Southwest Educational Development Laboratory
Volume 1, Number 4, 1996
Literature Can Advise Practice: A Word from the Director
→ Literature Review on Dissemination and Utilization of Research Results
This article highlights important aspects of the NCDDR's new publication, A Review of the Literature on Dissemination and Knowledge Utilization. The review is intended to provide a knowledge base for strengthening the ways in which disability research results can be accessed and used by those who need them.
Knowledge as a Learning Process
Four Dimensions of Knowledge Utilization
Ultimately, for research to be relevant it must be linked to practice. If research results are not easily accessible and usable by those who need them most (i.e., persons with disabilities, their families, service providers, advocates, and other researchers, among others), they are of limited practical use. Overall, the literature on dissemination and utilization spans diverse fields including education, rehabilitation, sociology, psychology, and marketing.
The literature is filled with differing definitions and uses of dissemination, knowledge utilization, diffusion, and technology transfer, among other terms. These terms are sometimes used interchangeably, sometimes carefully distinguished from one another. The different uses and definitions reflect varying assumptions and interests, ranging from a limited focus on "getting the word out" to an all-encompassing focus on seeing new knowledge or products from creation all the way through implementation by intended users.
Backer (1991) describes the current focus on dissemination as a "third wave" of activities related to the understanding and promotion of knowledge utilization. The first wave, he notes, spanned the years from 1920 through 1960. The second wave took place during the period from 1960 through 1980, when a number of large-scale, federally sponsored dissemination and implementation studies were conducted. Most of the current literature consists primarily of new analysis and refinements of understandings from the work of the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s. As Paisley (1993) notes, "Many of the problems that challenge knowledge utilization have changed little since the 1960s and 1970s. However, the communications environment of knowledge utilization has changed dramatically" (p. 222). The proliferation of electronic communications - in particular, the widespread use of personal computers - has given rise to a number of new questions and issues about equity, access, and effectiveness.
Past examples of the dissemination of research results in the United States has primarily followed the agricultural extension model. The primary focus of this model is on distribution-getting the word out (Rogers, 1988). For example, in this model it would follow that if farmers know about better ways to irrigate crops, they will implement those ways. This approach makes the assumption that knowledge is generally defined objectively, and that everyone will agree with what constitutes knowledge and will use it once they have it (Louis, 1992). This is a top-down approach to knowledge dissemination that developed as a result of uncoordinated and sometimes competitive activities.
Another model of how people acquire and integrate knowledge is constructivism. It provides a new framework for viewing the dissemination and utilization efforts of disability researchers. The constructivist model is based on the understanding that knowledge is constructed by each individual and group, and this construction of knowledge is dependent upon the user's pre-existing knowledge, beliefs, and experiences (Hutchinson, 1995; Backman, 1982).
Beliefs about how learning takes place are often articulated as metaphors. The tabula rasa, the image of the mind as a blank slate, was once the most common metaphor. Shapiro (1994) notes that "despite the fact that the 'blank slate' view of the learner is not well regarded, it is still the view underlying the practice seen most often in school settings" (p. 8). Another common image is that of the learner as sponge, "soaking up" knowledge-a role that is somewhat more active than that of empty vessel, although what a learner absorbs is taken wholesale, without filtering or processing. A metaphor often used today in this era of technology is that of the brain as computer, which processes in an orderly, systematic fashion the information that is received from outside sources. In this analogy the learner actively does something to or with the information, which can be presumed to be altered in appearance, if not in substance, from the form in which it was originally received.
According to constructivist principles, none of these metaphors adequately describes the ways in which we as learners process information. Learners, from the youngest children to the oldest adults, are constantly seeking to make sense of the environment; to do so, we "construct" explanations that make sense based on our personal experiences (Ackerman, 1995; Driver, 1995; von Glasersfeld, 1995).
Knowing, then, is an adaptive activity in which the learner seeks "not . . . . to arrive at truth about something already made but . . . . to make something right-to construct something that works cognitively, that fits together and handles new cases, that may implement further inquiry and invention" (Bauersfeld, 1995, p. 163). As Driver (1995) explains, "Human beings construct models of their environment, and new experiences [and information] are interpreted and understood in relation to existing mental models or schemes" (p. 386). The metaphors that suggest constructivist perspectives, then, are those of building and shaping new knowledge structures. Constructivism is not concerned with right or wrong; it is concerned with individuals making sense out of their environment.
