Résumés
Résumé
Dans cet article, nous utilisons le modèle des choix rationnels pour analyser les facteurs expliquant l’utilisation de la recherche en éducation. Basée sur les résultats d’un sondage auprès de 263 conseillers pédagogiques au Québec, l’étude suggère que ces acteurs essentiels du système de l’éducation ont tendance à avoir un comportement rationnel à l’égard de la recherche dans le sens que l’utilisation de celle-ci dépend de son utilité ainsi que du coût d’accès et dans une moindre mesure, d’appropriation de ses résultats. En plus de la rationalité des acteurs, l’étude indique que les facteurs organisationnels ont une influence sur l’utilisation des résultats de la recherche.
Abstract
In this article, we use the rational choice model to analyze the factors explaining the use of education research. Working from the results of a survey conducted among 263 educational advisors in Quebec, the present study suggests that these key actors of the educational system tend to exhibit rational behaviour toward research, with their use of research depending on its usefulness, cost of access and, to a lesser extent, the appropriation of findings. The study indicates that in addition to the rationality of actors, organizational factors have an impact on the use of research results.
Parties annexes
Bibliographie
- Adams, J.D.A. (1990). Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of Political Economy, 98(4), 673-701.
- Amara, N., Ouimet, M., & Landry, R. (2004). New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication, 26(1), 75-106.
- Belkhodja, O., Amara, N., Landry, R., & Ouimet, M. (2007). The extent and organizational determinants of research utilization in canadian health services organizations. Science Communication, 28(3), 377-417.
- Bérubé, B. (2006). L’accès à la recherche en enseignement et son utilisation dans la pratique : résultats d’une enquête auprès des enseignants et des enseignantes du préscolaire, du primaire et du secondaire. Consulté à partir : http://www.cse.gouv.qc.ca/fichiers/documents/publications/EtudesRecherches/50-2099.pdf
- Campbell, J. L. (2002). Ideas, politics, and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 21-38.
- Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 128-152.
- Curtin, R., Presser S., & Singer, E. (2000). The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(4), 413-428.
- Dasgupta, P. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487-521.
- Dunn, W.N. (1983). Measuring knowledge use. Science Communication, 5(1), 120-133.
- Edwards, T. (2000). ‘All the evidence shows …’: Reasonable expectations of educational research. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3-4), 299-311.
- Estabrooks, C.A., Floyd, J.A., Scott-Findlay, S., O’Leary, K.A., & Gusta, M. (2003). Individual determinants of research utilization: A systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43(5), 506-520.
- Friedberg, E. (1997). Le pouvoir et la règle: Dynamiques de l’action organisée. Paris, FR: Éditions du Seuil.
- Hemsley-Brown, J. (2005). Using research to support management decision-making within the field of education. Management Decision,43(5), 691-705.
- Hemsley-Brown, J. & Sharp, C. (2003). The use of research to improve professional practice: A systematic review of the literature. Oxford Review of Education, 29(3), 449-470.
- Jbilou, J., Amara, N., & Landry, R. (2007). Research-based-decision-making in Canadian health organizations: A behavioural approach. Journal of Medical Systems, 31(3), 185-196.
- Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Bimock, M., Best, J., & Craighill, P. (2006). Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 759-779.
- Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R. M., & Presser, S. (2000). Consequences of reducing non-response in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(2), 125-148.
- Kingdon, J.W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives and public policies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.
- Knott, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1980). If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Science Communication, 1(4), 537-578.
- Landry, R., Lamari, M., & Amara, N. (2003). The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Administration Review,63(2), 192-205.
- Lavis, J.S., Ross, C. M., & Gildiner, A. (2003). Measuring the impact of health research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy,8(3), 165-169.
- Lester, J.P. (1993). The utilization of policy analysis by state agency officials. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion and Utilization, 14(3), 267-290.
- MacDonald, P.K. (2003). Useful fiction or miracle maker: The competing epistemological foundations of rational choice theory. American Political Science Review, 97(4), 551-565.
- Mortimore, P. (2000). Does educational research matter? British Educational Journal, 26(1), 5-24.
- Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davis T.O. (2003). From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation, 9(2), 125-148.
- Ouimet, M., Landry, R., Ziamand, S., Bédard, P. O. (2009). The absorption of research knowledge by public civil servants. Evidence & Policy, 5(4), 331-350.
- Pavitt, K. (1998). The social shaping of the national science base. Research Policy, 27, 793-805.
- Rich, R.F. (1977). Use of social science informations by federal bureaucrats: knowledge for action versus knowledge for understanding. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 199-218). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
- Rich, R.F. (1991). Knowledge creation, diffusion, and utilization: Perspectives of the founding editor of knowledge. Science Communication, 12(3), 319-337.
- Rich, R.F., & Oh, C.H. (2000). Rationality and use of information in policy decisions. Science Communication, 22(2), 173-211.
- Romer, P.M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71-S102.
- Sabatier, P.A. & Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117-166). Boulder, CO: Westview.
- Salter, A.J. & Martin B.R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30, 509-532.
- Satz, D. & Ferejohn, J. (1994). Rational choice and social theory. The journal of philosophy, 91(2), 71-81.
- Simon, H. A. (1983). Administration et processus de décision. Paris, FR: Economica.
- Stiglitz, J. (2000). The contribution of the economics of information to twentieth century economics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1441-1478.
- Stone, P. (2009). Rationality, intelligibility, and interpretation. Rationality and Society, 21(1), 35-58.
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decision and the psychology of choice. Science, 21, 453-458.
- Weiss, C.H. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Science Communication, 1(3), 381-404.
- Weiss, C.H., & Bucuvalas, M. J. (1977). The challenge of social research to decision. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 213-234). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
- Wingens, M. (1990). Toward a general utilization theory: A systems theory reformulation of the two-communities metaphor. Science Communication, 12(1), 27-42.