Studies of evidence-based policy have found that research often fails to influence policy-making and identify a number of barriers to research utilization. Less is known about what public administrations do to overcome such barriers. The article draws on a content analysis of 1,159 documents and 13 qualitative interviews to compare how and why evidence standards affect research utilization in two Danish ministries with available evidence, policy analytical capacity, and broad political agreement on key policy goals. The article finds support for the proposition that more exclusive evidence standards in ministries will lead to higher levels of research utilization by showing that average levels of research utilization are higher in the Ministry of Employment than in the Ministry of Children and Education in the period 2016?2021. In active employment policy the adoption an evidence hierarchy and the accumulating evidence in a knowledge bank has interacted with stakeholder support and a continued coordination with the Ministry of Finance to provide economic incentives for policy-makers to adopt evidence-based policies thus stimulating research utilization. Evidence for public education policy, by contrast, has been more contested and the Ministry of Children of Education retains inclusive evidence standards in an attempt to integrate evidencebased and practical knowledge from stakeholders, which has led to lower average levels of utilization in the period.

对循证政策的研究发现，研究往往无法影响政策制定，也无法识别研究利用的许多障碍。人们对公共行政部门如何克服这些障碍知之甚少。本文对 1,159 份文件和 13 次定性访谈进行内容分析，通过现有证据、政策分析能力以及对关键政策目标的广泛政治共识，比较证据标准如何以及为何影响丹麦两个部委的研究利用。文章通过显示 2016 年就业部的平均研究利用水平高于儿童和教育部，支持了以下主张：各部委中更多的排他性证据标准将导致更高的研究利用水平？ 2021 年。在积极的就业政策中，证据层次的采用和知识库中证据的积累与利益相关者的支持以及与财政部的持续协调相互作用，为政策制定者采取基于证据的政策提供经济激励，从而刺激研究利用。相比之下，公共教育政策的证据受到更多争议，儿童教育部保留了包容性证据标准，试图整合利益相关者的循证知识和实践知识，这导致该时期的平均利用率较低。