Joshua Newman

Flinders University, Australia

Adrian Cherney
Brian W. Head
University of Queensland, Australia

Do Policy Makers Use Academic Research? Reexamining the

Two Communities Theory of Research Utilization

Joshua Newman is a lecturer at

Flinders University in Adelaide, South
Australia, and an honorary research fellow
in the Institute for Social Science Research
at the University of Queensland in Brisbane,
Australia. His research interests include
processes of public policy, such as success,
failure, capacity, learning, and the interaction between the public and private sectors.
E-mail: joshua.newman@flinders.edu.au
Adrian Cherney is a senior lecturer
in the School of Social Science at the
University of Queensland. His research interests include evidence-based policy, police
and ethnic group relations, counterterrorism
policing, offender reentry, and institutional
legitimacy.
E-mail: a.cherney@uq.edu.au
Brian W. Head is professor of policy and
evaluation at the University of Queensland.
Previously, he worked in government. His
research interests include evidence-based
policy, collaborative governance, policy
capacity, complex wicked problems, program evaluation, accountability, and various
aspects of social and environmental policy.
E-mail: brian.head@uq.edu.au

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 76, Iss. 1, pp. 2432. 2015 by
The American Society for Public Administration.
DOI: 10.1111/puar.12464.

24

Abstract: Academics and policy makers in many Western countries are perceived as occupying separate communities,
with distinct languages, values, and reward systems. However, data from a survey of more than 2,000 policy ocials
and 126 in-depth interviews with public servants in Australia suggest that the two communities conceptualization
may be misleading and awed. More realistically, there is a range of interaction between policy and academia, with
some individuals valuing and using academic research more than others. Furthermore, this relationship is complicated
by the internal division between the political and administrative components of the public policy process.
Practitioner Points
Academics and policy practitioners are often seen as inhabiting separate communities, but in fact, there is a
range of interaction between the two groups.
There are internal divisions within the policy community, especially between administrators and politicians, which deserve greater attention.
Policy makers and academics should focus on bridging instruments that can bring their worlds closer together.

niversities are powerhouses of research, but by

many accounts, policy makers do not use academic research to its fullest potential (Nutley,
Walter, and Davies 2007). Over many decades, the
study of how policy decisions can be based onor
impervious tothe outputs of academic research
has grown, inspiring subgenres with names such as
research utilization, knowledge transfer, knowledge brokering, and evidence-based policy. Much
of this international literature assumes that the knowledge produced by university researchers has value and
merit and should be consumed more heartily than it
currently is by those who contribute directly to the
decisions that govern society (e.g., Banks 2009, 16).
The goal, then, is to discover how academic research
can be used more eectively to inform the formulation and implementation of public policy.
In the 1970s, early scholars of research utilization
argued that policy makers and academics formed two
separate communities that were poorly connected
and operated under dierent rules, spoke dierent
languages, and were motivated by dierent rewards
systems (Caplan 1979; Dunn 1980). This two communities construct has been adopted by many as a
way to describe the disconnect between the worlds
of academia and policy (e.g., Carden 2004, 138;
Edwards 2005, 68; Lavis, Ross, and Hurley 2002,
145). However, although it is generally accepted that

Public Administration Review January | February 2016

the supply of academic research greatly exceeds its

demand among policy makers, the reasons for this
imbalance are not widely agreed upon, and the most
eective strategies to improve the use of academic
research have yet to be identied. Accordingly, the two
communities theory of research utilization has faced
some criticism (Bogenschneider and Corbett 2010;
Jacobson 2007; Kalmuss 1981; Wingens 1990).
This article aims to add to the international debate by
exploring the validity of the two communities construct
in an empirical context. A survey of more than 2,000
policy workers and in-depth interviews with 126 public
servants at the state and federal levels in Australia are
used to explore the relationship between academics and
policy makers and to generally evaluate the two communities approach to understanding this relationship.
While this article focuses on a single country, the results
are likely to be generalizable beyond Australia, as aggregate responses to more general questions in the survey
were similar to results from previous studies in Canada
(Belkhodja et al. 2007), the United States (Lester 1993),
and the United Kingdom (Talbot and Talbot 2014).
Australian bureaucracies are similar to those in other
developed democracies, and comparisons have been
made in the past (e.g., Considine and Lewis 2003).
The survey and interview responses provide interesting results that pose a signicant challenge for

the two-communities approach. A substantial number of survey

A substantial literature that is critical of a linear, rationalist, or even
respondents indicated that they do not value academic research very technocratic approach to incorporating evidence into policy making
highly and do not often use the ndings of academic research when
has emerged in recent years (see, e.g., Adams 2004; Biesta 2007;
constructing advice for making policy, which, at rst glance, seems
Parsons 2002). These authors argue that policy making is never a
to support the notion of distinct policy and research communities.
rational process and that values, judgments, and ideology are as
However, a signicant subset of respondents indicated that they
important, and often more important, to decision making than the
do in fact use academic research for the purposes of policy making.
search for better policy outcomeshowever these outcomes may be
Furthermore, the interview responses suggest that there is a range of dened. More moderate authors have argued that both evidence and
opinion on the use of research and that attiideology are valid components of the policy
tudes toward the utility of academic outputs
Instead of operating within two process, so it might be more appropriate to
for policy can vary widely.
speak of evidence-informed policy rather
communities, the relationship
than evidence-based policy (Head 2013, 397;
between academia and policy
In all likelihood, then, the distinct and separate
Nutley, Walter, and Davies 2003, 126). In any
more likely occurs along a spec- case, research (particularly academic research)
communities metaphor is probably not an
trum of interaction, with some
appropriate way to understand the relationplays a role in the policy process; whether that
ship between academia and policy because
role is instrumental or symbolic is a parallel
public servants engaging more
these are not homogenous, isolated groups
issue that deserves separate consideration.
closely with academic research
(Bogenschneider and Corbett 2010; Orr and
than others by degrees.
Bennett 2012). It is possible that their dierIn spite of the more recent shift in attention
ences in structure and organization and the
from a focus on research to a focus on policy,
limited interaction between them can be overcome, as evidenced by
the fundamental question is, and has always been, why is academic
the ndings in this article and in previous empirical studies of policy
research not used more by policy decision makers? In attempting
makers (e.g., see Amara, Ouimet, and Landry
to answer this question, and following C. P.
2004; Lester 1993) showing that there is a
Snows (1959) characterization of the humaniBoth evidence and ideology
sizable contingent of respondents who report
ties and the natural sciences as two cultures,
are valid components of the
valuing and using academic research. Instead
Caplan (1979) separated the worlds of
policy process, so it might be
of operating within two communities, the
academic research and policy making in what
relationship between academia and policy more
he termed the two communities theory of
more appropriate to speak of
likely occurs along a spectrum of interaction,
knowledge utilization. According to Caplan,
evidence-informed policy
with some public servants engaging more
government policy makers are actionrather than evidence-based
closely with academic research than others by
oriented, practical persons concerned with
policy.
degrees. However, as will be explained later,
obvious and immediate issues while social
this relationship is further complicated by the
scientists are intellectuals who are concerned
internal division between the political and administrative components with pure science and esoteric issues (1979, 459). These qualities,
of the policy process.
according to the theory, are cultural and ingrained in the nature of
the two communities, and they constitute the primary reason why
The Two-Communities Approach to Understanding
academic research is not as valuable to policy making as it ultimately
Research Utilization
could be.
In the 1970s and 1980s, a body of scholarship began to emerge on
the relationship between social science research and the formulation The notion that policy makers and academics have dierent incenand implementation of public policy. The emphasis in those days
tives, rules, obligations, and interests has proven persuasive over the
was on how research could be used by policy makers (C. H. Weiss
last 30 years. Edwards (2005, 68), for instance, argues that research1979), how dierent policy sectors might use research dierently
ers often see governments as risk averse, too focused on the short
(J. A. Weiss 1979), and whether research is actually used by policy
term, anti-intellectual, and motivated by ideology, while governmakers at all (Bardach 1984; Caplan, Morrison, and Stambaugh
ments see policy research as lacking relevance to current policy
1975; Kalmuss 1981). More recently, there has been a renewed
debates and to day-to-day issues in program delivery. Head (2010,
international interest in the use of research in policy making, but
88) warns that the research and policy communities must overthis time the lens is focused on the policy end of the researchpolicy come mutual ignorance and indierence if policy is to be based on
relationship. The evidence-based policy movement, as it is now
research evidence. Frenk (1992, 1398) argues that researchers and
referred to, increasingly encourages governments to be concerned
policy makers communicate dierentlyresearchers must commuwith what works, especially since the U.K. government under
nicate in complicated, scientic language, while policy makers need
Tony Blair rst used this term as its slogan for public management
to make quick, accessible decisions that can be understood by everyreform (Legrand 2012; Sanderson 2003). Politicians (e.g., OMalley one. Others have pointed to the dierent goals pursued by the two
2014) and bureaucracies (European Commission 2010; OECD
communities, as researchers aim to increase knowledge while policy
2013; Productivity Commission 2010) have expressed an interest
makers objectives are more concretely attached to operational
in increasing the use of research evidence to inform policy decision
matters (Hemsley-Brown 2004, 539). It has also been suggested
making, with the assumption that increased information will lead to that although interaction between the communities may improve
more popular and more sustainable policy outcomes.
the uptake of academic research by policy makers, the communities
are themselves resistant to interacting with each other (Lavis, Ross,
Do Policy Makers Use Academic Research? Reexamining the Two Communities Theory of Research Utilization 25

and Hurley 2002, 145). In general, these authors believe that there
are fundamental dierences between researchers and policy makers
and that these dierences impede a process that would otherwise see
academic research inform and inuence policy directly and more
abundantly (Raadschelders 2011, 14445).
The two-communities thesis has been supported by numerous
empirical studies in several countries, showing that policy makers do not appear to use or value academic research to its fullest
potential. One study, in which 155 ocials in U.S. mental health
agencies were interviewed, found that instrumental use of academic
research 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 (Weiss 1980, 397).
Another study, in which 113 American state-level public servants were surveyed about their use of academic research for policy
making, found that decision makers are reluctant to draw from
university faculty and research organizations for their policy advice
(Lester 1993, 276). In Canada, a survey of 833 ocials in federal
and provincial government agencies, using Likert-scale questions
about the use of academic research in policy making ranging from
1 (never) to 5 (always), found average scores as low as 2.15 for the
adoption of research and 2.25 for the inuence of research on policy
outcomes (Landry, Lamari, and Amara 2003, 198). In another
Canadian study, an analysis of survey responses from 1,512 policy
workers in nine provincial governments found that Canadian policy
workers may not have the capacity required to practice a high level
of evidence-based policy analysis and policy-making (Howlett and
Newman 2010, 131). In the United Kingdom, a survey of 340
senior civil servants from a variety of policy areas found that there is
a major disjunction . . . between what senior civil servants perceive
as being important disciplines and what academic institutions have
seen as important (Talbot and Talbot 2014, 15). And in another
survey of 916 managers in Canadian health services agencies, it was
found that although most respondents admitted receiving academic
research, a signicant number also reported that research never or
rarely inuenced their decisions or that research was never or rarely
transformed into concrete applications (Belkhodja et al. 2007, 405).
However, none of the studies cited found a total absence of research
use by policy makers. In fact, in all of the studies, there were signicant subsets of respondents who reported that academic research
was valuable to them and had a practical inuence on their policy
advice and decision making. Some authors found that research use
by policy makers even exceeded expectations (e.g., Talbot and Talbot
2014, 10). Furthermore, survey data from the United States suggests
that policy makers may use research to dierent degrees depending
on the questions they are asking, the level of risk involved, and the
issue area in which they work (Hall and Jennings 2008; Jennings
and Hall 2012). There is reason to doubt the validity of a theory,
therefore, that models policy makers and academics as two homogenous groups with little interaction between them.
Despite challenging the two-communities thesis, previous studies
do not go far enough. For instance, Webbers (1986) study, in which
Indiana lawmakers were surveyed about the connection between job
roles and research use, provides an interesting starting point but it is
not broad enough to be generalizable to other kinds of policy makers. Much of the critical research in this area is from the 1980s and
26

Public Administration Review January | February 2016

may require support from a more current empirical study. Of course,

the fact that most of the initial work was done more than 30 years
ago has not deterred scholars from continuing to use the twocommunities approach to understand the use of research by policy
makers (e.g., Lavis, Ross, and Hurley 2002, 145; Shonko 2000;
Tseng and Nutley 2014; Ward, House, and Hamer 2009, 271).
Furthermore, much of the two-communities literature presents a
policy community that is poorly dened. Most glaringly, the policy
community is usually understood to include both politicians and
bureaucrats. However, these two groups of actors have dierent
rules, motivations, and organizational structures, such as constitutional rules rather than bureaucratic organization, incentives to seek
reelection as opposed to those of job promotion, and adversarial
party politics instead of hierarchy. For analytical purposes, the use
of academic research in the bureaucratic and political elements of
policy making should be examined separately (Page 2012).
In fact, even within the bureaucratic component of the policy
community, it has been suggested that decision-making bureaucrats
might work in various roles that would require them to use academic research in dierent ways. For example, Cunningham and
Weschler (2002) argue that some policy workers are responsible for
the technical problem solving of day-to-day policy issues, in which
case they would not be required to engage with academic theory on
public policy because they are occupied by short-term issues, technical policy emergencies, and problems of implementation. Others,
whose job roles might involve innovative thinking and long-term
strategic planning, would have to be familiar with policy theory and
would need to know how to apply it to specic areas of policy formulation and implementation. Of course, by dividing the bureaucracy into binary subgroups in the above manner, one runs the risk
of further enforcing the error of homogenization that the twocommunities theory presents in the rst place. As will be argued
later, these internal dierences in the roles of decision makers and
their various levels of engagement with academic research should be
more appropriately envisioned as existing along a spectrum rather
than in a small number of distinct groups.
In general, then, the two-communities metaphor may not be a
useful way of imagining the relationship between academic research
and policy. Any way that the communities are dened, some subset
of professional policy workers will report that they engage with
academic research and consider it vital to their policy development
work. We tested some of these matters in a large empirical study in
order to shed some more light on these international debates.
The Survey and Its Methodology
Beginning in November 2011 and ending in March 2013, a research
team at the University of Queensland conducted a survey of 2,084
public servants at the state and federal levels in Australia on their
use of academic research in their policy-related work (for details, see
Cherney et al. 2013; Cherney et al. 2015; Head et al. 2014). The
survey was aimed at policy-relevant personnel working in government departments and public sector agencies that administer and
deliver human service programs. A questionnaire was delivered electronically to public servants in 21 departments and agencies within
the national government and the state governments of Queensland,
Victoria, and New South Wales, which are the three most populous

states and together represent more than three-quarters of the

Australian population. In addition, one-hour semistructured interviews were conducted in person or by telephone with 126 participants representing a variety of policy areas and geographic locations.
It must rst be acknowledged that the survey instrument does not
use a probability sample. Ideally, the research team would have
been able to obtain a list of all potentially relevant participants in
the entire Australian public service and then would have selected
some smaller number of participants randomly and in some way
compelled them to complete the survey. In a practical world, this is
simply not possible. For one thing, it is impossible (not to mention
unethical) to compel people to participate in social research. For
this reason, this survey and all similar studies must contend with the
problem of self-selection bias.
Second, and relatedly, the research team was not able to obtain complete contact information for all of the potentially relevant participants. This is because the participating organizations were concerned
with protecting the anonymity of their employees. In many cases, the
survey was delivered to managers who then distributed the survey
internally. This increases the problem of selection bias and also makes
calculating response rates dicult, if not impossible. It also means
that the sampling technique proceeded more like a census than a
statistically representative probability sample (Fricker 2008).
However, there is good reason to consider the results of the survey to be empirically useful. The ready and enthusiastic cooperation of managers in the participating organizations suggests that
they understood the purpose and utility of the project and likely
directed the survey to appropriate personnel. In addition, the way
in which the questionnaire and the instructions to the survey were
worded made it dicult for unintended or inappropriate recipients
to complete the survey and thereby bias the survey results in any
meaningful way. Finally, if self-selection bias were a problem, one
would expect that those who value academic research and use it in
their policy work would be more likely to opt in to the study, which
would skew the outcome by overrepresenting research users. In fact,
as will be shown later, research users were decidedly in the minority among the surveys respondents. Therefore, even if self-selection
resulted in an overrepresentation of research use, this has not necessarily altered the aggregate results of the survey.
Strictly speaking, then, the results of the survey component of this
study should be interpreted as applying only to Australian policy
workers who would be interested in participating in a survey on
the use of academic research in policy making and should not be
scientically extrapolated to include people outside this population.
However, given that the large quantity of respondents came from a
diverse background of policy areas, jurisdictions, ages, and stages of
their career, it is likely that this studys results should provide interesting suggestions beyond the immediate population of respondents.
Furthermore, the method used in this study is probably the best
method for conducting survey research on a sector that is structurally designed at an institutional level to protect individuals from
being identied, that traditionally operates with a unied voice, and
that is intended to be resistant to outside inuence. These characteristics apply to the public service in most modern democracies, in
Australia as well as internationally.

The Results of the Survey: Is the Two-Communities

Thesis Supported?
The survey asked a number of questions about the use of academic
research for the purposes of policy making. Many of the survey
questions were adapted from survey instruments used in other
countries in previous studies on research utilization, in particular
the survey used by a team at Laval University in Quebec (see Amara,
Ouimet, and Landry 2004; Belkhodja et al. 2007). The adapted
survey instrument was then tested in a pilot study, and feedback
from this pilot group resulted in further modications. Questions
that pertain to individual use of academic research in policy-related
work and summaries of responses are shown in table 1.
It is clear from the results in table 1 that the public servants who
completed the survey have access to academic research. The majority
of respondents (58 percent) reported using electronic databases in
addition to Google to download academic research, with only 30
percent reporting that they always or usually experience diculty
in accessing full-text versions of academic articles. Moreover, more
than 60 percent of respondents reported drawing on academic
research for use in their written documents.
However, while policy workers may have access to academic
research, and they may even devote some space to it in their written
work, it is less clear to what extent academic research ultimately
inuences policy (Head et al. 2014). A question asking whether
academic research was used to improve the understanding of policy,
with responses ranging from 1 (frequently) to 4 (never), resulted in
a mean answer of 2.062, which is very close to occasionally and

Table 1 Individual Use of Academic Research in Policy-Related Work

In addition to using general search engines (e.g. Google), do you access electronic bibliographic databases from which to download or print academic
journal abstracts, articles, or reports?
Yes: 58.3%
No: 41.7%
How often do you experience difficulties in accessing full-text versions of
academic articles and reports?
(1 = Always, 2 = Usually, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Never)
Mean = 2.813
Breakdown: Always, 7%; usually, 23%; sometimes, 53%; never, 18%
Within the past 12 months, have you written one or more documents that draw
on academic research?
Yes: 60.7%
No: 39.3%
Please indicate your opinion regarding the following statement.
(1 = Frequently, 2 = Occasionally, 3 = Rarely, 4 = Never)
In the last 12 months, I have used journal articles and books produced by
academics to understand policies and programs in my field.
Mean = 2.062
Drawing on your experience concerning the use of research, please indicate
your opinion regarding the following statements.
(1 = Always, 2 = Usually, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Rarely, 5 = Never, 6 = Does
not apply)
I receive university research that is relevant to my work.
Mean = 3.143 (excluding Does not apply)
I have cited university research studies in my own professional reports or
documents.
Mean = 2.897 (excluding Does not apply)
I have adapted the findings of university research to provide information
useful to policy decision making.
Mean = 2.981 (excluding Does not apply)

Do Policy Makers Use Academic Research? Reexamining the Two Communities Theory of Research Utilization 27

hardly an emphatic endorsement of academic research. In a series

of questions with scaled responses ranging from 1 (always) to 5
(never), respondents were asked how often they receive relevant academic research, how often they cite academic research directly, and
how often they adapt academic research for use in crafting policy.
All of these questions yielded mean responses very close to 3.0,
indicating, on average, no special inclination toward using research
for policy making purposes. Of course, means are summary indicators only and do not reect the spread of responses. In fact, only 28
percent of respondents indicated that they always or usually adapt
academic research for informing policy.
A second series of questions asked participants to indicate their
perceptions of the use of research in policy making on a scale of
1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The responses in this
section seem to suggest that pressures of scarce nancial resources
and short time frames provide little opportunity for long-term
conceptual uses for the outputs of academic research (see table 2).
For example, the mean response to the statements Policy-making
is driven by budgetary considerations and Responding to urgent
day-to-day issues takes precedence over long-term thinking were
both very close to 2.0, indicating that, on average, respondents
agreed with these statements.
What is striking about all of these responses is that in very few
cases was there a trend toward responses that might support a twocommunities view of the policyacademia relationship. If policy and
academia really were two separate communities with diculties in
communication and barriers to interaction, one would expect mean
responses to the survey questions to converge on low levels of use of

Table 2 Respondents Attitudes Regarding Policy

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements
concerning policy making in your department:
(1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Disagree, 5 = Strongly disagree)
Responding to urgent day-to-day issues takes precedence over long-term
thinking.
Mean = 2.152
Policy making is crisis driven.
Mean = 2.560
The time frame to make policy decisions is too short in which to consider all
policy options.
Mean = 2.414
The media has too much of an influence over policy-related decisions.
Mean = 2.400
Policy making is driven by budgetary considerations.
Mean = 1.904
Policy decisions are based on what is politically acceptable.
Mean = 2.046
Policy decisions are based on research data and evidence about what works.
Mean = 2.790
There is very little benefit in using research to inform policy-related decisions
because Heads of Departments and their advisors just ignore it.
Mean = 3.368
Policy making is captured by special interest groups.
Mean = 2.963
There are too many competing interests to consider when making policyrelevant decisions.
Mean = 3.147
Senior decision makers are usually generalists who may lack specialized content knowledge.
Mean = 2.827
Research-based analysis is valued by decision makers in my organization.
Mean = 2.349

28

Public Administration Review January | February 2016

academic research in policy making. Instead, the survey responses

trended toward very neutral responses, with no marked emphasis
on either ignorance of academic research or structured uptake for
policy making purposes. Mean responses trended toward the middle
of the range of values, and there were substantial numbers of participants indicating responses across the spectrum in all areas.
The apparent suggestion, then, is that the two-communities theory
is probably not the best way to understand the relationship between
policy and academia. More likely, there is a range of activities
involving the use of academic research in policy making, and different individuals will use research in dierent ways and to various
degrees. In fact, this alternative view is supported by the responses
given in the in-depth interviews.
Interview Responses: A Wide Range of Opinions
Regarding Research
Semistructured interviews were conducted with senior managers
and other highly experienced personnel representing a variety of
public sector organizations and working in numerous policy areas.
The interview sample was recruited in a number of ways. First, after
the completion of the survey process within each respective agency,
each agency contact assigned to help the academic team with
recruiting the survey sample was invited to identify and nominate a
small number of senior sta in relevant positions who were willing
to participate in an in-depth interview. Not all of the selected interviewees had previously completed the survey. In addition, a number
of current and former senior public servants, including some in the
partner or collaborating agencies providing cash and in-kind support to the research, were identied by the project team and directly
contacted with an invitation to participate in an interview. A total of
126 interviews were conducted from July 2012 to December 2013.
This sample was composed of 74 males and 52 females across dierent state and federal government departments.
The interview schedule was divided into a number of sections and
involved asking interviewees their opinions regarding the use of
academic research in policy making, their personal and professional connection to academia, and the timeliness, usefulness, and
relevance of academic research to decision making in public policy.
Interview data were coded in NVivo 10, with a research assistant
and members of the research team reviewing the data and formulating themes and subthemes to which segments of interview data
were then allocated. Four major themes were identied that relate to
the present discussion: academic contextual factors such as incentive structures and institutional priorities; research dissemination;
knowledge brokering; and competing pressures on policy formulation, such as those coming up from stakeholders or down from the
political executive.
A number of interview subjects held negative opinions of academic
research, or at least their responses could be interpreted as supporting the two-communities thesis. Content analysis revealed 86 references to attitudinal factors between academics and policy makers as
a barrier to research use. These interviewees reported that they have
little use for academic research, that academics are not in tune with
the needs of policy makers, that academia does not produce relevant
research that could be used in real time by policy makers, and that
academics motivations and timelines are simply not compatible

with the requirements of public sector decision makers. According

to one respondent, a language barrier exists that obstructs communication between academics and policy makers:
Academics are typically highly specialized in the work they
do. They tend to write about it in ways that, to the nonspecialist, are obscure, if not impossible to understand.
(Interview PS1_19.03.12: former senior ocial from the
federal Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; male)
The most common comment from respondents was that
academics work on longer time frames that are thought to be
incompatible with the quicker timing requirements of policy
makers. The same interviewee quoted above, for example, was
emphatic on this point:
If academics say, well, how do we improve the hospital
system? Well give you what we think in two years time. Well
who gives a damn, basically. Theyre not part of the game.
According to another interviewee,
Trying to get relatively quick analysis through an academic
environment is dicult, because their timetabling and
demands dont meet yours. (Interview PSVT76_14.12.12:
senior ocial from a state treasury department; female)
One respondent, who agreed that there are scheduling dierences
between academics and policy makers, attributed these dierences
to diverging prioritiesespecially the rewards and incentives in
academia, which are largely attached to academic publishing:
To be frank, its our experience that we know on the whole
that the academic institutions prefer to do things with longer
time frames, even in their consultancy part of their business.
There is a premium on publication for them, so that can be a
tension. . . . we understand that there generally isnt as much
interest, also, from the research community to do that sort
of work for us, because it doesnt necessarily t with their
other priorities and other demands on their time. (Interview
PSFC110_30.05.13: senior ocial from the federal
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services, and
Indigenous Aairs; female)
As one interviewee put it simply, academic
research is just not relevant to policy:
I think the limitations on the evidence
available is also a problem . . . you know,
a lot of academics arent dealing with the
research policymakers need. (Interview
PSPC69_28.11.12: ocial from the
Australian Productivity Commission;
female)

academics with mutual benets. For one respondent, academic

research
[has] been absolutely critical, absolutely critical, toand if
I reect back onto my work in [previous public sector positions]absolutely central. (Interview PSNC99_09.04.13:
ocial from a state department of community services; female)
Another respondent pointed to the high quality of academic work:
[W]e look to the universities to produce some of the more
rigorous evidence and we commission and contract out
workuniversities are on our research panels that we use
and theyre often some of the leaders in the work that is done
in this space. (Interview PSFC113_29.07.13: manager from
the federal Department of Families, Housing, Community
Services and Indigenous Aairs; male)
Of course, the foregoing views represent two ends of a spectrum
rather than polarized groups. By far, the majority of commentary
was fairly neutral, or regarded academic research as valuable in some
instances, or, as was the case with at least 41 references identied
by the content analysis, took the view that academic research has
the potential to be used more often than is currently the case. For
instance, according to one interviewee, the reason academic research
is often not seen as relevant to policy makers is that researchers have
not been made aware of the issues that public sector decision makers
are confronted with:
[W]e used to fund research but then not use the research.
Why we didnt use the research was it wasnt useful. What that
does is then, particularly in times like now, cause the potential
to cut o the possibility of research at all. I think thats a very
bad outcome. (Interview PS14_24.08.12: senior ocial from
a state department of housing; female)
Other interviewees agreed with the sentiment that research uptake
would be improved if the public sector could be more proactive in
communicating with academics. According to one respondent,

I think one way would be to be far more assertive at the

beginning of the process . . . ask a number of academics in to
talk about this and to make it clear what the range of policy
options were likely to be, but on which
there had been no decision and which
Informal networks between
would require evidence, and to make sure
policy makers and academics
that instead of simply contracting with
can serve to channel informaone or all of those to go and do a piece
tion between the two sectors
of research, to actually have an ongoing
and can help policy makers
process. (Interview PS3_09.07.12: former
senior ocial from the federal Department
decide when it is appropriate
of Prime Minister and Cabinet; male)
to contract work to academics

and what kind of work to invite

them to contribute to.

These negative perceptions of academic

research were not universal, however. Other interview subjects had a
very positive and enthusiastic attitude toward academia, and content
analysis identied 37 references to partnership between policy and

In a similar vein, one respondent commented

that informal networks between policy makers
and academics can serve to channel information between the two sectors and can help policy makers decide
when it is appropriate to contract work to academics and what kind
of work to invite them to contribute to:

Do Policy Makers Use Academic Research? Reexamining the Two Communities Theory of Research Utilization 29

I think a lot of it initially happens informally, so networks

are important, incredibly important. If youve got a question
and you know theres an expert in a particular university,
the rst thing might be just a phone call and a chat, and
start scoping out some ideas. You might recognize a need for
something within government, but you want to start talking
to people just to formalize what that might look like before
it even becomes a formal request for research. (Interview
PSQW27_20.09.12: senior ocial from a state department of
education; male)
Many respondents took the position that academic research is irrelevant because political considerations trump evidence when policy
decisions get made. Content analysis revealed 120 references to a
pessimistic outlook on the use of evidence to support policy because
of the inuence of politics and a further 50 references to time and
money factors. According to one interviewee, there is no evidencebased policy,
[only] policy-based evidence. This is what were going to do,
go nd something that can be made to sound like it supports
this. . . . If theres a piece of academic work that supports a
pre-chosen position clearly, it gets adopted. If theres an entire
body of work that challenges an already chosen position, it
just gets wiped. (Interview PSQW38_12.10.12: ocial from
a state department of education; male)

interaction between policy makers and academics, there does appear

to be a wide range of activity in which academics and policy makers
interact, and many respondents in this study believed that there is
substantial potential for interaction, communication, and cooperation to be improved.
If this studys respondents are correct, and there is in fact rich
potential for improved use of academic research in policy making,
it is probable that this improvement might come about through
the work of specialized bridgers, as many have noted previously
in international studies (Hargadon 1998; Knight and Lightowler
2010; Williams 2002). These knowledge brokers or boundary
spanners may have the capacity to demonstrate the utility of academic research within the policy process to policy makers, but only
if they understand the needs of policy makers and can translate the
outputs of academia into forms that are recognizable as being useful to policy decision makers. This may involve selecting academic
research that is most relevant to policy makers needs, but it could
also require packaging and presentation of academic outputs into
formats that are best and most quickly absorbed by policy makers,
who might require structured summaries of research because they
do not have the capacity to review the research themselves (Maynard
2006). The fact that many policy makers are already using academic
research and that knowledge brokering already occurs provides
encouragement to those who would like to see a greater uptake of
academic research by those who are tasked with directing public
policy.

Another respondent related,

By the time we are aware of what the policies are its can
you provide us with supporting information? So the policy
shapes the evidence rather than the evidence driving the
policy. (Interview PSQW30_25.09.12: economist formerly
from a state treasury department; male)
According to one interviewee, political decision making is the primary reason academic research does not get used more:

One of the central arguments of the two-communities thesis is that

the lines of communication between academia and policy are broken. This is demonstrably not true, neither in the Australian context
nor in other Western countries (Bogenschneider and Corbett
2010). Both survey respondents and interview subjects in this study
reported that they are receiving academic research, that they have
access to academic articles and reports, and that they are aware of
academic research topics.

The two-communities approach also emphasizes the diverging rewards structures and incentives in policy and academia.
Specically, the academic focus on publishing is seen as not being
conducive to policy impact (Cherney et al. 2012). This may be true,
and this sentiment is reected in this studys survey and interview
responses. However, because academic research is available to
policy makers even if it is not specically directed to them, perhaps
the policy sector does, as many interview respondents seemed to
suggest, have a greater responsibility to access and ultimately use
academic research for policy making purposes without having to be
Discussion
prompted directly by academic researchers. As
It is likely that the two-communities approach
is evident in this studys interview responses,
Academics and policy makers
is not an accurate or appropriate way to
many public servants see academic research
may be faced with dierent
understand the relationship between policy
not as a plentiful resource of knowledge
and academia. Our survey data and interview
about a multitude of policy-relevant topics
pressures, incentives, rewards,
responses suggest that, at least in Australia,
but rather in terms of whether the research
and time frames, but by many
the academic and policy communities are not
accounts, these obstacles are not helps them address immediate policy priorihomogenous, and they are not completely
ties. In addition to instrumental purposes of
insurmountable.
isolated. Academics and policy makers may
academic research, such as helping identify
be faced with dierent pressures, incentives,
solutions to policy problems, academic work
rewards, and time frames, but by many accounts, these obstacles are can have a conceptual purpose as a source of intellectual output as
not insurmountable. In short, while there may at present be limited
well. Pushing ideational boundaries requires looser time frames and
I think theres been some fantastic research done by a large
number of academics, who have been working in this space
for a long time, a lot of passion, a lot of energy but have not
been able to translate all of those lessons learned and those
ndings to inform changes in government policy. Part of
thats because, again, the electoral cycle, three to four years.
(Interview PSFC109_30.05.13: senior ocial working in
indigenous aairs; male)

30

Public Administration Review January | February 2016

complete intellectual freedom, as opposed to an instrumental view

of academic research as work that is available on request, to purpose,
and by contract. Perhaps if public sector decision makers saw academic research more often as conceptual enlightenment with some
applied benets rather than as a form of contract laborto be hired
when a policy problem needs solvingthey might be less frequently
disappointed with academic outputs (Hammersley 2014).

Banks, Gary. 2009. Evidence-Based Policy-Making: What Is It? How Do We Get It?
Canberra, Australia: Productivity Commission.
Bardach, Eugene. 1984. The Dissemination of Policy Research to Policymakers.
Science Communication 6(2): 12544.
Belkhodja, Omar, Nabil Amara, Rjean Landry, and Mathieu Ouimet. 2007. The
Extent and Organizational Determinants of Research Utilization in Canadian
Health Services Organizations. Science Communication 28(3): 377417.
Biesta, Gert. 2007. Why What Works Wont Work: Evidence-Based Practice and the

Most importantly, a theory that frames the policyacademia nexus

as being composed of only two communities ignores the fact that
within both policy and academia, there are subgroups worthy of
recognition. These include dierences among research disciplines
and traditions within academia that drive engagement with policy
problems (Cherney et al. 2013) and dierences between the administrative and political arms of the policy making apparatus, which
do not always work in concert. As one respondent put it,

Democratic Decit in Educational Research. Educational Theory 57(1): 122.

Bogenschneider, Karen, and Thomas J. Corbett. 2010. Evidence-Based Policymaking:
Insights from Policy-Minded Researchers and Research-Minded Policymakers. New
York: Routledge.
Caplan, Nathan. 1979. The Two-Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilization.
American Behavioral Scientist 22(3): 45970.
Caplan, Nathan, Andrea Morrison, and Russell J. Stambaugh. 1975. The Use of
Social Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at the National Level: A Report to
Respondents. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

We [public servants] are not elected. They [politicians] are

elected. They are elected to deliver certain things that they
consider are the things which they were elected to deliver.
They dont have to be evidence-based. Its a dierent role. Its
a completely dierent role. I dont see it as a conict, and I
dont see it as a tension. (Interview PSFE108_16.05.13: senior
ocial from the federal department of education; female)

Carden, Fred. 2004. Issues in Assessing the Policy Inuence of Research.

International Social Science Journal 56(179): 13551.
Cherney, Adrian. 2013. AcademicIndustry Collaborations and Knowledge
Co-Production in the Social Sciences. Journal of Sociology. Published electronically on July 8. doi:10.1177/1440783313492237.
Cherney, Adrian, Brian W. Head, Paul Boreham, Jenny Povey, and Michele Ferguson.
2012. Perspectives of Academic Social Scientists on Knowledge Transfer and
Research Collaborations: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Australian Academics.

Conclusion
Analysis of international literature and the data from this studys
survey and in-depth interviews with Australian public servants
seems to suggest that the two-communities conceptualization of
the relationship between policy and academia is misleading and
that a much more nuanced account of the relationship is necessary.
Dissemination practices do vary within academia (Cherney et al.
2013), as do research uptake practices within the policy domain
and the types of relationship-building activities that are adopted
(Bogenschneider and Corbett 2010; Cherney 2013; Haynes et al.
2011). Thus, a more realistic approach would acknowledge that
there is a range of interactions between policy and academia, with
dierent individual policy makers valuing and using academic
research more than others. Many public servants see the potential
for increased interaction and cooperation. Importantly, there is
a perception among bureaucrats that political decision making
aects policy dierently than administrative decision making, and
therefore perhaps the political and administrative levels ought to be
recognized as separate communities in their own right.

Evidence and Policy 8(4): 43353.

Cherney, Adrian, Brian W. Head, Jenny Povey, Paul Boreham, and Michele Ferguson.
2013. The Utilisation of Social Science ResearchThe Perspectives of Academic
Researchers in Australia. Journal of Sociology 51(2): 25270.
Cherney, Adrian, Brian W. Head, Jenny Povey, Michele Ferguson, and Paul
Boreham. 2015. Use of Academic Social Research by Public Ocials: Exploring
Preferences and Constraints That Impact on Research Use. Evidence and Policy
11(2): 16988.
Considine, Mark, and Jenny M. Lewis. 2003. Bureaucracy, Network, or Enterprise?
Comparing Models of Governance in Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and
New Zealand. Public Administration Review 63(2): 13140.
Cunningham, Robert, and Louis Weschler. 2002. Theory and the Public Administration
Student/Practitioner. Public Administration Review 62(1): 10411.
Dunn, William N. 1980. The Two-Communities Metaphor and Models of
Knowledge Use: An Exploratory Case Survey. Science Communication 1(4):
51536.
Edwards, Meredith. 2005. Social Science Research and Public Policy: Narrowing the
Divide. Australian Journal of Public Administration 64(1): 6874.
European Commission. 2010. Communicating Research for Evidence-Based
Policymaking: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Socio-Economic Sciences and

Acknowledgments
The data presented are drawn from an Australian Research Council
funded project with nine industry partners (LP 100100380). These
partners provided in-kind and cash support. The authors would also
like to acknowledge the work of Paul Boreham, Michele Ferguson,
Jenny Povey, and Stephanie Plage in the Institute for Social Science
Research at the University of Queensland.

Humanities. Brussels: European Commission.

Frenk, Julio. 1992. Balancing Relevance and Excellence: Organizational Responses
to Link Research with Decision Making. Social Science and Medicine 35(11):
13971404.
Fricker, Ronald D., Jr. 2008. Sampling Methods for Web and E-Mail Surveys. In The
Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods, edited by Nigel Fielding, Raymond
M. Lee, and Grant Blank, 195217. London: Sage Publications.
Hall, Jeremy L., and Edward T. Jennings, Jr. 2008. Taking Chances: Evaluating Risk

References

as a Guide to Better Use of Best Practices. Public Administration Review 68(4):

Adams, David. 2004. Usable Knowledge in Public Policy. Australian Journal of Public
Administration 63(1): 2942.
Amara, Nabil, Mathieu Ouimet, and Rjean Landry. 2004. New Evidence on
Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in
Government Agencies. Science Communication 26(1): 75106.

695708.
Hammersley, Martyn. 2014. The Perils of Impact for Academic Social Science.
Contemporary Social Science 9(3): 34555.
Hargadon, Andrew B. 1998. Firms as Knowledge Brokers: Lessons in Pursuing
Continuous Innovation. California Management Review 40(3): 20927.

Do Policy Makers Use Academic Research? Reexamining the Two Communities Theory of Research Utilization 31

Haynes, Abby S., James A. Gillespie, Gemma E. Derrick, Wayne D. Hall, Sally
Redman, Simon Chapman, and Heidi Sturk. 2011. Galvanizers, Guides,
Champions, and Shields: The Many Ways That Policymakers Use Public Health
Researchers. Milbank Quarterly 89(4): 56498.
Head, Brian W. 2010. Reconsidering Evidence-Based Policy: Key Issues and
Challenges. Policy and Society 29(2): 7794.
. 2013. Evidence-Based PolicymakingSpeaking Truth to Power? Australian
Journal of Public Administration 72(4): 397403.
Head, Brian W., Michele Ferguson, Adrian Cherney, and Paul Boreham. 2014. Are
Policy-Makers Interested in Social Research? Exploring the Sources and Uses of
Valued Information among Public Servants in Australia. Policy and Society 33(2):
89101.
Hemsley-Brown W., Jane. 2004. Facilitating Research Utilisation: A Cross-Sector
Review of Research Evidence. International Journal of Public Sector Management
17(6): 53452.
Howlett, Michael, and Joshua Newman. 2010. Policy Analysis and Policy Work in
Federal Systems: Policy Advice and Its Contribution to Evidence-Based PolicyMaking in Multi-Level Governance Systems. Policy and Society 29(2): 12336.
Jacobson, Nora. 2007. Social Epistemology: Theory for the Fourth Wave of
Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Research. Science Communication 29(1):
11627.
Jennings, Edward T., Jr., and Jeremy L. Hall. 2012. Evidence-Based Practice and
the Use of Information in State Agency Decision Making. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 22(2): 24566.
Kalmuss, Debra. 1981. Scholars in the Courtroom: Two Models of Applied Social
Science. American Sociologist 16(4): 21223.
Knight, Christine, and Claire Lightowler. 2010. Reections of Knowledge
Exchange Professionals in the Social Sciences: Emerging Opportunities and
Challenges for University-Based Knowledge Brokers. Evidence and Policy 6(4):
54356.
Landry, Rjean, Moktar Lamari, and Nabil Amara. 2003. The Extent and
Determinants of the Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies.
Public Administration Review 63(2): 192205.
Lavis, John N., Suzanne E. Ross, Jeremiah E. Hurley. 2002. Examining the Role of
Health Services Research in Public Policymaking. Milbank Quarterly 80(1): 12554.
Legrand, Timothy. 2012. Overseas and Over Here: Policy Transfer and EvidenceBased Policy-Making. Policy Studies 33(4): 32948.
Lester, James P. 1993. The Utilization of Policy Analysis by State Agency Ocials.
Science Communication 14(3): 26790.
Maynard, Rebecca A. 2006. Evidence-Based Decision Making: What Will It Take for
the Decision Makers to Care? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25(2):
24965.
Nutley, Sandra, Isabel Walter, and Huw T. O. Davies. 2003. From Knowing to
Doing: A Framework for Understanding the Evidence-into-Practice Agenda.
Evaluation 9(2): 12548.
. 2007. Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services. Bristol, UK:
Policy Press.

32

Public Administration Review January | February 2016

OMalley, Martin. 2014. Doing What Works: Governing in the Age of Big Data.
Public Administration Review 74(5): 55556.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2013.
Strengthening Evidence-Based Policy Making on Security and Justice in Mexico.
Paris: OECD.
Orr, Kevin, and Mike Bennett. 2012. Public Administration Scholarship and the
Politics of Coproducing AcademicPractitioner Research. Public Administration
Review 72(4): 48796.
Page, Edward C. 2012. Policy without Politicians: Bureaucratic Inuence in
Comparative Perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Parsons, Wayne. 2002. From Muddling Through to Muddling UpEvidence Based
Policy Making and the Modernisation of British Government. Public Policy and
Administration 17(3): 4360.
Productivity Commission. 2010. Strengthening Evidence-Based Policy in the Australian
Federation. Vol. 1, Proceedings, Roundtable Proceedings. Canberra, Australia:
Productivity Commission.
Raadschelders, Jos C. N. 2011. Public Administration: The Interdisciplinary Study of
Government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sanderson, Ian. 2003. Is It What Works That Matters? Evaluation and EvidenceBased Policy-Making. Research Papers in Education 18(4): 33145.
Shonko, Jack P. 2000. Science, Policy and Practice: Three Cultures in Search of a
Shared Mission. Child Development 71(1): 18187.
Snow, C. P. 1959. The Two Cultures and the Scientic Revolution. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Talbot, Colin, and Carole Talbot. 2014. Sir Humphrey and the Professors: What Does
Whitehall Want from Academics? Manchester, UK: University of Manchester.
http://www.policy.manchester.ac.uk/resources/reports/ [accessed August 23, 2015].
Tseng, Vivian, and Sandra Nutley. 2014. Building the Infrastructure to Improve
the Use and Usefulness of Research in Education. In Using Research Evidence in
Education: From the Schoolhouse Door to Capitol Hill, edited by Kara S. Finnigan
and Alan J. Daly, 16375. New York: Springer.
Ward, Vicky, Allan House, and Susan Hamer. 2009. Knowledge Brokering: The
Missing Link in the Evidence to Action Chain? Evidence and Policy 5(3): 26779.
Webber, David J. 1986. Explaining Policymakers Use of Policy Information: The
Relative Importance of the Two-Community Theory versus Decision-Maker
Orientation. Science Communication 7(3): 24990.
Weiss, Carol H. 1979. The Many Meanings of Research Utilization. Public
Administration Review 39(5): 42631.
. 1980. Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion. Science Communication
1(3): 381404.
Weiss, Janet A. 1979. Access to Inuence: Some Eects of Policy Sector on the Use of
Social Science. American Behavioral Scientist 22(3): 43758.
Williams, Paul. 2002. The Competent Boundary Spanner. Public Administration
80(1): 10324.
Wingens, Matthias. 1990. Toward a General Utilization Theory: A Systems Theory
Reformulation of the Two-Communities Metaphor. Science Communication
12(1): 2742.