Everybody Cares About Using Education Research Sometimes

Although there are more and more formal knowledge intermediaries in education – and they cover an increasingly wide geographical area – it is not just formal intermediaries that play a role in knowledge mobilisation. Research institutions and consulting firms are particularly active, but initial teacher education providers, inspectorates and teacher unions also care about mobilising evidence. However, there is space to further develop knowledge mobilisation as a professional discipline in education. The intermediaries’ survey data show that very few organisations develop the skills and capacity of intermediaries to effectively broker knowledge. An important activity to build the knowledge base on knowledge mobilisation would be to generate self- and peer-reflection on knowledge mobilisation initiatives across intermediaries. However, while some of these actors have substantive experience and engage in innovative practices, knowledge exchange to facilitate substantial learning across intermediaries is still limited. More efforts are needed for a better understanding of what works, what is generalisable and how to apply effective initiatives across contexts. Key partners, such as initial teacher education institutions and professional development providers, should work collaboratively to build the skills teachers and school leaders need to access relevant evidence and thoughtfully engage with it to improve teaching and school practices.

Many organisations report that they disseminate research evidence in user-friendly formats, such as briefs. This is a crucial aspect of knowledge mobilisation, but it is not how research achieves impact. One way to enhance the impact of such user-friendly formats is to bring them together in an evidence repository. Such repositories ideally have transparent inclusion criteria, standards and an easily navigable interface for time-poor practitioners and policy makers. Among the intermediaries’ survey respondents, 99 organisations claimed to curate and maintain an evidence repository. There are several well-established repositories in OECD countries and new ones are emerging, but policy makers and practitioners are still unsure where they can find evidence tailored for their specific needs. Despite initially being seen as a way to organise and make accessible vast swathes of research, this activity needs to be co-ordinated and aligned, otherwise there is a risk of information overload. A lack of co-ordination may also result in duplication of efforts and inefficient use of resources, while allowing important knowledge gaps to remain.

At present, funding structures for both research generation and mobilisation do not appropriately reflect the time, effort and money needed to actually use research. Much knowledge mobilisation is funded through research funding, which often favours simple dissemination and communication approaches that frequently have very limited impact, rather than more ambitious partnership work that is more likely to support quality engagement with the evidence base.

The growing body of knowledge and experience on knowledge mobilisation itself has not been synthesised and made widely accessible. There are also still knowledge gaps, notably on the effectiveness of various knowledge mobilisation activities. A key reason for this is the limited evaluation of current knowledge mobilisation initiatives; evaluation is often sporadic and limited to simple metrics, such as counting citations or event participants. Funding structures rarely incentivise the synthesis of research on effective knowledge mobilisation into a coherent and cumulative evidence base that intermediaries can draw on. A lack of foundational knowledge of “what works” in knowledge mobilisation makes it difficult for new intermediaries to develop robust strategies and work plans.

Independent formal intermediaries can act as critical counterparts in supporting the systemic efforts of policy organisations, e.g. the mapping of actors and their activities, and the co-ordination of knowledge mobilisation activities (locally or more broadly). Formal intermediary organisations could also play an important leading role in improved knowledge exchange by designing and implementing capacity building for their own staff and other intermediary actors to develop brokerage skills. These organisations should also be role models in developing evaluative thinking around knowledge mobilisation. This can involve systematically reflecting on and, to the extent possible, evaluating and measuring the impact of their own activities, as well as supporting or conducting rigorous evaluations of other organisations’ activities.

Ministries and intermediaries often have differing perspectives on the key barriers preventing more effective research use in their systems, which stems in part from the different spaces they respectively occupy in the landscape but also suggests a need for better communication and co-ordination. Policy makers should foster collaborative environments where feedback from intermediaries is actively sought and integrated in policy work.

The rich and diverse landscape of knowledge mobilisation showcased in this report is a promising indication that many education systems are increasingly striving to be evidence-informed. A key challenge is to ensure that such activity is effective and avoids duplication. This necessitates more co-ordination effort at the system-level, including ensuring overview of actors and an up-to-date understanding of the role of different intermediary organisations, their interests and their capacity. Such a mapping, capacity assessment and reflection on roles could be the basis for co-ordinating knowledge mobilisation at different levels. Overall, such system-level co-ordination could be mandated to formal intermediaries or to central agencies, such as ministries, who can support intermediary organisations and networks through grants aimed at promoting their co-ordination, collaboration and peer learning.