Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

More than ever before, analysts in government have access to policy-relevant research and advocacy, which they consume, interpret, and apply in their role in the policy process.  Academics have historically occupied a privileged position of authority and legitimacy in the public domain as it relates to applied policy research, but some argue this is changing with the rapid growth of think tanks and research-based advocacy organizations.  Craft and Howlett (2012) have theorized that it is not just the location or source of the policy advice that will shape its perception and influence, but also the content of advice, as more (and different) actors have entered into the policy advice system.  This paper documents the findings from a randomized controlled survey experiment completed by 701 policy analysts from four provincial governments in Canada to systematically test and differentiate the source and content effects of policy research in two subject areas: minimum wage and income-splitting tax policy.  Subjects were asked to read research summaries of these topics and then assess the credibility of each article, but for many of the survey respondents the affiliation/ authorship of the content was randomly reassigned.  The experimental findings lend evidence to the hypothesis that academic research receives a ‘credibility bonus’ to those in government, whereas think tank or advocacy organization research suffers from a ‘credibility penalty’ from their organizational identity, regardless of its research content. The implications of such patterns are considered.