Ensuring that research is communicated widely to society has become a high-level priority for research institutions (RIs), higher education institutions (HEIs) and policymakers working on science and innovation policy (OECD, 2023[20]; EC, 2023[21]). For instance, a survey carried out by the European Universities Association (EUA) among 489 European HEIs has found that 83% of responding institutions saw engagement with society and community as highly important, and 70% that it had grown in importance in the last five years (EUA, 2024[22]). Engagement with schools is also a key activity for many institutions. A global survey of HEIs in 21 countries found that “most respondents see engagement with pre-collegiate education a part of their mission” (Reimers, 2021, p. 3[23]). Finally, in the intermediaries’ survey 64% of RIs reported that research dissemination is included in researchers’ job descriptions; and 53% report that they include collaborative research. However, RIs still face several challenges to engage in impactful knowledge mobilisation.
How can research and initial teacher education institutions support research use?
Researchers have few opportunities to develop their knowledge mobilisation skills through dedicated training or capacity-building activities
Data from the intermediaries’ survey shows that only 33% of ITE providers and 30% of research institutions either frequently or systematically offer capacity building to researchers on knowledge mobilisation. This is concerning, because it does not seem any other organisation is filling this gap. Only 15% of formal intermediaries and 8% of public intermediaries frequently or systematically offer capacity building to researchers (e.g. on science communication).
In some OECD jurisdictions, RIs will have a dedicated unit to support researchers to develop their policy- and practice-relevant research skills as well as science communication skills and activities (OECD, 2022[1]; OECD, 2023[24]). An example is Durham University’s Science Communication and Outreach Department, which even has a specific unit supporting academic staff to engage in collaborative research and science communication with schools (Durham University, n.d.[25]). Evidence shows that such institutional support structures are becoming increasingly common across HEIs. In the same EUA survey cited earlier, 49% of responding HEIs said that they had dedicated structures or incentives to support research engagement (EUA, 2024[22]).
Most researcher training appears to be primarily focused on improving research methods and skills, and not on producing policy or practice-relevant research.
An EUA survey, which collected responses from 217 universities offering doctoral education, found that the courses most commonly offered to doctoral candidates focused on research ethics and integrity (93% of responding universities said they offered these courses), science communication (90%), research methodology (88%) and research data management (86%) (EUA, 2025[26]). By contrast, only half (54%) of universities said that they offered training on innovation/knowledge valorisation and 39% that they offered training on public engagement. In the higher education community, public engagement usually refers to sharing scientific knowledge through, for example, science communication, expertise and policy advice (OECD, 2019[27]).
To support the research community in generating policy- and practice-relevant research, some organisations have started to develop specific competency frameworks. One example is the European Commission’s “Science for Policy” competency framework, which offers guidance to RIs working at the science-for-policy interface (European Commission, 2023[28]). Another example is Rosa’s (2023[29]) framework for producing practically relevant education research. This framework includes ten practice‑focused guidelines for education researchers, one of which is to develop mechanisms to directly involve practitioners in the design and production of education research.
Incentives for researchers to engage in knowledge mobilisation are limited
The research community tends to be characterised by high levels of autonomy, with incentives primarily directed towards conducting primary or secondary research, and publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals (OECD, 2022[1]). As a result, many do not prioritise research dissemination/advocacy or engaging in collaborative research with external stakeholders. This underscores the importance of RIs developing appropriate incentive and reward structures for knowledge mobilisation (OECD, 2024[13]).
Evidence from the intermediaries’ survey suggests that the primary incentives for researchers to engage in knowledge mobilisation might be intrinsic in nature (i.e. they come from a personal desire for growth, a sense of purpose or satisfaction). Such incentives include making an impact on policy/practice and informal recognition among peers. By contrast, RIs have far fewer extrinsic incentives to engage in knowledge mobilisation (i.e. they are compensated or supported externally to do this). While two out of three RIs said that research dissemination and 54% that collaborative research is part of the job description of research staff in their organisation, less than 10% of RIs reported that researchers received allocated time or a salary supplement for engaging in these activities (see Figure 3).
Due to limited incentives, researchers continue to spend most of their time on conducting primary or secondary research instead of research dissemination or collaborative research. Data from an international survey of faculty working time in HEIs across 13 countries (carried out in 2007/08) shows that, on average, full-time academics spent only 7% of their annualised hours on service (including public engagement) (Bentley and Kyvik, 2012[30]). By contrast, research occupied about 40% of their working time, 30% was spent on teaching, and 15% on administration. A follow-up survey conducted in 2017/18 found that the proportion of academics’ working hours spent on research has been increasing in recent years, especially in highly ranked and research-oriented institutions (Teichler, Aarrevaara and Huang, 2022[31]).
Note: This figure shows the percentage of research institutions reporting the existence of a given incentive for research staff in their organisation for selected knowledge mobilisation activities. Dark-coloured bars refer to the percentage of research institutions reporting the existence of a given incentive for "Research dissemination and advocacy". Light-coloured bars for "Collaborative research with stakeholders".
Source: OECD Survey of Knowledge mobilisation in Education data. Full results included in OECD (2025[2]), Everybody Cares About Using Education Research Sometimes: Perspectives of Knowledge Intermediaries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5ef88972-en.
While it is certainly not necessary for every researcher to engage in knowledge mobilisation or collaborative research with stakeholders, it is important that those who do wish to do so are supported and recognised for their efforts. At the system level, countries can try to incentivise and support researchers’ knowledge mobilisation efforts by establishing a national support centre for science communication and/or embedding knowledge mobilisation in research assessment frameworks. Such approaches consist of “steering at a distance” to complement, rather than replace, the efforts of individual institutions to support research engagement (OECD, 2008[32]; OECD, 2020[33]). Box 4 presents a selection of country examples intended as inspiration for governments.
Establishing a national support centre for knowledge mobilisation (Netherlands and United Kingdom)
In recent years, several OECD systems have set up dedicated structures at the national level to support the research community both in- and outside HEIs to strengthen their knowledge mobilisation efforts. For example, in October 2024 the Netherlands established a National Centre of Expertise for Science and Society (NEWS: Nationaal Expertisecentrum Wetenschap en Samenleving) (NEWS, 2025[34]). The mission of NEWS is to “foster the connection between science and society through better science communication” (Verkade and Smeets, 2023, p. 3[35]). In the UK, a similar entity – the National Co‑ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) – has been supporting HEIs’ knowledge mobilisation efforts already since 2013. One concrete project example led by the NCCPE is the School‑University Partnerships Initiative (SUPI). The project ran from 2013 to 2017 and supported 12 UK universities to establish school-university partnerships. Through 900 school engagement initiatives, SUPI engaged 600 schools, 2 000 academics, 3 800 teachers and 40 000 school students. The project also developed guidance to inform the higher education sector (NCCPE, 2017[36]).
Embedding knowledge mobilisation in research assessment and funding frameworks (United Kingdom)
Over the years, systems have evolved from evaluating the quality of research based on academic publications and purely quantitative output metrics only (e.g. number of publications or citation metrics) towards examining the societal impact of research and making greater use of qualitative methods and peer review. The UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) is perhaps the most well-known international example. Since 2014, every HEI in the UK undergoes an external assessment of its research quality based on three areas: research outputs (which determines 60% of the final score), research impact beyond academia (25%) and the vitality and sustainability of the research environment (15%). Impact is defined as “an effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia” (REF, 2025[37]). Since the evaluation informs the allocation of block-grant research funding, it has led to a major shift among academics and, arguably, increased their knowledge mobilisation activity. However, there has been criticism of the REF among UK academics because of the performance management aspect of impact evaluation ((n.a.), 2020[38]). Moreover, it remains difficult to develop clear and reliable indicators to effectively measure societal impact (OECD, 2019[27]).