Working Paper 7.5
Practitioners’ Use of
Research
A Research Review for the
National Evidence for Education
Portal (NEEP) Development Group
Mark Rickinson
October 2005
1
The National Educational Research Forum (NERF) is an independent
organisation. Its role is to oversee the development of a coherent strategy for
educational research and its use.
NERF organises projects, seminars and workshops inspired by and engaging
with its partners. The outcomes of these can be found in NERF’s Working
Paper series, copies of which can be downloaded from the NERF website.
Contact NERF by email on info@nerf.org. Website address: www.nerf-uk.org.
Working papers: list of themes
1 Capacity building
2 Systematic reviewing
3 Research strategy
4 Evidence centre
5 D&R programmes
6 Priorities
7 Practitioner engagement
8 Policy and research
9 About NERF
2
Contents
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
2
3
1.
Introduction
1.1
Background
1.2
Aims
1.3
Scope and Methods
1.4
Structure of the Report
6
6
6
7
8
2.
An overview of the evidence base
2.1
Previous gaps
2.2
Current Evidence
2.3
Summary
9
9
9
11
3.
How do practitioners access research?
3.1
How frequently do practitioners access research?
3.2
Where do practitioners access information about research?
3.3
What kinds of practitioners are likely to access research?
3.4
Summary
12
12
13
15
17
4.
How and why do practitioners use research?
4.1
Conceptual models of research use
4.2
How do practitioners engage with research?
4.3
What do practitioners use research for?
4.4
Summary
18
18
19
21
23
5.
What can help practitioners to access and use research?
5.1
Nature of the research
5.2
Nature of the practitioner
5.3
Nature of the professional context
5.4
Nature of the wider context of support
5.5
Summary
24
24
26
27
29
30
6.
Conclusions and Implications
6.1
Support for online research resources
6.2
Guidance on content and design issues
6.3
Relationships to other initiatives
6.4
Beyond dissemination and access?
31
31
32
32
33
References
Appendix 1: Database Search Strategy
34
41
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank several people who have contributed to this piece of
work: Victoria White (DfES) for her supportive management of this project on
behalf of the Department; Pauline Benefield (NFER) for her advice on the
initial database searches; DfES library staff for providing copies of many of
the references; and members of the NEEP Development Group for their
comments on an earlier version of this report.
About the Author
Dr Mark Rickinson is an independent educational research consultant, who
specialises in research reviews, programme evaluation and research training.
He is also a Research Fellow at Oxford University Department of Educational
Studies. Contact details: m.rickinson@dsl.pipex.com
2
Executive Summary
This document summarises a review of recent UK and US research on
education practitioners’ use of research. The review was commissioned by
the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) as part of early discussions
about the development of a National Evidence in Education Portal (NEEP).
The aims of the review were to establish what is known about the ways in
which practitioners access and use research, and to identify implications for
the future development of NEEP.
The work was undertaken by an
independent educational research consultant between May and August 2005.
What evidence is available?
Empirical work on research utilisation by practitioners in education is most
definitely an area of research that is newly-emerging rather than wellestablished. Until quite recently, conceptual interest in the research-practice
interface had not been matched by in-depth empirical inquiry. The last five
years, however, have seen a growth of empirical studies into the ways in
which teachers, managers and other practitioners access, engage with and
make use of research. The current evidence base can now be seen to span
both the conceptual and the empirical, and to provide information about both
research access and research use (see below).
An Overview of the Evidence Base
Accessing
Using
Empirical
Studies of practitioners’:
• sources of research
information
• views on different
information sources
Studies of practitioners’:
• perceptions of research
and research outputs
• awareness of research
findings
Studies of:
• practitioners’ use of
research
• initiatives to support
research utilisation
Reflective writing by:
• research-active
practitioners
Theories/models of:
• research
dissemination
Theories/models of:
• research utilisation
• research impact
• strategies for supporting
research use
Conceptual
How do practitioners access research?
Surveys suggest that practitioners who read and use published research are
3
considerably more numerous than those who do not. Where studies have
explored this issue in more depth, though, there is concern that such
engagement may be superficial or limited. A range of information sources
seem to be important in communicating research to practitioners, including
INSET, accredited courses, conferences, online databases and various kinds
of publications. The internet appears to have become a popular source of
research information for practitioners, although poor search skills can limit its
effectiveness. There is some evidence to suggest that teachers have a
preference for research sources that are indirect and informal (such as
research-based teaching materials and communication with colleagues).
Recent studies suggest that research use is more likely amongst staff who are
more senior/experienced and have postgraduate qualifications and positive
beliefs about improvement.
How do practitioners use research?
Much has been written about how to conceptualise the process of research or
knowledge utilisation. A commonly-cited typology distinguishes between
research use that is instrumental, conceptual, strategic or through wider
influence. Until recently, little was known about the nature and dynamics of
research utilisation amongst education practitioners. The small number of
studies that have now been undertaken suggest that the process is more
complex than some might have assumed. Practitioners seem to use research
in ways that are active, selective and variable, and the process can be both
values-rich and rewarding. This suggests that the development of NEEP
needs to be informed by careful thinking about the ways in which the portal
can contribute to practitioners’ professional learning and be useful to those
responsible for supporting such learning.
What can help practitioners to access and use research?
It is clear that there is a wide range of factors that can facilitate or hinder
practitioner access to and engagement with research. These include: (i) the
nature of the research – factors relating to the focus and form of the research
evidence; (ii) the nature of the practitioners – factors relating to the interests,
needs and background of the practitioner users; (iii) the nature of the
professional context – factors relating to the institutional context in which the
research is being utilised; and (iv) the nature of the wider context of support –
factors relating to the wider context of knowledge transformation, transfer and
communication. Taken together, these factors highlight the complexity of the
processes surrounding research utilisation and the breadth of thinking that will
be needed in the design and development of NEEP.
Implications for a National Evidence in Education Portal (NEEP)
1. Support for online research resources - Several of the studies in this
review highlight how difficult it is for practitioners to access information
generated by research. This suggests that there is a demand for high quality,
well designed and easily navigable online research resources such as that
envisaged by the NEEP Development Group.
4
2. Guidance on content and design issues - The development of NEEP
does not need to start from scratch. There is now a developing evidence
base on the kinds of research outputs that are appealing and useful to
education practitioners. This literature needs to be drawn upon and
contributed to by those involved with NEEP.
3. Relationships to other initiatives - The ‘evidence-into-practice’ agenda
in education is associated with an increasingly complex variety of
interventions, programmes and initiatives. The strategy underpinning NEEP
will need to consider its points of convergence and divergence with other
existing and planned developments within education.
4. Beyond dissemination and access? – According to Louis and Dentler
(cited in Seashore Louis and Jones, 2001, p. 13), ‘dissemination systems that
are designed to spread information as widely as possible may be different
from those that are intended primarily to encourage use’. The evidence
presented in this review suggests that careful consideration for how NEEP
can work towards encouraging use as well as spreading information will be
critical.
5
1.
Introduction
1.1
Background
The National Educational Research Forum (NERF) is currently working with a
consortium of interested organisations, led by the Training and Development
Agency for Schools (TDA), to develop a National Evidence in Education Portal
(NEEP). NEEP aims to provide all professionals involved in education and
learning access to a range of research and evidence materials held in a
variety of online sources. Ultimately, the vision is to improve access to the
evidence base for education, as has happened in various areas of health
care, in order to facilitate an evidence-informed profession. This comes as
part of wide-ranging efforts to improve the quality, accessibility and usefulness
of educational research in the UK (e.g., DfES, 2002; OECD, 2002; Sebba,
2004)
The NEEP Development Group, comprising representatives of all the
interested organisations, is in the process of initiating a pilot project to explore
the technical options for making existing research evidence accessible and
searchable via one portal (see Sheffield and Saunders, 2004 for an earlier
scoping study). As part of the background to this pilot phase, the Department
for Education and Skills (DfES) on behalf of the Development Group
commissioned a research consultant (Dr Mark Rickinson) to undertake a
review of what is known about how education practitioners access and use
research. This work was undertaken during a three month period between
May and August 2005.
1.2
Aims
The aim of the project was to review and synthesise recent UK and US
research evidence on the ways in which education practitioners access and
use research. For the purposes of this review, ‘education practitioners’ was
taken to mean teaching and other staff in schools, colleges and universities,
as well as other education professionals such as advisors in local education
authorities (LEAs).
More specifically, the project sought:
1. To establish what is known (and not known) about:
 the ways in which, and reasons why, practitioners access research
 the ways in which, and reasons why, practitioners use research
 the factors that can support or hinder practitioners to access and use
research.
2. To identify implications for the future development of NEEP.
6
1.3
Scope and methods
The scope of the review was determined by a series of search parameters
decided through discussion with NERF and the NEEP Development Group at
the start of the project (Table 1.1).
Table 1.1: The Search Parameters
Overall focus
Time-scale
Geographical scope
Type of literature
Empirical studies on the ways in which education
practitioners access and use research
Work published 1999-early 2005
Work published in the UK and USA
Published journal articles, books and research
reports and unpublished conference papers, if
particularly relevant
These search parameters were designed to strike a balance between, on the
one hand, being comprehensive in what was included and, on the other hand,
being realistic as to what could be achieved within the time-scale and
resources of the project. The focus on work published since 1999 reflected
the Development Group’s concern with empirical research published since the
critiques of educational research in the mid-late 1990s (see Oancea, 2005 for
a recent overview of these in the UK and internationally). The inclusion of
work published in the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US)
reflected a desire for evidence that was UK-specific, as well as an interest in
some relevant international evidence (time and cost constraints meant that
this was restricted to literature from one country). It should be pointed out that
although the searches were limited to UK and US literature, where studies
from other countries arose from databases or other searches they were
included if relevant to the overall focus (e.g., Costa et al., 2000; DETYA,
2000, 2001). With regard to the type of literature included, while the main
focus was on published journal articles, books and research reports,
unpublished conference papers were also included in order to cover the most
recent research developments. Finally, the focus on empirical studies
reflected the Development Group’s primary interest in empirical as opposed to
conceptual evidence, although discussions of conceptual models of research
utilisation were included.
In accordance with the search parameters, relevant research literature was
identified using a number of complementary search methods. These
included:



