This paper differs from previous examinations of organizational learning in that it is broader in scope and more evaluative of the literatures. Four constructs related to organizational learning knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory are articulated, and the literatures related to each are described and critiqued.

The literature on knowledge acquisition is voluminous and multi-faceted, and so the knowledge acquisition construct is portrayed here as consisting of five subconstructs or subprocesses: 1 drawing on knowledge available at the organization's birth, 2 learning from experience, 3 learning by observing other organizations, 4 grafting on to itself components that possess knowledge needed but not possessed by the organization, and 5 noticing or searching for information about the organization's environment and performance. Examination of the related literatures indicates that much has been learned about learning from experience, but also that there is a lack of cumulative work and a lack of integration of work from different research groups. Similarly, much has been learned about organizational search, but there is a lack of conceptual work, and there is a lack of both cumulative work and syntheses with which to create a more mature literature. Congenital learning, vicarious learning, and grafting are information acquisition subprocesses about which relatively little has been learned.

The literature concerning information distribution is rich and mature, but an aspect of information distribution that is central to an organization's benefitting from its learning, namely how units that possess information and units that need this information can find each other quickly and with a high likelihood, is unexplored. Information interpretation, as an organizational process, rather than an individual process, requires empirical work for further advancement. Organizational memory is much in need of systematic investigation, particularly by those whose special concerns are improving organizational learning and decision making.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2634941.pdf

Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures

Process evaluation is an essential part of designing and testing complex interventions. New MRC guidance provides a framework for conducting and reporting process evaluation studies

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/350/bmj.h1258.full.pdf

Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance

Measurement and control of response bias.

Such diverse thinkers as Lao-Tze, Confucius, and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have all pointed out that we need to be able to tell the difference between real and assumed knowledge. The systematic review is a scientific tool that can help with this difficult task. It can help, for example, with appraising, summarising, and communicating the results and implications of otherwise unmanageable quantities of data. This is important because quite often there are so many studies, and their results are often so conflicting, that no policymaker or practitioner could possibly carry out this task themselves.Systematic review methods have been widely used in health care, and are becoming increasingly common in the social sciences (fostered, for example, by the work of the Campbell Collaboration). 

This book outlines the rationale and methods of systematic reviews, giving worked examples from social science and other fields. It requires no previous knowledge, but takes the reader through the process stage by stage. It draws on examples from such diverse fields as psychology, criminology, education, transport, social welfare, public health, and housing and urban policy, among others.The book includes detailed sections on assessing the quality of both quantitative, and qualitative research; searching for evidence in the social sciences;meta-analytic and other methods of evidence synthesis; publication bias; heterogeneity; and approaches to dissemination.

Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide

There has been a great deal of research in recent years concerning the use of substantive policy analysis in public policy-making. This paper seeks to integrate those findings - e.g., the ‘enlightenment function’ of policy research - into a more general model of policy-making over periods of a decade or more. The conceptual framework focuses on the belief systems of advocacy coalitions within policy subsystems as the critical vehicle for understanding the role of policy analysis in policy-oriented learning and the effect, in turn, of such learning on changes in governmental programs.

An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein

This is a time when more and more social scientists are becoming concerned about making their research useful for public policy makers and policy makers are displaying spurts of well publicized concern about the usefulness of the social science research that government funds support. There is mutual interest in whether social science research intended to influence policy is actually "used" but before that important issue can profitably be addressed it is essential to understand what "using research" actually means. A review of the literature reveals that a diverse array of meanings is attached to the term. Much of the ambiguity in the discussion of "research utilization"-and conflicting interpretations of its prevalence and the routes by which it occurs-derives from conceptual confusion. If we are to gain a better understanding of the extent to which social science research has affected public policy in the past and learn how to make its contribution more effective in the future we need to clarify the concept. Upon examination the use of social science research in the sphere of public policy is an extraordinarily complex phenomenon. Authors who have addressed the subject have evoked diverse images of the processes and purposes of utilization. Here I will try to extract seven different meanings that have been associated with the concept. (excerpt)

The many meanings of research utilization.

1. Setting the Scene. 2. Purposes of Evaluation. 3. Understanding the Program. 4. Planning the Evaluation. 5. Roles for the Evaluator. 6. Developing Measures. 7. Collecting Data. 8. Design of the Evaluation. 9. The Randomized Experiment. 10. Extensions of Good Design. 11. Qualitative Methods. 12. Analyzing and Interpreting the Data. 13. Writing the Report and Disseminating Results. 14. Evaluating with Integrity. Glossary. References. Index.

Evaluation : methods for studying programs and policies

Evaluation Research: Methods of Assessing Program Effectiveness

Using social research in public policy making

The conventional title for this article would be &dquo;Knowledge Utilization in Decision-Making.&dquo; I have chosen the mangled terminology to make a point-in fact, two points. The first is that knowledge, at least the subcategory of knowledge that derives from systematic research and analysis, is not often &dquo;utilized&dquo; in direct and instrumental fashion in the formulation of policy. Only occasionally does it supply an &dquo;answer&dquo; that

Carol H. Weiss

Papers

The many meanings of research utilization.

Evaluation : methods for studying programs and policies

Evaluation Research: Methods of Assessing Program Effectiveness

Using social research in public policy making

Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion