Knowledge,Technology and Policy

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 23–36

Conflict or control: Research utilization strategies as power techniques

  • Kjell Nilsson
  • Sune Sunesson
Feature Articles

Abstract

The sociology of research and knowledge use, argue the authors, could be a way of linking important parts of sociology, such as organization studies, the sociology of science to each other. In the article, they discuss the idea that organizational responses to environments are related to research utilization. Based upon an empirical investigation of city welfare departments, four empirical “utilization strategies” are presented and shown to be related to power and control patterns. While negative utilization strategies are hostile to uncontrolled research utilization and enhance the formation of bureaucratic expertise, conflict-oriented strategies are discursively productive and reinforce research use and alliance formation with social scientists to control the environment.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bergmark, A., Oscarsson, L. (1988).Drug abuse and treatment. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.Google Scholar
  2. Böhme, G., van den Daele, W., Krohn, W. (1973). Die Finalisierung der Wissenschaft.Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 2(2), 128–144.Google Scholar
  3. Brante, Th. (1989). Empirical and epistemological issues in scientists’ explanations of scientific stances: a critical synthesis.Social epistemology, 3(4), 261–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brante, Th. and Elzinga, A. (1990). Controversy studies: A research program.Science Studies, no. 2.Google Scholar
  5. Dunn, W.N. (1980). The two-communities metaphor and models of knowledge use.Knowledge, 1(4), 515–536.Google Scholar
  6. Elzinga, A. (1985). Research, bureaucracy and the drift of epistemic criteria. In Wittrock, B. and Elzinga, A. (Eds.).The university research system. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
  7. Engelhardt, T. and Caplan, A. (Eds.). (1987).Scientific controversies. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ericson, B. and Johansson, B-M. (1990).Att bygga på kunskap. Användning av smhällsvetenskaplig FoU inom byggsektorn. Report 3:1990. Stockholm: National Board of Building Research.Google Scholar
  9. Foucault, M. (1977).Discipline and punish. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  10. Foucault, M. (1980). Prison talk.Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert, N. and Mulkay, M. (1985).Opening Pandora’s box. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hasenfeld, Y. (1983).Human service organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Hoffman, L. (1989).The Politics of Knowledge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  14. Larsen, J. (1980). Knowledge Utilization. What Is It?Knowledge, 1(3), 421–442.Google Scholar
  15. Lazarsfeld, P., Sewell, W. and Wilensky, H. (1967). Introduction. In Lazarsfeld, Sewell and Wilensky (Eds.).The uses of sociology. NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Lindblom, C. (1986). Who needs what social research for policymaking.Knowledge, 7(4), 345–366.Google Scholar
  17. Lindblom, C. and D. Cohen (1979).Usable knowledge. Social science and social problem solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Machlup, F. (1979). Uses, value and benefits of knowledge.Knowledge, 1(1), 62–81.Google Scholar
  19. March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1976).Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  20. Marin, B. (1981). What is “half-knowledge” sufficient for—and when?Knowledge, 3, 43–60.Google Scholar
  21. Meyer, J. (1983). Innovation and knowledge use in American public education. In Meyer, J. and Scott, R. (Eds.)Environments and organizations. Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Meyer, J. and Rowan, B. (1983). The structure of educational organizations. In Meyer, J. and Scott, R. (Eds.).Environments and organizations. Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Meyer, J. and R. Scott (Eds.) (1983).Environments and organizations. Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Meyer, J., Scott, R. and Deal, T. (1983). Institutional and technical sources of organizational structure: Explaining the structure of educational organizations. Meyer, J. and Scott, R. (Eds.).Environments and organizations. Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Nelkin, D. (Ed.) (1979).Controversy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Nilsson, K. (1992a). Utilization patterns and strategies in three policy sectors.Science Studies 5(1), 29–46.Google Scholar
  27. Nilsson, K. (1992 b).Policy, interest and power. Studies in strategies of research utilization. Dissertation, School of Social Work, Lund University.Google Scholar
  28. Nilsson, K. and S. Sunesson (1988).Konflikt, kontroll, expertis. Att använda social forskning. Lund Studies in Social Welfare, I. Arkiv: Lund.Google Scholar
  29. Nilsson, K. and Sunesson, S. (1993).Strategy, tactics and maneuvering. Utilization of social research in three policy sectors. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  30. Nowotny, H. (1982).Nützliches Wissen—Verwertung sozialwissenschaftlicher Ergebnisse in Abhängigkeit wechslender Konfliktfelder. Berlin, Mimeo.Google Scholar
  31. Perrow, C. (1978). Demystifying organizations. In Sarri, R. and Hasenfeld, Y. (Eds.).The management of human services, pp. 105–120. NY: Columbia.Google Scholar
  32. Ryan, B. and N.C. Gross (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities.Rural Sociology, 8.Google Scholar
  33. SOU 1987:22.Missbrukarna. Socialtjänsten. Tvånget. Stockholm: Allmänna förlaget.Google Scholar
  34. Sunesson, S. (1985). Outside the goal paradigm: power and structured patterns of non-rationality.Organization Studies, 6, 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sunesson, S. (1989). When knowledge ends and power begins. In Elzinga, A., Nolin, J., Pranger, and Sunesson, S. (Eds.).In science we trust. Moral and political issues of science in society. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  36. Sunesson, S. (In press). Comparing tool controversies, in Th. Brante and Steve Fuller, eds.Science studied Binghamton, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sunesson, S. and Nilsson, K. (1988). Explaining research utilization: Beyond “functions”.Knowledge, 10(2), 140–155.Google Scholar
  38. Sunesson, S., Nilsson, K., Ericson, B. and B-M. Johansson (1989). Intervening factors in the utilization of social research.Knowledge in Society, 2(1), 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson, J.D. (1967).Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  40. Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weiss, C. (1977). Introduction. In Weiss, C. and Bucuvalas, M., (Eds.).Using social research in public policy making. Lexington, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
  42. Weiss, C. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization.Public Administration Review, Sept./Oct. issue.Google Scholar
  43. Weiss, C. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion,Knowledge, 1, 381–404.Google Scholar
  44. Weiss, C. (1981). Use of social science research in organizations: The constrained repertoire theory. In Stein, H. (Ed.).Organization and the human services. Philadelphia: Temple.Google Scholar
  45. Weiss, C. (1987). Congressional committee staffs (do/do not) use analysis. In Bulmer, M. (Ed.).Social science research and government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Weymann, A., Ellermann, L. and Wingens, M. (1986). A research programme on the utilization of the social sciences. In Heller, F. (Ed.).The use and abuse of social science. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Whitley, R. (1984).The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  48. Wittrock, B. (1984). Social science into social policy. In Nowotny, H. (Ed.).Social concerns for the 1980s. Wien: Eurosocial.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Transaction Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kjell Nilsson
    • 1
  • Sune Sunesson
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Social Work and Social Welfare, Research Dept.Lund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations