Knowledge Creep and

Decision Accretion

CAROL H. WEISS
Harvard University

The conventional title for this article would be &dquo;Knowledge Utilization

in Decision-Making.&dquo; I have chosen the mangled terminology to make a
point-in fact, two points. The first is that knowledge, at least the sub-
category of knowledge that derives from systematic research and analy-
sis, is not often &dquo;utilized&dquo; in direct and instrumental fashion in the
formulation of policy. Only occasionally does it supply an &dquo;answer&dquo; that
policy actors employ to solve a policy problem. Instead, research
knowledge usually affects the development and modification of policy
in diffuse ways. It provides a background of empirical generalizations
and ideas that creep into policy deliberations. Its influence is exercised
in more subtle ways than the word &dquo;utilization&dquo;-with its overtone of
tools and implements-can capture.
The second point is that many policy actions, even those of fateful
order, are not &dquo;decided&dquo; in brisk and clear-cut style. The term &dquo;decision&dquo;
implies a particular set of events: A problem comes up, a set of people
authorized to deal with the problem gather at particular times and places
to consider options for coping with it, they weigh the alternative options
(with more or less explicit calculation of costs and benefits), and they’
choose one response. That becomes the decision-a set of rules or guide-
lines, the funding or not funding of a program, the reorganization of a
structure, leaving the situation as is, or whatever. But in large organiza-

Authctr’s Nate: This article is adapted from Chapter 9 of Social Science Research and
Decision Making, forthcoming from Columbia University Press.
Knowledge. Creation, DiffusIOn, Utilization, Vol. I No. 3, March 1980 381-404
@ 1980 Sage Publications, Inc.

381

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

382

tions, policies often come into being without such systematic considera-
tion. No problem (or opportunity) is identified as an explicit issue, no
identifiable set of authorized decision makers meets, no list of options is
generated, no assessment is made of relative advantages and disad-
vantages, no crisp choice is made. Yet the onrushing flow of events
shape an accommodation-and a pattern of behavior-that has wide-
spread ramifications. It may in time be ratified by conscious policy
action, but in the crucial formative stages, it just seems to happen. With-
out conscious deliberation, the policy accretes.
That decisions often take shape gradually, without the formality of
agenda, deliberation, and choice, helps to explain the lack of direct
utilization of research and analysis. When decisions accrete through
small uncoordinated steps taken in many offices-by staffs who have
little awareness of the policy direction that is being promoted or the
alternatives that are being foreclosed, there is scant opportunity for de-
liberate application of research information to the task. But staff base
their ongoing actions on the sum of their knowledge and judgment. To
the extent that research has entered into their understanding of the
nature of problems and of feasible responses, they draw upon it as they
carry on their work.
These are the basic themes of the paper. They developed out of re-
search that Michael Bucuvalas, Laurie Bauman, and I did at Columbia
University on the usefulness of social science research to officials in
federal, state, and local mental health agencies. We interviewed 155
people who held high-level positions in these organizations about their
responses to research (Weiss, 1977; Weiss and Bucuvalas, 1977; Weiss
and Bucuvalas, forthcoming). Among the questions we asked them
were:

Do you consciously use the results of social science research in reaching

decisions on your job? In what ways do you use social science research on
your job?
Do you seek out research information when you’re considering policy or
program alternatives? Under what circumstances do you seek research?

The first pair of questions obviously asks about the conscious use of
social science research, not about the circuitous percolation of research
ideas into people’s construction of social reality. Yet it was from answers
to this set of questions that we came to understand much about the
amorphous process that I have here labeled &dquo;creep.&dquo;

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

 383

The second pair of questions refers not only to conscious use but to
active search. It sets the search in a frame of decision-making in the
traditional sense, assuming that high-ranking officials &dquo;consider policy
or program alternatives&dquo; and that they need information to help them in
their consideration. Again the interview takes a relatively hard line,
setting a context of rational choice, and again some respondents man-
aged to circumvent the implicit imagery and describe the very different
world they inhabit. Their responses stimulated a reconceptualization of
the decision-making process in bureaucratic organizations and specula-
tion about the antecedents and consequences of diffuse decisions.

Conscious Use
of Social Science Research
In answer to the questions about their conscious use of social science
research on the job, mental health officials indicated a remarkable re-
ceptivity to research. Although a minority discounted the notion that
research contributed to their work, the overwhelming majority reported
use, often extensive use, and sketched a wide variety of ways in which re-
search informed their work. The responses were so positive, in fact, that
we became suspicious of their veracity. But scrutiny of the detailed

descriptions of research uses provided sufficient illumination to make

the reports not only credible but revealing.
In response to the questions about whether, and how, they con-
sciously used research, respondents gave answers that were coded into
five categories:

No, never 11%

Not consciously 22%
Yes, but did not describe any ways used 10%
Yes, gave &dquo;general&dquo; uses 50%
--, Yes, gave specific uses 7%

Let us look at each category in turn.

