José Manuel Torres
OECD
Melissa Mouthaan
OECD
Everybody Cares About Using Education Research Sometimes
Perspectives of Knowledge Intermediaries
Abstract
This chapter examines the differing perspectives of ministries of education and knowledge intermediaries regarding research use in education policy and practice within their systems. It focuses specifically on the mechanisms supporting quality research use and on the barriers to such research use, as well as available resources. The chapter first presents and compares the results from two OECD surveys, followed by an in-depth analysis and discussion of the findings. It also features two case studies on knowledge mobilisation: i) a dialogue platform in Japan where stakeholders can identify issues and bridge misunderstandings towards building a common ground; and ii) how the challenge of ensuring uptake of national-level knowledge mobilisation initiatives is being met in the United States by involving state-level intermediaries. The chapter concludes with questions for reflection and activities to encourage further thinking and discussion on knowledge mobilisation.
Policy makers and intermediaries often occupy distinct roles in education systems and in knowledge mobilisation initiatives, and comparing their perspectives can reveal misalignments and potential areas for collaboration. Drawing on data from two OECD surveys, this chapter presents the perspectives of these actors on the mechanisms supporting quality research use, and on the barriers to such research use.
The comparative data and analysis in this chapter suggest the following:
There is a notable perception gap between intermediaries and ministries concerning both mechanisms to facilitate research use and barriers. This may be due to differences in perspectives and relative positions in the education landscape, or due to mechanisms initiated by policy makers not being well communicated to other actors “downstream”, or to a perception among intermediaries that the mechanisms that exist are insufficient or ineffective.
Intermediaries often perceive there to be fewer mechanisms to support and promote research use among practitioners than ministries do, highlighting potential gaps in awareness of or satisfaction with these mechanisms.
A key point of diverging opinion is the adequacy of resources for knowledge mobilisation in practice, with intermediaries across respondent systems reporting that resources are insufficient – an opinion not altogether shared by ministries.
While some perception differences may be natural or unproblematic, in many instances a shared understanding of mechanisms and barriers through better communication and collaboration could help to enhance research use in educational policy and practice.
Miles’ Law states: "where you stand depends on where you sit" (Miles, 1978[1]). Even when two groups are part of the same system, their perceptions and realities may differ significantly on the same subject. This divergence is not by definition a challenge when it comes to research use in policy and practice – indeed, having multiple perspectives can enrich decision-making and lead to a more holistic understanding of complex issues. However, it may also signal a deeper, underlying misalignment within the system.
This chapter explores the different perspectives of ministries of education and knowledge intermediaries on the mechanisms for supporting quality research use in education policy and practice in their systems, and the barriers preventing it. The perspectives of researchers and policy makers are well represented in research on knowledge mobilisation, both in education and other policy fields (see Chapter 2). This body of literature has shown how the gaps between these communities have limited the policy impact of research (Pino-Yancovic et al., 2023[2]; Brown, 2014[3]; Bandola-Gill, 2019[4]). To tackle the research-policy gap, some systems have started to implement interventions aimed at promoting researchers’ understanding of the policy context, and policy makers’ research literacy (OECD, 2023[5]; OECD, 2024[6]).
In contrast, fewer studies have collected empirical data on the perspectives of individuals or organisations that act as intermediaries regarding knowledge mobilisation in education policy or practice. Some exceptions included in a 2024 systematic review (Oliver et al., forthcoming[7]) are studies by Vanderlinde and van Braak (2010[8]), Bélanger and Dulude (2021[9]) and Bushouse and Mosley (2018[10]), which explore intermediary perspectives in the Flemish, Canadian and US contexts. These studies highlight that intermediaries act on their perceptions to influence the education landscape. Given the importance of bridging the research-policy and research-practice gaps, understanding the perspectives of all actors within the system – including intermediaries – is essential to supporting more coherent, effective knowledge mobilisation efforts.
The analysis in this chapter contributes to this literature. It draws on data from two OECD surveys (see Box 4.1 and Chapter 1) to explore and compare the perspectives of ministries and intermediaries on the use of research in education policy and practice contexts.
The Policy Survey
The 2021 OECD Strengthening the Impact of Education Research policy survey (OECD, 2022[11]), collected data from 37 ministries and departments of education in 29 countries1 to map the knowledge mobilisation mechanisms, actors and challenges across education systems (henceforth, the "policy survey"). Responses were collected from ministries of education2 at the national or sub-national level – e.g. state, province, canton.
The Intermediaries’ Survey
The 2023 OECD Survey of Knowledge Mobilisation in Education (see Chapter 1) collected data about the knowledge mobilisation activities of 288 intermediary organisations in 34 countries to better understand how they are supporting research engagement (henceforth, the "intermediaries’ survey”).
1. OECD member countries: Austria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye. OECD member countries’ jurisdictions: Flemish and French Communities of Belgium, Quebec, Saskatchewan (Canada), Appenzell Ausserrhoden, Lucerne, Nidwalden, Obwalden, St. Gallen, Uri, Zurich (Switzerland), England (United Kingdom), Illinois (United States). Non-member economies: Russian Federation, South Africa.
2. The policy survey targeted the highest level of decision making in education (ministry/department of education). In federal systems, this corresponds to the state (province, canton, autonomous community, etc.) department. Respondents were asked to co-ordinate the response across departments. Follow-up interviews revealed that ministries of education had various definitions of policy makers, most commonly associating the term with high-level ministry officials (e.g. Directors, Deputy Directors and Director Generals), recognising those with influence over the policy process, rather than those tasked with implementation of policies.
This chapter begins by outlining the methodology used to compare the results from both surveys, followed by an analysis of data comparing the responses of ministries of education and knowledge intermediaries, and a discussion of the findings. The chapter then showcases two case studies. The first is set in Japan, in a context where the centralised nature of education decision making can lead to significant differences in perspective. It shows how one intermediary addresses this challenge by setting up a stakeholder dialogue platform where disagreements and perspectives are discussed using evidence. The second is set in the United States, a federal and decentralised education system that leans heavily on regional and local intermediaries to promote evidence use, supporting their activities through federal grants. The chapter concludes with some questions for contemplation and activities to encourage further discussion.
To enable meaningful comparisons between the two surveys, certain questions were intentionally repeated across them to directly examine responses of ministries and intermediaries on key issues. To analyse these responses side by side, we developed a methodology that accounts for variations in respondent numbers and perspective across systems (see Box 4.2). This approach provides a structured framework to identify similarities and discrepancies between these groups, offering valuable insights into their differing perspectives on research use.
