- Email: [email protected]
Another view: Making better use of research
403
Book Reviews
mendations in making a strong case for increased or more efficient allocation of funds for R 8c D projects. Absorbing millions of dollars from the public treasury into R & D projects without an equitable monetary balance permitting the entire nation to benefit from these efforts is inexcusable. Any of the 35 R & D projects described in the Appendix may contribute to the re-election of a Congressperson. Usually disinterested or unwilling to engage in or support the full implementation of federal programs, Congresspersons must overcome their parochial interests and provide mechanisms insuring agency accountability for dissemination of federally-supported R SC D project results. If this government document has any merit it will stem from pushing Congress into establishing within one federal agency a legislatively-supported role for coordination and advocacy. Anything short of this and the sins accompanying fragmentation will persist. Suffer the children! Jeffrey Schwamm University of Texas, Arlington
Another
View: Making
Better
Use of Research
This book addresses some of the major problems in diverse professional fields; namely, “How can we make better use of the research findings that have become available?” and “What are the more effective ways to increase our ability to translate research knowledge into effective practice?” This volume focuses on an investigation by the General Accounting Office of the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families research and demonstration programs. They selected 20 programs of national significance, and asked various service providers if they were utilizing the results of these projects, and if they were aware of the results from these projects. A detailed questionnaire was sent out from five regional offices to state departments of child and family services asking them for awareness and ability to use these results. The results of such a survey should be of no great surprise to professionals working in the child and family fields. Providers of services said they were using some of these results about 38% of the time, whereas the coordinators and advocates suggested they were using research findings 21% of the time. Many of the service providers and coordinators were not aware of the projects of national significance and thus unable to use the results. The question posed by the GAO was why there wasn’t more effective dissemination. They suggested that ACYF should include a greater use of service personnel in the planning of research and development
Book Reviews programs. They recommended the earmarking of a reasonable percentage of the R & D budget for dissemination, for the implementation of successful R & D results, and to fund special dissemination and technical assistance efforts to accomplish these goals. The GAO further suggested that the Congress should clarify existing legislation to more effectively define the role of the Children’s Bureau and the ACYF and their responsibilities with regard to dissemination of research results. As is true in most GAO reports, the agency being investigated is provided with an opportunity to respond to the critique and that HEW response is included in the book itself. In some ways, it is a classic example of an agency response to critical comment on the part of the GAO. In essence, the agency said that the reason they had not done more active dissemination was that they had lacked specific legislative authority to be active in this area. Further, they did not have sufficient money. If only the Congress could give them more specific legislative authority and money, they would be happy to carry out the responsibilities that the GAO suggested should be a part of their research and development program. While the book addresses a problem of clear significance to professionals, it is not as helpful as it might have been. The reason is its rather simplistic approach to dissemination and, in particular, its inability to separate the dissemination of knowledge from the dissemination of practice. It is well recognized in the literature that these are two extremely different processes and need to be viewed as such. If the dissemination of practices is at issue, there is a real question as to whether extensive dissemination should take place on the basis of results from a single project. At one point in the manuscript, Ed Glaser, a sophisticated observer of the dissemination scene is quoted, but his ideas did not seem to penetrate the basic discussion of the process itself. Nor does there seem to be an understanding of the complex process by which information filters from the scholar to the practitioner. Getzels (1978) describes the process by which knowledge becomes a part of educational practice. Such knowledge seeps into practice often without the practitioners themselves being aware of it. As a consequence, when practitioners are asked if they know about specific research results, they may truthfully say “No,” all the time that they are actually using those results. Knowledge filters through a complex network of the public press, professional meetings, and professional interactions, and causes the idea to take root and to be translated into practice without the awareness of the practitioner that such a process was happening. Thus, decisions on changing the seating patterns in the classroom emerged from a body of research on democratic practices and communication, but is unlikely to be referred as a research related decision. One can applaud the recommendations of the report that a clear mandate for dissemination be given to the agency that practitioners have a role in planning long-range research priorities, and that more resources be given to the process of dissemination. At the same time, the report leaves us with, what this reviewer believes to be, an incorrect and mischievous assumption. Namely, that the problem of dissemination of knowl-
Book Reviews edge and practice is one solely of engineering. If only enough resources were available and enough manpower devoted to the task then the task could be completed, much as a bridge can be constructed over a river. The evidence of the numerous attempts to disseminate both knowledge and practice suggests otherwise. It suggests that we do not fully understand all of the process, nor the physical and social barriers that interfere with the process itself. In short, dissemination as a process, is an important research topic in its own right, and we do ourselves an injustice if we assume a more complete understanding of this complex process than, in fact, we possess. Reference Getrels, J. Paradigm and practice: Suppes (Ed.), Impact of mearch Education, 1978.
On
the impact of basic Washington,
on rducation.
research in education. In P. D.C.: Il‘ational Academy ot
James J. Gallagher Uniuersitp of North Carolina, Chafiel Hill
Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving By Charles E. Lindblom and David K. Cohen New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1979, 129 pp., $3.95 Of the issues facing contemporary human service professionals none is more central than that of knowledge construction and utilization. Vast increases in behavioral science knowledge and methodological sophistication in recent years have seemingly not been accompanied by parallel increases in our ability to formulate and implement interventions which produce desired social outcomes. While there is little comfort in knowing that our colleagues in other public service professions face the same predicament, there is much to be learned from some of their analyses. Lindblom and Cohen face the matter squarely: “suppliers and users of social research are dissatisfied, the former because they are not listened to, the latter because they do not hear much they want to listen to” (p. 1). The basis of this mutual dissatisfaction, Lindblom and Cohen argue, is a misunderstanding about the relation between social science and social problem solving. Briefly, they argue that social science is only one-and not a very important-input into the social problem solving process. This probably runs counter to the views of most academic and research social scientists engaged in “policy research” and it is instructive to recall a bit of the history of the public service professions before proceeding to a more extensive elaboration of Lindblom’s and Cohen’s essay. The professionalization of public service in the U.S. originated in
Book Reviews
mendations in making a strong case for increased or more efficient allocation of funds for R 8c D projects. Absorbing millions of dollars from the public treasury into R & D projects without an equitable monetary balance permitting the entire nation to benefit from these efforts is inexcusable. Any of the 35 R & D projects described in the Appendix may contribute to the re-election of a Congressperson. Usually disinterested or unwilling to engage in or support the full implementation of federal programs, Congresspersons must overcome their parochial interests and provide mechanisms insuring agency accountability for dissemination of federally-supported R SC D project results. If this government document has any merit it will stem from pushing Congress into establishing within one federal agency a legislatively-supported role for coordination and advocacy. Anything short of this and the sins accompanying fragmentation will persist. Suffer the children! Jeffrey Schwamm University of Texas, Arlington
Another
View: Making
Better
Use of Research
This book addresses some of the major problems in diverse professional fields; namely, “How can we make better use of the research findings that have become available?” and “What are the more effective ways to increase our ability to translate research knowledge into effective practice?” This volume focuses on an investigation by the General Accounting Office of the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families research and demonstration programs. They selected 20 programs of national significance, and asked various service providers if they were utilizing the results of these projects, and if they were aware of the results from these projects. A detailed questionnaire was sent out from five regional offices to state departments of child and family services asking them for awareness and ability to use these results. The results of such a survey should be of no great surprise to professionals working in the child and family fields. Providers of services said they were using some of these results about 38% of the time, whereas the coordinators and advocates suggested they were using research findings 21% of the time. Many of the service providers and coordinators were not aware of the projects of national significance and thus unable to use the results. The question posed by the GAO was why there wasn’t more effective dissemination. They suggested that ACYF should include a greater use of service personnel in the planning of research and development
Book Reviews programs. They recommended the earmarking of a reasonable percentage of the R & D budget for dissemination, for the implementation of successful R & D results, and to fund special dissemination and technical assistance efforts to accomplish these goals. The GAO further suggested that the Congress should clarify existing legislation to more effectively define the role of the Children’s Bureau and the ACYF and their responsibilities with regard to dissemination of research results. As is true in most GAO reports, the agency being investigated is provided with an opportunity to respond to the critique and that HEW response is included in the book itself. In some ways, it is a classic example of an agency response to critical comment on the part of the GAO. In essence, the agency said