bibliographic database searches of education/social science research
databases, including British Education Index, British Education Internet
Resource Catalogue, ERIC and SwetsWise (see Appendix 1 for full
details)
hand searches of previous reviews and bibliographies of relevance to this
review (e.g., CUREE, 2003a; Nutley et al., 2003; Hemsley-Brown and
Sharp, 2003)
online searches using specialist websites such as the Research Unit for
7
Research Utilisation at St Andrews, as well as general internet search
engines.
These searches identified a large number of potentially relevant studies (1475
records in total), from which a smaller number of 93 studies was selected to
order or download in full. Of these, about 60 were judged to be sufficiently
relevant to the focus of the review to be worth reviewing in full. The selection
processes were based on whether the focus of the publication was in line with
the parameters of the review. Examples of excluded studies (from the list of
93 that were ordered or downloaded in full) included: articles dealing with
researchers’ or research students’ use of research information sources;
research on teachers’ and schools’ use of performance data (as opposed to
research outputs); and theoretical discussions of evidence-based practice and
policy.
The practice of research reviewing is a challenging one and there is ‘a great
deal of variety and no established typology of reviews’ (Boaz et al., 2004, p.
2). With a short time-scale and a modest budget, this piece of work is clearly
different in scale and scope from the kinds of systematic review funded by the
Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating (EPPI)
Centre. That said, it has sought to use systematic search procedures and
inclusion/exclusion criteria, and has drawn on review procedures developed
as part of several other previous research reviews (see, for example,
Rickinson, 2003). An important part of the review process was critical
analysis of the available evidence, both in terms of validity or trustworthiness
of individual studies’ findings and the strengths and weaknesses of the
evidence base as a whole.
1.4
Structure of the report
The findings of this review are presented in five sections. Section 2 considers
the current evidence as a whole and outlines the kinds of research that have
been carried out during the period of this review. Section 3 looks at what is
known about the extent and ways in which practitioners access research. In
Section 4, the focus shifts to research use with discussion of conceptual
models of research utilisation and recent empirical evidence concerning how
and why practitioners make use of research. Section 5 presents an overview
of the factors that can facilitate or hinder practitioner access and use of
research. The report ends with a series of issues and implications for the
future development of NEEP.
8
2.
An overview of the evidence base
This section provides an overview of the research evidence that was included
within this review. It begins by describing a previous lack of empirical work in
this area, before outlining the types of studies that have been carried out in
recent years.
2.1
Previous gaps
Empirical work on research utilisation by practitioners in education is most
definitely an area of research that is newly-emerging rather than wellestablished. Until very recently, conceptual interest in the research-practice
interface had not been matched by in-depth empirical inquiry. As a US
researcher argued recently:
While there are very many normative perspectives on what the
relationship of research and practice should be, there is surprisingly
little data about what it actually is. (St. Clair, 2004, p. 1) [original
emphases]
This observation is echoed by researchers in the UK. John and Prior (2003),
for example, bemoan the fact that ‘Only a few studies cast light on the ways in
which teachers understand and use research in their practice’ (p. 232). The
NERF sub-group report on research impact spoke of ‘a surprisingly small
literature on the impact of educational research on policy and practice’
(NERF, 2000, p. 1). Likewise, Everton et al. (2002) point out that ‘surprisingly
little attention has been given to establishing what teachers already know
about research and researchers’ (p. 374). The literature in higher education
(HE) has been described as ‘strong on rhetoric and light on the empirical
nature of the relationship between teaching and research’ (Coate et al., 2001,
p. 159). Meanwhile, in the context of initial teacher education, Pendry and
Husbands (2000) emphasise that ‘We do not know very much about what
[research] beginning teachers access [or] the use to which they put it’ (p.
322).
This lack of empirical work was also evident in an earlier systematic review on
research utilisation, which looked at work published between 1988 and 2001
in the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and Europe (Hemsley-Brown and
Sharp, 2003). In relation to the use of research findings by headteachers and
teachers, for example, this review found only two empirical studies to discuss
in depth (and neither of these was carried out in the UK).
2.2
Current Evidence
Through comparing the situation of four years ago (as described by HemsleyBrown and Sharp, 2003) with the literature identified for this current review, it
is clear that empirical studies of practitioners’ perceptions, and use, of
research have increased in number. The evidence base in the UK and US
9
can now be seen to include:








studies of practitioners’ sources of research information (e.g., Everton et
al., 2002) and attitudes towards different information sources (e.g.,
Williams and Coles, 2003)
studies of practitioners’ perceptions of research (e.g., Ratcliffe et al., 2004)
and research outputs (e.g., Cordingley, 2000)
studies of practitioners’ awareness of research findings (e.g., Costa et al.,
2000)
studies of the nature and extent of practitioners’ use of research (e.g., St.
Clair et al., 2003) and research-based practices (e.g., Gersten et al., 2000)
reflective writing by research-active practitioners about research utilisation
(e.g., Bevan, 2004)
studies of initiatives to support practitioner research access and use (e.g.,
Sanders et al., 2005)
theoretical/conceptual writing about research utilisation (e.g., Nutley et al.,
2002), research impact/dissemination (e.g., NERF, 2000) and strategies
for supporting research use (e.g., Walter et al., 2003)
systematic reviews on research utilisation (e.g., Hemsley-Brown and
Sharp, 2003) and research impact (e.g., Nutley et al., 2003).
Figure 2.1: An Overview of the Current Evidence
Accessing
Using
Empirical
Studies of practitioners’:
• sources of research
information
• views on different
information sources
Studies of practitioners’:
• perceptions of research
and research outputs
• awareness of research
findings
Studies of:
• practitioners’ use of
research
• initiatives to support
research utilisation
Reflective writing by:
• research-active
practitioners
Theories/models of:
• research
dissemination
Theories/models of:
• research utilisation
• research impact
• strategies for supporting
research use
Conceptual
Taken together, these various types of study can be seen to span both the
conceptual and the empirical, and to provide information about both research
access and research use (Figure 2.1). Broadly speaking (and with a risk of
over-simplifying), it could be argued that the last four years (particularly within
the UK) have seen a movement from the bottom left to the top right of Figure
2.1. In other words, there has been a growth of empirical inquiry (moving
10
from the bottom to the top of the diagram) and an increased focus on the
utilisation of research (moving from the left to the right of the diagram). In the
context of this review, this means that there is more empirical evidence to
inform initiatives such as NEEP than there was five years ago. However, the
research base in this area is still developing and conclusions that are drawn
need to be seen as preliminary as opposed to conclusive.
2.3
Summary
Until recently, the literature on the research-practice interface in education
has tended to be conceptual rather than empirical. There have been few
attempts to understand how practitioners perceive, access, engage with and
use research. There are signs that this situation is changing due to a growth
of empirical inquiry and an increased focus on the utilisation of research by
teachers and school leaders.
11
3.
How do practitioners access research?
This section considers what is known about the extent and ways in which
education practitioners access research.
3.1
How frequently do practitioners access research?
Data on how often teachers and other education practitioners access
research are not plentiful. The information that is available tends to be fairly
basic, such as the percentage of survey respondents reporting that they read
research publications.
Recent UK studies include a MORI telephone poll of 3,000 primary and
secondary school teachers in England and Wales (MORI, 2004), and a NFER
postal survey of 215 primary, secondary, special and nursery school teachers
in England (an 18 per cent response rate) (Taggart et al., 2004). Both studies
questioned respondents about the frequency with which they read and/or use
research. Their findings (Table 3.1) indicate that the majority of teachers read
and use published research findings to inform their professional development
or classroom practice at least ‘occasionally’ (51-68 per cent) and, in some
cases, ‘frequently’ (22-42 per cent). Only a minority of teachers in both
studies (5-7 per cent) claimed never to read or use published research. This
was also the case with a small-scale pilot study of research use amongst 35
teachers in four English schools, all but two of whom answered ‘Yes’ to the
question ‘Do you ever consult any newspapers/ newsletters/ magazines/
journals about research in education?’ (Hannan et al., 2000).
Table 3.1: Frequency of reading and using research by teachers in
England and Wales
MORI (2004)
Taggart et al. (2004)
3,000 primary and
secondary teachers in
England and Wales
Use research to inform
professional development
or classroom practice
215 primary, secondary, special and
nursery teachers in England
‘Frequently’
42%
Read
published
research
findings
26%
Use research to
inform professional
development or
classroom practice
22%
‘Occasionally’
51%
68%
67%
‘Never’
5%
6%
7%
The impression of an encouraging level of teacher self-reported engagement
with research corresponds with a US study of 143 adult literacy teachers in
Texas (St. Clair et al., 2003). Respondents in this study reported reading
research-related items either weekly (22 per cent), monthly (28 per cent) or
12
several times a year (38 per cent), and only 12 per cent stated that they rarely
read research. What these figures don’t tell us, however, is what type of
research is being consumed and in what depth it is being read or used.
Indeed, where studies have explored this issue a little deeper, there has been
concern that practitioners’ engagement with research can in fact be superficial
or limited.
Williams and Coles (2003), in a mixed-method study of research use by UK
teachers, noted ‘a distinct contrast between the more positive expression of
confidence in the survey and the way teachers talked about their experiences
in interviews and groups’ (p. 20). A study of experienced science teachers in
Portugal found that their knowledge of education research findings was
‘generally very limited’ (Costa et al., 2000, p. 37). Biddle and Saha’s (2000)
study of headteachers in Australia and America concluded that although their
research knowledge was broad, it was also shallow.
Similarly, the
aforementioned study by St. Clair et al. (2003) noted that ‘research
consumption, while relatively frequent, is not particularly extensive’ (p. 6).
This corresponds with concerns expressed by Pendry and Husbands (2000)
about trainee history teachers in England, who were found to be reliant on a
very limited number of sources (i.e., one of three books) for information about
research. Another issue, raised by Everton et al. (2002), is how current the
research is that practitioners are using; their surveys found many respondents
referring to research that was ‘undertaken in the late 1970s and early 1980s’
(p. 389).
3.2
Where do practitioners access information about research?
If teachers are accessing research, then what sources of information are they
using and why? This question has been investigated through surveys (e.g.,
Everton et al., 2002) and focus groups (e.g., Sanders et al., 2005) with school
leaders (e.g. CUREE, 2003a), teachers (e.g., Ratcliffe et al., 2004) and
trainee teachers (e.g., Pendry and Husbands, 2000). Within England and
Wales, the most comprehensive survey data comes from two Teacher
Training Agency (TTA)-funded studies undertaken in the late 1990s (Everton
et al., 2000, 2002). Based on a combined sample of 572 school senior
managers, teachers and support staff, the study noted a range of sources of
information about educational research (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2: Sources of research for teachers in England (Everton et al.,
2002)
Source of Research
Relative Popularity
In-service training (INSET)
73%
Official publications
66%
Accredited courses
66%
Books
62%
Newspapers
57%
Journals
56%
Other teachers
43%
TV
26%
13
A similar picture emerged from a more recent survey of 390 teachers and
headteachers in Scotland (240 teachers, 44 headteachers), England (53
teachers, 24 headteachers) and Wales (16 teachers, 10 headteachers)
(Williams and Coles, 2003). The researchers found that: ‘the most frequently
used sources are colleagues, in-service events, and the kind of reports and
professional journals that they are already likely to find in school’ (ibid., p. 13).
The internet was also noted as a relatively popular source due to its
accessibility and speed, availability of specialist knowledge and currency of
information. However, it was also stressed that:
a significant proportion of the survey sample also indicated that they
never used the internet: 19.9 per cent for subject related information,
35.6 per cent for teaching and learning research. (ibid., p. 14)
Furthermore, follow-up interviews with 28 respondents found uncertainly
about how to develop search strategies for online information beyond ‘sort of
clicking fairly aimlessly on the web’ (ibid., p. 10). This is an important issue
for the development and dissemination of NEEP which needs to consider how
practitioners’ skills in using ICT as a tool for accessing information for their
own professional learning can be enhanced and how the current ‘under-use of
the professional information skills of school librarians’ can be challenged
(ibid., p. 22). It should be noted that the survey component of this study had
low response rates (10 per cent for teachers; 15 per cent for headteachers)
and a limited sample size for Wales and England.
Several of the sources noted above also featured in a study of science
teachers undertaken as part of the ESRC Teaching and Learning Research
Programme (TLRP) (Bartholomew et al., 2003; Ratcliffe et al., 2004).
Through interviews with 62 primary and secondary science teachers as well
as others involved in science education, they found evidence of four main
sources of research knowledge:




reading
INSET
interaction with colleagues
activities/publications of the Association for Science Education (ASE).
More recently still, a series of focus groups undertaken by NFER with 40 staff
in research-active schools nationally suggested that ‘the internet [is seen] as
the first point of call for finding relevant research’ (Sanders et al., 2005, p. 11).
However, and again with pertinence for NEEP, several respondents also
‘commented on the difficulty of finding exactly what they wanted’ through
search engines (ibid., p. 4). Alongside online access, though, importance was
also attached to:


printed materials such as newspapers, union and professional association
publications, research summaries/newsletters and professional journals
continuing professional development such as conferences, accredited
courses, and collaborative research projects
14

mediators such as headteachers, LEA advisors and university-based
partners.
Another strong theme in the literature on research access is the importance
that practitioners attach to research sources that are informal and indirect. A
review of the literature on school leaders’ use of research, for example,
reported a number of ‘everyday contexts which leaders cited as means of
accessing research outcomes: professional association literature; professional
development meetings; websites of educational organisations; media
coverage of educational issues; and neighbourhood school or special interest
networks’ (CUREE, 2003b, pp. 2-3). A study of 127 experienced teachers
enrolled in university-based courses in mid-west America concluded that:
Perhaps the most salient finding of this study is the consistency with
which teachers rated professional journals and college coursework as
generally less trustworthy than their own colleagues and workshops or
inservice publications. (Landrum et al., 2002, p. 46)
The authors see this as part of ‘the small but growing body of evidence that
suggests that teachers may be more likely to get information they use in their
classroom from the relatively informal sources in their professional lives’ (p.
47). This is supported by several other studies looked at for this review:
When asked which format they prefer, respondents identified the
internet (49 per cent), newsletters (58 per cent) and conferences (48
per cent) as their favourite means of finding research information, with
academic books (9 per cent) and research reports (18 per cent) being
the least popular. (St. Clair et al., 2003, p. 7)
When invited to identify which publication was consulted [for
information about research], 25 (71 per cent) referred to the Times
Educational Supplement […] A total of 44 other publications were
identified […] Academic journals focused on education studies did not
get a single mention. (Hannan et al., 2000, pp. 4-5)
In addition to direct research involvement, the teachers decisions were
strongly influenced by sources that are themselves directly impacted
on by research, specifically ITT [initial teacher training], professional
reading, the advice of other teachers, CPD courses and formal
postgraduate study. (DETYA, 2000, no page number)
3.3
What kinds of practitioners are likely to access research?
There are a number of surveys which suggest that levels of research
engagement can vary for different kinds of teachers. Three studies carried
out in England, for example, have indicated that:


newly-qualified teachers (NQTs) are significantly more likely to never use
research as compared with teachers with more experience (MORI, 2004)
senior teachers are more interested in using research, while junior staff
15



are more interested in doing research (Everton et al., 2002)
the breadth of research information sources is greater for secondary
school teachers, deputy headteachers, and staff with postgraduate
qualifications (Everton et al., 2002)
‘a hard core of teachers who do not engage with research are likely to be
found among female classroom assistants or assistant teachers working in
primary schools’ (Everton et al., 2002, p. 378)
secondary school teachers are the least likely to use research, while
nursery teachers are the most likely to use research (Taggart et al., 2004).
One study that looked specifically at practitioners’ attitudes and skills in
relation to accessing research information highlights the significance of
individuals’ confidence in locating and evaluating information (their
‘information literacy’) (Williams and Coles, 2003). Based on questionnaire
responses from 390 teachers and headteachers in Scotland (240 teachers, 44
headteachers), England (53 teachers, 24 headteachers) and Wales (16
teachers, 10 headteachers), this study found that:




all respondents were consistently more confident about finding and using
general information than finding and using research information
confidence levels were lower in the primary and nursery sectors than in
the secondary sector
headteachers were more confident about locating research information
and more likely to use research journals than teachers
individuals who had experience of doing research were more confident in
handling research information than those who had no such experience.
An Australian study identified the following as characteristics of educators
who are likely to set out to access new information:







observe and question their own accomplishments/practice
have a sense of hope that something can be done
scan the environment for understanding of the bigger picture
use internal problems coupled with optimism as a trigger
have a sense of obligation/moral purpose
continually ask good questions
focus effort by making single tasks serve many purposes (DETYA, 2000;
NCSL, 2003).
Similarly, studies of research use amongst school leaders internationally
indicate that:
Motivation to engage with research often sprang from the belief that a
core leadership role was to build a learning community and create new
professional knowledge to suit the distinct needs of schools. Above all
the leaders making use of research believed that improvement was
possible. (CUREE, 2003b, p. 1).
16
3.4
Summary
Surveys suggest that practitioners who read and use published research are
considerably more numerous than those who do not. Where studies have
explored this issue in more depth, though, there is concern that such
engagement may be superficial or limited. A range of information sources
seem to be important in communicating research to practitioners, including
INSET, accredited courses, conferences, online resources and various kinds
of publications. The internet appears to have become a popular source of
research information for teachers, although poor search skills can limit its
effectiveness. There is some evidence to suggest that teachers have a
preference for research sources that are indirect and informal (such as
research-based teaching materials and communication with colleagues).
Propensity to seek out research information would seem to vary across
groups of teachers. Recent studies suggest that research use is more likely
amongst staff who are more senior/experienced and have postgraduate
qualifications and positive beliefs about improvement.
17
4.
How and why do practitioners use research?
In this section, the focus shifts from accessing research to using research. It
looks briefly at conceptual models of research utilisation, before considering
recent empirical evidence concerning how and why practitioners make use of
research.
4.1
Conceptual models of research use
There is a well-developed literature on the relationships between research
and practice/policy and a wide range of models of research/knowledge
utilisation (e.g., Wittrock, 1991; Huberman, 1994; 2002; NERF, 2000;
Estabrooks, 2001; Ginsburg and Gorostiaga, 2001; Hammersley, 2001;
Nutley et al., 2002, 2003; Hemsley-Brown and Sharp, 2003). A detailed
examination of such writing is beyond the scope of this report, but a brief
consideration of some of the more prominent ways of conceptualising
research use will be a helpful context for later empirical insights.
A commonly-presented framework for understanding research utilisation is in
terms of instrumental, conceptual and strategic research use. These are
summarised by Estabrooks (2001, pp. 283-4) as follows:

instrumental research use – which ‘implies a concrete application of
research, where the research has often been translated into a material or
usable form’ and ‘is used to direct specific decisions and/or interventions’

conceptual research use – where ‘research may change one’s thinking
but not necessarily one’s particular action … In this kind of research
utilization, research informs and enlightens the decision-maker’

strategic (or symbolic) research use – which ‘involves the use of
research as a persuasive or political tool to legitimate a position or
practice’.
Each of these is underpinned by different assumptions about the nature of
research and the contribution that research can make to practice (Wittrock,
1991; Estabrooks, 2001; Hammersley, 2001). Instrumental utilisation involves
research providing specific and immediately applicable technical solutions,
and sees research as the main or only knowledge source to guide practice.
With conceptual use, meanwhile, research is providing concepts which come
to play a part in how practitioners define problems, and research is one
among several sources of knowledge upon which practitioners can draw.
Where the use is strategic, research is providing ammunition for partisan
battles, and again is one of many kinds of information that can be used to
justify a position.
In addition to these three types of use, Nutley et al. (2002) present a fourth
kind under the heading ‘wider influence’. This, they argue, reflects the fact
that:
Research can have an influence beyond the institutions and events
18
being studied. Evidence may be synthesised. It might come into
currency through networks of practioners and researchers, and alter
policy paradigms or belief communities. (no page numbers)
Alongside these conceptual perspectives, recent years have seen the
emergence of empirical investigation into the use of research within practice
communities. As noted earlier, this has come in response to concern that
‘education […] has wrestled so rarely with the actual day to day utilization of
research’ (St. Clair, 2004, p. 226). The findings of such work can shed light
on ‘the how’ (i.e. the processes) and ‘the why’ (i.e. the purposes) of research
utilisation by practitioners.
4.2
How do practitioners engage with research?
There is now a developing empirical evidence base relating to the ways in
which education practitioners approach, engage with and make use of
research. This comes from studies of the ways in which school staff read,
evaluate and respond to pieces of research (e.g., Kennedy, 1999),
collaborative investigation into teachers using research to inform their practice
and thinking (e.g., Rickinson et al., 2003), reflective writing by research-active
practitioners (e.g., Bevan, 2004), and studies that ‘backtrack’ from teachers’
practice to research (e.g., Figgis et al., 2000).
The pictures of research utilisation that emerge from this literature suggest a
process that is active, selective, values-rich, rewarding and developing (see
below).
These characteristics should not be taken as hard-and-fast
descriptors, but rather as emerging features of a process that is still coming to
be understood. They also need to be seen as potentially distinctive from the
ways in which researchers might read and use research. To quote from
Bartels’ (2003) small-scale US study of how three language teachers and
three language researchers evaluated journal articles:
For academics, the primary purpose of reading and communicating
findings is to build a public base of abstract, generalisable knowledge.
[…] For teachers, on the other hand, the primary purpose in reading
and writing up research is to expand their personal, context-specific
bases of knowledge about their teaching and their students’ learning.
(ibid., p. 751)
1. An active process - A common theme in utilisation studies is the active
manner in which teachers read and evaluate research outputs and ideas. The
process, then, is talked about using terms such as ‘translation’ (St. Clair,
2004), ‘drawing analogies’ (Kennedy, 1999; John and Prior, 2003) and
‘filtering, fragmenting and fiddling’ (Bevan, 2004). The common point is that
the practitioner user is active in making sense of, and finding meaning in, the
research. This is well illustrated by the literature on school leaders which
highlights a wide range of active processes associated with research
engagement. Examples include: ‘acquiring and interpreting information,
including that from research findings’; ‘enquiry, including collaborative action
research and analysing data’; ‘planning development work’; and ‘professional
19
dialogue’ (CUREE, 2003a, p. 6).
2. A selective process – Perhaps not surprisingly, teachers (like other users)
are found to be idiosyncratic in the ways they read, process and make use of
research findings. An Australian study that examined teachers’ practices for
evidence of the impact of educational research found utilisation to be ‘a very
individual process’ (DETYA, 2000, no page numbers). Kennedy’s (1999)
study of 100 US teachers’ responses to different genres of research found
that individuals ‘varied in their reasons for perceiving studies as persuasive
and relevant’, thus challenging ‘the tacit assumption that teachers are
homogenous in their perceptions of the value of research’ (p. 27). Along
similar lines, Bevan (2004, p. 329) talks about ‘the subjective selection and
rejection of research according to personal reading’ amongst teachers in the
early phases of their careers. Furthermore, a project exploring researchpractice connections in science education, found that ‘new materials and
approaches are judged first on their practicality and fit to the context of
application’ (Millar and Hames, 2003, no page numbers).
3. A values-rich process – Research use is not only active and selective, it
also appears to be personal and values-dependent. Work with science
teachers, for example, reported that ‘weight of evidence is rarely sufficient to
change educational practice – claims must also resonate with prior beliefs and
experience’ (Bartholomew et al., 2003, p. 1). Similarly, Australian research
concluded that ‘teachers generally seek out the sources they believe will
inform their existing knowledge base’ (DETYA, 2001, p. 2). It has also been
reported that research engagement can ‘evoke strong feelings and involve
challenging emotions’ on the part of practitioners (Rickinson and Reid, 2003,
p. 15).
4. A rewarding process - Kennedy’s work with US teachers found that:
‘Many used the studies to reinterpret their own experiences, and many
volunteered that they had already made copies of one or more of the studies
to share with colleagues’ (Kennedy, 1999, p. 27). A similar story was reported
by John and Prior (2003) for their sub-sample of eight research-active
teachers: ‘Not only did they seek to connect the findings to their practice, but
they also perceived the purpose of reading as educative and enlightening’ (p.
239). In addition, participants of a project looking at research-practice
connections in environmental education reported benefits such as: ‘I got far
more from the research than I anticipated’; ‘I appreciated the opportunity to
discuss the research findings and test ideas and assumptions with practitioner
colleagues’ (Rickinson et al., 2004, p. 207).
5. A developing process - In a recent paper within a special issue of the
journal Teacher Development, Bevan (2004) presents a model of practitioner
research engagement in terms of three phases during a teachers’ career.
Drawing on his own biography as a practitioner researcher as well as ideas
from research into teachers’ life cycles, Bevan argues that research
engagement develops through:
 ‘filtering’ in early career – ‘subjective selection and rejection of research
with personal interpretation’
20


‘fragmenting’ during mid career (typically between the fourth and eighth
years of teaching) – ‘research findings isolated, simplified and removed
from context’
‘fiddling’ during the time when professional practice becomes established
and experimentation becomes the norm – ‘applying findings, action
research, tinkering and transforming’ (p. 327).
Arguably the key message emerging from all of the above points is the idea
that research use by practitioners is more complex than some might have
hoped or assumed. As Bell et al. (2002) have argued, research use is about
learning and so needs to be seen ‘as a pedagogic problem’ rather than a
transmission problem. Put another way:
Evidence-informed practice does not merely mean bringing new
information about what works to bear on professional practice, it
becomes part of an ongoing learning process on the part of the
practitioner. (Cordingley, 2004, p. 80)
This suggests that the development of NEEP needs to be informed by careful
thinking about the ways in which the portal can contribute to practitioners’
professional learning and be useful to those responsible for supporting such
learning.
4.3
What do practitioners use research for?
Until recently, little was known about what education practitioners actually did
with research when they used it. Four studies of different groups of teachers
in England and the US have provided some preliminary evidence on this topic
(Table 4.1).
This is clearly an evolving area of understanding, but some insights can be
drawn from the examples in Table 4.1. It is clear, firstly, that research can be
used for a range of different purposes. The idea that research use can range
from the more conceptual (i.e., raising questions) to the more instrumental
(i.e., providing answers) is certainly evident in all of the studies. So too is the
notion of strategic use (i.e., providing validation). Interestingly, though, it
seems that, in three of the studies, validation can take two forms: a personal
affirmation of one’s practices, or evidence to convince others of the value of a
particular approach. The former is more about personal verification, while the
latter is more about public advocacy. Another theme in two of the studies is
where using research is about doing research. Both the Rickinson et al.
(2003) and the Sanders et al. (2005) work cite examples of practitioners
describing research as a stimulus for further school-based investigation and
inquiry.
21
Table 4.1: Empirical Studies of Research Use by Practitioners
St. Clair et al. (2003)
143 adult literacy teachers in USA
Pendry and Husbands (2000)
141 history PGCE students in
England
Three categories of use:
Two categories of use:

Validation – ‘Mainly it’s towards
the grant writing entity or proving
to United Way why or why not you
can make certain gains’
 Design – ‘The research helped
direct me in my teaching
strategies or curriculum’
 Improvement – ‘It just helps the
program to run a little more
smoothly and little more cheaply
and a little more efficiently’
Rickinson et al. (2003)
6 environmental educators in
England


Practical use – ‘It helped me to
devise teaching strategies’
Prompting reflection – ‘It made
me think more deeply about what
was happening in my lessons’
Sanders et al. (2005)
40 research-active teachers
England
Six categories of use:
Five categories of use:








To support/justify – ‘I realised we
had many practices already in
place which support aspects of the
research’
To challenge – ‘The research
raised emotive and powerful
questions for me as a practitioner’
To reflect – ‘It has helped me
reflect on what I was doing and
how I do it’
To investigate – ‘I wanted to find
out if this [research finding] was
true for some of my students’
To change – ‘I wanted to find
information that might help to
explain why these misconceptions
were happening and how I could
change my practice to tackle them’
To inform – ‘The research pointed
us towards various criteria which
we must address in order to make
future projects successful and
worthwhile’





in
For general information
To follow-up items of particular
interest with further reading
To
recommend
items
to
colleagues
To contribute to further study
To inform their own research
To validate or celebrate their
practice
To change their practice
Perhaps the key conclusion that can be drawn is the idea that research use is
22
multi-dimensional and can involve practitioners not only as teachers but as
planners, thinkers, leaders, coaches, researchers and learners. In other
words, research utilisation is not simply about what teachers do in the
classroom or the lecture hall but also about what they do in the many other
aspects of their professional roles.
4.4
Summary
Much has been written about how to conceptualise the process of research or
knowledge utilisation. A commonly-cited typology distinguishes between
research use that is instrumental, conceptual, strategic or through wider
influence. Until recently, little was known about the nature and dynamics of
research utilisation amongst education practitioners. The small number of
studies that have now been undertaken suggest that the process is more
complex than some might have assumed. Practitioners seem to use research
in ways that are active, selective and variable, and the process can be both
values-rich and rewarding. The purposes for which research is used are also
wide-ranging in the sense that it can be about validating practice, challenging
practice, prompting reflection about practice, stimulating research about
practice or improving/changing practice. Furthermore, this can involve
practitioners not only as teachers, but also as planners, thinkers, leaders,
researchers and learners.
23
5.
What can help practitioners to access and use research?
This section presents an overview of the factors that can facilitate or hinder
access to and use of research by education practitioners. There is a
considerable amount of evidence relating to this issue, which can be
considered under four broad headings:




5.1
nature of the research – factors relating to the focus and form of the
research evidence
nature of the practitioners – factors relating to the interests, needs and
background of the practitioner users
nature of the professional context – factors relating to the institutional
context in which the research is being utilised
nature of the wider context of support – factors relating to the wider
context of knowledge transformation, transfer and communication.
Nature of the research
Evidence of research utilisation being influenced by the nature of the research
has often come in the form of barriers rather than facilitators. Two issues that
recur in studies of practitioners’ perceptions of research are complaints
about the inaccessibility of the language and the challenge of locating
work that is relevant. Statements along the lines of ‘practitioners sometimes
sounded frustrated as they talked about how difficult it was to get information
already generated by research’ (St. Clair et al., 2003, no page numbers) are
common. A recent study of science teachers found that ‘the inaccessibility of
many research reports in both location and style [was] seen as a barrier to the
impact of research’ (Ratcliffe et al., 2004, p. ii). Similar issues arose in a
NFER study on the use of research for school improvement within 19 local
education authorities (LEAs) in England and Wales (Wilson et al., 2003;
Wilson, 2004). Based on interviews, focus groups and surveys of school,
university and LEA staff in LEAs with and without specific strategies in place
to encourage the use of research, they found evidence of six main barriers to
research use. Three of these were related to research itself: ‘problems with
accessing research’, ‘a perceived lack of relevance and practicality in
published research’ and ‘uncertainly about the results of research’ (Wilson et
al., 2003, pp. 11-12).
The difficulty of deciphering the language of research, particularly for
practitioners with little previous experience of research, is further highlighted
by other recent studies with practitioners in the UK (John and Prior, 2003;
Rickinson et al., 2003; Williams and Coles, 2003) and the US (Bartels, 2003).
The latter uses Gee’s theory of Discourses to frame the problem in terms of
teachers and researchers being members of different professional Discourse
communities. Problems arise where research papers fail to ‘incorporate [the]
kind of textual features and qualities that are central to teachers’ Discourse’
(Bartels, 2003, p. 751).
24
Another issue that has been explored is that of whether studies using
particular types of methodologies have more or less credibility in the eyes of
practitioners. A US study that questioned 100 school teachers about
examples of different research genres found no evidence for ‘the superiority of
any particular research genre, whether the criterion for superiority is
persuasiveness, relevance, or ability to influence practitioners’ thinking’
(Kennedy, 1999, p. 26). What was of concern to the teachers in this study
was the research topic:
The studies that teachers found to be most persuasive, most relevant
and most influential to their thinking were all studies that addressed the
relationship between teaching and learning. (ibid., p. 26)
This raises the question of what features of educational research and its
outputs are likely to aid utilisation in practice?
Based on the studies analysed for this review, it would seem that
engagement and use by educational practitioners will be more likely for
research outputs that:







provide ‘brief summaries [that can] help teachers decide quickly whether
the study is likely to be useful’ (Cordingley, 2000, p. 3; Rickinson et al.,
2003) as well as ‘clear layout and good signposting’ (Sanders et al., 2005,
p. 18)
come in a format that is tangible and useful, such as ’curriculum materials
and teaching approaches, resulting from transformation of research
findings into practical strategies’ (Bartholomew et al., 2003, p. 3) and ‘clear
implications for practice’ (Rickinson and Reid, 2003, p. 8; Wilson et al.,
2003)
focus on ‘real classroom situations’ (Wilson et al., 2003, p. 13) and ‘the
relationship between teaching and learning’ (Kennedy, 1999, p. 26) and
have the potential to ‘enhance pupils’ learning’ (Cordingley, 2004, p. 82)
use ‘crisp, plain language’, ‘case study portraits of strategies’ and ‘short
relevant video clips of authentic teaching and learning situations’
(Cordingley, 2000, p. 2; Olivero et al., 2004)
feature ‘use of colour and visual illustrations’ and, for websites, ‘a limited
amount of text on screen, clear sections with easy navigation, good
printing capabilities and tool such as search facilities and “email to a
friend”’ (Sanders et al., 2005, p 18; Taggart et al., 2004)
have convincing findings, that is ‘from studies with clear, rigorous methods
which seem likely to generalise to other contexts’ (Ratcliffe et al., 2004, p.
iv)
are made accessible via ‘a well organised access point to research
information located within the school’ (William and Coles, 2003, p. 22).
This list could easily be extended or reconfigured. Perhaps the most
important point, though, is that almost all of the characteristics above involve
the judgement of the practitioner as to the usefulness, trustworthiness and
relevance of the research. This brings us onto the second set of factors that
25
can influence whether and how practitioners access and use research: the
practitioners themselves.
5.2
Nature of the practitioner
A recurring message emanating from research on knowledge utilisation within
the field of education and beyond is that ‘“users” are far from empty vessels to
be filled with the wisdom of research’ (Huberman, 1994, no page numbers).
As we saw earlier, practitioners tend to be active and selective in the ways
they read, evaluate and make use of research outputs. Hence the identity
and background of the practitioner can influence the nature and extent of
research use. Recent studies highlight two ways in which this can happen: as
a result of practitioners’ professional knowledge and beliefs; and as a result of
practitioners’ research training and experience.
Several studies of practitioners’ engagement with research have emphasised
the importance of individuals’ professional knowledge and beliefs.
Amongst school leaders, for example, ‘beliefs about leadership roles and
responsibilities’ have been shown to be a major factor in their engagement
with research (CUREE, 2003a, p. 3). Ratcliffe et al.’s (2004) work with
science educators identified four conditions that research findings must fulfil in
order to make an impact on classroom practice. The second of these was
that research must ‘resonate with, or acknowledge, teachers’ professional
experiences’ (ibid., p. iv). This was because:
For many teachers, the principal factor in determining whether a piece
of research might influence their own practice was not its quality as
research, but rather the extent to which it accorded with their own gut
reactions, departmental policy and practice, or personal experience
and beliefs. (Ratcliffe et al., 2003, p. 14)
Along similar lines, Bartels’ (2003) study of language teachers in the US found
that ‘ideas in journal articles were seen as legitimate not on the basis of
empirical evidence, but according to the ease with which they could integrate
that knowledge into their personal knowledge base’ (p. 743).
This
corresponds with earlier work cited by Hemsley-Brown and Sharp (2003) in
their systematic review on research use in education and medicine, as well as
a synthesis of five studies that, in different ways, examined the impact of
educational research in Australia (DETYA, 2000, 2001). A key conclusion of
the latter was that: ‘Individual attitudes and beliefs […] are important in the
promotion of research usage. The converse is also true, these can act as
blocks to the use of research’ (ibid., no page numbers). Further evidence of
the ways in which practitioner research audiences ‘weigh new information
against the constructs and experience they have built up throughout their
lives’ (Huberman, 1994, no page numbers) is provided by studies with school
and community educators (St. Clair et al., 2003; Rickinson et al., 2003;
Williams and Coles, 2003) and Further Education (FE) college lecturers
(Goodrham, 2004).
A second area of influence comes in terms of practitioners’ familiarity and
26
confidence in using and doing research. There is considerable empirical
evidence which suggests that training in research methods or involvement in
doing research can help to develop more positive attitudes to, and
sophisticated skills in, the use of research amongst practitioners. HemsleyBrown and Sharp (2003) cite a 1991 study of school principals in America and
Australia, which found that postgraduate training contributed towards a
principal’s regard for educational research knowledge even though such
research might be considered problematic (Biddle and Saha, 2000). Everton
et al.’s (2002) survey of 572 school teachers in England found that
respondents who reported never using research were more likely to have no
postgraduate qualifications as compared with those who did report using
research. The authors concluded that: ‘it is reasonable to infer that an
extended period of full- or part-time study is likely to make a teacher more
responsive to research’ (p. 393). This corresponds with studies of research
utilisation in fields such as nursing, which have shown that ‘education about
research may be one way to overcome negative attitudes towards research
as a barrier to research utilization’ (McLeary and Brown, 2003, p. 556; see
also Rogers, 2000).
The same can be said of involvement in doing research of some kind.
Williams and Coles (2003), who questioned 390 UK teachers and
headteachers, reported a significant positive correlation between previous
involvement in research and confidence in handling research information. In
an interview-based study with two groups of teachers (one with considerable
research experience and the other with none), John and Prior (2003) found
that the ‘research-orientated group read the articles in a more varied and
extended way’ (p. 238). By contrast, those with little or no research
experience ‘had difficulty in reading […] and could not understand how the
articles overtly connected with their practice’ (p. 236). Similarly, science
teachers with prior experience of research were found to be ‘more prepared
than others to consider a range of data collection and analysis methods as
constituting research’ and ‘better able to view professional practice through a
different “evidence-based” lens’ (Ratcliffe et al., 2003, p. 26). Other studies
highlighting the value of action research experiences in this respect include
Elliott (2000), Hannan et al. (2000) and Jaworski (2000).
The idea of postgraduate study facilitating research use is, however,
challenged by one recent study of Texan literacy educators. The research
team found that: ‘Somewhat to our surprise, practitioners with more education
did not use research more, are not more likely to use academic sources and
are not more likely to have made changes based on research’ (St. Clair et al.,
2003, p. 8). What this study did find, though, was that more experienced
practitioners were more likely to read and use research than more junior ones.
5.3
Nature of the professional context
Any discussion of factors influencing research use would be incomplete
without consideration for the professional contexts in which practitioners are
working. Hemsley-Brown and Sharp (2003) were very clear on this point in
their review of the pre-2001 literature:
27
The conclusions from empirical research, in both education and
nursing, confirm that the main barriers to knowledge use in the public
sector are not at the level of individual resistance but originated in an
institutionalised culture that does not foster learning. […] The key
recommendation that emerges from empirical studies is that managers
are viewed as key facilitators, and there is a need to create and
develop an organisational culture that values and uses research. (p.
460)
A key organisational barrier to research use cited by practitioners in many
studies of is a lack of time. Wilson et al.’s (2003) investigation into the use of
research for school improvement reported that ‘While teachers said they
would like to use research, they felt they were prevented from doing so by the
volume of day-to-day work’ (p. 11).
A very similar message was
communicated by three quarters of the science teachers in Ratcliffe et al.’s
(2003) study. Interviewees highlighted ‘a lack of thinking time to sit and think
and discuss things’ and ‘the amount of time that it takes to read and make
sense of articles published in research journals’ (ibid., p. 23). Likewise, a
recent study of research-engaged schools (which is discussed in more detail
below) found that ‘By far the greatest difficulty in taking on a research activity
was in finding time for teachers and others to engage in research’ (Sharp et
al., 2005, p. 52).
Underpinning issues of time, though, are questions of funding and
resources. Williams and Coles (2003), for example, found that tied to the
issue of a lack of time was ‘the lack of ready access to research in one place
(i.e. the school), lack of readily accessible information on what is available
and the fact that the school library did not provide access to research
information’ (p.13). Participants in Wilson et al.’s (2003) study called not only
for the provision of time, but also for funding and expertise and for research to
be prioritised as an important aspect of professional practice. Furthermore,
the editorial of a recent special issue of the journal Teacher Development
focused on teachers and research stated that:
One of the most compelling ‘take away’ messages from this whole
journal issue is the need for strategic leadership, practical support and
sources of funding at national level for research-informed professional
practice. (Saunders, 2004, p. 124)
Coupled with time and resources, though, are a series of other factors that go
to make up what Hemsley-Brown and Sharp (2003) call ‘an organisational
culture that values and uses research’. Evidence demonstrating the
influence of school culture or ethos on research engagement has emerged
from studies of teachers (e.g., Williams and Coles, 2003) and school leaders
(e.g., CUREE, 2003a). A key argument is that ‘research is more readily
integrated into school life when systems are in place to enable the school to
operate as a learning organisation’ (CUREE, 2003a, p. 5). This is well
illustrated by the concept of ‘research-engaged schools’ which are described
as schools that have ‘research and enquiry at the heart of their outlook,
28
systems, and activity’ (Handscomb and Macbeath, 2003, p. 4). A recent indepth study of 15 such schools in England, identified the following ‘key
conditions for becoming a research-engaged school’:





