Linking Decision Roles to Knowledge Utilization in U.S. State Governments: A Mixed-Method Study. with Shuping Wang; Yuan-Daniel Cheng.
Abstract
The contemporary evidence-based policymaking movement argues that we need more scientific evidence or knowledge for civil servants to make better decisions. However, how civil servants rely on different types of knowledge to make decision, and how much weight they put on each type of knowledge is not clear. Furthermore, recent discussions on street-level bureaucrats also provide insights into how personal experience can help civil servants make better decisions. Using survey data from 259 civil servants and 36 semi-structured interviews from three state governments, this article employs a mixed-method approach to understand how civil servants strategically use different knowledge to respond to different role requirements from multiple institutional logics. The results suggest that civil servants in policy, legislative relations, and budgeting roles value political knowledge more than other civil servants, while civil servants in contracting roles value personal knowledge more. No role prioritizes scientific knowledge more than the other roles. Using information from our qualitative interviews, we further discuss the reasons why civil servants in some roles value various types of knowledge more than others.