In addition to describing the learning process, constructivist viewpoints have relevance for research. Huberman (1987) states that "individuals-alone or in organizations-transform and use research in highly selective and strategic ways" (p. 589). What is an "adequate" solution for one individual (or organization) may vary as well. The user's self-interest and self-image sometimes include considerations that conflict with what may appear, in terms of efficiency, cost benefits, or effectiveness of operation, to be the "best" solution. Merely telling people that their ideas or practices are wrong, or ineffective, or outdated, or that a better mousetrap is available to replace the one they are using, is generally an ineffective way to encourage change.
Before people consider change, they must be dissatisfied with current practice or outcomes. As Shapiro (1994) points out, "In order to take on a new viewpoint, one must decide to let go of an old one. There must be a reason to decide to make a shift in thinking" (p. 7). Sechrest, Backer, and Rogers (1994) in applying this understanding to the task of dissemination, note that if practitioners "are not in a state of uncertainty about a problem" (p. 187), the mere provision of information is not likely to lead to changes in behavior. Backer (1994) makes the point even more bluntly: "People and organizations develop the energy to change when faced with real pain . . . . whether the nature of change is personal (psychotherapy) or work-related (organizational change, implementation of an innovation)" (p. 7).
Finally, Fuhrman (1994), among others, sees constructivist perspectives as directly applicable to the enterprise of dissemination: "The research on utilization is quite clear: the meaning of research is conducted by the user . . . . Individuals translate research findings through the lens of prior knowledge and understanding, making sense of new knowledge in the context of their daily activities . . . . It is research on learning that is the foundation of understanding knowledge utilization" (p. 138). Fuhrman sees the promotion of utilization as much more than distribution and offering access. She calls for two major changes in current utilization practices in the field of education: "First, we should focus more on the context of knowledge users, and second, we should strengthen the integration between research and dissemination" (p. 138).
Four major dimensions of knowledge utilization are suggested by the literature. First is the dissemination source-the agency, organization, or individual responsible for creating the new knowledge or product, and/or for conducting dissemination activities. Second is the content or message that is disseminated-the new knowledge or product itself, as well as any supporting information or materials. Third is the dissemination medium-the ways in which the knowledge or product is described, "packaged," and transmitted. Fourth is the user or intended user of the information or product to be disseminated. Figure 1: Dimensions of the Dissemination Utilization Process illustrates the interaction of these elements.
Figure 1: Dimensions of the Dissemination Utilization Process
Go to text version of Dimensions image
Source. The literature reflects several important factors related to the dissemination source, including the source's relationship with potential users, the source's credibility, and specific strategies involving the source to help improve dissemination and utilization of research results. Indyk and Rier (1993) point out that dissemination of disability research involves more than researchers and decisionmakers. The increasing activism of persons with disabilities has prompted a new view of dissemination as a three-way model, with researchers, decisionmakers, and people with disabilities all functioning as both knowledge producers and knowledge consumers.
A major criticism of disability research is the often distant relationship of researchers and potential users of their research results. One way to bridge the gap between researcher and user is for researchers to be aware of the values and assumptions they bring to their research (Buchman, 1982). Like knowledge acquisition, the processes of conducting research and disseminating results to potential users are influenced by individuals' personal experience and prior knowledge. Researchers, in the process of disseminating their results, will operate within the guidelines of their values and assumptions, which may differ from the values and assumptions of their potential users. By explicitly stating how their values and assumptions potentially influence their results, researchers provide the opportunity to interpret and use results in ways that make the most sense to users.
Researchers who are not aware of their biases or who do not make their potential users aware of them, risk biasing their results. Research bias can affect the credibility of research outcomes for populations from diverse racial, ethnic, and/or cultural backgrounds (Duarte & Rice, 1992). Inconsistencies in racial classification and population sampling, overemphasis of between-group differences, and underemphasis of within-group differences can all affect the credibility of research results.
The perceived expertise and trustworthiness of researchers can also affect the credibility of research outcomes. Expertise refers to the perceived knowledge and/or competence of researchers, whereas trustworthiness refers to the perceived honesty and sincerity of researchers (Marquart, O'Keefe, & Gunther, 1995). Findings of some studies suggest that trustworthiness is more important than expertise in obtaining user support. The literature also indicates that users tend to accept assistance, information, and ideas from sources they know and trust (Carrillo, Lumbley, & Westbrook, 1990; Fullan, 1985) and that the source of disseminated information generally is more important to users than the content of the information (Hutchinson & Huberman, 1993).
An effective strategy disseminators can implement to dramatically improve dissemination and utilization of research results is to integrally involve targeted potential users in the planning, implementing, and evaluating of the research design. Fuhrman (1994) discusses the need for "building a client-based research agenda . . . . and developing forms for research that bring producers and users closer together" (p. 133). Organizational structures and reward systems can also play an important role in improving dissemination effectiveness. Dentler (1984) notes that when dissemination specialists in organizations work directly with policy planning, research and development, and evaluation, dissemination can have a greater impact.
Content. Research results can include "theories, models, paradigms, postulates, generalizations, or findings . . . . validated tests, curricula, techniques, programs, or systems," while technological advances can include "software products, devices, equipment, or machinery" (Edwards, 1991, p. 54). Content attributes that influence adoption of the use of results include: the quality of the content of results, the compatibility of users' needs and beliefs with the content of results, specific kinds of information that promote utilization of research results, and the comprehensibility of results.
The assumption that the quality of research results influences utilization is called into question by some researchers. Edwards (1991) reports that empirical studies have "found no relationship between research quality and use" (p. 61). Huberman (1990), reporting on a series of utilization studies conducted in Switzerland, concurs: "The poorly conceived and executed studies in the sample appear to do as well as others, or perhaps even slightly better, because research staff in the especially well-designed studies underinvest in dissemination work" (p. 606).
A barrier to the utilization of research results is the non-practical focus of research (West & Rhoton, 1992). Dentler (1984) stresses that "the property of knowledge that is essential for [use] is its congruence with the real world of practice" (p. 6).
Some kinds of information have proved to be especially important in promoting utilization of research results. For example, emphasizing positive behaviors and current rewards rather than negative consequences of current behavior promotes use. Kennedy (1989) stresses that utilization is a process that takes time. The research content should take the user from awareness to understanding to commitment.
Disseminated research results must be comprehensible, capable of being interpreted and used, if they are to be worthwhile (Majumder, Walls, Fullmer, & Dowler, 1994). A frequent complaint of potential users is that the language of disseminated research results is too technical (West & Rhoton, 1992). Some suggestions for "transforming" research outcomes into usable, comprehensible messages are to provide simple and clear messages, to keep the messages brief and at a low level of abstraction, and to repeat and reinforce messages (Backer, 1988; Glaser, Abelson, & Garrison, 1983; Soumerai & Avorn, 1987). In addition, analogies are particularly useful to convey messages about research results (Shapiro, 1986).
Medium. The medium by which research results are distributed to users can enhance or detract from utilization (Klein & Gwaltney, 1991). Selection of the dissemination media most appropriate for a particular content and audience is a complex and challenging task. For persons with disabilities, physical access to information is an essential concern for disseminators when choosing appropriate media (Leung, 1992). Digital technology and related equity concerns, the primacy of personal interaction, the use of multiple media formats, and targeting media for persons with disabilities are topics addressed in the literature.
The widespread use of "small media" such as personal computers, and a proliferation in use of the Internet and other electronic networks, have brought new, cost-effective dissemination channels to an ever-broadening audience. However, little is known about the use of these media in disseminating research results (Paisley, 1993). In addition, there are equity concerns such as access to this media by persons with disabilities, as well as by individuals with lower incomes, with lower educational attainment, and/or of different races (Anderson, Bikson, Law, & Mitchell, 1995; NIDRR, 1994).
The literature indicates that direct personal interaction is the most important aspect of an effective medium for disseminating information (Paisley, 1993). To enhance utilization, direct personal contact should occur between researchers and users before, during, and after studies. Much of this contact should be face-to-face (Huberman, 1990). The frequency and duration of this interpersonal contact is also important. Peterson and Emrick (1983) suggest that in most cases direct intervention should be carried out over a period of at least two years. Huberman (1990) concludes, from a survey of the utilization literature, that projects need to allocate twelve percent of project time and resources to dissemination activities.
Using multiple or merged media formats and targeting media to persons with disabilities are other strategies advocated in the literature. A combination of media and interpersonal strategies is an important consideration in meeting the needs of a diverse audience (Crandall, 1989; Edwards, 1991). A number of information channels exist for people with disabilities, including the Internet, electronic bulletin boards, special topic listservs and newsgroups (Fullmer & Majumder, 1991). Newman and Vash (1994) believe that those persons with disabilities who receive services are likely to receive new information about research through their service contacts. But for those who do not, they suggest the mass media will be the primary means for disseminating information. Some of these channels, such as television networks and mainstream magazines, are more expensive to target.
Users. The understanding that individuals and groups are active participants in the construction of knowledge is a vital aspect of disseminating research results to users. This understanding has two principal implications. One is that the materials to be disseminated must address the concerns of a potential user's daily life. This can be done by involving potential users in the research process from the beginning, with ongoing and substantial interactions between researchers and users. The second implication involves the user's readiness for change. Researchers cannot overestimate the importance of this element. Even the clearest results will not be utilized if the potential user is not ready to incorporate them into their personal existing schemata. This lack of readiness is not necessarily negative, however; it may serve to question the practical worth of some research.
Effective dissemination rests upon how much the disseminator knows about the intended recipient audience. Selected important, need-to-know characteristics of intended users include:
An important task for disseminators is to understand the incentives that influence potential users to change. These incentives can be internal or external. Some research suggests that external mandates for change are important but that personal incentives are more potent (Hutchinson & Huberman, 1993).
Involving potential user audiences in setting research agendas and conducting research and development activities can help to address issues related to readiness for change. Seeking input from users at all stages of the research process, structuring activities around issues identified as important by users themselves, and helping users to reflect on their own preconceived ideas and concerns are important elements in actively engaging users in dissemination efforts (Brown-McGowan & Eichelberger, 1993).
The size of the user audience is also an important consideration (Dentler, 1984). Selecting a target audience that is too large can dissipate the impact of dissemination efforts. Conversely, a target audience that is too small limits how far results will be disseminated.
Very few empirical studies have been conducted to explore differences in dissemination issues related to specific racial or ethnic groups or among persons with disabilities. However, there are demographic data that need attention. An example is the association between disability and race, ethnicity, income, and educational attainment. Some ethnic and racial minorities are over-represented in certain disability categories. The implications of this for disseminators are great. There is also evidence that members of minority populations with disabilities are not obtaining the rehabilitation services they need (Duarte & Rice, 1992). Strategies to help researchers avoid bias include ensuring that members of minority communities who are participants in studies are represented on research teams, and getting feedback about results from those group members, to help identify inaccuracies in interpretations (Davis, 1992).
Cultural differences affect the ways in which potential users interact with and perceive the work and communications of disability researchers and practitioners. These differences, according to Duarte and Rice (1992), may include "world view, family boundaries, quality of life, importance of religion, meaning of work, meaning of education, decision-making style, belief in change, and response to change" (p. 17). Duarte and Rice note that experts in "the field of intercultural communication emphasize cultural differences related to context (the information that surrounds events), space, time, speed (with which relationships are developed), information flow, and rules (and rituals)" (p. 17). Whether a particular culture places more emphasis on the individual or the collective group plays a major role in how groups interact (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988).
It appears further research to explore how particular cultural groups access information may be needed. Researchers must be aware that between-group differences are often overemphasized while within-group differences are underemphasized in research (Duarte & Rice, 1992). To suggest, for example, that all African Americans prefer to access information from friends and the local media, ignores the population of African Americans who prefer to access it from journals and the Internet. In fact, some research suggests that members of racial and ethnic minority groups clearly have varied means of obtaining information and varied sources that they trust (Edwards, 1991).
Finally, O'Connor (1993) points out the importance of understanding individuals with disabilities in the light of all their characteristics. These include characteristics of culture, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, income level, and individual preferences about how people choose to live their lives. Individuals' identities are limited by looking only at a disability.
Dissemination and knowledge utilization literature tend to suggest the following points:
Many improvements have been made in the dissemination of disability research (Blasiotti, 1992). NIDRR and other branches of the federal government are working to establish common perspectives as well as coordinated approaches to dissemination, and to encourage the incorporation of appropriate dissemination into all stages of the research, development, and utilization process.
Note: A list of references is available upon request and is included in the NCDDR review of literature
Web Accessibility | Site Map | Feedback
NIDRR Project Number: H133A990008
Last Updated: Tuesday, 29 January 2008 at 04:12 PM,
Contents © 1996-2005
SEDL Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL)
211 East Seventh St., Room 400 - Austin, Texas 78701-3253
Voice/Text Telephone: 800-266-1832 or 512-476-6861 - Fax: 512-476-2286
Copyright ©2004 Southwest Educational Development Laboratory