The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies
Abstract
This article addresses three questions: What is the extent of instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic use of university research in government agencies? Are there differences between the policy domains in regard to the extent of each type of use? What are the determinants of instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic use of university research? Based on a survey of 833 government officials, the results suggest that (1) the three types of use of research simultaneously play a significant role in government agencies, (2) there are large differences between policy domains in regard to research utilization, and (3) a small number of determinants explain the increase of instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of research in a different way.
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
How Can Research Organizations More Effectively Transfer Research Knowledge to Decision Makers?
LAVIS, J. N., ROBERTSON, D., WOODSIDE, J. M., McLEOD, C. B., & ABELSON, J. (2003) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00052 · Cited by 1,176
Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion
Weiss, C. H. (1980) · Knowledge · doi:10.1177/107554708000100303 · Cited by 669
Cited by
Huitema, D., Mostert, E., Egas, W., Moellenkamp, S., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Yalcin, R. (2009) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-02827-140126 · Cited by 912
Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges
Head, B. W. (2010) · Policy and Society · doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.001 · Cited by 527
Expert‐Based Information and Policy Subsystems: A Review and Synthesis
Weible, C. M. (2008) · Policy Studies Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00287.x · Cited by 470
Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement
Mach, K. J., Lemos, M. C., Meadow, A. M., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., Arnott, J. C., Ardoin, N. M., Fieseler, C., Moss, R. H., Nichols, L., et al. (2020) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.002 · Cited by 294
Reale, E., Avramov, D., Canhial, K., Donovan, C., Flecha, R., Holm, P., Larkin, C., Lepori, B., Mosoni-Fried, J., Oliver, E., et al. (2018) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvx025 · Cited by 258
Metadata
- Authors
- Amara, N., Ouimet, M., & Landry, R.
- Venue
- Science Communication
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-09
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 75-106
- ISSN
- 0164-0259 (ISSN-L)
- 1075-5470
- 1552-8545
- OpenAlex
- W2002747675
- Cited by
- 463
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.95
- 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: New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1075547004267491
- The paper
- Amara, N., Ouimet, M., & Landry, R. (2004). New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies. Science Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547004267491
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.