Eleven percent of the respondents rejected social science research out

of hand. They referred mainly to its irrelevance or to the inadequacy of
its methodology or both. Illustrative answers are:

I think it’s garbage. Consequently I have not developed much of an inter-

est init. I haven’t seen many ways where it’s used in mental health activi-

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

384

ties,at least developing mental health programs, that has been useful to
those programs that I’ve been around.I think it’s an academic pursuit
mainly for academicians to fool around with (290)’
No, because it’s worthless. I’ve never seen anything useful in coming to
decision or policy. It’s skewed by being small specialized select popula-
tions. The questions they ask and the answers they get are so broad as to
be totally worthless to come to any decision-making in areas that need
attention. (285)
I know something about what research is available from psychology and
sociology and anthropology. And many useful things have been turned up
by those disciplines. But they have contributed very little that will enable
the director of a program like this to make a better rather than a worse
decision. In my view... management makes use of whatever talents the
incumbent has got and there is no body of knowledge or doctrine or
dogma that is going to tell him how to do his job.... You can’t rely op the
results of anybody else’s research to tell you what kinds of choices you
should make. (136)

Another 22% took issue with the words &dquo;conscious use,&dquo; but indi-
cated that research information entered into their thinking and actions.
The process by which they absorbed social science research was not
focused around specific decisions or directed toward specific issues, and
its impact on their behavior was difficult to pinpoint. But they had a
sense that it made a difference. Some of these responses are:

Consciously, I don’t think so. I think perhaps when you keep abreast of
the field through reading, I guess it becomes a part of your experience and
it’s not really a conscious thing. (261)
Seldom consciously. More often just the way things get absorbed. Essen-
tially by filtering readings and presentations through my own conscious-
ness and particular conditions here. (312)

I don’t necessarily consciously. In doing the things I do, I am not neces-

sarily consulting social science research or studies that were perhaps re-
lated to what I was doing.... But I do read and I’m sure they play a signifi-
cant part in what I do and will do. (331)

A skeptic might dismiss these answers as courteoas but meaningless

pap to satisfy the demands of the interview. However, given the rest of
the information in the interviews, we are convinced that they represent
an honest attempt to communicate the process by which social science
research often plays a part in people’s work activities. Much of the diffi-

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

 385

culty that respondents faced in answering the question obviously arose

from the word &dquo;consciously.&dquo; They are seeking to express the point that
they do not deliberately use research to affect individual decisions.
Rather it fills in the background, it supplies the context, from which
ideas, concepts, and choices derive. Ideas are slippery things. Even
scientists, who work in a tradition that requires the citation of sources,
find it difficult to trace the genealogy of their ideas. Decision makers,
who are less attuned to footnoting their references, are probably less
aware of the origins of many of the concepts with which they make sense
of the world. Yet they suspect that some of their ideas come from the
research to which they have been exposed. It is hardly surprising that
they balk at the word &dquo;conscious&dquo; for the process by which research con-
cepts filter into their awareness and help them to structure reality.
A third group of decision makers faced the difficulty of articulating
their use of research with a different set of answers. This group, 10% of
the decision makers, said that they used research &dquo;constantly,&dquo; &dquo;all the
time,&dquo; but they could not describe how they used it or provide an ex-
ample. They, too, were fumbling for a way of expressing their awareness
that they absorbed research information into their stock of knowledge
and drew upon it in their work, but they could not isolate its unique con-
tribution.
A majority of decision makers, 57%, reported that they used social
science research and gave illustrations of use. But only 7% gave rela-
tively concrete descriptions of the application of research to their work.
The other 50% talked in general terms about using research to gain
general direction and background, to keep up with developments in the
field, and to reduce uncertainties about their policies and programs.
They discussed broad purposes, not specific decisions, specific aims, or
specific content of research studies.
The most specific illustrations of research use recounted both the
particular research conclusions that were influential and the particular
decisions that the conclusions affected. But few responses tied down
both the research and decision ends of the use process, despite probing
(verging on nagging) by the interviewers. The most explicit example was
provided by a federal official:
The Institute has data now which indicates most alcoholics can be served
in out-patient services, and that is the major treatment modality, coupled
with intermediate care, across the country. That data has affected our
emphasis on out- as opposed to in-patient services.... Some of the evalua-

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

386

tion material now is showing that aftercare and follow-up services are
vital ingredients in a good program. A great deal of treatment can be
undone without it. That’s a mandatory element in accreditation of hos-
pitals now. Research shows that certain groups -black, Indian, Hispanic
-will enter treatment sooner if counselors &dquo;speak their language.&dquo; We are
encouraging the development of counselor characteristics in close rela-
tionship to the kinds of population they serve. This is another way we use
data.(186)

The director of a local clinic also gave an illustration of concrete use.

Although he did not describe the research results that gave direction, he
indicated the purpose they served:

We’re always looking for ways to improve and enhance the effectiveness
of our service and administration. So we’re regularly, if not continually,
scrutinizing the literature to see if it can give us help in this regard.... For
instance, an example would be a problem that most clinics suffer from....
[About] 35% of the patients who apply for service continue.... We, then,
being concerned about this and wanting to improve the function of the
agency... began to look in the literature to find ways that we could have
of maximizing the impact of the initial encounters with patients.... And
sure enough there were some valuable papers in the literature which
assisted us in maximizing the impact of the initial contact with the patient.
(304)

Few responses gave this degree of specificity. Even though most

respondents elsewhere in the interview displayed warm appreciation
and respect for social science research (Bauman and Weiss, 1976), they
found it hard to cite direct applications of research results to specific de-
cisions. That concrete instances of use were mentioned so rarely suggests
that the longtime laments of observers about the neglect of research
have some basis in fact. But 50% of respondents discussed what we have
labeled &dquo;general&dquo; uses of research, and before we conclude that research
is actually neglected, let us look closely at these answers.
Reports of general uses of research included statements with con-
siderable indeterminacy. Respondents indicated that they used the flow
of research as an aid in formulating policy and setting direction. Some
examples:
To the extent that the Administration looks to me for advice on policy
issues as they come up, for example in the planning phase of budget

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

 387

formulation, we will make decisions on identifying priorities to be stressed

in the budget development process, or later on, making decisions about
allocations of funds within ceilings that are set. There the research and
social science is taken into account. (101)
To enable us to get a better handle on the state of the art and the science.
To sensitize us to what’s going on and to help us formulate policy and
establish new directions. (126)

Some comments were more specific in identifying the kinds of re-

search used. A number referred to research about needs for service and
the distribution ofneed. Respondents implied that information of this
, sort was helpful for developing programs and for targeting services to
high-risk areas or special populations.
We use a great deal of socioeconomic and demographic information
which will give us basic information on the area which will potentially be
served by the mental health center. (254)
An example I can think of is an effort I’m doing currently, a short-term
project in [a certain] county to assist their staff... to identify broad health
needs, patterns of utilization of health services. (207)
The objective of theidepartment is to meld the community programs and
the hospital programs into a unified system of services.... When some-
body gives me some kind of information that has to do with the types
...

of population which are in centers and which are in hospitals, I have to try
to use these as a basis for planning for the kinds of change we would like to
bring about. (253)

Another type of research reported as useful was evaluation research

that indicated &dquo;what works.&dquo; A number of people at all levels talked
about using data about successful program strategies as models for their
own efforts.

Largely we look at studies that are being conducted in this state and other
states and on a national scope to see... what sorts of treatment modalities
and methods andtechniques have been effective and we try to aim our ...

programming along the lines that have proven successful in this state and
elsewhere. (223)
We’re looking for hard data to show something is or isn’t useful. (161)

Many people discussed the use of research to &dquo;keep up with the field.&dquo;
High-ranking officials in federal, state, and local agencies are experts in

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

388

a substantive area, and they report using research to stay current with
developments. Social science research is a medium of communication
about what is hapening. They rely on it to tell them about the needs of
people, about problems that are being encountered in providing service,
and about emerging issues. These people gave answers that suggest
social science research is a form of continuing education.

[Research] has been used mainly for additional information for use in
keeping up with what’s&dquo;being done, what’s happening. (350)
[I use research] in reading and making myself aware of what is going on,
what are the new things we know regarding people and the effects of the
environment and the way they live on people.... Regarding social re-
search, I’m interested in knowledge, all that’s known about people and
how they relate to the world and their surroundings and their needs....
(176)
1 do it [use research] as a routine. It’s part of being a professional. I feel the
only constant thing is change. It’s important to provide responsible
service, and to be a responsible professional you must know what’s going
on. (357)
_

Social science research is a source of information that helps officials

maintain their claims to professional leadership.
Another kind of research use is ritualistic. It satisfies the demands 01
the job, but its impact on action is problematic. Its major function seems
to be to overlay the documents that wend their way through an organi-
zation with a scientific patina, for example in writing plans. One re-
spondent talked about this type of use:
It was very important for me to have extensive studies ... in writing my
comprehensive plan.... That [writing plans] was the single primary
objective of the office, and writing those plans you really have to utilize
research, and that’s what I did. (240)

This was a rare species of use, or at least rarely mentioned. If research is

used, it usually serves more than a decorative function; it is expected to
convince other people of the credibility and legitimacy of one’s position.
Several people spoke about using research to support their point of
view and persuade other participants in the decision-making process to
accept their stand. They cite the use of research as ammunition in the
political wars.

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

 389

We would need the type of data that would not only outline the extent of a -

problem but also we need data that we could use to demonstrate to those
people who review our budgets that there was in fact a demonstrable
social and economic pay-off in investing money in this area. (1 II)
Primarily because any decision one makes in the public sector must be
backed up. Other people’s opinions unsupported by data aren’t usually as
valid for documentation of a position. (288)

This theme, the use of research to legitimize a position, comes up again

in answers to the question about circumstances under which people seek
research (see below). It suggests that research has a special standing in
organizational debate and bargaining.
Research is used not only to legitimize a prefabricated position. It is
also used to help shape the fabrication before the position hardens. For
example, one person said:

[I seek research] to clarify my own thinking. Before I take a position, I

want to see what others have said on a topic and studied.... If I’m going to
prepare something, I want to be able to document it.... When I’m trying
to push a particular position, I am going to scurry around and find all the
articles for it. The assumption is if you can cite somebody who has done a
careful study, it carries more weight than just another study. (174)

This statement starts with the use of research to clarify and inform the
taking of a position, proceeds to documentation of the rationale for the
position, and only then goes on to justification and promotion of the
position. Research, it seems, has a part to play at each stage.
Other people talk explicitly about the internal as well as the external
support that research provides. Research not only makes their advice
more persuasive to others; it helps assure them in their own minds that

they are right. Its contribution is to reduce the inevitable uncertainties

that surround any policy issue.

It [research] is used to give us some confidence and assurance; what we’re

encouraging people to do is based upon these findings passed on to us
from this research. (146)

A number of people discussed conceptual uses of social science re-

search. They talked not so much about using research findings for par-
ticular purposes as about gaining insights into social processes as a

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

390

foundation for understanding. Some of the social science concepts men-

tioned were:

Sensitivity to minority representation and minority issues generally as we

try to formulate and implement policy. What we know of minorities
comes from social science research. (102)
A better understanding and perception of what is happening to the family
system as a social institution-what are the impacts of the stresses asso-
ciated with divorce, separation, alternative life-styles, changing mores,
changing value systems. It’s extremely broad. I don’t know how to tie it
down. (121)
For example, if someone says we need to build more institutions, I’m say-
ing research has indicated that these kids don’t need institutions. We have
todevelop alternative programs. (205)
The article in Science regarding issues of diagnosis and labeling as used
in psychiatry.... the issue then was what kinds of consequences were
the result of labeling. That issue was important to me primarily because,
although I’m a psychiatrist and essentially very interested in the medical
model, I am aware that there are times when the process of labeling is
not in the best interest of the patient. (371)

In this type of use, people viewed the intellectual perspectives gained

from social science research as helping to shape their models of social
reality. Social science research helped them inake sense of the world and
gain new or better insight into the complex issues with which they dealt.
Many people underscored the point that social science research was
not their only source of information and ideas. It was one source among
many, and not usually powerful enough to drive the decision process.
They read social science research, but it was auxiliary to their own first-
hand experience. They were exposed as well to information from col-
leagues, program records, meetings and conferences, books and tele-
vision, and the conversation of friends.
As one person said, &dquo;I read it all ... listen to a number of people,
throw it all up in the air, and see what makes sense.&dquo; Those social scien-
tists who expect research to be authoritative enough to determine policy
choices are giving insufficient weight to the many and varied sources
from which people derive their understandings and policy preferences-
some of which are far more vivid and direct in their impact than blood-
less, statistic-ridden research reports.

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

 391

Even more important for understanding these reports of research use

is the fact that people in official positions often do not catalog research
separately in their minds. They interpret it as they read it in light of their
other knowledge, and they merge it with all the information and general-
izations in their stock. Therefore, they find it difficult, often impossible,
to identify the unique contribution that one study, a body of studies, or
research in general, has made to their actions. The lessons from research
have become part of a gestalt. As Caplan et al. (1975) have written about
decision makers’ use of social science knowledge:

Much of the importance of such an idea [from research] for the policy
maker lies in its ultimate integration into his entire perspective on a prob-
lem. In asking him to cite instances of use [of research], he is really being
asked to atomize his conception of social reality, to take knowledge out of
its context, a context without which the knowledge would not have been
retained in the first place [1975: 18-19].

Several of our respondents tried to explain this complex process of

assimilation:

It is a continuous awareness and stratification of several kinds of informa-

tion-TV, newspapers, scientific articles, a book. All of these things over-
lap. It is very difficult for me to sort out where I got this information. (301 )
I tend to integrate knowledge that’s obtained in the articles into my own
thinking. (370)
I don’t think there is a specific way I take a piece of research and apply it in
a precise manner. You build up a sequence of related pieces of research,
you take it in, evaluating, assimilating, and at a later point, you use it.
(150)

If the reports of research use that our respondents have given sound
fuzzy and indistinct, this amalgamation of research with knowledge
derived from variegated sources is part of the reason. They do not
always know the provenance of the ideas and models which form their
basic intellectual capital or which of them originally came, through
direct or roundabout channels, from the studies of social science.
Another reason for the paucity of clear-cut instances of research use,
and I will return to this, is that our respondents are often unclear about

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

392

the consequences of research in their daily activities. When we ask how

they use social science research in reaching decisions, we are in effect
asking them not only to specify the social science input but also the deci-
sion output. And many of them do not believe that they make anything
so crisp and clear as a decision on their jobs. They recommend, advise,

confer, draw up budgets, testify, develop plans, write guidelines, report,

supervise, propose legislation, assist, meet, argue, train, consult-but
decide? It is not a concept that seems to describe aptly the flux of activi-
ties that engage officials even on the top rungs of complex organizations.

Seeking Out
Social Science Research
We asked our respondents whether they sought out social science re-
search when they were considering policy or program alternatives. As in
the responses about using research, a minority of respondents dis-
avowed any such activity. Twenty-one percent said they never or almost
never sought out research. The reasons they offered were similar to

those given to the question about use-irrelevance, untrustworthiness

of the findings-and in addition, lack of time. The remaining 79% said
that there were occasions on which they or their staff looked for research
related to the issues with which they were dealing. But the search was
usually less focused and crisp than our question implied. One respon-
dent tried to explain the context in which seeking research took place:
&dquo;Do I seek? It depends on how much I already know.&dquo; (221) Others
elaborated on the interaction between ongoing reading of research and
their actions on policy or programs:

A lot of it is informal.... We don’t sit down and say, &dquo;All right, we’re
going into this program, let’s find out everything we can about it.&dquo; Be-
cause quite often it’s an ongoing thing. It’s sort of compiled somewhat in-
formally, but conclusions are based on that sort of thing. (223)
If there is a clear-cut planning thing developing, it usually develops out of
ourneeds here. Then we would turn to relevant literature I know is there
from reading over the years and use it to support the plan and to give
direction. (312)
It’songoing. With regard to all the variety of functions, we’re constantly
seeking research and development input. (173)

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

 393

Again, despite our attempt to set the question in a traditional decision-

making context (&dquo;considering policy or program alternatives&dquo;),. officials
pushed against the limits of the language to make room for the more
complex realities of their experience.
When it came to describing the occasions on which they turned to
social science research, they were somewhat more explicit than they
were in the answers about research use. In part, the greater specificity
may be a result of the placement of the questions in the interview.
Whereas the questions on research use hit them right at the start, intro-
ducing a topic on which few of them had reflected before, the questions
about seeking out research followed approximately two hours of discus-
sion on the subject. In part, too, the focus on directed search for research
may have evoked more concrete imagery.
The conditions that they reported for seeking research fell mainly
into four categories: new situations, decisions which entailed important
or expensive consequences, requests for consultant help on matters on
which they lacked sufficient expertise, and situations where their judg-
ment could be challenged and they wanted authoritative support.
When the agency was moving into new fields of policy or pro-
gramming, many people reported that they looked to research for back-
ground and guidance. In response to the question about circumstances
when they seek research, respondents said:

Any time we have a new area to deal with or a controversial area to deal
with or where we feel the lack of personal background. (161)
If we get into newer areas, I ask staff to find out what there is on this and
make a report and recommendations. Starting a new program or facing a
problem if we don’t know how to handle it. (232)
If we’re going into a totally new endeavor. When we are looking at a new
program area or when we are looking at a new way of doing something.

(254)

The big decision is another trigger of search. If misjudgment would

have serious consequences, officials canvas many people’s opinions and
experience and look for facts and judgments in many places, including
social science research.

When we’re faced with a policy or program change that would have long-

range implications. (261)

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

394

When we need to make a significant program or policy decision, or where

there is a great deal of staff ambivalence, a lot of diversified opinion, and
we have to make a decision. (353)

The ones that involve enormous commitments of resources, manpower

and dollars. Those are the ones you lie awake nights on. (275)

Another prod to seeking out research is the request for consultation.

Some federal respondents hold jobs that involve providing consultation
and technical assistance to other federal agencies and to states, and
many state officials are advisers to local agencies. When they are insuf-
ficiently knowledgeable about an area in which they are asked for
advice, they seek research.

When I want to supply information as a result of a request. (176)

When asked to consult on a program issue that we need some backing on
ourselves to help our consultees. (221)

Finally, a number of respondents (15% of the sample) mentioned

seeking research for its credibility in documenting their arguments.
When expert opinion alone will not do, or when an agency’s position is
suspect on grounds of being self-serving, research can serve as legitima-
tion. Among the answers on this theme were:

Primarily to make a point to give evidence to support an argument or

position. (180)
Most often when there is a need to support budgetary requests in
Congressional hearings
for appropriations for funding our programs.
(160)
Generally to deal effectively with the legislature. (229)
more

If I were trying to sell the hospital on certain programs. (350)

I seek research in regard to mostly money and public support. When
...

I’m going before the board of supervisors. When I’m trying to justify the
amount of money it takes to run this place. (338)
At Congressional time, preparing testimony.... The one time where I give
a damn about references is Congressional. (175)

The verbs that respondents used are graphic: &dquo;support,&dquo; &dquo;back-up,&dquo;

&dquo;sell,&dquo; &dquo;justify,&dquo; &dquo;document,&dquo; &dquo;counter.&dquo; I quote
so many responses on
the theme of legitimation not because they outnumber other types of

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

 395

response, but because this is the only place in our study where they ap-
pear so explicitly. As observers have long commented, one function of
research is to serve as a tool in bureaucratic politics―particularly~ome
of our respondents aver, in confrontation with legislatures over budgets.
Implicit in these responses is the suggestion that research has become
an essential mode of communication and persuasion in the public arena.
Other actors in the policy-making process expect officials to make their
case in terms of data, facts, evidence, statistics, studies. They look for
documentation from objective scientific sources. In this sense, social
science research has become a necessary language of discourse in the
public forum. Whether or not it changes officials’ own minds, they use it
as a new lingua franca for talking across the boundaries of interests,

organizations, and content areas. Participants in decision-making,

wherever they are located, have to be able to speak the language of
social science if they are to communicate effectively.
Policy-making is largely a process of persuading others and striking
bargains. Proof of a needfor programs and appropriations, and demon-
stration of a social payofffrom policies and services whether current or
proposed, are critical components of the negotiating game. To be con-
vincing, much of the argument these days has to be phrased in research
terminology. It is noteworthy in our respondents’ remarks that testi-
mony before the legislature, which is not commonly regarded as a
bastion of research support, calls for review of the research literature,
that it is for the Congress that they &dquo;give a damn about references.&dquo;
Through the language of social science research, they seek to transform
what might be seen as special pleading into something more akin to dis-
passionate review and support for policy.

Varieties of Research Use:

A Reprise

Thus, we see that social science research serves many functions for
holders of upper-level bureaucratic positions. They use it on occasion as
a direct input to decisions to help them make difficult choices. Particu-

larly when the decisions are momentous in scope or consequence, they

may attend to research results. Somewhat more often, they use research
as general guidance, finding evidence of needs and problems and gaps or

shortcomings in existing services, and identifying successful strategies

as a model for future efforts. Some research use is ritualistic, a ceremony

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

396

to satisfy requirements for rational procedure or scientific gloss. Offi-

cials are engaged by the concepts of social science, which contribute to
their understanding of the nature of social problems, the range of possi-
ble options for addressing problems, and the context in which remedies
must be applied. In new program areas, where officials lack firsthand
experience, such orienting perspectives are particularly valuable. They
use research ideas, too, to rethink old program assumptions and as

scaffolding for building new formulations.

Another major use of social science research is as continuing educa-
tion to enable officials to maintain their professional expertise. Re-
search is, among other things, a medium of news about needs, services,
promising approaches, obstacles and pitfalls, and the most up-to-date
knowledge about human behavior. It offers information about the
issues and ideas that are engaging the attention of social scientists and
about current directions in intellectual thought. Even when officials are
not consciously using research, the perspectives they have absorbed
from the social science literature influence which features of the environ-
ment they accept as 6’given&dquo; and unchangeable, which aspects are candi-
dates for intervention, and their understanding of the interconnections
among social phenomena.
There are times when officials use these insights to challenge and
clarify their own thinking. Sometimes they derive the warm comfort of
reassurance that their judgments are sound and have support and re-
inforcement in systematic investigation. They use research, too, to
buttress their position and promote their case in dealing with colleagues
and superiors and to convince others to accept their viewpoints, pro-
grams, and budgets. They speak the language of social science research
to make their arguments convincing. By adopting its symbols and its
grammar, they may find their positions subtly influenced by the struc-
ture of its rules.
Our research, like other recent empirical studies of the use of social
science research in organizations (Caplan et al., 1975; Patton et al.,
1977; Rich, 1977; Knorr, 1977; Berg et al., 1978; Alkin et al., 1979),
converges on the conclusion that public officials use research more
widely than previous laments on the subject have suggested. But they
do not often use it by considering the findings of one study in the con-
text of a specific pending decision and adopting the course of action
recommended by (or derived directly from) the research. That kind of

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

 397

instrumental Utilization&dquo; is what many observers have expected and

looked for in vain. Failing to find it, they have concluded that research
is ignored. Instrumental use seems in fact to be rare, particularly when
the issues are complex, the consequences are uncertain, and a multitude
of actors are engaged in the decision-making process, i.e., in the making
of policy. The further restriction that many observers have imposed
on their definition of research utilization-that the research change
the decision from what it would have been in the absence of research-
makes the frequency of &dquo;utilization instances&dquo; in policy-making rarer
still. But when we recognize the many and diverse ways in which re-
search contributes to organizational action, we get a much more posi-
tive view of the influence of research.
I am particularly impressed by the numbers of people in our study
who had a strong sense that social science research mattered. Even when
they could not cite any conscious use of research, they believed that
they had assimilated generalizations, concepts, and perspectives from
the social sciences that inevitably colored their understanding and
shaped their actions. As Lindblom (1977) has written:

Fact, analysis, idea, and misinformation achieve their effects even when
influence is unintended, simply because all of us constantly react to our
perceptions of the world around us [1977: 52].

Social science, by helping to structure people’s perceptions of social

reality, seems to have pervasive effects. It provides an underlying set
of ideas, models of the interaction of people, conditions, and events,
which enter into our images of how the world works. The respondents
in our study underscored this indirect kind of knowledge creep.

The Diffuse Decision

But however pervasive the general effects of social science research
may be, and I have come to believe that they are substantial, we must
still confront the question of the specific effects. Why don’t the social
science research studies, evaluations, and analyses that are specifically
funded to help decision makers decide have more discernible effect?
Why can’t people in positions of organizational authority cite particular
studies that have influenced particular decisions?
In all fairness, I must report that we asked our respondents to name
a study they had found useful for their work and 72% produced a cita-

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

398

tion. (In all, 39% gave a full reference, and 33% gave a somewhat fuzzy
one, i.e., lacking the name of the author or the title of the study or the
journal/ publisher.) However, most of them had great difficulty in
identifying a particular publication that had been useful; some arbi-
trarily pulled a title out of their heads or off the bookshelf; and many
of them objected that the question was meaningless: They could not
disentangle the special contribution of any one study. Given the amount
of research in mental health that the government supports for the
ostensible purpose of affecting policy and program decisions, why
don’t more applications of research to decisions show up?
We know many of the reasons. Scholars over the years have cited a
series of disjunctures between research and decision that limit the use
of research. Research does not fit the exact circumstances within which
decisions are made, research is not ready on time for decisions, research
conclusions are not unambiguous or authoritative enough to provide
direct guidance, research reports do not reach the right audience,
decision makers do not understand or trust research findings or under-
stand how to interpret and apply them, the lessons from research
are outweighed by the combination of competing interests, agency self-

protection, and individual career concerns. These and other obstacles

block the route to application.
Officials in our study give a measure of support to several of these
explanations. But the undertext of their responses adds a further insight
into the nature of the problem. When we listen to them carefully, we
recognize that a salient reason why they do not report the use of research
for specific decisions is that many of them do not believe that they
make decisions.
The people we interviewed held responsible positions. At the federal
level, they were bureau chiefs, division directors, or higher-level ad-
ministrators in the National Institute of Mental Health, the National
Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism, and the parent agency, the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and
Mental Health Administration. At the state level, they held the tier
of positions just below the commissioner or director of mental health,
with titles such as deputy director of mental health, director of com-
munity programs, or director of addiction services At the local level,
they were directors of mental health centers and mental health hospitals
or chiefs of services within those agencies. Their titles and their statutory

responsibilities suggest considerable authority. Yet a great many of

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

 399

them indicated that decision-making was an inappropriate concept for

their work.
In our pretest interviews, we had a question asking respondents to
describe the kinds of decisions they made on their jobs. Discomfort
with the question was so prevalent and acute that in the final version
of the interview we discarded the &dquo;decision&dquo; wording and asked instead
about &dquo;the main functions of your job.&dquo; Only one question in the inter-
view retained the word &dquo;decision,&dquo; i.e., the question about conscious
use of social science research &dquo;in reaching decisions on your job.&dquo; Even
this scaled-down version drew frequent disclaimers. For examples
I don’t know what it means when you say &dquo;reaching decisions.&dquo; I decide
to answer or not answer various pieces of correspondence.... Let’s leave
decisions out and talk about action. (174)

The idea that they made decisions about policy, programs, budgets,
allocations, or services was widely disconcerting. If officials do not
give the label &dquo;decision&dquo; to their actions, even the highly consequential
actions they take, if they do not perceive their acts as decisions or as
part of decision-making, then they can hardly identify research that
influences their decisions.
Review of the responses suggests that three conditions mainly ac-
count for the disavowals of decision-making authority: (1) the dis-
persion of responsibility over many offices and the participation of
many actors in decision-making, so that no one individual feels that he
or she has a major say; (2) the division of authority among federal,

state, and local levels in the federal system; and (3) the series of gradual
and amorphous steps through which many decisions take shape.
Obviously in large organizations, decisions on complex issues are
almost never the province of one individual or one office. Many people
in many offices have a say, and when the outcomes of a course of action
are uncertain, many participants have opportunities to propose, plan,

confer, deliberate, advise, argue, forward policy statements, reject,

revise, veto, and rewrite. In addition, legislative action is often required
for major shifts in direction, and legislative appropriations are needed
for a major increase in activities. The operati-onal staffs in the agencies
aresensitive to the preferences and expectations of the legislature. How-
ever influential their own proposals and actions turn out in fact to be,
they are conscious of the recurrent approvals and sign-offs that must be
obtained within the department and the modifications that may be
introduced during the legislative process. In fact, they seem to be more

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

400

conscious of the power of others-whether or not it is exercised-than

they are of the influence of their own actions.
Given the slow and cumbersome process through which proposals
often travel, many organizational members are not fully aware of
the influence they have. They make proposals and see nothing happen
for months. Even if the proposal is eventually adopted with only minor
modifications, they may lose sight of the connection between what
they proposed and what eventually happens. And when a series of
adaptations is made, they seem to conclude that they have little power
in the system.
Officials at the top echelon can be equally convinced that they do
not make decisions. At the top of the hierarchy, it often looks as though
they are presented with a fait accompli. Accomodations have been
reached and a decision negotiated by people in the many offices below,
and they have little option but to accept it. Only rarely, and with the
expenditure of a considerable amount of their political capital, can they
change or reject it. To them, the job often looks like rubber-stamping
decisions already made. Thus, the division of authority leaves each
participant largely unaware of the nature and extent of his contribution.
The federal system adds further indeterminacy. During the inter-
viewing in our study, we were told by people at each governmental
level that &dquo;real&dquo; decisions were made elsewhere. Federal officials said
that Congress passed the law and determined the appropriations, and all
they did was write guidelines to carry out congressional intent and pass
the money down to the agencies, which made real decisions about
services. State officials said they were a conduit. They received federal
funds hedged about by congressional requirements and HEW guide-
lines, along with state funds restricted by requirements of the state
legislature. Their main job was not to decide but to do the paperwork
to move the money to operating agencies. To local agencies, it looked
as though funds came ringed around by tight constraints-legislative

provisions, federal guidelines, state plans and regulations-and extra

regulations for funds received from city, county, and third-party payers.
They saw little latitude for local &dquo;decisions.&dquo; They did what they were
allowed to do under the weight of rules.
Thus, fragmentation of authority for decisions is rot only horizontal
but vertical. For a decision to take effect requires cooperation at every
level. What the federal agency &dquo;decides&dquo; can be distorted or undone
by action (or inaction) in state and local agencies. What the care-giving

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

 401

agency &dquo;decides&dquo; is so hemmed in by requirements of other bodies that

it feels it has little discretion, Again, people at every point are more
conscious of the limits to their authority than of the latitude available.
The final set of reasons why the concept of decisions is inapt derives
from the nature of bureaucratic work. Many problems and issues are
dealt with simultaneously, and consideration of each one goes on over a
protracted period. Responsible officials only rarely convene at one
time and one place to make a decision. The image of decision-making
represented by President Kennedy and his group of advisers thrashing
out the nation’s response to the Cuban missile crisis is inappropriate
to most of daily bureaucratic life. Much more commonly, each person
takes some small step (writes a memo, answers an inquiry, edits the
draft of a regulation) that has seemingly small consequences. But over
a period of time, these many small steps foreclose alternative courses
of action and limit the range of the possible. Almost imperceptibly a
decision has been made, without anyone’s awareness that he or she was
deciding.
Many moves are improvisations. Faced with an event that calls for
response, officials use their experience, judgment, and intuition to
fashion the response for the issue at hand. That response becomes a
precedent, and when similar-or not so similar-questions come up, the
response is uncritically repeated. Consider the federal agency that
receives a call from a local program asking how to deal with requests
for enrollment in excess of the available number of slots. A staff member
responds with off-the-cuff advice. Within the next few weeks, programs
in three more cities call with similar questions, and staff repeat the
advice. Soon what began as improvisation has hardened into policy.
Bauer (1963) writes of this type of decision-making:

It isordinarily assumed that important decisions are made most deliber-

ately and ordinarily with the least constraint of other considerations.
But this is not always the case. For example, it has long been a complaint
of our State Department that the ordinary problems get explicit attention
and overall policy is made by default. There is a familiar phrase used to
describe this: &dquo;Policy is made on the wires,&dquo; that is, in the cabled responses
to specific problems arising in the field [1963: 59].

Kissinger (1979) recently explained how an action, taken for a

considered purpose, can be repeated unthinkingly under conditions
for which it was not designed. Writing about the &dquo;double-bookkeeping&dquo;

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

402

that kept the bombing of Cambodia secret, he said:

The method of reporting was set up for the first (and we then thought
only) strike on March 18, 1969.... What was originally conceived as a
one-time response to the North Vietnamese offensive became a continu-
ing practice about two and a half months later-after Hanoi had turned
down a
new peace offer. The double-bookkeeping set up for a single
attack was then
repeatedby rote and without a special new decision. This
may have been mindless [1979: E19].