The methodology: The majority view
To ensure a valid comparison, only education systems that had responses from both their ministry and at least one knowledge intermediary were considered, reducing the sample to 22 systems1, represented by 176 organisations. Due the variability in the number of intermediary respondents (e.g. 15 in Chile and the Flemish Community of Belgium, versus one in Slovenia), responses within a single system were aggregated based on the majority view. Specifically, the ministry’s response was compared to the response of the majority (more than half) of the intermediary organisations in each country. For instance, if six out of ten Lithuanian intermediaries reported a certain mechanism, the aggregated response considered that Lithuanian intermediaries overall reported that mechanism. This majority rule reflects the dominant perspective among intermediary respondents, while maintaining comparability with the singular ministry viewpoint.
The statistical significance
Given the nature of the data (proportions) and the small sample size, Mann-Whitney U tests were applied to determine whether the difference between the responses of ministries and intermediaries were statistically significant or not. This significance is indicated in the notes of each figure included in the chapter.
Notes on limitations
Numerically and conceptually, comparing the responses from a country’s ministry of education to the policy survey with responses from the same country’s knowledge intermediaries to the intermediaries’ survey presents some challenges.
First, intermediary organisations often represent a variety of experiences, roles and interactions with research in practice, whereas a ministry’s response typically reflects a singular, albeit collective, viewpoint. This difference may create variability in the intermediary responses that a single ministry viewpoint cannot capture, resulting in richer data on the intermediary side and complicating direct comparisons.
Second, the surveys were conducted at different times (2021 and 2023 respectively), meaning that the recorded perceptions of ministries and intermediaries are not entirely temporally aligned. Any major policy changes or reforms between the two surveys could affect these comparisons. As such, the findings should be interpreted with caution, particularly where systems have undergone substantial reform during this interval.
Third, aggregating intermediary responses based on the majority perspective may overlook significant minority views, which could provide insights into more diverse or less dominant perspectives on research use mechanisms. For instance, the majority perspective may represent the perspective of a single type of organisation and be unrepresentative of other types of organisations present in the system.
Fourth, there may be differences in how key concepts are understood and interpreted by respondents across different organisations. Although the first survey defined certain terms and the second survey included a glossary of key concepts, variations in interpretation may still have influenced responses.
Finally, the analysis still lacks the perspective of actors deeply rooted in the practice context of education research, such as teachers and school leaders. While some teacher unions responded to the second survey, practitioners’ direct insights remain under-represented.
1. Austria, Chile, Czechia, Denmark, England (United Kingdom), Estonia, Flemish and French Communities of Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden.
Questions that appeared identically in both surveys focused on:
the presence of mechanisms that facilitate the use of research in education policy and practice;
the presence of barriers that hinder the use of research in education policy and practice;
the resources allocated to knowledge mobilisation in education policy and practice;
respondents’ satisfaction with some characteristics of education research; and
respondents’ satisfaction with some aspects of education research use.
In the interest of scope, this chapter’s analysis is focused on comparing responses to the first three topics.
“Super mechanisms” facilitating research use
The mechanisms and barriers to the use of research that ministries and intermediaries reported were presented in an earlier OECD report in a chapter entitled “Facilitating research use: Scary Barriers (and Super Mechanisms)” (see Torres (2022[12]) in OECD (2022[11])). Therein, mechanisms and barriers were defined as the processes or means that either enable or hinder, respectively, the use of evidence in policy making and practice. These mechanisms and barriers were categorised by drawing on the conceptual framework characterising research-policy-practice links proposed by Best and Holmes (2010[13]): linear, relational and system. The same categorisation is used here.
The comparative data presented here show that ministries tend to report mechanisms that facilitate the use of research in both policy and practice as being present more often than intermediaries do (see Figure 4.1).
Notes: The dark-coloured bars represent the percentage of ministries of education (within a pool of 22 systems) that reported a given mechanism. The light-coloured bars indicate the percentage of systems (within the same pool of 22 systems) in which the majority (more than half) of intermediaries reported a given mechanism. Green bars represent mechanisms in policy, whereas red bars represent mechanisms in practice. A Mann-Whitney U test proved that the difference between the responses of ministries and intermediaries was statistically significant for mechanisms in both policy (p value = 0.033) and practice (p value = 0.015).
Source: OECD Strengthening the Impact of Education Research policy survey data, 2021, and OECD Survey of Knowledge Mobilisation in Education data, 2023.
There is a significant perception gap on the presence of relational mechanisms to facilitate research use in policy
With regards to research use in policy, two relational mechanisms – projects encouraging interactions and capacity-building activities – illustrate a notable perception gap between ministries and intermediaries. Capacity-building activities are reported less frequently than interaction-focused projects, particularly by intermediaries. In fact, none of the selected countries had a majority of intermediaries reporting regular activities to support the development of research-use skills in policy. This is significant because research indicates that facilitating interaction alone is insufficient to improve the use of research; to be truly effective, such efforts should be paired with capacity-building activities (Kislov et al., 2014[14]; Campbell et al., 2017[15]).
It is encouraging to note that in all but one system where ministries reported the presence of capacity-building activities for policy makers, they also reported activities that foster interactions between policy makers and researchers. This alignment suggests that efforts to improve skills and capacity to use research may be integrated in some of the projects that generate interaction.
There are differing views on the adequacy of available funding and commissioned research to facilitate research use in practice
A notable discrepancy exists in the perceptions regarding whether research is being commissioned to address practice needs, especially when compared to the smaller gap observed in “identifying practitioners’ needs”. However, this smaller gap in the latter is due to the fact that most ministries and intermediaries did not report systematic activities for identifying these needs. This disparity suggests that ministries may be commissioning research based on needs that have not been fully identified through systematic processes, potentially resulting in a mismatch between commissioned research and the actual requirements of school practitioners. Additionally, while ministries may believe that commissioned research is adequately aligned with practice needs, intermediaries could view these efforts as insufficient, either due to a perceived lack of funding or because their perspectives may not carry sufficient weight in shaping research agendas. This disconnect indicates potential issues in how effectively ministries and intermediaries co-ordinate the identification and prioritisation of practice needs, suggesting that these mechanisms may not be working as intended.
There is a notable gap between the perceptions of ministries and intermediaries regarding the availability of funding. This suggests that ministries and intermediaries have differing views on the adequacy and allocation of current funding for research use in practice. Alternatively, intermediaries may not have a good overview of the funding schemes that may be available.
There is relative consensus among actors that system-wide mechanisms are generally lacking
Beyond funding mechanisms, both ministries and intermediaries report the existence of system-wide mechanisms far less frequently than linear and relational ones, indicating a shared view on their limited presence in educational systems. In the rare cases where ministries consider these mechanisms to be present in their systems, intermediaries are often unaware of their existence. The fact that such mechanisms are reported to be missing is particularly concerning, as system-wide mechanisms are intended to target and impact the entire educational system.
For instance, "system-wide activities to evaluate the impact of research" was one of the least frequently reported mechanisms by both groups. This highlights the lack of evaluation of research use initiatives, something that has already been flagged in other studies ( (Golden, 2020[16]; Oliver et al., 2022[17]); see also Chapter 2). The lack of system-wide efforts to assess the broader impact of research on educational practice points to a critical gap in many systems’ ability to learn from and improve their own initiatives. The US federal education system addresses this gap on system-wide mechanisms through structured initiatives like the Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) and Comprehensive Centers (CCs), which are designed to strengthen evidence use across diverse regions. These programmes demonstrate the importance of co-ordinated, system-wide approaches to overcome structural barriers and ensure that research benefits the entire education system (see US case study in this chapter).
“Scary barriers” to research use
At the education system level, ministries tend to report more barriers to the use of research in practice than do intermediaries, where the difference is statistically significant. This is not the case in policy, where the difference is not significant (see Figure 4.2).
Ministries are more concerned by issues of accessibility and relevance of research than intermediaries
The most significant perception gaps regarding barriers to knowledge mobilisation centre on the same linear factors in both policy and practice contexts: the lack of relevant research and its low accessibility (see Figure 4.2). Whereas ministries in several systems often report these issues as barriers, intermediaries, who are typically more involved in producing and disseminating research, do not share this view. In fact, the majority of intermediaries in the pool of 22 examined systems do not perceive relevance and accessibility as barriers to the use of research in practice, constituting the most substantial divergence between the perspectives of ministries and intermediaries in this analysis. This is even more noticeable in policy, where the share of intermediaries reporting these barriers remained a minority in all participating systems.
Notes: The dark-coloured bars represent the percentage of ministries of education (within a pool of 22 systems) that reported each barrier. The light-coloured bars indicate the percentage of systems (within the same pool of 22 systems) in which the majority (more than half) of intermediaries reported each barrier. Green bars represent barriers in policy, whereas red bars represent barriers in practice. A Mann-Whitney U test proved that the difference between the responses of ministries and intermediaries was not statistically significant for barriers in policy (p value = 00.077) nor in practice (p value = 0.068). Both ministries and intermediaries were asked to report a maximum of six barriers, with ministries asked to rank them and intermediaries to just report them.
Source: OECD Strengthening the Impact of Education Research policy survey data, 2021, and OECD Survey of Knowledge Mobilisation in Education data, 2023.
This raises important questions about how each group perceives and values research relevance and accessibility. It is possible that differing perspectives arise from the different roles ministries and intermediaries play in the knowledge mobilisation process. Intermediaries are often involved in producing and brokering research, which may explain their awareness of research. Given that it is their role to disseminate research, they may overestimate the practical utility of their outputs and/or activities. Ministries, on the other hand, may see themselves primarily as consumers of research rather than active participants in the research production process. In this role, they may struggle to find research they deem relevant, may be unaware of it, or may have different criteria for judging relevance and accessibility. Further research could determine whether the reported gaps arise from differing roles, communication breakdowns or structural challenges.
There is general agreement on persistent systemic issues such as lack of time to use research in policy
Beyond the high levels of disagreement regarding the accessibility and relevance of research, ministries and intermediaries do show alignment in some areas. This is particularly evident with regards to the use of research in policy, where barriers reported by both groups tend to cluster around system-level challenges. The most frequently mentioned obstacles are the conflicting timeframes between research and policy processes, the lack of time to access and engage with research, and the absence of mechanisms facilitating research use. These shared perceptions suggest that both ministries and intermediaries recognise the critical importance of these systemic issues. Ideally, this common ground would provide a strong foundation for collaborative efforts to develop solutions and implement more effective strategies to overcome these barriers.
Ministries consider that relational factors impeding research use are more problematic in practice than in policy settings
Relational aspects such as a lack of relationships between actors or a lack of skills to use research were not considered important barriers to the use of research in policy by either ministries or intermediaries. The relative absence of concern regarding these factors in the policy sphere may reflect that relationships and opportunities to learn between researchers, some intermediaries and policy communities are already fairly developed. For example, many systems have formalised initiatives in place for exchanges between research-policy communities, such as secondments and policy fellowships (OECD, 2023[5]; OECD, 2024[6]).
This represents a noticeable contrast with practice settings, where ministries in particular tend to highlight relational factors as barriers preventing the effective use of research by practitioners. Ministries are more than twice as likely as intermediaries to report the lack of relationships between actors in the practice context as a barrier. However, it is still notable that in one-third of systems, a majority of intermediaries also report this as a barrier, despite more than 70% of systems having the majority of intermediaries report fostering initiatives that encourage interaction among actors (see Figure 4.1). This raises the question of whether all these initiatives are indeed fostering the kind of relationships that have proven to be the most valuable: sustainable and collaborative (Farrell et al., 2021[18]). Overall, the disparity in perspectives might also suggest that intermediaries may be participating in informal or formal practitioner networks whose activities and working practices are less visible to ministries. For instance, research-practice partnerships have been spreading in many systems (e.g. the United States, Canada, Norway, Sweden) but many of these might be bottom-up initiatives, not necessarily known to ministries (Schlicht-Schmälzle et al., 2024[19]).
Intermediaries remain sceptical that policy makers are truly willing to engage with research
One barrier that stands out is the "lack of willingness of policy makers" to use research, which is reported far more frequently by intermediaries than by ministries. In fact, the number of systems with a majority of intermediaries highlighting this issue is four times greater than those with ministries reporting it. This suggests that intermediaries may hold a more critical view of policy makers’ priorities and their commitment to research-informed decision making. It may reflect a perception that policy makers’ use of research remains strategic and ad-hoc – e.g. cherry-picking research to support pre-existing views or political agendas – rather than a willingness to use research evidence to change established practices or to fundamentally reassess education policies.
However, intermediaries’ scepticism may also reflect a lack of familiarity with the context in which policy makers work. It is becoming increasingly recognised that knowledge derived from research evidence must compete with other forms of knowledge, such as professional knowledge, in the process of evidence-informed policy making. This process of combining forms of knowledge and related dynamics may, however, remain obscure to intermediary actors working outside of the policy environment.
Regarding practice, ministries take a broad view of challenges, while intermediaries’ concerns focus on time and resources
On an aggregated level, the barriers most frequently reported by intermediaries are lack of time and lack of financial resources – the only barriers where more than half of systems had a majority of intermediaries reporting them – whereas participating ministries typically reported a broader spread of barriers. For example, six barriers were reported by more than half of the ministries. This broader range of barriers reported by ministries may indicate a more systemic view, considering multiple points of friction.
In general, ministries reported each barrier in practice more frequently than intermediaries, with two exceptions. First, the majority of intermediaries reported a lack of time to access and engage with research in nine out of ten systems. This highlights how intermediaries, who often have closer ties to school systems or educational networks, are more likely to be confronted by the realities of the classroom environment and the operational demands that limit practitioners’ time for research engagement. A second exception is the lack of financial resources, which was felt more keenly by intermediaries. Financial support, and the lack of it, appears to be a bigger concern for organisations with a stronger on-the-ground presence in schools and classrooms.
In both policy and practice contexts, intermediaries feel that resources to support research use are inadequate
One of the key points of diverging opinion is the adequacy of resources for knowledge mobilisation (see Figure 4.3). While only a minority of ministries agreed or strongly agreed that there are adequate human resources, time or financial support for knowledge mobilisation in practice, in none of these systems did a majority of intermediaries agree with their ministry that such resources are indeed adequate. Intermediaries may be better placed to observe the direct impact of a resource-constrained environment that they feel hinders effective research use in practice contexts.
A similar pattern is observed regarding the policy context, where ministries tend to be slightly more positive about resource adequacy than in practice. Again, intermediaries tend to not agree. In this case, ministries are arguably better placed to know if there is sufficient time, as well as human and financial resources, for knowledge mobilisation in policy.
Level of agreement of ministries and intermediaries with the adequacy of resources for knowledge mobilisation
Notes: The dark-coloured bars represent the percentage of ministries of education (within a pool of 16 systems in policy, and 13 in practice) that agreed or strongly agreed with each of the statements. The light-coloured bars indicate the percentage of systems (within the same pool of systems) in which the majority (more than half) of intermediaries agreed or strongly agreed with each statement.
Source: OECD Strengthening the Impact of Education Research policy survey, 2021, and OECD Survey of Knowledge Mobilisation in Education data, 2023.
These differences in resource perceptions may suggest that intermediaries – being more directly involved in implementation – may not see the tangible effects of allocated resources. This could result from several factors, including bureaucratic delays, inefficiencies in fund or resource distribution, or misalignment between policy intentions and actual resource allocation.
In-country comparisons on mechanisms: Agreement between ministries and intermediaries
Instances where the majority of intermediaries within a country or system agreed with their ministry of education on the existence of a mechanism to facilitate research use reveal wide disparity. Even when ministries reported the presence of a particular mechanism, the majority of intermediaries in the same system typically did not acknowledge it.
On average, only one-third of mechanisms reported by ministries were also reported by the majority of intermediaries in their education system (see Figure 4.4). Some countries/systems (e.g. United Kingdom, Chile) show higher-than-average intermediary agreement on mechanisms reported by their ministries. While the small intermediary sample sizes may distort country-level data, in general, higher levels of agreement may indicate better alignment between ministries and intermediaries in these countries, reflecting more effective stakeholder communication, implementation of mechanisms, and perhaps a more collaborative approach to practice and research. The “Evidence for Dialogue” programme launched and co-ordinated by the National Institute for School Teachers and Staff Development (NITS) is an example of an initiative in Japan that is intended to foster engagement and interaction between stakeholders and create more common ground between communities (see Japan case study in this chapter).
Note: The light-coloured bars represent the number of mechanisms reported by ministries of education (within a pool of 22 systems). The dark-coloured bars represent the number of mechanisms reported by ministries of education (within a pool of 22 systems) that were also acknowledged by the majority of intermediaries in that system. Green bars represent mechanisms in policy, whereas red bars represent mechanisms in practice. Countries are ranked in descending order based on the number of mechanisms reported by ministries of education in policy.
Source: OECD Strengthening the Impact of Education Research policy survey data, 2021, and OECD Survey of Knowledge Mobilisation in Education data, 2023.
While the analysis has shown instances where intermediaries and ministries are aligned in their views of barriers or mechanisms around research use, it has also highlighted several points of disagreement. Discrepancies in views between ministries and intermediaries suggest a fundamental disconnect in how mechanisms and barriers are perceived and reported at different levels and by different actors within OECD education systems. This misalignment could be attributed to several factors, discussed in the following sections.
Different standards on what is considered adequate
Ministries may consider a mechanism to be "in place" even when limited resources or minimal actions have been dedicated to it, whereas intermediaries may report that a mechanism does not exist when they do not view it as sufficient for meaningful impact. For instance, what the ministries see as a sufficient resource provision may be perceived by intermediaries as inadequate or ineffective in practice (see Box 4.3 for examples). Regarding barriers, a major point of divergence appears to be the recognition of whether or not the resources allocated at a system level are adequate and sufficient to achieve systematic, high-quality research use among practitioners. Intermediaries’ responses send a strong signal that such resources are often insufficient – something that does not appear to be recognised by policy makers in their system. Recognising the main barriers that actors on the ground face when striving to support knowledge mobilisation can help to identify priority policy actions that would best address these barriers.
Example 1: Chilean NGO Educación 2020, a knowledge intermediary in Chile, mentioned significant financial challenges to evaluate research use initiatives, as funding is often available for either implementation or evaluation, but not both. Additionally, short-term funding limits the ability to demonstrate impact in quantitative terms, leaving qualitative data as the primary evidence of change (see the Chile case study in Chapter 5.)
Example 2: An intermediary organisation in the United States identifying as a think tank reflected on a misalignment in the US context, where mechanisms to fund research and support knowledge mobilisation appear to be present, but are not considered entirely effective:
“[The United States] is an unusual system because it has all the resources and capacity needed, but it is not applied in a systematic manner. Part of the problem is the federal system, but part of it is also a rather old-fashioned approach to knowledge mobilisation that is still primarily based on linear and, to some extent, relational models. [There is] very little systemic/deep activity, with the exception of [a few] very talented people working specifically in this area.”
– US intermediary, OECD 2023 intermediaries’ survey response
(see more on knowledge mobilisation in the United States in the case study below).
Source: OECD interview with Educación 2020, June 2024; OECD Survey of Knowledge Mobilisation in Education, 2023.
Different vantage points
Ministries often have a system-wide, strategic view of mechanisms and barriers, whereas intermediaries operate closer to the ground, dealing directly with the practical realities of implementing research in education practice settings. This may lead to a certain degree of cognitive dissonance as described by one expert (see quote below). As noted, this difference in vantage points is not necessarily problematic and can reflect that these actors perform different roles, and it may not be a function of all intermediaries to have an oversight of the whole system. The view of intermediaries might be limited to the local context, local schools or other educational actors that they work with. Intermediaries may therefore be less aware of mechanisms that exist elsewhere in the system but do not directly affect their day-to-day practices.
This is a problem of cognitive dissonance: For the ministries, a small amount of resources invested is enough to say [the mechanism] exists, while intermediaries do not acknowledge this to be the case. Ministries think they do things better than they actually do.
– Miquel Àngel Alegre, Project Manager at Bofill Foundation
Communication gaps
The presence of certain mechanisms may not always be communicated effectively within the education system, leading to a lack of awareness among intermediaries and insufficient co-ordination (see quote below). Ministries may assume that intermediaries are informed about policies or strategies, but poor communication may hinder this. This gap suggests that even when formal policies are in place, they may not be well known or clearly communicated to all actors involved in the system.
In a jazz band, everyone knows their role and follows a changing rhythm. Here, players are jamming loose notes, not forming a band.
– Jonathan Sharples, Professorial Research Fellow at Education Endowment Foundation and University College London
Power gaps
When it comes to funding intermediaries to carry out research and knowledge mobilisation, it is often ministries who provide the funds for such activities, as well as the funds for evaluating impact. As such, there can be a power imbalance between ministries and intermediaries. This leads intermediaries to experience difficulties when addressing issues such as inadequate resources, and may explain some of the more critical perspectives of intermediaries on knowledge mobilisation barriers in their systems. Generally, the power imbalance where intermediaries are often recipients of funds, and ministries the providers of funds, means that there is a strategic logic for intermediaries to strongly highlight resource inadequacy, as noted in the quote below.
Organisations will never say that they have enough resources from the government. It’s just not in the DNA of an ambitious organisation, and it can also be part of the negotiation strategy.
– Tia Loukkola, Head of Innovation & Measuring Progress Division, OECD
The following two case studies are set in education systems with very different governance structures: Japan is a highly centralised system, whereas the United States is very decentralised. Both of these types of systems present challenges to aligning actors’ perceptions and activities related to knowledge mobilisation, and both demonstrate promising practices to do so.
The National Institute for School Teachers and Staff Development (NITS) in Japan is a publicly funded organisation that provides continuous professional development and learning programmes for teachers and educational staff. NITS serves as a bridge between research and practice in education, leading innovative approaches to professional development practice and ensuring that the latest evidence and data from surveys and scientific studies are effectively disseminated and used to improve teaching quality across the country.
NITS and knowledge mobilisation
There are three main knowledge mobilisation activities NITS engages in.
Teachers’ professional learning
One of the key knowledge mobilisation activities of NITS is the integration of research into professional learning programmes. NITS invites teachers and teacher administrators from various prefectures as secondees to work with researchers and teacher education professionals for extended periods, typically two to three years, during which they collaborate on creating and delivering professional development programmes informed by research. The seconded teachers then return to their prefecture's board of education and schools, and they are expected to share and implement these programmes and programme development practices, effectively mobilising research knowledge and approaches to research use at the grassroots level.
Linear dissemination of research
NITS uses a variety of communication channels to disseminate research findings, including publications, email newsletters and social media. Their biweekly newsletter reaches Boards of Education, school management and teachers. Researchers contribute to these newsletters by writing directly to practitioners and policy makers, fostering a direct line of communication between the research community and those involved in the day-to-day implementation of educational policies.
Generating networks
While establishing networks is not the primary mission of NITS, it has emerged as one of the most significant spill-over effects of their initiatives. By convening teachers from across Japan for professional development sessions, NITS facilitates the formation of professional networks, in which teachers often maintain contact through shared mailing lists or other means even after the sessions have ended, allowing them to continue exchanging ideas and learning from each other’s experiences in different contexts. Many participants have cited this networking opportunity as one of the most valuable aspects of their involvement with NITS, as it provides them with access to a wider pool of knowledge and practices.
Enhancing research use in a hierarchical system
Japan’s education system has often been described as highly centralised (OECD, 2012[20]). The Japanese system is marked by a top-down approach where the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) develops and implements education policy, and decides on the distribution of public resources (OECD, 2018[21]). While there has been a strong move towards a policy of increased decentralisation and more local ownership (OECD, 2018[21]) in response to the 1998 report of the Central Council for Education (MEXT, 1998/9[22]) that promoted the devolution of authority, the educational agenda is still mostly determined through clear national direction. It is possible that this dynamic has implications for the open exchange of ideas and the application of research evidence, e.g. that it is difficult to challenge preconceptions or opinions that are embedded in and vertically promoted within the system.
In this context, one of the key ambitions of NITS is to foster a culture of collective agreement among educational stakeholders regarding the use of research evidence. In response to these perceived challenges, NITS launched the "Evidence for Dialogue" initiative.
The “Evidence for Dialogue” initiative
This initiative seeks to foster a paradigm shift around evidence use by promoting critical dialogue among diverse stakeholders including researchers, school board members, local authorities, teachers and school leaders. The initiative moves beyond traditional linear knowledge mobilisation models, promoting a culture where evidence is not merely presented as "what works" in education but serves as a platform to build common ground among stakeholders (of diverse interests and priorities). Through this platform, stakeholders can identify issues and bridge misunderstandings in evidence-use practices to inform more effective educational policies and practices.
An example of the methodology involves gathering survey data from teachers to uncover factors influencing their professional learning needs and their understanding of teacher professionalism. The collected data form the common basis for a trilateral meeting involving the boards of education (local authorities), professional development providers and researchers to build a consensus around the issues to be addressed through professional development and teacher learning. Unlike traditional meetings wherein researchers present findings and solutions, these meetings focus on interpreting survey findings and co-creating solutions through dialogue. This collaborative process can extend beyond the school to engage the broader community.
Following the preliminary dialogue, which identifies additional research needs and potential changes to current practices, teachers are invited to join the discussion. Their delayed participation ensures the sensitive handling of data and information shared in initial meetings.
The preliminary dialogue lasts one day, with all expenses covered by NITS. However, if participants wish to continue, they share the costs. This co-payment system not only covers the expenses of data analysis, planning and logistics, but also encourages participants to commit to collaboration and mutual investment, which are essential for building a lasting and balanced partnership based on equality.
Challenges and limitations
Despite its innovative approach, the "Evidence for Dialogue" initiative faces several challenges. The first challenge concerns the selection of research evidence. Often, research is chosen based on its alignment with the current government policy rather than its quality or relevance. This politicisation of research can lead to the promotion of certain researchers' work, particularly those who have close ties to the ministry of education or are involved in policy development. As a result, the research that is mobilised through NITS may be reflective of political pressures and become non-representative of the broader educational research community.
The second challenge relates to the lack of evaluation of the impact of knowledge mobilisation efforts. As a pioneering initiative in Japan, the "Evidence for Dialogue" programme was piloted in two prefectures in July 2024. These initial pilot programmes will serve as a foundation for evaluating the initiative's effectiveness and shaping the narrative to encourage further investment from policy makers and school boards. While NITS is responsible for measuring the impacts of its initiatives, the responsibility to systematically measure the long-term effects on teachers rests at the local level. Due to the high financial costs and methodological difficulties associated with long-term evaluations, as well as jurisdictional gaps, this remains a challenge for NITS and local authorities. While the institute conducts pre- and post-surveys for its professional development courses and uses the Net Promoter Score1 to assess participant satisfaction, these measures still fall short of capturing the full impact of the initiatives on educational outcomes.
Expanding the approach: Lessons for others
Despite these challenges, the "Evidence for Dialogue" initiative offers a promising model that could be adapted and implemented in other countries or educational organisations. Its emphasis on creating a shared understanding of educational challenges through evidence-based dialogue offers particular promise. By involving a wide range of stakeholders in these discussions, the initiative can help bridge the gap between research and practice and foster a more collaborative approach to problem-solving.
The initiative may be of particular value to countries where the education system is similarly hierarchical, or where there is a significant disconnect between policy makers and practitioners, as it could help to create a more inclusive and responsive educational environment. For example, in contexts where rural municipalities and educators face similar challenges to those in Japan, such as difficulties in accessing sufficient resources, accessing professional learning or recruiting teachers to their schools (OECD, 2018[21]), the dialogue approach could be used to develop professional development programmes that are tailored to the needs of teachers in these areas.
Moreover, the initiative's focus on co-creating solutions rather than imposing top-down policies is particularly relevant in diverse educational contexts, where one-size-fits-all approaches are often ineffective (Farley-Ripple, Oliver and Boaz, 2020[23]). By engaging stakeholders in the process of identifying and addressing educational challenges, the "Evidence for Dialogue" model can empower them to take ownership of solutions to issues and ensure that they are grounded in the realities of their specific contexts.
In a federal and decentralised education system such as the United States, it is hard to ensure the uptake of national-level knowledge mobilisation initiatives only promoted by state-level actors. This means that in addition to the main national knowledge mobilisation actor, the Institute of Educational Sciences (IES), the education system needs to rely on regional and local intermediaries and mechanisms to support evidence use. This case study presents two groups of such actors (see Box 4.4).
Regional Education Laboratories
Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) were established almost 60 years ago by the United States Department of Education as a network of ten intermediary organisations that seek to address the educational needs of designated regions across the country. RELs are sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences delivered through competitive tender by contracted firms, universities and other research institutes. An annual public budget of almost USD 60 million supports the programme (Institute of Education Sciences, 2024[24]).
Comprehensive Centers
Comprehensive Centers (CCs) are established through cooperative agreements with the Department of Education, with the most recent version of the programme authorised in 2005. The centers support state, regional and local education agencies and schools in offering all students a comprehensive and rigorous education and in addressing national needs and priorities, and adequate and equitable funding for schools. The programme is operated by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and runs in cycles of five years with an annual funding of around USD 50 million. At least one center is required in each of the ten regions served by the RELs.
Source: IES (2024[25]), About the Regional Educational Laboratory Program, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/About/ (accessed on 14 November 20214); US Department of Education (2024[26]), Comprehensive Centers Program, https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-birth-grade-12/comprehensive-centers-program (accessed on 14 November 2024).
Regional Educational Laboratories
The RELs’ main mission is to support state departments of education, school districts and other education stakeholders in using data and evidence with a goal to improve student outcomes. Their work also involves generating relevant evidence using state and/or local data. An evaluation of the RELs conducted in 2015 found that most of the applied research generated was strong in quality and relevance. Around 50% of state administrators and 26% of district administrators who were familiar with the REL programme were very satisfied with it. While this evaluation did not link the REL programme to student outcomes directly (Carlson et al., 2015[27]), some of the RELs themselves conduct small impact studies that do that for certain services, such as professional development toolkits. The RELs offer evidence-based support for both policy and practice.
RELs supporting states and districts in attracting and retaining teachers
Several RELs supported state education offices and school districts in addressing the challenge of teacher shortages many states are facing (NCEE, 2023[28]):
REL Midwest surveyed certified non-teaching teachers in Michigan to understand what would bring them back in the profession (Lindsay, Gnedko-Berry and Wan, 2021[29]). This evidence was then used by the Michigan Department of Education to design a teacher policy.
REL Northwest partnered with one of Alaska’s school districts to identify evidence-based strategies to increase teacher retention. The REL supported the district in developing a theory of action for monitoring and improving teachers’ working conditions.
REL Central partnered with the South Dakota Department of Education to support the development of new pathways into teaching for candidates such as paraprofessionals and other residents who have interest in entering the teacher workforce.
RELs supporting districts and schools in evidence-based teaching practices
Despite considerable investment in making the resources produced by the IES What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) user-friendly, notably through practice guides, WWC resources are still hard for teachers to apply directly (Nelson, 2021[30]; Barton and Tindle, 2019[31]). The IES recognised that RELs need to play the intermediary role of curating information and offering professional development resources based on the WWC Practice Guides that can be used by districts and schools as they implement evidence-based practices. Thus, a new feature of the 2022-2027 REL cycle is that all RELs create a toolkit for educators based on one of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Practice Guides. Some examples of similar REL work are (Boccanfuso, 2023[32]):
REL Appalachia’s focus on improving maths outcomes: The REL has supported “community math nights” and has offered capacity building to schools to promote positive math attitudes with students and families. It has supported the implementation of research-based instructional practices based on WWC’s practice guides.
REL Southeast’s focus on improving literacy in Mississippi: After the Mississippi Department of Education’s successful improvement of early years foundational literacy skills (the “Mississippi Miracle”), the REL is currently supporting the Improving Adolescent Literacy Partnership of four school districts through training courses for teachers. It relies on WWC Practice Guides to effectively integrate literacy strategies into a range of academic courses.
The above examples, together with Box 3.4 in Chapter 3, demonstrate that the RELs engage in a range of knowledge mobilisation activities, including generating context-relevant evidence, capacity building and providing direct support to policy and practice organisations in using evidence.
Comprehensive Centers
The main mission of the CCs is to provide technical assistance to build the capacity of education agencies at all levels in improving student outcomes. Technical assistance often included fostering ownership and long-term change and supporting organisational process changes through partnering, cross-state sharing and modelling new practices. According to the evaluation of the 2012-2018 cohort, recipients of CC services reported the technical assistance significantly benefit their knowledge and skills (85% moderate to great extent), while only less than half of them perceived a large contribution to organisational capacity and capacity for policy design and implementation (Weinstock et al., 2019[33]).
The 2019-2024 cohort consisted of one national, 19 regional and one content CC (focusing on improving literacy). CCs’ knowledge mobilisation activities include, for example:
National CC for coordination and peer learning: 1. The National CC designed and implemented three Communities of Practice to help state agencies share promising practices and promote strategies to accelerate learning recovery and promote equity in response to the pandemic (CCNetwork, 2019[34]). 2. In partnership with the US Department of Education, the national CC hosted the “Meeting the Moment” event in 2024 to foster collective work of state educational agencies and the CC Network. The interactive workshops and panels featured evidence-based tools and strategies (CCNetwork, 2019[35]).
Nebraska CC for school improvement: the Nebraska Department of Education partnered with the Region 11 CC to create a replicable, scalable and sustainable school improvement process with evidence-based solutions to ensure effective support for multilingual students. The two partners facilitated a broader professional learning partnerships with state agencies, the CC focusing on high-leverage practices to all teachers of multilingual learners (CCNetwork, 2024[36]).
In the new, 2024-2029 cohort the number of regional CCs was reduced to 14 and it includes a National CC and four content CCs on English learners and multilingualism, early school success, fiscal equity and strengthening and supporting the educator workforce.
Challenges and limitations
In a large federal and decentralised education system like the United States, a diverse set of intermediary actors can help ensure that the different evidence-building and use needs of state and local education agencies are addressed. However, role clarity and systematic collaboration between those actors is necessary to maximise the efficiency of their activities.
The RELs and CCs were established with a shared goal: improving student outcomes by supporting evidence-based policy and practice. Although given a unique emphasis (applied research for the RELs, and improved state implementation of federally-devised elementary and secondary education programmes for the CCs), both programmes were expected to provide technical assistance to regions, states and localities to achieve that goal. Because each state and locality in the United States is served by a specific REL and CC, there is the opportunity for collaboration and complementarity between the two programmes. Yet, it remains unclear how often these opportunities are leveraged.
For example, the US Department of Education regularly convenes all federally-sponsored technical assistance providers to increase awareness of the work of different providers on a particular topic and to encourage them to share their resources on that topic. However, the needs of specific states or local areas are not discussed in an in-depth manner with a focus on how different providers may want to improve co‑ordination or collaboration of their work there.
Similarly, although the Department of Education requires that RELs and CCs coordinate conversations with state education agencies about the agencies’ needs and encourages them to collaborate on projects when appropriate, in practice such collaborations appear infrequent. As an example, a state education agency might ask a Regional CC to support implementation of an evidence-based practice in a state, and the REL to evaluate its implementation and impact. Notably, some actors report this type of complementarity is more common when the same intermediary organisation operates the REL and CC serving a specific state or region. More intentional local and regional co-ordination of knowledge mobilisation and collaboration among key actors, including mapping intermediaries and their activities and roles, could promote greater efficiency and increase the effectiveness of both programmes.
Finally, although regular evaluation of the RELs and the CCs is a major strength of the programmes, the evaluations could benefit from using more sophisticated measures of impact. They focus primarily on self-reported perceptions of the value of services provided by RELs and CCs (e.g. on the extent to which materials produced by the centres have been used) and lack long-term behavioural change indicators for education agencies and schools, as well as indicators measuring ultimate impact on student outcomes and the teaching workforce for example.
Expanding the practice: Lessons for others
Providing substantial grants for regional and local intermediaries for a clearly described mission to support evidence use can serve as a model for other federal systems. In the United States, the landscape of these intermediary actors is highly diverse and, because of the sheer size of the country, it is harder to co‑ordinate their work and generate peer learning. This might be easier for smaller and less diverse countries, such as Germany, Switzerland, Austria or Spain. Even for non-federal systems, a network of smaller intermediaries serving local needs and supporting evidence use and capacity building could be an inspiring practice to support knowledge mobilisation at scale.
The regular external evaluation of the REL and the CC programmes by IES is certainly a practice that other countries can learn from. These evaluations help shape the next cohort of the programme and improve what worked less well. The achievements of CCs are also shared through accessible impact stories, which can inspire educational actors to benefit from these services. A combination of sharing intermediary perceived outcomes for dissemination purposes and publishing formal evaluations supports evaluative thinking about knowledge mobilisation within and across organisations in the system.
Achieving consensus among different stakeholders on the adequate existence and effectiveness of mechanisms to support research use can facilitate co-ordinated efforts to enhance the integration of research into policy and practice. A shared understanding may provide a foundation for aligning resources, strategies and expectations, ensuring that both groups work collaboratively towards a common goal. Conversely, a lack of consensus may hinder the effective implementation of these mechanisms, as differing perceptions could lead to misaligned efforts, underused resources, and fragmented initiatives that fail to generate the desired impact. By identifying and addressing any gaps in the perception of research use mechanisms, ministries and intermediaries can strengthen their collaborative efforts. Similarly, better alignment among stakeholders on the main barriers to research use across different levels of the education system would allow for a targeted, co-ordinated approach to address these challenges and allocate resources accordingly.
The analysis in this chapter thus signals a need for improved communication and collaboration between ministries and intermediary actors to enhance the use of research in education policy and practice. Regarding mechanisms, a question that arises is whether it is crucial for all intermediaries to be aware of all mechanisms to facilitate research use in their systems. While there is a clear benefit for all intermediaries to have a comprehensive overview of the funding mechanisms in place that are relevant to them, would they need an up-to-date overview of all funding mechanisms? Is it crucial for all intermediaries to be aware of the system-level strategies that their ministries implement “downstream” to identify research gaps in practice, for example? It is entirely possible for a mechanism to be targeted at a specific sub-group of actors and communicated effectively to those actors by means of a targeted communication strategy, whereby it may not be visible to other actors in the system but is nonetheless working effectively.
It is possible that full agreement between ministries and intermediaries is unattainable given the significantly different spaces that these actors occupy in education systems. It is even arguable whether a complete alignment in views is a desirable goal, as differences in perspective between stakeholders provide material for robust debate, which can in turn lead to innovative proposals and reform. Yet, to improve the research use ecosystem, it is important to strive for a better alignment in understanding between ministries and intermediaries. Ideally, policy makers should prioritise transparent communication strategies and foster collaborative environments where feedback from intermediaries is actively sought and integrated in policy work. Future work should focus on developing and evaluating strategies to improve alignment between these groups, ensuring that mechanisms intended to support research use are highly visible to their target audience and beneficiaries, are well communicated and effectively implemented at all levels of the education system.
Consider the data and messages that have been presented in this chapter. Are the findings representative of the situation in your country/system?
How do policy makers in your country communicate research-use mechanisms to relevant audiences? For example, how are major funding calls for education research shared with intermediaries and other actors?
What do you think are the main barriers to research use in education policy or practice in your system? What could be the roles of policy makers and intermediaries in overcoming these barriers?
What strategies are in place in your system to help build relationships between ministries and intermediary organisations to enhance the use of research in policy and practice? Do these strategies or initiatives allow them to build relationships that are collaborative and can be sustained over time?
Activity 1 – Short term
Using the case studies above, try to identify a few lessons that can be learned. Is there a similar dialogue platform or initiative in your country/system/organisation? If so, how is it similar to or different from the above examples? If there is not, would it be helpful to establish one? Who could take responsibility for this?
Activity 2 – Long term
Identify ten organisations in your system that play a major role in facilitating research use in either policy or practice. Organise a one-day meeting with these organisations, in which you discuss your respective perspectives on existing mechanisms and barriers, and what could be the role of each actor in overcoming barriers.
References
[4] Bandola-Gill, J. (2019), “Between relevance and excellence? Research impact agenda and the production of policy knowledge”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 46/6, pp. 895-905, https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scz037.
[31] Barton, E. and K. Tindle (2019), Educator voices on education research, https://cdn.givingcompass.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/21140706/JEX-Educator-Voices-on-Research-Use-Nov2019_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 7 November 2024).
[9] Bélanger, N. and E. Dulude (2021), “Investigating the challenges and opportunities of a bilingual equity knowledge brokering network: A critical and reflective perspective from university partners”, Policy Futures in Education, Vol. 21/1, pp. 58-74, https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211041484.
[13] Best, A. and B. Holmes (2010), “Systems thinking, knowledge and action: Towards better models and methods”, Evidence and Policy, Vol. 6/2, pp. 145-159, https://doi.org/10.1332/174426410X502284.
[32] Boccanfuso, C. (2023), The Regional Educational Lab Program: Making a Difference in Literacy and Math Outcomes, Institute of Educational Sciences, https://ies.ed.gov/blogs/ncee/post/the-regional-educational-lab-program-making-a-difference-in-literacy-and-math-outcomes.
[3] Brown, C. (2014), “The policy agora: how power inequalities affect the interaction between researchers and policy makers”, Evidence & Policy, Vol. 10/3, pp. 421-438, https://doi.org/10.1332/174426514x672353.
[10] Bushouse, B. and J. Mosley (2018), “The intermediary roles of foundations in the policy process: building coalitions of interest”, Interest Groups & Advocacy, Vol. 7/3, pp. 289-311, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-018-0040-6.
[15] Campbell, C. et al. (2017), “Developing a knowledge network for applied education research to mobilise evidence in and for educational practice”, Educational Research, Vol. 59/2, pp. 209-227, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2017.1310364.
[27] Carlson, E. et al. (2015), Evaluation of the Regional Educational Laboratories Final Report April 2015, U.S Department of Education, Washington D.C., https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154008/pdf/20154008.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2024).
[36] CCNetwork (2024), Nebraska Builds Partnership to Strengthen School Improvement Processes & Student Outcomes, Comprehensive Center Network, https://compcenternetwork.org/sites/default/files/impact-story/files/2024-10/nebraska-impact-story-oct2024_508--1-.pdf.
[34] CCNetwork (2019), Fostering Connections in State Education Agencies with Communities of Practice, https://compcenternetwork.org/node/8088 (accessed on 14 November 2024).
[35] CCNetwork (2019), Meeting the Moment Furthers the Collective Work of State Educational Agencies and the Comprehensive Center Network, https://compcenternetwork.org/node/8715 (accessed on 14 November 2024).
[23] Farley-Ripple, E., K. Oliver and A. Boaz (2020), “Mapping the community: use of research evidence in policy and practice”, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Vol. 7/83, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00571-2.
[18] Farrell, C. et al. (2021), Research-Practice Partnerships in Education: The state of the field, https://wtgrantfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/RPP_State-of-the-Field_2021.pdf.
[16] Golden, G. (2020), “Education policy evaluation: Surveying the OECD landscape”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 236, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9f127490-en.
[25] IES (2024), About the Regional Educational Laboratory Program, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/About/ (accessed on 14 November 20214).
[24] Institute of Education Sciences (2024), Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request, United States Department of Education, Washington D.C., https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget25/justifications/aa-ies.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2024).
[14] Kislov, R. et al. (2014), “Rethinking capacity building for knowledge mobilisation: developing multilevel capabilities in healthcare organisations”, Implementation Science, Vol. 9/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0166-0.
[29] Lindsay, J., N. Gnedko-Berry and C. Wan (2021), Michigan Teachers Who Are Not Teaching: Who Are They, and What Would Motivate Them to Teach?, Institute of Educational Sciences, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/Products/Region/midwest/Publication/10431.
[22] MEXT (1998/9), Kongo no Chihou Kyouiku Gyousei no Arikata ni Tsuite (The Future of Local Education Administration: The Central Council for Education Report 166), https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo0/toushin/1342455.htmhttps://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chuuou/toushin/980901.htm (accessed on 14 November 2024).
[1] Miles, R. (1978), “The Origin and Meaning of Miles’ Law”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 38/5, pp. 399–403, https://doi.org/10.2307/975497.
[28] NCEE (2023), The Regional Educational Lab Program: Making a Difference in Educator Recruitment and Retention, Institute of Educational Sciences, https://ies.ed.gov/blogs/ncee/post/the-regional-educational-lab-program-making-a-difference-in-educator-recruitment-and-retention.
[30] Nelson, A. (2021), Is What Works Working? Thinking Evaluatively About the What Works Clearinghouse, https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edsc_etds/81.
[6] OECD (2024), “Yes Minister, Yes Evidence: Structures and skills for better evidence use in education policy”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 96, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6f97bcda-en.
[5] 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.
[11] 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.
[21] OECD (2018), Education Policy in Japan: Building Bridges towards 2030, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264302402-en.
[20] OECD (2012), Lessons from PISA for Japan, Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264118539-en.
[17] Oliver, K. et al. (2022), “What works to promote research-policy engagement?”, Evidence & Policy, Vol. 18/4, pp. 691-713, https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16420918447616.
[7] Oliver, K. et al. (forthcoming), “What Factors Influence Evidence Use in Policy?”, Evidence & Policy.
[2] Pino-Yancovic, M. et al. (2023), “Organisational and network culture: A lens on leadership”, in Mouthaan, M. (ed.), Who Really Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice?: Developing a Culture of Research Engagement, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ae4354f1-en.
[19] 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.
[12] 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.
[26] US Department of Education (2024), Comprehensive Center Program, https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-birth-grade-12/comprehensive-centers-program (accessed on 14 November 2024).
[8] Vanderlinde, R. and J. van Braak (2010), “The gap between educational research and practice: Views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers”, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 36/2, pp. 299-316, https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902919257.
[33] Weinstock, P. et al. (2019), National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers Program - Final Report, Institute of Educational Sciences, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/2020001/pdf/2020001.pdf.
← 1. The Net Promoter Score is a method for calculating the likelihood of a teacher recommending a service on a scale of 0-10.