Article thumbnail

Critique and complexity : presenting a more effective way to conceptualise the knowledge adoption process

By Chris Brown


The process of ‘knowledge adoption’ is defined as the means through which policy-makers digest, accept then ‘take on board’ research findings. It is argued in Brown, however, that current models designed to explain knowledge adoption activity fail to fully account for the complexities that affect its operation. Within this paper, existing frameworks are explored and critiqued, and an alternative approach is presented. It is argued that this alternative conceptualisation provides a more effective explanation of the knowledge adoption process and significantly improves on extant work in this area

Year: 2013
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2001). Accountability and relevance in educational research. doi
  2. (2000). against the odds’.
  3. (2007). Analysis for policy: Evidence-based policy in practice. London:
  4. (2000). Bridging education research and education policymaking. Oxford Review of doi
  5. (2005). Bridging research and policy: A UK perspective. doi
  6. (2003). Bridging research and policy: Insights from 50 case studies. doi
  7. (2007). Changing models of research to inform educational policy. doi
  8. (2013). Coll: QC:
  9. (1992). Collaborative research: Harnessing the tensions between researchers and practitioners. The American Sociologist 43–45. doi
  10. (1994). Critical social research and education policy. doi
  11. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development.
  12. (2007). dence-based policy and practice in public services, doi
  13. (2000). Does educational research matter?
  14. (2007). Education plc. Understanding private sector participation in public sector education. doi
  15. (1996). exchange: Review and synthesis of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly 85, doi
  16. (2002). Exploring multi-agency working in services to disabled children with complex healthcare needs and their families. doi
  17. (2007). False equivalency: Think tank references on education in the news media. doi
  18. (2007). from a systematic approach. London Review of Education
  19. (2003). How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers. doi
  20. (2007). How the world’s best performing school systems come out on top. London, McKinsey and Company, http: // resources/pdf/Worlds_School_systems_final.pdf (accessed
  21. (2003). Improving research–policy relationships: Lessons from the case of literacy. Paper prepared for the OISE/UT International Literacy Conference: Literacy Policies for the Schools We
  22. (1994). Information flow in vocational rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. doi
  23. Instinct or reason: How education policy is made and how we might make it better
  24. (1995). Intellectuals of technicians? The urgent role of theory in educational studies doi
  25. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. doi
  26. (1990). Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study. doi
  27. (2004). Making research matter more. Education Policy Analysis
  28. (2011). Mobilising research knowledge in education. London Review of Education 9, doi
  29. (2011). mobilization: An exploratory study. doi
  30. (2002). OECD examiners’ Report on Educational Research and Development in England.
  31. (2008). Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice 6, no. 3: 351–69. Council for Science and Technology.
  32. (1982). Research in the context of diffuse decision making. doi
  33. (2011). Scoping the challenge: A systems approach, national forum on knowledge transfer and exchange
  34. (2013). Social care research: A suitable case for systematic review. Evidence
  35. (2010). Some Canadian contributions to understanding knowledge mobilization. doi
  36. (2009). SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking? doi
  37. (2003). The extent and determinants of utilization of university research in government agencies. doi
  38. (2008). The role of intermediaries in getting evidence into policy and practice: Some useful lessons from examining consultancy–client relationships. Evidence and Policy: doi
  39. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. doi
  40. (2005). Think tanks, public policy and the politics of expertise. Cambridge: doi
  41. (1990). Toward a general utilization theory: A systems theory reformulation of the twocommunities metaphor. doi
  42. (2005). Treacherous departures, http: // dowling2005/TreacherousDepartures.pdf (accessed
  43. (2008). Unit 4 Generating a research question. In Research and the theoretical field lecture pack and reading pack. London:
  44. (2010). Unlocking learning? Towards evidence-informed police and practice in education.
  45. (2013). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving.
  46. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. doi
  47. (1991). utilization of university research in government agencies.
  48. (2011). What factors affect the adoption of research within educational policy making? How might a better understanding of these factors improve research adoption and aid the development of policy? DPhil diss.,
  49. (2007). Why ‘what works’ won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. doi
  50. (2007). Working with users: Some implications for educational research. doi
  51. (2009). World class schools’ – noble aspiration or globalised hokum? doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.