 3: Illustrative Variety of Linker Interventions, Depending on SystemicContext

used to classify linkage systems, the following five kinds ofsystems mayexist:

(1)A simple, interpersonal system. Individuals may be linked by formal orinformal associations but are of the same professional status. The litera-ture on the diffusion of innovations (e.g., Rogers and Shoemaker, 1962;and Rogers, 1962) is dominantly about these kinds of systems.

(2)Asimple, interorganizational system. This system consists of organiza-tions as components. The system is &dquo;simple&dquo; in that the organizations-e.g., school districts-are of the same professional status.

(3)Adifferentiated, interpersonal system. This system consists of individ-uals as

components.The main characteristic of the

linkagesis that

personal contacts rather than interorganizational affiliations are thebasis for communications, but that the participating individuals havedifferent professional statuses.

(4)A differentiated, interorganizational system. Linkages among organiza-tions of different professional status are the main characteristic of this

type of system.



23/27

576

(5)Amixed system. The system is mixed because organizational units and

unaffiliated individuals are linked together.

These five kinds of systems may overlap. In fact, it is generally thecase that the interorganizational systems will also have key interper-sonal linkages, and that the differentiated networks will also have simplelinkages-i.e., linkages among components of similar professionalstatus. Thus, our three case studies of regional education agencies foundboth interorganizational and interpersonal systems operating.

Moreover, these systems, as noted earlier, provide a criticallydifferent context for the same intervention. Educational linkers, for

example, may be supported under all five systems (see Figure 3). First, ina simple, interpersonal system, linkers might be supported by givingawards directly to teachers so that they can inform other teachers of

practice-based information. The teachers, in short, would be en-

couraged to serve as linkers. In a contrasting second arrangement,awards to LEAs to link with each other, similar to the arrangement in

the I / D / E / A network (Goodlad, 1975), would be an example ofa linkerintervention within a simple, interorganizational system. Third, in a

differentiated, interpersonal system, support for linkers might involve

providing researchers or university-based consultants with funds toassist individual teachers or administrators-e.g., in a professionalworkshop setting-on specific problems. Fourth, numerous examplesof interventions within differentiated, interorganizational systems exist

among federally initiated programs. One example is the NationalDiffusion Network, where LEAs, SEAs, and free-standing service

organizations collaborate. Fifth, an example of a linkage systeminvolving both an individual and an organizational component is thesituation where an independent consultant provides assistance to aschool district on a specific problem-e.g., school desegregation. Thisfifth situation differs from the third in that the assistance and linkage isat the district (or organizational) level rather than at the individuallevel.

Methodological Implications of Linkage Diversity. The distinctionsamong these five kinds of

systemshave not been

fully appreciatedin

previous research. For instance, Havelocks (1969) synthesis leapsprematurely from the simple communications paradigm to illustrativeexamples of complex linkages on the very next page of his own text.Other investigations have fallen into similar traps, with confusion oftenthe result. Yet, a key insight is that each system may require a differentapproach to research design, data collection, and definition of relevantoutcomes. In particular, critical differences arise concerning threefacets of research

methodology: (1)the

appropriateunit of

analysis;



24/27

577

(2) the approach to sampling; and (3) the relevant evidence tobe used.

To take but one example-the unit of analysis-simple and dif-ferentiated systems generally involve different units. Thus, if one is

studying simple systems, the appropriate unit of analysis may be the

component of the system, whether an individual or an organization.However, if one is studying differentiated systems, the appropriate unitof analysis is more likely to be a full linkage: a transmitter, a receiver,and the connecting communications channel. This difference arisesbecause the components of simple systems are of similar professionalstatus and the nature of the communications link is not likely to involve

any problematic communications channel.Although the full linkagemay still be the unit of analysis in simple systems, a focus on the

components alone is usually sufficient. This is not true of differentiated

systems, where an understandng of the system can only occur as a resultof an examination of a complete linkage.

Similar methodological points can be made in relation to the

sampling and data collection issues. The overall implication, however, isthat more research is needed on the

promising interventions,that

investigations on any ofthem need to be fully appreciative ofthe linkagesystem forming the context for the intervention, and that the diversity of

linkage systems requires diverse research designs.