that the reason they had not done more active dissemination was that they had lacked specific legislative authority to be active in this area. Further, they did not have sufficient money. If only the Congress could give them more specific legislative authority and money, they would be happy to carry out the responsibilities that the GAO suggested should be a part of their research and development program. While the book addresses a problem of clear significance to professionals, it is not as helpful as it might have been. The reason is its rather simplistic approach to dissemination and, in particular, its inability to separate the dissemination of knowledge from the dissemination of practice. It is well recognized in the literature that these are two extremely different processes and need to be viewed as such. If the dissemination of practices is at issue, there is a real question as to whether extensive dissemination should take place on the basis of results from a single project. At one point in the manuscript, Ed Glaser, a sophisticated observer of the dissemination scene is quoted, but his ideas did not seem to penetrate the basic discussion of the process itself. Nor does there seem to be an understanding of the complex process by which information filters from the scholar to the practitioner. Getzels (1978) describes the process by which knowledge becomes a part of educational practice. Such knowledge seeps into practice often without the practitioners themselves being aware of it. As a consequence, when practitioners are asked if they know about specific research results, they may truthfully say “No,” all the time that they are actually using those results. Knowledge filters through a complex network of the public press, professional meetings, and professional interactions, and causes the idea to take root and to be translated into practice without the awareness of the practitioner that such a process was happening. Thus, decisions on changing the seating patterns in the classroom emerged from a body of research on democratic practices and communication, but is unlikely to be referred as a research related decision. One can applaud the recommendations of the report that a clear mandate for dissemination be given to the agency that practitioners have a role in planning long-range research priorities, and that more resources be given to the process of dissemination. At the same time, the report leaves us with, what this reviewer believes to be, an incorrect and mischievous assumption. Namely, that the problem of dissemination of knowl-
Book Reviews edge and practice is one solely of engineering. If only enough resources were available and enough manpower devoted to the task then the task could be completed, much as a bridge can be constructed over a river. The evidence of the numerous attempts to disseminate both knowledge and practice suggests otherwise. It suggests that we do not fully understand all of the process, nor the physical and social barriers that interfere with the process itself. In short, dissemination as a process, is an important research topic in its own right, and we do ourselves an injustice if we assume a more complete understanding of this complex process than, in fact, we possess. Reference Getrels, J. Paradigm and practice: Suppes (Ed.), Impact of mearch Education, 1978.
On
the impact of basic Washington,
on rducation.
research in education. In P. D.C.: Il‘ational Academy ot
James J. Gallagher Uniuersitp of North Carolina, Chafiel Hill
Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving By Charles E. Lindblom and David K. Cohen New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1979, 129 pp., $3.95 Of the issues facing contemporary human service professionals none is more central than that of knowledge construction and utilization. Vast increases in behavioral science knowledge and methodological sophistication in recent years have seemingly not been accompanied by parallel increases in our ability to formulate and implement interventions which produce desired social outcomes. While there is little comfort in knowing that our colleagues in other public service professions face the same predicament, there is much to be learned from some of their analyses. Lindblom and Cohen face the matter squarely: “suppliers and users of social research are dissatisfied, the former because they are not listened to, the latter because they do not hear much they want to listen to” (p. 1). The basis of this mutual dissatisfaction, Lindblom and Cohen argue, is a misunderstanding about the relation between social science and social problem solving. Briefly, they argue that social science is only one-and not a very important-input into the social problem solving process. This probably runs counter to the views of most academic and research social scientists engaged in “policy research” and it is instructive to recall a bit of the history of the public service professions before proceeding to a more extensive elaboration of Lindblom’s and Cohen’s essay. The professionalization of public service in the U.S. originated in