Knowledge and Policy

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 13–33 | Cite as

Research utilization: The state of the art

  • Michael HubermanEmail author
Feature Articles


As a field of study, “research utilization” is at a turning point. Despite an accumulation of replicable findings, robust constructs, even a “soft technology” for bridging the gap between theory and practice, we are still largely in the situation of the distance between social problems of, let us say, conflict or inequality and the ability of social science to provide credible, reliable and usable solutions. At the same time, the initial paradigms, suffering from hyperrationalism, have given way to more transactional ones, and have been shaken by the tenets of postmodernism. Shaken, but not undone, as “middle-level” constructs emerge, ones that appear to link the research community with a variety of professional communities in more meaningful and durable ways.


Knowledge Transfer School Setting Research Utilization Research Knowledge Teacher Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beyer, J., and Trice, H. (1982). The utilization process: A conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings.Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (December), 591–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cochran-Smith, M., and Lytle, J. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide.Educational Researcher, 19:2, 2–11.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, L., Sargent, M., and Sechrest, L. (1986). Use of psychotherapy research by professional psychologists.American Psychologist, 41:2, 198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cousins, B., and Leithwood, K. (1986). Current empirical research on evaluation.Review of Educational Research, 56:3, 331–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Doise, W., and Mugny, G. (1981).Le developpement social de l’intelligence. Paris: Inter-Editions.Google Scholar
  6. Dunn, W. (1992). Making a transition.Knowledge and Policy, 5:1, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fleming, D. (1988).The literature on teacher utilization of research: Implications for the school reform movement. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Meetings, New Orleans, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. Glaser, E., et al. (1976).Putting knowledge to use: A distillation of the literature regarding knowledge transfer and change. Los Angeles, CA: Human Interaction Research Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Glass, G. (1979). Policy for the unpredictable (Uncertainty research and policy).Educational Researcher, 8:9, 12–14.Google Scholar
  10. Havelock, R. (1969).Planning for innovation through the dissemination and utilization of knowledge. Ann Arbor, MI: CRUSK, Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  11. Huberman, M. (1987). Steps toward an integrated model of research utilization.Knowledge, 8:4, 586–611.Google Scholar
  12. Huberman, M. (1989). Predicting conceptual effects in research utilization: Looking with both eyes.Knowledge in Society, 2:3, 6–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huberman, M. (1990). Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study.American Educational Research Journal, 27:2, 363–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huberman, M. and Gather-Thurler, M. (1991).De la recherche a la pratique (From research to practice). Berne/Paris: P. Lang.Google Scholar
  15. Huberman, M., Levinson, N., Havelock, R., and Cox, P. (1981). Interorganizational arrangements: An approach to educational practice improvement.Knowledge, 3:2, 5–22.Google Scholar
  16. Jameson, F. (1991).Post-modernism, or the cultural topic of late capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1977). Policymakers’ use of social science knowledge: Symbolic use or instrumental? In C. Weiss (Ed.),Using social science research in public policy making (pp. 165–182). Lexington, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
  18. Lazarsfeld, P., Sewell, W. and Wilensky, H. (Eds.), (1967).The uses of sociology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  19. Lindblom, C. (1990).Inquiry and change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lindblom, C. and Cohen, D. (1979).Usable knowledge: Social science and social problemsolving. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Louis, K., Rosenblum, S., and Molitor, J. (1981).Strategies for knowledge use and school improvement. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  22. Lyotard, J. (1984).The post-modern condition. A report on knowledge. Minneapolis, MN.: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lytle, S., and Cochran-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing.Harvard Educational Review, 62:4, 447–474.Google Scholar
  24. Mac Rae, P., Jr. (1987). Building policy-related technical communities.Knowledge, 8:3, 431–462.Google Scholar
  25. McLaren, P. (1992). Collisions with otherness.Qualitative Studies in Education, 5:1, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prawat, R. (1989). Promoting access to knowledge, strategy, and disposition in students: A research synthesis.Review of Educational Research, 59, 1, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rule, J. (1971). The problem with social problems.Politics and Society, 2:1, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwab, J. (1959). The “possible role” of the teacher in progressive education.The School Review, 62:2, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schelsky, H. (1976). Die metawissenschaftlichen Wirkungen der Soziologie. In W. Becker & K. Huebner (Eds.),Objectivitat in den Natur- und Geisteswissenschaften (pp. 171–182). Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe.Google Scholar
  30. Steyr, N. (1991).Practical knowledge. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Weber, M. (1949. Original version, 1904). “Objectivity” in social science and social policy. In M. Weber,The methodology of the social sciences (pp. 49–112). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Weiss, C. (1980a). Knowledge creep and decision accretion.Knowledge, 1:3, 381–404.Google Scholar
  33. Weiss, C. (1980b). Definition of the problem. In C. Weiss and M. Bucuvalas (Eds.),Social science research and decision-making. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Weiss, J., and Weiss, C. (1981). Social scientists and decision-makers look at the usefulness of mental health research.American Psychologist, 36, 837–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Transaction Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationHarvard UniversityCambridge

Personalised recommendations