Summary

In summary, we have found that social science knowledge is most

readily utilized in service settings when a human communicationsnetwork has been built and maintained. The network must include both

knowledge producers and knowledge users, and the network must

operate continuously, even as knowledge production is occurring.Such an understanding of the knowledge utilization process allows

R&D managers, at the federal levels, to reinterpret the role of various

policy interventions that have been designed to enhance utilization. Theinterventions should be assessed

accordingto the

degreethat net-

working is facilitated. The two important networking criteria have to dowith whether an intervention can accommodate a continuous process,and whether it focuses on human interactions. By these criteria, four

interventions appear to be most promising for future consideration: (1)the use of linkers or field agents, (2) the initiation of user panels to workin conjunction with research projects, (3) the encouragement of

midstream dissemination and utilization activities, and (4) the determi-

nationof the prior utilization experiences

ofkey personnel.



25/27

578

More information is still needed, however, about the desirablecharacteristics of these interventions and the situations for which theyare most

appropriate.Such information will be

forthcomingfrom

future research to the extent that the research is designed to cover boththe intervention and its context (or linkage system). Moreover, becauseof the diversity of linkage systems, the research design must be tailoredto the type of linkage system being studied. We have offered some

preliminary guidance about these types and their research designimplications.

Notes

1. For an inventory and tabulation of such programs, see NationalAcademy of

Sciences, 1979.

2. For a review of R&D agencies current practices in knowledge utilization, seeCommittee on Science and Technology,1978.

3.Athird, parallel effort is being undertaken in crimmal justice, where our

preliminary results indicate that most of the same general lessons as reported here are alsorelevant.

4. The implicit research design follows what Patton (1980) calls an extreme-case (asopposed to representative case) design. Our design goes one step further by calling for theverification of the results by comparing them to those of nonexemplary cases; such

nonexemplary cases can be investigated, however, without attemptmg to produce thestandard case study narrative. For more on this design feature, see Yin et al., forthcoming.

5. For more on this approach to case studies, see Yin, 1981.

6. For example, see Yin and Heinsohn, 1980. These case studies were supportedunder award 90-AR-2173 from theAdministration on

Agmg, althoughnone of the

conclusions should be construed as reflecting the official position of this agency.7.As an unanticipated consequence, the research project was also useful in providing

information to Congress, helping to guide new legislation on transportation and the

elderly.8. This contrast between the role of other products of a research project and the role

of its final report is worth further illustration. In one ofthe case studies (transportation forthe elderly), the project also produced another usable material-a training "kit" to orientservice providers about the problems they faced. The kit was intended to complement theuse of the handbook, which was disseminated widely, but the kit mainly consisted of a

series of carousel slides, together with an appropriate "script" to be followed by a trainer.The kit was attractively produced and has been well received. However, the research teamhas had great difficulty in further disseminating the kit because: (1) the original researchfunds had been exhausted after only a few dozen copies of the kit had been made, and (2)no existing clearinghousee.g., the National Technical Information Servicehas anyprovision for distributing this kmd of material. The clearinghouses are dominantlyoriented toward distributing written reports, and are therefore not necessarily equipped to

deal with the full array of "usable materials" that service providers need.9. The term "regional education agency," like "state" or "local education agency,"

is a

genericone.

Specificentities in each state have different formal titles.



26/27

579

10. The REA may be free-standing (i.e., mandated to collect its own revenue) or partof the SEA.

11. These case studies were supported under Contract 400-79-0062 from the National

Institute of Education, although none of the conclusions should be construed as reflectingthe official position of this agency.

12. Note that the research report may be more important in a situation where the

policy maker rather than the service provider is the user. Under either circumstance,

however, the report is important as an accountability device, one type of accountabilitybeing an administrative one (to the funding agency) and the other being a technical one (tothe research peer community).As an accountability device, the research report therefore

distinguishes the purely commercial venture from an R&D-based one.

References

ALKIN, M. C. et al. (1979) Using Evaluations: Does Evaluation MakeADifference?

Beverly Hills: Sage.BINGHAM, R. D. et al. (1977) ProfessionalAssociations as Intermediaries in Trans-

ferring Technology to City Governments. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin.

BISSELL, J. S. (1979) "Use of educational evaluation and policy studies by the California

legislature."Educ. Evaluation and

PolicyAnalysis, 1,3: 29-38.

CAMPEAU, P. L. et al. (1979) Evaluation of Project Information Package Dissemina-tion and Implementation. PaloAlto, CA:American Institutes for Research.

CAPLAN, N. et al. (1975) The Use of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at theNational Level.AnnArbor: Institute for Social Research.

COHEN, D. K. and M. GARET ( 1975) "Reforming educational policy with applied socialresearch." Harvard Educ. Rev. 45, 1: 17-43.

Committee on Science and Technology (1978) Domestic Technology Transfer: Issues and

Options, Vol. I. U.S. House of Representatives, 95th Congress, 2nd Session.

COOK, T. D. et al. (1980) "The misutilization of evaluation research." Knowledge:

Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1: 477-498.CRANE, D. (1972) Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities.

Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.DisseminationAnalysis Group (1977) Final Report. Washington, DC: National Institute

for Community Development.EMRICK, J. et al. (1977) Evaluation of the National Diffusion Network. Menlo Park;

CA: SRI International.

GLASER, E. M. (1976) Putting Knowledge to Use. LosAngeles: Human InteractionResearch Institute.

GOODLAD,J. I.

(1975)The

Dynamicsof Educational

Change:Toward

ResponsiveSchools. New York: McGraw-Hill.

HAVELOCK, R. (1969) Planning for Innovation Through Dissemination and Utilizationof Knowledge.AnnArbor: Institute for Social Research.

KNOTT, J. andA. WILDAVSKY (1980) "If dissemination is the solution, what is the

problem?" Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1: 537-578.

LAZARSFELD, P. and J. REITZ (1975)An Introduction toApplied Sociology. NewYork: Elsevier North-Holland.

LINDBLOM, C. E. and D. K. COHEN (1979) Usable Knowledge: Social Science and

Social Problem Solving. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.



27/27

580

LYNN, L. Jr. (1978) [ed.] Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection. Washmg-ton, DC: NationalAcademy of Sciences.

NationalAcademy of Sciences (1979) The Funding of Social Knowledge Production and

Application:ASurvey of FederalAgencies. Washington, DC:Author.PATTON, M. Q. (1980) Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.REIN, M. and S. WHITE (1977) "Can policy research help policy?" Public Interest 44:

119-136.

ROGERS, E. M. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Macmillan. and F. SHOEMAKER (1962) Communication of Innovations. New York:

Macmillan.

ROTHMAN, J. (1980) Using Research in Organizations. Beverly Hills: Sage.SIEBER, S. D. (1974) "Trends in diffusion research: knowledge utilization." Viewpoints

50: 61-81.

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science andAstronautics (1967)AppliedScience and Technological Progess. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy of Sciences.

WEISS, C. H. (1980) "Knowledge creep and decision accretion." Knowledge: Creation,Diffusion, Utilization 1: 381-404.

(1979) "The many meanings of research utilization." PublicAdministration Rev.

(September/ October): 426-431. and M. J. BUCUVALAS (1980) "Truth tests and utility tests: decision-makers

frames of reference for social science research."Amer. Soc. Rev. 45: 302-313.

YIN, R. K. (1981) "The case study crisis: some answers."Admin. Sci. Q. 26: 58-65.

(1978) "Contemporary issues in domestic technology transfer," in DomesticTechnology Transfer: Issues and Options, Vol. I. Washington, DC: U.S. House of

Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology, 95th Congress, 2nd Session. (1976) R&D Utilization by Local Services: Problems and Proposals for Further

Research. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. and M. K. GWALTNEY (1981) Organizations Collaborating to Improve Educa-

tional Practice. Cambridge, MA:AbtAssociates. and I. HEINSOHN (forthcoming) "The usefulness of the case study as a serious

research strategy." Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization.

YIN, R. K. and I. HEINSOHN(1980)

The Uses of Research

Sponsored bytheAdminis-

tration onAging, Case Studies No. 1 and 2. Washington, DC:American Institutesfor Research.

ROBERT K. YIN is President of The Case Study Institute. He is also a VisitingAssociate Professor, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, MIT. From

1970 to 1978 he was employed by the Rand Corporation. From 1978 to 1981 he

was an independent research consultant, working in part on the research projects

withAbtAssociates and theAmerican Institutes for Research (Washington, D. C)covered by the present article.

MARGARET K. GWALTNEYis a research associate withAbtAssociates, Inc.

(Washington, D. C. office). Prior to joiningAbt in 1979, she worked with The Rand

Corporation (1975-1979).

yin 1981 knowledge utilization as a networking process

Documents