The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Climbing the Ladder of Research Utilization: Evidence from Social Science Research
Abstract
In this article, the Knott and Wildavsky stages of knowledge utilization are considered separately and compared with the previous stage to find factors explaining why researchers are able to climb up the ladder of knowledge utilization from the echelon of no transmission to transmission, then to cognition, reference, effort, influence, and application. The results suggest that there are barriers to climbing and that these barriers are primarily located between the stage of no transmission and the stage of transmission. These results carry theoretical and policy implications that are explored in the last part of the article.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Economic Institutions of Capitalism
Dugger, W. M. (1987) · Journal of Economic Issues · doi:10.1080/00213624.1987.11504638 · Cited by 14,786
Williamson, O. E. (1975) · Cited by 6,810
Vogel's Textbook of Practical Organic Chemistry
Vogel, A. I., & Furniss, B. S. (2003) · Cited by 6,769
The Many Meanings of Research Utilization
Weiss, C. H. (1979) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.2307/3109916 · Cited by 2,222
Canadian journal of public health
(1949) · Tubercle · doi:10.1016/s0041-3879(49)80069-9 · Cited by 1,537
The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth
Link, A. N., Landau, R., & Rosenberg, N. (1988) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3105266 · Cited by 1,259
International Handbook of Educational Change
(1998) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4944-0 · Cited by 857
The Two-Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilization
Caplan, N. (1979) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/000276427902200308 · Cited by 844
The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings
Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. (1982) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392533 · Cited by 683
Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion
Weiss, C. H. (1980) · Knowledge · doi:10.1177/107554708000100303 · Cited by 669
Cited by
Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks
Nilsen, P. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0 · Cited by 4,447
Diffusion Theory and Knowledge Dissemination, Utilization, and Integration in Public Health
Green, L. W., Ottoson, J. M., García, C., & Hiatt, R. A. (2009) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100049 · Cited by 953
The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment
Hanney, S. R., Gonzalez-Block, M. A., Buxton, M. J., & Kogan, M. (2003) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/1478-4505-1-2 · Cited by 678
Development of a framework for knowledge translation: understanding user context
Jacobson, N., Butterill, D., & Goering, P. (2003) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/135581903321466067 · Cited by 331
Making Sense of Implementation Theories, Models, and Frameworks
Nilsen, P. (2020) · Implementation Science 3.0 · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03874-8_3 · Cited by 322
Metadata
- Authors
- LANDRY, R., AMARA, N., & LAMARI, M.
- Venue
- Science Communication
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-06
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 396-422
- ISSN
- 0164-0259 (ISSN-L)
- 1075-5470
- 1552-8545
- OpenAlex
- W2142374214
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 47
- FWCI
- 11.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Climbing the Ladder of Research Utilization: Evidence from Social Science Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1075547001022004003
- The paper
- LANDRY, R., AMARA, N., & LAMARI, M. (2001). Climbing the Ladder of Research Utilization: Evidence from Social Science Research. Science Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547001022004003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