Repetition is only one route to the accretion of policy without de-

cision. Some decisions take shape through a series of actions and
reactions. An inside or outside event triggers a move, which sets off
the next move, which leads to the next-until the unconcerted series
of well-advised or bumbling moves has shifted the direction of policy.
(Through such a series of disastrous moves, the great powers stumbled
into World War I.) The many independent accommodations and contests
lead to a result that no one anticipated.
Probably even more common is the decision that &dquo;happens&dquo; as a
side effect of other decisions. Nobody is paying explicit attention to
the issue at hand, but the unintended consequences of actions taken for
other purposes effectively set policy. A town that adopts strict environ-
mental regulations to preserve open spaces, coastline, and water in
effect limits the influx of new residents. Without conscious considera-
tion, it &dquo;decides&dquo; to keep out lower income and minority families. Or
a state agency with insufficient office space moves to an available
suburban location that happens to be poorly served by public transit.
In so doing, it in effect &dquo;decides&dquo; to reduce the number of inner-city
employees, even while its equal opportunity office is trying to increase
minority representation on staff.
Much of the literature on organizational decision-making assumes
that a set of officials with authority for an issue-arena exists, that this
set of officials becomes aware of a problem or opportunity within its
jurisdiction requiring action, that it generates options for dealing with
the situation, considers the advantages and disadvantages of each
option, and makes a conscious choice. In such a process, research and
analysis (as well as other information) can be formally taken into
account. But under many conditions, each one of the assumptions
breaks down. Many decisions &dquo;happen&dquo; without the (1) acknowledged

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

 403

responsibility, (2) boundedness of time and events, (3) purposiveness,

(4) calculation, or (5) perceived significance assumed in this image of
decisions.
The respondents in our study tended to view their work as a stream
of ongoing activities. They rarely thought of it as making discrete
decisions but rather as &dquo;doing their job.&dquo; They planned and recom-
mended and administered, but these were not time-specific, choice-
determining events. As Barnard (1962) wrote about an order to move
two telephone poles across the street:

It can, I think, be approximately demonstrated that carrying out that

order involves perhaps 10,000 decisions of 100 men located at 15 points,
requiring successive analyses of several environments, including social,
moral, legal, economic, and physical facts of the environment, and
requiring 9000 redefinitions and refinements of purpose, and 1000
changes of purpose. If inquiry be made of those responsible, probably
not more than half-a-dozen decisions will be recalled or deemed worthy
of mention.... The others will be &dquo;taken for granted,&dquo; all of a part of the
business of knowing one’s business [1962: 198].

People in high organizational positions similarly compress dozens of

large and small decisions into the category of knowing their business
and doing their work. In consequence, the conscious use of research
to guide specific choices is a relatively uncommon event. On the other
hand, drawing upon the stock of knowledge that they have absorbed
from social science research is highly compatible with the manner in
which they conceptualize (and perform) their jobs. What they do is
conditioned by what they know. The integration of social science
generalizations and concepts into their Weltanschauung can have
pervasive-if ultimately unmeasurable-effects. To the extent that their
viewpoints are shaped by information, misinformation, and ideas from
the social sciences, their policies will bear the imprint.

Note

1. The numbers in parentheses are the identification numbers of the respondents. The
100s are federal officials, 200s are state officials, and 300s are local officials.

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015

404

References
ALKIN, M., C. R. DAILLAK, and P. WHITE (1979) Using Evaluations: Does Evalua-
tion Make a Difference? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
BARNARD, C. I. (1962) The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Press.
BAUER, R. A. (1963) "Problem-solving behavior in organizations: a functional point of
view," in M. M. Hargrove, I. H. Harrison, and E. L. Swearingen (eds.) Business Policy
Cases-With Behavioral Science Implications. Homewood, IL; Irwin.
BAUMAN, L. J. and C. H. WEISS (1976) "The acceptance of social research by decision-
makers : a comparison of decision-makers’ and researchers’ views." Presented at the
American Association of Public Opinion Research meeting, Asheville, NC; May 14.
BERG, M. R., J. L. BRUDNEY, T. D. FULLER, D. N. MICHAEL, and B. K. ROTH
(1978) Factors Affecting Utilization of Technology Assessment Studies in Policy-
Making. Ann Arbor: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge,
University of Michigan.
CAPLAN, N., A. MORRISON, and R. J. STAMBAUGH (1975) The Use of Social
Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at the National Level: A Report to Respon-
dents. Ann Arbor: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge,
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
KISSINGER, H. A (1979) "America’s Role in Cambodia." New York Times (September
23): E 19.
KNORR, K. D. (1977) "Policymakers’ use of social science knowledge: symbolic or
instrumental?" C. H. Weiss (ed.) Using Social Research in Public Policy Making.
Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
LINDBLOM, C. E. (1977) Politics and Markets. New York: Basic.
PATTON, M. Q., P. S. GRIMES, K. M. GUTHRIE, N. J. BRENNAN, B. D. FRENCH,
and D. A. BLYTH (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. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
RICH, R. F. (1977) "Uses 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. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
WEISS, C. H. (1977) "Introduction," in C. H. Weiss (ed.) Using Social Research in
Public Policy Making. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
WEISS, C. H. and M. J. BUCUVALAS, (1977) "The challenge of social research to de-
cision making," in C. H. Weiss (ed.) Using Social Research in Public Policy Making.
Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
WEISS, C. H. and M. J. BUCUVALAS (forthcoming). Social Science Research and
Decision Making. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

CAROL H. WEISS is a at the Harvard University Graduate School

sociologist
of Education. Formerly atColumbia University, she has written extensively
about evaluation research, survey research methods, and federal research manage-
ment. Her earlier work led to a concern with the consequences of social science
research for public policy, a subject she has now been studying, writing, consulting,
and worrying about for six years. She is still doing so.

Downloaded from [Link] at UNIV OF MONTANA on April 4, 2015