Dr Adrian Cherney from the University of Queensland presented some recent findings from an ARC Linkage project investigating the utilisation of social science research in policy development at the Where is the evidence conference 2013 in Melbourne, 11 November 2013. More information on this project which has many aspects to it is available at http://www.issr.uq.edu.au/ebp-home

1. Use
of
academic
social
research
by
public
officials:
exploring
preferences
and
constraints
that
impact
on
research
use
Adrian
Cherney
ARC
Linkage
project:
“The
U9lisa9on
of
Social
Science
Research
in
Policy
Development
and
Program
Review”
LP
100100380
Other
team
members:
Brian
Head,
Paul
Boreham,
Michele
Ferguson,
Jenny
Povey,
Jenny
Van
der
Arend
and
Jenny
Bell.
Where
is
the
evidence
conference
2013:
Recognising
the
value
of
grey
literature
11th
November
2013
State
Library
of
Victoria,
Melbourne

2. Presenta9on
outline
• Background
to
ARC
linkage
project.
• Preferences,
access,
accessibility
and
workplace
culture
&
evidence-­‐based
policy.
• Results
from
public
sector
survey.
• Concluding
remarks.

3. ARC
Linkage
Partners
• Four
governments:
Federal,
QLD,
NSW,
VIC.
• Line
departments
in
human
services
(educaPon,
family/community
services,
public
health).
• Central
agencies
plus
‘knowledge
specialist’
agencies.
• Nine
funding
partners
plus
another
12
supporPng
agencies.

4. Data
sources
for
ARC
Linkage
Project
• Targeted
survey
of
Australian
social
scienPsts
n=693
• Targeted
survey
of
policy
relevant
personnel
in
21
agencies
n=2084
• Interviews
with
a
selecPon
of
academic
respondents
n=100
• Interviews
with
a
selecPon
of
policy
personnel
n=125

5. Public
sector
agencies
and
evidence-­‐
based
policy
(EBP)
• Perceived
gap
between
research
producPon
and
uptake
by
governments.
• Understanding
access
/
accessibility
important
to
closing
this
gap.
• Preferences
and
organisaPonal
context
impacts
on
choices
to
seek
out
and
access
research-­‐based
knowledge.

6. !"#$%&'(&)*%+,-%.&/01&2"34-,-2"4%5&-+&.637%8&
!"#$%&'()('*+,#--(..(#/+0,#--#/1234'56+
93%:;&
<%3,%+4&
=1>&414"$&<??@&
A1;&1>&.4">>&
.637%8&
5-.43-#64%5&41&
B%.21+.%&
3"4%&C&
78+
9:;;+
!+<88+
!!78:88+
=%.'"34(3/+>%"23%+#?+@'3'(.'(&.+0,#--#/1234'56++
99;+
<8:AB+
CC9+
9A:DE+
F"23.%"*+0,#--#/1234'56+
<9E+
D:A+
!+B88+
!+E8:CD+
<B+
8:7C+
!!E88KB88+
KKKKKK+
9D9+
<9:8A+
<<<D+
99:78+
;;+
B:99+
!+<988+
!+C:EE+
V%22/.43/$+N234'5+
<<9+
D:EC+
A<7+
<9:9E+
V%22/.43/$+G2H3"'-2/'+#?+,#--%/('(2.+
<88+
B:;+
W#'+T/#1/+
KKKKKK+
V%22/.43/$+G2H3"'-2/'+#?+R-H4#*-2/'M+R&#/#-(&+G2)24#H-2/'+P+Q//#)3'(#/+
CE+
E:D+
<78+
BD:7E+
V%22/.43/$+G2H3"'-2/'+#?+'52+!"2-(2"+3/$+,3J(/2'++
<;+
8:;7+
78+
E8:88+
V%22/.43/$+F"23.%"*++
<E+
8:79+
W#'+T/#1/+
KKKKKK+
V%22/.43/$+G2H3"'-2/'+#?+R$%&3'(#/+3/$+F"3(/(/O++
C8+
E:E7+
9E8+
E8:BE+
W@S+G2H3"'-2/'+#?+R$%&3'(#/+3/$+,#--%/('(2.++
7D+
E:<9+
EAD+
<7:B7+
W@S+F"23.%"*++
B<+
<:AC+
9CC+
<B:;8+
W@S+G2H3"'-2/'+#?+!"2-(2"+3/$+,3J(/2'++
DD+
9:7B+
W#'+T/#1/+
KKKKKK+
<DB+
C:EA+
DB;+
9;:<8+
9;+
<:EB+
<8;+
9D:AE+
!"<9:C8+
G2H3"'-2/'+#?+'52+!"(-2+I(/(.'2"+3/$+,3J(/2'+0,#--#/1234'56+
G2H3"'-2/'+#?+L3-(4(2.M+N#%.(/OM+,#--%/('(2.+P+Q/$(O2/#%.+=??3(".+0,#--#/1234'56+
G2H3"'-2/'+#?+R$%&3'(#/M+R-H4#*-2/'+3/$+S#"TH43&2+U243'(#/.+0,#--#/1234'56+
W@S+G2H3"'-2/'+#?+L3-(4*+3/$+,#--%/('*+@2")(&2.++
X(&'#"(3/+G2H3"'-2/'+#?+!43//(/O+3/$+,#--%/('*+G2)24#H-2/'++
X(&'#"(3/+G2H3"'-2/'+#?+R$%&3'(#/+3/$+R3"4*+,5(4$5##$+G2)24#H-2/'++
E;B+
<;:BE+
Q/('(34+(/)('3'(#/+
E89EY+'3"O2'2$+
"2-(/$2"+'#+;E;+
&2/'"34+.'3??++
X(&'#"(3/+G2H3"'-2/'+#?+N%-3/+@2")(&2.++
<89+
B:A8+
W#'+T/#1/+
KKKKKK+
X(&'#"(3/+G2H3"'-2/'+#?+!"2-(2"+3/$+,3J(/2'++
D8+
9:B8+
<98+
B9:D8+
X(&'#"(3/+F"23.%"*++
DB+
9:DA+
W#'+T/#1/+
KKKKKK+
!14"$&
DEFG&
'EE&
&
&

7. Figure
1:
Gender
and
current
posiPon
50
%
43.1
45
%
38.0
40
%
35
%
30
%
28.6
23.6
25
%
20
%
15
%
10
%
5
%
11.2
7.7
3.8
14.6
14.4
5.9
5.3
3.9
0
%
Senior
execuPve
Manager
Male
Policy
officer
Female
Data
analyst

8. Figure
2:
Level
of
educaPon
45
%
39.2
40
%
34.2
35
%
30
%
25
%
20
%
16.2
15
%
10
%
6.0
5
%
4.5
0
%
Year
12
Advanced
Bachelor
Degree
Graduate
Postgraduate
Diploma/Diploma
Diploma/Graduate
Degree
Cer9ficate

9. Figure
3:
Years
in
the
public
service
30
%
27.1
25
%
23.6
19.3
20
%
18.1
15
%
10
%
5
%
8.1
2.5
1.3
0
%
Less
than
a
year
1-­‐5
years
5-­‐10
years
10-­‐20
years
20-­‐30
years
30-­‐40
years
40+
years

10. Figure
4:
Level
of
importance
placed
on
informaPon
available
from
parPcular
sources
to
inform
decision-­‐making:
Very
important/important
Local
government
37.4
Think
Tanks
48.6
News
media
52.1
Private
consultants
53.7
InternaPonal
organisaPons
56.0
Interest
groups
63.8
Comparable
state
government
agencies
in
other
63.9
University
researchers
69.6
Professional
or
industry
associaPons
71.6
Other
state
government
agencies
in
your
state
72.1
Federal
government
agencies
82.5
Internal
agency
Staff
93.1
0
%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
90
%
100
%

