Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Policy research as advocacy: Pro and con

  • Feature Articles
  • Published:
Knowledge and Policy

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aaron, H. (1978).Politics and the professors. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alkin, M.C., Dallak, R., & White, P. (1979).Using Evaluations: Does evaluation make a difference? Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backer, T.E. (1991). Knowledge utilization: The third wave.Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 12 (3), 225–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banting, K.G. (1979).Poverty, politics, and policy. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, (1987).Effective social science: Eight cases in economics, political science, and sociology. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P.L., & Luckmann, T. (1980).The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge (2nd ed.). New York: Irvington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulmer, M. (Ed.). (1978).Social policy research. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulmer, M. (Ed.). (1987).Social science research and government: Comparative essays on Britain and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulmer, M. (1982).The uses of social research: Social investigation in public policy-making. London: George Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D.T. (1982). Experiments in arguments.Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 3 (3), 327–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, N. (1977). A minimal set of conditions necessary for the utilization of social science knowledge in policy formation at the national level. In C.H. Weiss (Ed.),Using social research in public policy making (pp. 183–97). Lexington, MA: Lexington-Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherns, A. (1979).Using the social sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deitchman, S.J. (1976).Best-laid schemes: A tale of social research and bureaucracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, S. (1991). Developing a technology transfer program for the National Institute on Drug Abuse.Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 12, (3), 289–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derthick, M., & Quirk, P.J. (1985).The politics of deregulation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, W. (1982). Reforms as arguments.Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, (3) 293–326.

  • Dunn, W.N. (1990). Justifying policy arguments: Criteria for practical discourse.Evaluation and Program Planning, 13, 321–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dockrell, W.B. (1982). The contribution of national surveys of achievement to policy formation. In D.B.P. Kallen, G.B. Kosse, H.C. Wagenaar, J.J.J. Kloprogge, & M. Vorbeck (Eds.),Social science research and public policy-making (pp. 55–74). Windsor, Berks.: NFER-Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  • The queerness of quanta. (1989, January).The Economist, pp. 71–74.

  • Elmore, R. (1986). Graduate education in public management: Working the seams of government.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 6 (1), 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. (1989).Order without design: Information production and policy making. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feller, I. (1986).Universities and state governments: A study in policy analysis. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furner, N.O. (1975).Advocacy and objectivity: A crisis in the professionalization of American social science, 1865–1905. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, C.D. (Ed.) (1982).Making policies for children: A study of the federal process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heineman, R.A., Bluhm, W.T., Peterson, S.A., & Kearny, E.N. (1990).The world of the policy analyst: Rationality, values, and politics. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, F. (Ed.). (1986).The use and abuse of social science. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, I.L. (Ed.). (1985).The use and abuse of social science (2nd ed.), New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasun, T., & Kogan, M. (Eds.). (1984).Educational research and policy: How do they relate? Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallen, D.B.P., Kosse, G.B., Wagenaar, H.C., Kloprogge, J.J.J., & Vorbeck, N. (Eds.) (1982).Social science research and public policy-making. Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, S.S., & Gwaltney, M.K. (1991). Charing the educational dissemination system: Where we are and where we go from here.Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 12 (3), 241–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr, K.D. (1977). Policymakers’ use of social science knowledge: Symbolic or instrumental? In C.H. Weiss (Ed.),Using social research in public policy making (pp. 165–182). Lexington, MA: Lexington-Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P.F., Sewell, W.H., & Wilensky, H.L. (Eds.). (1967).The uses of sociology. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leff, N.H. (1985). The use of policy-science tools in public-sector decision-making: Social benefit-cost analysis in the world bank.Kyklos, 38, 60–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C.E. (1980).The policy making process (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C.E., & Cohen, D.K. (1979).Usable knowledge. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippitt, R. (1969). The process of utilization of social research to improve social practice. In W.G. Bennis, K.D. Benne, & R. Chin (Eds.),The planning of change (2nd ed.) (pp. 142–146). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, G.M. (1969).The uneasy partnership: Social science and the federal government in the twentieth century. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacRae, D., Jr. (1988). Professional knowledge for policy discourse: Argumentation versus reasoned selection of proposals.Knowledge in Society, 1(3), 6–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, M.W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities.Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1976).Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (1989).Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meltsner, A. (1976).Policy analysis in the bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M.B. (1964). On temporary systems. In M.B. Miles (Ed.),Innovation in Education (pp. 437–490). New York: Teachers College Bureau of Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, O.K., Jefferson, F.E., & Crosse, M.G. (1991). Heuristic guidelines for analyzing technology transfer.Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 12(3), 298–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R.H. (1989). The Office of Policy Analysis in the Department of the Interior.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 8(3), 395–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M.Q., Grimes, M.Q., Guthrie, K.M., Brennan, N.J., French, B.D., & Blyth, D.A. (1977). In search of impact: An analysis of the utilization of federal health evaluation research. In C.H. Weiss (Ed.),Using social research in public policy making (pp. 141–163). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugliaresi, L., & Berliner, D.T. (1989). Policy analysis in the Department of State: The policy planning staff.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 8(3), 379–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, R.F. (1977). Use of social science information by federal bureaucrats: Knowledge for action versus knowledge for understanding. In C.H. Weiss (Ed.),Using social research in public policy making (pp. 199–233). Lexington, MA: Lexington-Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich, R.F. (1981).Social science information and public policy making. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivlin, A.M. (1973). Forensic social science.Harvard Educational Review, 43, 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P.A. (1978). The acquisition and utilization of technical information by administrative agencies.Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 386–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxe, L. (1986). Policymakers’ use of social science research: Technology assessment in the U.S. Congress.Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(1), 59–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlozman, K., L., & Tierney, J.T. (1986).Organizational interests and American democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultze, C.E. (1968).The politics and economics of public spending. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweinhart, L.J., & Weikart, D.P. (1980).Young children grow up: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age 15. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Education Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinbruner, J.D. (1974).The cybernetic theory of decision: New dimensions of political analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958).The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. (1987). Perhaps minister: The messy world of ‘in-house’ social research. In M. Bulmer (Ed.),Social science research and government (pp. 141–165). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C.H. (1986). The circuitry of enlightenment.Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(2), 274–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C.H. (1989). Congressional committees as users of analysis.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.

  • Weiss, C.H. (1983). Ideology, interests, and information: The basis of policy positions. In D. Callahan & B. Jennings (Eds.),Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C.H. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion.Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1(3), 381–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C.H. (Ed.). (1977).Using social research in public policy-making.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C.H., & Bucuvalas, M.J. (1980).Social science research and decision-making. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J.Q. (1978). Social sciences and public policy: A personal note. In L.E. Lynn (Ed.),Knowledge and policy: the Uncertain connection (pp. 82–92). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard University in the Graduate School of Education, USA

    Carol H. Weiss Ph.D. (professor)

Authors
  1. Carol H. Weiss Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

She is the author or editor of eight books, and has written extensively in the periodical literature on education policy, uses of research in improving policy, program and policy evaluation, and research methods.

This article is a revised version of a paper that appeared inSocial Sciences and Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads, edited by P. Wagner, C.H. Weiss, B. Wittrock, and H. Wollmann. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, copyright Cambridge University Press.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weiss, C.H. Policy research as advocacy: Pro and con. Knowledge and Policy 4, 37–55 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692747

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692747

Keywords

Search

Navigation