|
Huberman, in his useful 'State of the Art' review of the literature on research utilization, argues strongly that a limited number of key variables of effective research dissemination can be identified that encapsulate most of the issues involved (Huberman 1994-95). These build on findings from a large number of studies and come under the general titles of: research context; user context; linkage mechanisms, predictors of local use; and dissemination effort. These are all brought together in a 'dissemination effort model' that can be used as a framework to define the most relevant variables in a particular instance (see figure 1).
Huberman recognises that this model appears linear and mechanistic but in its defence 'it does have the merit of putting in one place those variables that have been shown in several studies - and in very diverse configurations - to affect the use of research findings' (ibid.: 21).
The main criticism of such approaches is that they imply an overly 'linear' view of communication between research and the rest of society: that the 'research community takes a God's eye view of the world, and passes it on' (Huberman and Ben-Peretz 1994-95: 4). But, as we saw in the above section the decision-making context, 'research "users" are far from empty vessels waiting to be filled with the wisdom of research' (Huberman 1994-95: 28). Linear communication may mean that 'researchers have construed their audiences as passive 'targets', rather than as people weighing new information against the constructs and experiences they have built up throughout their lives' (ibid.: 31). The 'user' community is also not uniform - many different sorts of decision-makers seek to use research in different ways and for different purposes.
Some of the criticism of linear communication gets caught up in a slightly different matter. This is the assumption of some researchers that 'a valid study will convince readers to change their minds and acts, whatever the form in which that study is transmitted' (Huberman 1994: 31). As Huberman points out, this assumption is 'hubris'. But neither of these criticisms of linear communication undermines the case for thoughtful communication: in fact they reinforce it. But they do tend to emphasise the value of closer interactions between researchers and the decision-makers they are trying to influence, as discussed next.
|
