國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
that academics draw their influence at different levels and from different sources.
Finally, the chapter will conclude with a well-known illustrative example of academic policy influence in action.
4.1 Models of Research Utilisation
In a seminal work entitled ‘The Many Meanings of Research Utilisation,’ Carol Weiss (1979) outlined seven key ways in which social sciences research could ultimately make an impact upon policy. Although the work was written decades ago, it remains extremely on-point and relevant for pathways to policy influence today, and can offer insights into the evolution of international relations research institutes’ mechanisms of influencing foreign policy. These models will be considered in the context of research utilisation in Chinese decisionmaking.
The first model, the ‘knowledge-driven model,’ refers to the manner in which expanding knowledge can lead to new policy innovations, but tends to occur only in the fields of science and technology. A second model, the ‘tactical model,’ takes place when the very existence of research, or occasionally certain content of research, is used by governments or interested parties to defend against criticism or curry favour. These two approaches are largely irrelevant in terms of this study. However, the remaining five models are of great interest.
Firstly is the ‘problem-solving model.’ Weiss explains that in this model, a policy goal already exists, but there remains a knowledge or information gap which must be filled in order to identify appropriate solutions or best ways to fulfil this policy goal.
Within this model, there are two ways in which research can be utilised. The first is that
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the research already exists but the policy maker is not originally aware of it; relevant research comes to their attention, either deliberately or fortuitously, and is employed to resolve the policy problem. Secondly, the research may be commissioned by the policy maker specifically to fill in the knowledge gap and allow them to make an appropriate policy choice. In this model, it is expected that policy makers have clearly defined what information they are missing and actively seek it out, and that the research provides this information. Interestingly, Weiss remarks: “Implicit in this model is a sense that there is a consensus on goals… policy makers and researchers tend to agree on what the desired end state shall be.” (Weiss, 1979: 427)
The second model of interest is the ‘political model.’ Within this model, policy makers have already chosen their policy direction: “For reasons of interest, ideology, or intellect, [policy makers] have taken a stand that research is not likely to shake.” (p. 429) Instead, social sciences research is employed as ‘ammunition’ for the cause. As Weiss writes, “Partisans flourish the evidence in an attempt to neutralise opponents, convince waverers, and bolster supporters. Even if conclusions have to be ripped out of context…
research becomes grist to the mill.” (Weiss, 1979: 429) She goes on to point out that whilst this approach is often seen as an illegitimate by academic purists, it does ensure that research has strong policy relevance – even if the policy decision antedates the research itself.
Taken together, these two models cast insight into the traditional use of academic research by policy makers in China before the rapid evolution of the system began to take place in the 1990s. As mentioned in Chapter Two, policy was decided by a small, select core of decision makers, who were certainly guided by notions of ideology and interest. It was often the case that a policy would be formulated for purely
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
ideological reasons. (Wills, 2011) Furthermore, research institute employees were on a tight rein and were often selected for their loyalty to the Communist Party (Zhu, 2013), with little freedom to pursue their own research agenda instead of the Party’s – in other words, just as in the problem-solving model, policy makers and researchers did have a consensus on goals. Often researchers would scrabble to provide the information the leadership needed to press ahead with a policy which was already decided upon.
Researchers were not free to follow their own research agenda and were employed to respond to research tasks laid out by their supervising units. (Shambaugh, 2002; Glaser and Medeiros, 2007) It could therefore be argued that during this period of time, the relationship between research and policy making could be characterised by a mixture of the problem-solving and political models. Interestingly, though, due to the one-party dictatorship and the almost total absence of political opposition at the time, there was little need to ‘neutralise opponents’ or ‘convince waverers.’ Instead, the existence and use of apparently relevant research outcomes could be used to bolster not only supporters but also the Party’s legitimacy and correctness.
Since this time, the process of policy making has undergone huge changes, and as the number of actors involved has pluralised and diversified, so have the paths to policy influence. The political and problem-solving models certainly still exist; as Glaser and Saunders remark, some policy makers “actively solicit analysis that addresses current policy issues or supports their views.”(p. 614) However, there are also three other models which demonstrate some of the newer ways in which Chinese researchers are influencing policy making. Firstly is the ‘interactive model.’ Weiss explains, “Those engaged in developing policy seek information not only from social scientists but from a range of sources – administrators, practitioners, politicians, planners, journalists, clients,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
interest groups, aides, friends.” (p. 428) This mirrors the increasing number of actors involved in the more pluralised Chinese policy making processes in contemporary China.
These various groups interact with each other and through this process, enough knowledge is gleaned to make an appropriate policy. China’s international relations researchers would therefore be one piece of a complex, interconnected jigsaw of actors all playing their part in influencing the decision making process. Importantly, this model reflects how decision makers actively seek out the information they need or desire, but draw it out through the interaction of a range of different players.
Secondly is the ‘enlightenment model,’ in which policy makers are ‘enlightened’
by research: “It is the concepts and theoretical perspectives that social science research has engendered that permeate the policy-making process.” (p. 429) Weiss continues to explain that decision makers do not seek out information, but come to make use of it passively. “Social science research diffuses circuitously through manifold channels – professional journals, the mass media, conversations with colleagues… In the long run, along with other influences, it often redefines the policy agenda.” (pp. 429-430) What’s more, importantly: “Unlike the problem-solving model, this model of research does not assume that, in order to be useful, research results must be compatible with decision makers’ values and goals.” (p. 430) This model also closely reflects some of the changes in Chinese decision making. No longer do policy makers accept only those findings which back up their research or fulfil their goals; instead, they are open to alternative viewpoints and may be influenced by ideas despite not actively seeking them out. (Zhu, 2013) Chinese academics are also airing their views via more channels, including the media and through personal networking. (Glaser and Medeiros, 2007)
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The final model is referred to as “research as part of the intellectual enterprise of society.” In this model, as societal trends change over time, so does the direction and scope of research. “Research is one part of the interconnected intellectual enterprise.”
(p. 430) Increasing attention to certain research topics attracts the interest of policy makers, who may boost funding, thus attracting more research. This model demonstrates the benefits of the intellectual or academic pursuit of knowledge. In China, growing emphasis is placed on improving academic excellence and building a firm base of high-quality research – one part of the intellectual enterprise of society, as it were.
(Shambaugh, 2002; Glaser and Saunders, 2002) Once certain ideas are mooted, greater funding may be supplied to build up understanding of the concepts involved. Research centres such as CASS, with a stronger emphasis on academic rigour, reflect this model in action.
The combination of these five models – problem-solving, political, interactive, enlightenment, and intellectual enterprise – forms the basis of mechanisms of research utilisation prevalent in China today. In other words, international relations research influences policy making via these five means. These models are certainly important to consider when assessing the impact of research on policy; measuring influence is not as simple as merely investigating which research policy makers have actively sought.
Research which has reached decision makers’ eyes and ears through other channels must also be taken into account.