11. Figure
5:
In
the
last
12
months,
how
oien
have
you
consulted
with
each
source
of
informaPon
listed
below:
Very
oien/Oien
Think
Tanks
12.0
Local
government
12.5
InternaPonal
organisaPons
17.5
Private
consultants
20.6
Comparable
state
government
agencies
in
other
22.0
Interest
groups
26.3
University
researchers
27.5
News
media
32.7
Professional
or
industry
associaPons
32.8
Federal
government
agencies
41.4
Other
state
government
agencies
in
your
state
44.2
Internal
agency
Staff
89.5
0
%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
90
%
100
%

14. Figure
6:
If
you
don’t
access
bibliographical
databases,
is
it
because:
(n
=
868)
The
department,
agency
or
unit
you
work
for
does
not
subscribe
to
any
electronic
bibliographic
databases
28.1
You
can't
download
full-­‐text
versions
of
academic
arPcles
and
and
reports
from
these
databases
32.4
You
don’t
have
access
from
your
work
staPon
35.6
You
have
not
requested
access
because
such
a
resource
would
not
be
relevant
to
your
role
43.0
You
don’t
know
how
to
use
these
databases
45.2
You
would
rather
consult
a
work
colleague
about
sourcing
relevant
arPcles
or
reports
47.5
You
would
prefer
to
use
search
engines
on
the
web
(e.g.
Google)
68.0
0
%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%

15. What
might
be
driving
these
behaviours?
Trust
in
the
source?
Accessibility?
Convenience?
Skill
sets
of
individuals?
Few
partnership
opportuniPes
with
knowledge
producers?
• Access
to
infrastructure?
• Nature
of
public
policy-­‐making?
• Workplace
culture?
•
•
•
•
•

16. Figure
7:
Accessing
and
using
research
evidence
in
day-­‐to-­‐day
duPes:
Strongly
agree/Agree
I
lack
experPse
in
how
to
apply
the
results
of
research
studies
11.4
Staff
are
not
encouraged
to
use
research
evidence
14.6
I
do
not
have
the
necessary
skills
to
interpret
results
from
staPsPcal
analyses
15.9
The
use
of
research
evidence
is
a
low
priority
of
my
unit
19.3
I
lack
sufficient
decision-­‐making
power
to
ensure
policy
is
based
on
research
35.6
My
department
has
no
formal
processes
to
translate
academic
research
into
policy
35.7
There
is
limle
opportunity
to
build
relaPonships
with
researchers
outside
the
public
service
52.3
There
is
not
enough
Pme
in
the
day
or
week
to
read
relevant
research
studies
55.6
0
%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%

17. Impact
of
organisa9onal
factors
• LogisPc
regression
model
to
examine
the
relaPve
strength
of
various
organisaPonal
factors
on
reported
levels
of
research
use.
• Dependent
variable
measure
of
research
use
was
based
on
quesPons
asking
respondents
whether
in
the
last
12
months
they
had
used
academic
products
or
outputs
to
understand
policies
and
programs
in
their
field.
• This
measure
of
research
uPlisaPon
was
divided
into
a
dichotomous
variable
(0
=
Don’t
consult
academic
research
and
1
=
consult
academic
research).

18. Figure
8:
ConsultaPon
of
academic
research
45
%
38.6
40
%
35
%
38.3
35.3
32.9
30
%
25
%
20
%
17.9
15
%
16.4
10.6
10.0
10
%
5
%
0
%
In
the
last
12
months,
I
have
used
journal
arPcles
In
the
last
12
months,
I
have
used
research
and
books
produced
by
academics
to
reports
produced
by
academics
to
understand
understand
policies
and
programs
in
my
field
policies
and
programs
in
my
field
Frequently
Occasionally
Rarely
Never

19. Independent
variables
–
factors
influencing
research
use
• Items
related
to
organisaPonal
ethos
and
culture
e.g.
there
is
not
enough
Pme
in
the
day
or
week
to
read
relevant
research
studies;
the
use
of
research
evidence
is
a
low
priority
of
my
unit;
staff
are
not
encouraged
to
use
research
evidence.
• Judgements
about
skill
levels,
and
impediments
to
access
(difficulty
in
accessing
full
text
versions
of
academic
reports).
• EducaPonal
level
and
posiPon.

20. !"#$%&'(&)"*+,-.&/01"*+/23&,2&+4%&5.%&,6&"*"7%0/*&-%.%"-*4&1-,75*+.
!"#$%&'()*+"#$),-(%,($./(0'/(%1("#"2/*)#(
&/'/"&#.(+&%20#$'((
(
(
(
:(
345(67(1%&(822'(9"$)%(
;<(
=%>/&(
822'(
9"$)%(
?++/&(
@#"2/*)#(&/'/"&#.(&/'0A$'("&/(#%,')2/&/2(
&/A/B",$(CD(*D(#%AA/"-0/'(
9/'/"&#.()'()*+%&$",$(),(*D(+&%1/'')%,"A(1)/A2(
EFG4HHH(
IEFE3J(
KFGL(
MFKK(
MF4E(
EFGNHHH(
IEFE3J(
KFGG(
MFE3(
MFNG(
="#O(&/'/"&#.('O)AA'(
EFE3(
IEFELJ(
EF3N(
KFE3(
KFMG(
HH
="#O("(&/'/"&#.(#0A$0&/(
PEFQQ (
IEFKKJ(
EF4L(
EFGM(
EF3E(
R%A)#D(*"O),-(C"'/2(%,('%0,2(/B)2/,#/(
PEFE3(
IEFKEJ(
EFG4(
EF3K(
KFKK(
IEFE3J(
KF43(
KF3E(
MFMG(
HHH
S)11)#0A$D("##/''),-(10AA($/T$(
EFUN
@2B",#/2(2)+A%*"(
EFQN(
IEFQGJ(
EFUL(
KFNK(
MF3M(
V@((
EFN4(
IEFMUJ(
EF3N(
KF4G(
MFUQ(
H
IEFM3J(
KFKU(
MFEN(
QF43(
IEFMGJ(
KF4K(
MF4U(
NFQU(
W&"20"$/(2)+A%*"(
(
EFGK (
R%'$-&"20"$/(2/-&//(
EF3N
HHH
(
;/,)%&(/T/#0$)B/(
PEFKM(
IEFMGJ(
EF4M(
EFL3(
KF4M(
X","-/&(((
PEFNQHH(
IEFK4J(
EFNL(
EFU4(
EFLG(
S"$"(","AD'$(
PEFG3HHH(
IEFMKJ(
EFQE(
EFNU(
EFU3(
IEFKGJ(
EF33(
KFQL(
KF3M(
IEFGUJ(
(
EFEE(
(
EFEK(
(
EFEQ(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Y/'('$"11(A),O),-($%(&/'/"&#./&'(
EFQM(
PNF3LHHH(
6%,'$",$(
8C'/&B"$)%,'(
K33U(
R'/02%(9M(
PGUKFGL4(
(
(
(
NGUFM4(
=%-(A)O/A).%%2(
(
(
#.)M(I21ZMEJ(
Standard errors in parentheses
(
EFMQL(
*
p < 0.05,
**
p < 0.01,
***
p < 0.001

21. Conclusion:
Public
sector
use
of
research
evidence
&
EBP
• Convenience
and
expediency
mamer
a
great
deal.
• Physical
or
electronic
availability
important
–
but
not
overwhelmingly
so.
• Day-­‐to-­‐day
pressures
and
constraints
reinforce
various
pamerns
of
informaPon
seeking.
• OrganisaPonal
ethos
and
professional
culture
help
to
generate
behaviours
that
promote
research
use.