Nóra Révai
OECD
Everybody Cares About Using Education Research Sometimes
Perspectives of Knowledge Intermediaries
Abstract
This introductory chapter provides an overview of the rationale and aims of this report. It presents the OECD Survey of Knowledge Mobilisation in Education, which serves as the empirical basis for the report. The chapter first outlines the motivation for conducting the survey and states the key research questions. It then describes the target group and respondents of the survey. The content of the survey is presented, along with conceptual and practical challenges of its development. The chapter concludes by outlining the structure of the report and providing a guide for the readers.
“Science is much more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking. […] Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don't conform to our preconceptions. […] This kind of thinking… is an essential tool for a democracy in an age of change” (Sagan, 1990[1]). Engaging with evidence involves stepping out of one’s comfort zone, critically reflecting on one’s actions, and being prepared to confront prior assumptions with an open mind. The push for education systems to embrace evidence has been around for more than a quarter of a century. Yet, despite countries' significant investments over the past decades, basing decisions on sound evidence seems to be a persistent problem for policy makers and practitioners.
Since the late 1990s, the OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) has been supporting countries in overcoming this challenge (see e.g. (OECD, 2003[2]; 2007[3]; Köster, Shewbridge and Krämer, 2020[4]; Shewbridge and Köster, 2021[5])). Over the past two decades, the educational landscape has seen an expansion of actors, including brokerage agencies, What Works centres, government researchers, and research champions in schools and ministries, all aiming to enhance research impact (OECD, 2022[6]). In 2021, CERI launched the Strengthening the Impact of Education Research project to better understand “what works in what works”. This initiative began by mapping countries' mechanisms of and barriers to facilitating research use and identifying the diverse actors involved. The findings were presented in two reports. The first one – Who Cares About Using Education Research in Policy and Practice? (OECD, 2022[6]) – focused on mapping the landscape of actors, mechanisms and barriers. The second one – Who Really Cares About Using Education Research in Policy and Practice? (OECD, 2023[7]) – continued this discussion, outlining ways in which educational organisations and systems can cultivate a culture of evidence use. The data painted a rich and diversified landscape of actors playing various roles in facilitating the use of education research (Hill, 2022[8]). The reports also portrayed a number of promising structures and processes for bridging the research-policy and research-practice gaps, as well as for generating a culture of research use locally. However, major barriers to bridging these gaps remain for education systems.
These two previous reports drew on the 2021 OECD Strengthening the Impact of Education Research policy survey (henceforth the policy survey), which collected data from 37 ministries of education in 29 countries. The resulting data captured the perspectives of policy makers, which are fundamental to identifying developments and gaps in the field from the systems’ viewpoint but are insufficient to gain a valid picture of all of the actors and mechanisms that facilitate evidence use. This report shifts the focus to the field. Through new data from the 2023 OECD Survey of Knowledge Mobilisation in Education (henceforth, the intermediaries’ survey), it delves into the experiences and activities of a diverse range of educational organisations, including formal knowledge intermediaries, research institutes, inspectorates and consultancies. By exploring how these organisations facilitate the use of education research in policy and practice, it aims to paint a comprehensive picture of knowledge mobilisation at the ground level.
This chapter begins by discussing the motivation for conducting the survey. It then presents key considerations of the survey design: who the respondents are and what the survey contained. Finally, the chapter provides guidance for the readers on how to engage with the report and reflect on its analyses.
There is a growing body of evidence on knowledge mobilisation, indicated in the literature by a multiplicity of terms and concepts (Torres and Steponavičius, 2022[9]). A wide cross-sector search of studies related to knowledge mobilisation in Google Scholar shows a clear increase in the use of terms describing actors who support knowledge mobilisation such as “broker”, “mediator”, “intermediary”, “translator” and “boundary spanner” since 2000 (see Figure 1.1).
Note: 2024 data is until 31 October. Data were collected through a Google Scholar search, using the following code for the term “broker”: “research” AND "knowledge" AND "broker|brokers" AND ("research|knowledge mobilisation|mobilization" OR "knowledge translation|mediation" OR "knowledge-to-action" OR "evidence-based|evidence-informed policy|practice"). For the other terms, the used codes were equivalent.
Source: Based on Torres and Steponavičius (2022[9]), “More than just a go-between: The role of intermediaries in knowledge mobilisation”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 285, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aa29cfd3-en, updated in 2024.
Despite the increase shown in the graph, at least three important research gaps remain (Torres and Steponavičius, 2022[9]). First, for a long time, research focused primarily on individuals acting as intermediaries, rather than organisations across different sectors. While organisations are inseparable from the individuals who operate within them (Belkhodja et al., 2007[10]), a unique focus on the latter may overlook the impact of an organisation’s characteristics, such as its size, structures and processes (MacKillop, Quarmby and Downe, 2020[11]). In recent years, studies on organisations as intermediaries have started to emerge (Shewchuk and Farley-Ripple, 2022[12]; Oliver et al., 2022[13]). Second, research that studied organisations has predominantly explored formal intermediaries, i.e. those that explicitly identify as intermediaries. Results from the policy survey showed that less than half of respondent systems have formal brokerage agencies (with a primary mandate to facilitate research mobilisation and use) (OECD, 2022[6]). However, many other organisations, such as universities, teacher education institutions and school networks, play important roles in mobilising research knowledge, regardless of whether this is part of their formal mission. Disregarding implicit intermediaries will inevitably fail to give an accurate picture of knowledge mobilisation efforts in a system. Third, research on intermediaries often primarily explores Anglo-Saxon initiatives and actors. Yet, intermediaries and their work can differ markedly across different education systems.
Importantly, very little is known about the effectiveness of intermediary efforts (Torres and Steponavičius, 2022[9]; Boaz, Oliver and Hopkins, 2022[14]; Oliver et al., 2022[13]). Yet, to improve mechanisms and make investments more efficient, countries across the OECD need to know what works in this field – and likewise, if certain efforts do not work, why that is. This knowledge can inform investment, improvements and scaling.
In response to the aforementioned gaps, the OECD conducted the Survey of Knowledge Mobilisation in Education from July to December 2023 to explore the following questions:
How can knowledge mobilisation activities be characterised across different organisations?
What do we know about the effectiveness and impact of knowledge mobilisation activities?
Following the motivations laid out in the previous section, this survey focuses on organisations (including departments of bigger organisations) that can play a role in enabling practitioners’ and policy makers’ engagement with research to support their practices and decision making. Target organisations include formal intermediaries that are expected to focus strongly on knowledge mobilisation; and other, more traditional educational actors, whose primary function is not knowledge mobilisation per se (see Table 1.1).
In defining the target organisations, certain decisions had to be made for reasons of feasibility, and thus the list of target organisations is not comprehensive. For instance, professional development providers of educational practitioners would be a relevant type of organisation. They were excluded because, in many countries, this field is highly fragmented with hundreds or thousands of such providers with varying profiles. In these countries, it would have been difficult to select a few representative ones. Research and professional networks also have knowledge mobilisation functions in some countries. To be able to capture organisational features, it was decided to focus on formal organisations only and exclude networks.
Note: In parentheses following country names is the number of organisations targeted (sample size). The left axis shows the response rate, the right axis indicates the number of respondent organisations.
Source: OECD Survey of Knowledge Mobilisation in Education data, 2023.
To construct the samples, the OECD team asked official country representatives in the CERI Governing Board to help identify relevant organisations, following the guidelines in Table 1.1. In addition, desk research was conducted to identify key organisations, and the broader professional network of the project was mobilised to support sampling. International country comparison is not possible because of the small samples and/or low response rates in many countries (see Figure 1.2).
The types of organisations sampled are not completely distinct. For instance, in most countries, research institutions and initial teacher education (ITE) institutions are within the same organisation or they may even be the same faculty. Therefore, respondents could identify as several types of organisations by selecting all that apply to them.
Altogether, 288 organisations from 34 countries responded to the survey. Research institutes are the most represented type of organisation, which likely reflects the relatively higher number of universities than other types of organisations in most countries (Figure 1.3). Inspectorates and quality assurance agencies are the least common type in the dataset, probably because many countries only have one or two such organisations. Figure 1.4 shows that the most common combination is indeed research and ITE institutes, and that over 30 organisations chose at least three of the given types. In addition, 47 respondents also selected the “Other”1 category, seven of which did not identify as another type of organisation simultaneously. Various types of organisations (and configurations) were relatively evenly distributed in all countries with a reasonable number of respondents (Figure 1.5).
Note: The number indicated above the bars is the number of organisations that identified as the given type altogether (i.e. the sum of the orange and blue bars).
Source: OECD Survey of Knowledge Mobilisation in Education data, 2023.
Note: The data show the number of respondents that identified as the types of organisations indicated by dark green dots underneath the bars. The data is arranged in descending order of the size of intersection in terms of the number of types of organisations indicated and the number of respondents.
Source: OECD Survey of Knowledge Mobilisation in Education data, 2023.
Notes: The data show the number of respondents that identified only as the given type of organisation per country. In addition, it includes the two most common overlaps: 1) research and initial teacher education institutes but nothing else; 2) consulting firms and any other type of organisation. The category “Mix” includes all other combinations.
Source: OECD Survey of Knowledge Mobilisation in Education data, 2023.
Overall, apart from research institutes, the number of different types of organisations is not very high. This implies that organisation-type-specific analyses need to be interpreted with caution and should certainly not be considered as representative. Similarly, country-level analysis is only conducted on a few occasions for countries with at least 10 respondents. Analyses should be considered with caution, as the organisations do not represent the entire field of knowledge mobilisation actors in any of the countries.
Overview
The survey focuses on knowledge mobilisation, which is used broadly to refer to any intentional efforts to increase or improve the use of research evidence in education policy and/or practice. This includes generating policy- or practice-relevant research evidence, making research accessible, enabling different actors to engage with it and supporting organisational and system-level conditions for better research engagement. It maps the activities of respondent organisations, their perceptions of the effectiveness of these activities, the extent and the ways in which they evaluate them. Importantly, the survey included a set of questions that were taken from the project’s previous policy survey to allow for comparison between ministries’ and intermediary organisations’ perspectives on the mechanisms that facilitate the use of research, the appropriateness of resources and barriers to research use. In addition, the survey captures some basic organisational characteristics (see Table 1.2).
Note: Questions on the organisational culture of research use were adapted from the survey developed in the Q Project of Monash University in Australia (Rickinson et al., 2022[15]).
Conceptual framework for knowledge mobilisation
The survey builds on the conceptual model adapted from Best and Holmes (2010[16]), which has since been used widely in knowledge mobilisation research (Hopkins et al., 2021[17]; Boaz et al., 2019[18]), including in OECD work underlying this chapter (OECD, 2022[6]; OECD, 2023[7]). In this model, linear approaches refer to traditional research dissemination or transfer, i.e. making research accessible and communicating it in user-friendly forms. Relational approaches emphasise bringing the research and practitioner or policy communities together, creating partnerships and building capacity for research use. Finally, systems approaches recognise that actors’ behaviours are influenced by a range of systemic factors, such as available resources, incentives and mechanisms.
Source: Adapted from OECD (2023[7]) Who Really Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice?: Developing a Culture of Research Engagement, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bc641427-en; and Boaz (2021[19]) Push or pull: What does harnessing the use of reserch involve and imply?, Presentation given at the OECD Strengthening the Impact of Education Research project meeting on 27 April 2021.
Figure 1.6 represents the embedded nature of the three approaches, highlighting the key elements of each approach included in the survey. It reflects the historic evolution of thinking about knowledge mobilisation – an early focus on linear approaches, a subsequent recognition of the importance of relationships, and finally an understanding that a systems perspective is necessary for high-quality knowledge mobilisation (Boaz et al., 2019[18]; OECD, 2022[6]; Burns and Köster, 2016[20]). The three approaches are not mutually exclusive. Rather, many initiatives contain elements from two or even all three approaches. For example, the England case study in Chapter 3 discusses a systemic mapping of the different actors involved in knowledge mobilisation – an initiative that inherently carries the features of both relational (actors are at its core) and systems approaches.
Conceptual and practical challenges in the development of the survey
Turning a conceptual framework of a complex notion – knowledge mobilisation – into a survey requires practical decisions and some trade-offs. These points must be noted for the interpretation of the analyses presented in this report.
Conceptualising knowledge mobilisation
Numerous terms are used to describe concepts related to knowledge mobilisation in academic literature, and there is no universally agreed definition of any of them, nor on what knowledge mobilisation encompasses.
First, what is knowledge? In policy- and practice-related decisions, several knowledge sources need to be combined, including different actors’ contextual and professional knowledge, their values and the political agenda or school programme (OECD, 2023[7]). These decisions involve actors from different communities interacting, considering all these knowledge sources alongside research evidence. However, the focus of the survey is on knowledge coming from research rather than other sources. The report understands research to be a form of systematic investigation of educational and learning processes with a view to increasing or revising current knowledge. Some of the case studies featured in the report help bring out the nuances and complexities of mobilising research evidence in combination with other sources of knowledge.
Second, what is mobilisation? Certain conceptual frameworks distinguish between research production, mediation and use (Torres, 2022[21]; Gough et al., 2011[22]), while more recent frameworks refer to research production, engagement and decision making (Gough, Thomas and Oliver, 2019[23]; Gough, Maidment and Sharples, 2018[24]). Knowledge mobilisation has sometimes been used as an equivalent of mediation or engagement, sometimes referring to the entirety of the frameworks. The boundaries between conducting, mediating (or mobilising) and using research have become increasingly blurred. For instance, it is difficult to tease apart production, mediation and use when research is co-produced with a strong involvement of users (e.g. practitioners) in the research process itself. The two previous OECD reports (OECD, 2022[6]; OECD, 2023[7]) discussed several such examples and called for a closer connection between research production and use. Therefore, the survey considered the generation of research evidence as part of knowledge mobilisation, even though much of academic research is still conducted largely isolated from policy or practice, not necessarily considering its impact beyond the academic community (Torres and Steponavičius, 2022[9]).
Distinguishing knowledge mobilisation and research use is equally complicated. Implementing a research-informed intervention in a school or designing policies through thoughtful engagement with research evidence are, of course, examples of knowledge mobilisation from the perspective of the school or ministry/authority. As the survey aimed more at understanding intermediary roles, i.e. activities that support such engagement, these forms of direct research engagement were not captured. This distinction is however not always clear, particularly when it comes to co-designing practices and policies in the form of research-practice or research-policy partnerships or through implementation support by any type of intermediary. Thus, forms of research use (implementation) appear in the survey somewhat indirectly under partnerships and co-design activities.
Selecting terms that mean the same to all
Many other concepts are similarly difficult to define, including research, policy, practice and intermediary. In addition, different countries tend to use different terms. No single term can appropriately reflect the complexities described above, and an international survey also needs to consider language barriers and difficulties of translation. For instance, while the two previous reports favoured the term research engagement rather than use (to avoid the simplistic notion that research findings are directly and easily applicable in education practice or policy), the survey uses these terms interchangeably. The rationale for this simplification was to keep the survey accessible (research use is a more immediately understandable concept) and easier to translate to other languages.
While the survey included a glossary to support respondents in interpreting the terms, this cannot exclude the possibility of ambiguity in interpretation. Where appropriate, the analysis in this report will draw the reader’s attention to these.
Transforming the framework into a set of activities
The two previous reports (OECD, 2022[6]; 2023[7]) and the academic literature more generally emphasise that knowledge mobilisation and research engagement reflect complex processes. This complexity had to be translated into questions that can be explored through a survey. To this end, 21 knowledge mobilisation activities were identified based on a review of the literature and previous surveys on this theme (see Chapter 3). To avoid the impression that research use and knowledge mobilisation are simple processes that can be broken down into a small set of clearly distinct activities, the report features several case studies that demonstrate how various activities play out in a more complex initiative.
The survey also aimed to capture linear, relational and systems approaches. While some activities can be more clearly categorised as falling under one specific approach, many may fall into several categories at the same time. Portraying systems approaches as single activities may seem particularly paradoxical given that a systems perspective is precisely about understanding how the various elements of a system are connected and affect one another. Nevertheless, it is possible to capture systems approaches as activities targeting system development at two levels. First, considering an organisation as a system, through support activities that aim to improve knowledge mobilisation targeting various elements of the organisational system (such as its leadership, culture, processes and infrastructure). Second, considering the wider education system, through a set of activities targeting knowledge mobilisation at the local, regional or national level. Going beyond individual activities, a systems approach to knowledge mobilisation can also be seen as a strategy that considers all of the different activities and actors.
Keeping respondents focused on knowledge mobilisation rather than their broad functions
The fact that the survey targeted a range of organisations, most of which are not formal knowledge intermediaries, means that many respondents are not used to thinking about themselves and their activities specifically in terms of knowledge mobilisation. Therefore, some organisations may have responded to some questions with their broader mandate in mind, rather than with respect to their knowledge mobilisation activities. This could be the case, for instance, for questions relating to evaluation. As Chapter 6 highlights, a significant proportion of organisations reported that they measure the impact of their knowledge mobilisation activities on student outcomes. This is surprising and unlikely given the complexity of measuring such impact and the very little presence of such knowledge in the international literature. In light of this challenge, all chapters in this publication call for cautious interpretations and refrain from drawing far-reaching implications.
The above complexities imply that the survey is naturally limited in terms of its scope and perhaps conceptual clarity. Nevertheless, this survey is first of its kind in bringing together the perspectives of a wide range of educational organisations going beyond formal knowledge intermediaries. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, it provides the most comprehensive overview of self-reported data focused exclusively on knowledge mobilisation in education to date. Therefore, the authors believe that the data will provide useful food for thought to improve knowledge mobilisation. See Box 1.1 for more information on the survey development and qualitative data.
Survey development
The survey was designed based on an extensive review of the relevant literature (Torres and Steponavičius, 2022[9]) and a review of existing surveys in the field. It also considered lessons learnt from the Strengthening the Impact of Education Research policy survey. The development process included iterative rounds of reviews by experts, and piloting through interviews and testing.
The final survey consisted of mandatory and optional questions, some of which were shared across all types of organisations (core questions), while some were specific to certain types of organisations. These included questions with given answer options (single choice, multiple choice and Likert scale) and a few open-ended questions. The data from these latter were coded thematically using an inductive and exploratory approach. The purpose of the coding was to better interpret quantitative data and identify potentially effective knowledge mobilisation practices or novel approaches to feature as illustrative examples and case studies.
Case studies
To complement survey data and develop in-depth case studies of knowledge mobilisation practices (see Table 1.3), semi-structured group and individual interviews were organised with selected organisations that had responded to the survey (in April-June 2024). The selection built strongly on the survey question that asked respondents to describe one or more knowledge mobilisation activities that they perceive as effective or innovative. The criteria included:
Diversity in representation in terms of organisation type and country/region.
Unique or innovative approach to knowledge mobilisation the activity described, goes beyond linear dissemination mechanisms. For example, it can focus on partnership building (e.g. between research-policy), co-design (e.g. between research-practice or research-policy) or combine multiple approaches, including a systems perspective.
Evaluation/impact: There are some indicators of evaluation of the knowledge mobilisation activities.
From an initial longlist of 26 organisations, the team selected nine organisations for group interviews, seven of which accepted to be interviewed.
This report aims to support countries in reflecting on and improving their research mobilisation. To do so, it provides insights into the international landscape of knowledge mobilisation activities across different organisations in education, as well as their perceived effectiveness and impact.
Much of the literature underlying the report has been presented in the project’s previous publications (OECD, 2022[6]; 2023[7]; Torres and Steponavičius, 2022[9]; Schlicht-Schmälzle et al., 2024[25]) . Therefore, this report does not include an extensive review of the literature in every chapter. Instead, Chapter 2 provides an analysis of recent studies on knowledge mobilisation in education policy making to give the reader a sense of the increasing body of evidence on this subject. It also offers comparison with other sectors, such as health, environment and criminal justice – as cross-sectoral learning in this field has been emphasised by many stakeholders (OECD, 2022[6]). This is followed by four chapters that analyse the survey described in this introduction. They provide insights into knowledge mobilisation activities carried out by the surveyed organisations, their perceptions of mechanisms and barriers to facilitate the use of research, funding and other resources involved in their initiatives, as well as their evaluation practices. As a conclusion, the last chapter highlights recent developments and remaining challenges in this field and discusses the next steps. The seven chapters are briefly presented in Table 1.3.
The report is intended to be useful for policy makers in ministries of education and local authorities, and all educational actors that aim to play a role in facilitating the use of research evidence in education policy and practice. These include individuals not just from the surveyed types of intermediary organisations, but also those who did not have a chance to answer this survey (e.g. professional development providers, research and professional associations and networks, and perhaps even schools).
The analytical chapters (3-6) follow a similar structure:
Key messages
Introduction to describe the scope of the chapter
Analysis of three to four data charts that present and interpret the findings. They also include insights from key experts (expert quotes) and examples based on qualitative data.
Case studies illustrating an aspect of knowledge mobilisation relevant for the chapter. Some case studies draw on practices of one organisation, some provide a broader landscape of several organisations within a country. Most of the case studies included in the chapters draw substantively on follow-up interviews conducted with select respondent organisations.
Questions for reflection that invite the readers to think about the situation in their own context, what the challenges are and how could they be addressed based on the analysis presented.
The authors invite the readers to engage with the analysis in a critical and thoughtful way – just as the literature describes quality engagement with research (Rickinson et al., 2022[15]). Thoughtful engagement involves comparing, contrasting and combining the findings from the analyses with other sources of knowledge and information. Readers are encouraged to:
Reflect on the analyses based on their perceptions and knowledge of their own country context, their professional and organisational background, as well as their values and opinions.
Examine their pre-existing knowledge, assumptions and values and assess if those are in line with the presented findings. If they differ, they can ask themselves:
What might be missing from the data or distorting the picture? What might be misleading in the analysis?
What might be misleading in my own perceptions of reality? What might be missing from my own knowledge and experience?
The expert quotes illustrate this engagement. They are the result of a meeting the OECD team organised in June 2024 with individuals who work in major knowledge intermediary organisations, have been researching knowledge mobilisation for decades, or have worked on aspects of knowledge mobilisation in policy or practice-oriented organisations. These experts were shown the data presented in this report and were asked to react based on their own knowledge and experience. These pieces are therefore “expert opinions” reflecting the ideas of a few people who have substantive knowledge and experience in the field of knowledge mobilisation.
The analyses and indeed the survey questions themselves can be used as a self-reflection tool that may shape ministries’, agencies’ as well as intermediary organisations’ thinking about their functions, activities, relationships and impact. We wish you a thoughtful engagement with the analyses.
References
[10] Belkhodja, O. et al. (2007), “The Extent and Organizational Determinants of Research Utilization in Canadian Health Services Organizations”, Science Communication, Vol. 28/3, pp. 377-417, https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547006298486.
[16] Best, A. and B. Holmes (2010), “Systems thinking, knowledge and action: Towards better models and methods”, Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, Vol. 6/2, pp. 145–159, https://doi.org/10.1332/174426410X502284.
[19] Boaz, A. (2021), Push or pull: What does harnessing the use of reserch involve and imply?, Presentation given at the OECD Strengthening the Impact of Education Research project meeting on 27 April 2021.
[18] Boaz, A. et al. (eds.) (2019), What Works Now? Evidence-Informed Policy and Practice, Policy Press.
[14] Boaz, A., K. Oliver and A. Hopkins (2022), “Linking research, policy and practice: Learning from other sectors”, in Who Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice?: Strengthening Research Engagement, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/70c657bc-en.
[20] Burns, T. and F. Köster (eds.) (2016), Governing Education in a Complex World, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-en.
[24] Gough, D., C. Maidment and J. Sharples (2018), UK What Works Centres: Aims, methods and contexts.
[23] Gough, D., J. Thomas and S. Oliver (2019), “Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems”, Systematic Reviews, Vol. 8/170, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1089-2.
[22] Gough, D. et al. (2011), Evidence Informed Policymaking in Education in Europe: EIPEE Final Report, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
[8] Hill, J. (2022), “Who is facilitating research use in education systems?”, in Who Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice?: Strengthening Research Engagement, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f872248c-en.
[17] Hopkins, A. et al. (2021), “Are research-policy engagement activities informed by policy theory and evidence? 7 challenges to the UK impact agenda”, Policy Design and Practice, Vol. 4/3, pp. 341-356, https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1921373.
[4] Köster, F., C. Shewbridge and C. Krämer (2020), Promoting Education Decision Makers’ Use of Evidence in Austria, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0ac0181e-en.
[11] MacKillop, E., S. Quarmby and J. Downe (2020), “Does knowledge brokering facilitate evidence-based policy? A review of existing knowledge and an agenda for future research”, Policy and Politics, Vol. 48/2, pp. 335-353, https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319x15740848311069.
[7] OECD (2023), Who Really Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice?: Developing a Culture of Research Engagement, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bc641427-en.
[6] OECD (2022), Who Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice?: Strengthening Research Engagement, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d7ff793d-en.
[3] OECD (2007), Evidence in Education: Linking Research and Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264033672-en.
[2] OECD (2003), New Challenges for Educational Research, Knowledge management, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264100312-en.
[13] Oliver, K. et al. (2022), “What works to promote research-policy engagement?”, Evidence & Policy, pp. 1-23, https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16420918447616.
[15] Rickinson, M. et al. (2022), “A framework for understanding the quality of evidence use in education”, Educational Research, Vol. 64/2, pp. 133-158, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2022.2054452.
[1] Sagan, C. (1990), “Why We Need To Understand Science”, The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 14/3.
[25] Schlicht-Schmälzle, R. et al. (2024), “Bridging the research-practice gap in education: Initiatives from 3 OECD countries”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 319, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c0d3f781-en.
[5] Shewbridge, C. and F. Köster (2021), Promoting Education Decision Makers’ Use of Evidence in Flanders, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/de604fde-en.
[12] Shewchuk, S. and E. Farley-Ripple (2022), Understanding Brokerage in Education Backward Tracking from Practice to Research, http://www.research4schools.org.
[21] Torres, J. (2022), “Facilitating research use: Scary Barriers (and Super Mechanisms)”, in Who Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice?: Strengthening Research Engagement, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cd4e8487-en.
[9] Torres, J. and M. Steponavičius (2022), “More than just a go-between: The role of intermediaries in knowledge mobilisation”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 285, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aa29cfd3-en.
← 1. Qualitative specifications of the “other” category were coded subsequently. 15 respondents were recoded in an already existing category after verification through desk research. Nine organisations were re-categorised as professional associations or networks. These were not originally intended target organisations, but presumably the country representatives that provided the samples considered them to play a major role in knowledge mobilisation. These respondents are not considered in analyses that present data per type of organisation (e.g. the heatmap in Chapter 3), but their responses are taken into account in data not broken down by type of organisation.