A culture that values openness, reflection and professional debate
A commitment to using evidence for school improvement
A commitment of resources (especially staff time)
A willingness to embed research activity into existing school systems, such
as school development planning, staff meetings, staff development
activities and performance targets
Access to sources of expertise and support (Sharp et al., 2005, p. 53).
The importance of these sorts of conditions is supported by a number of other
studies (Abbott et al., 1999; Gersten et al., 2000; Cordingley et al., 2002; St.
Clair et al., 2003; Goodrham, 2004).
5.4
Nature of the wider context of support
An Australian study that sought to explore the effect of research on policy and
practice by backtracking from educators’ practices, put forward a ‘user-centric’
model of the impact of educational research (Figure 5.1) (Figgis et al., 2000).
Based on extensive interviewing, observation and documentary analysis, they
concluded that:
The gap between research knowledge and researchers is linked by a
connecting web to the practitioner or policy-maker who deals with
professional problems. The connecting web has many nodes that
represent linking activities […] for example, conferences, taskforces,
reports, media coverage and internet sites. (DETYA, 2001, p. 3)
Figure 5.1 A User-centric Model of the Impact of Educational Research
(Figgis et al., 2000)
This is important in the context of considering what can support practitioners
29
to access and use research as it extends the discussion beyond the earlier
issues of research, practitioners and institutional cultures to the wider context
of support (or otherwise) for research engagement. Pertinent issues here
include, for example:





5.5
the significant role played by mediators such as professional associations,
teacher unions, LEAs and CPD facilitators (Wilson et al., 2003; Ratcliffe et
al., 2004)
the need for ‘sustained interactivity’ and ‘dialogue’ between and among
researchers and practitioners as part of the research process (Huberman,
2002, p. 263; Ginsburg and Gorostiaga, 2001, p. 192)
the importance of ‘professional learning networks’, ‘collegial networks’ and
‘practitioner dissemination and research networks’ (CUREE, 2003a, p. 2;
Gersten and Dimmino, 2001, p. 122; Smith et al., 2002)
the need for recognition and reward for practitioners and institutions who
use research (Wilson et al., 2003)
the potential for inspiring and enthusiastic researchers to draw
practitioners into using research (Sanders et al., 2005).
Summary
This section makes clear the complex mix of factors that can facilitate or
hinder practitioner access to and engagement with research. These relate not
only to the nature of the research outputs and the practitioner users, but also
the institutional contexts and wider contexts of support in which utilisation
takes place. With respect to the development of NEEP, the evidence
presented here suggests a need for careful thinking as to how a national
evidence for education portal might build upon and connect with the many
other parts of the research utilisation picture.
30
6.
Conclusions and Implications
This final section suggests a number of implications for the development of
NEEP.
A report into dissemination practices within the USA made an interesting point
about the development of the Educational Resources Information Centres
(ERIC). It stated that:
The ERIC system was developed in response to the deeply held (and
accurate) belief that one of the problems with the low levels of research
utilisation in education that were routinely discussed in the 1950s and
1960s was the inaccessibility of research. However, ERIC was
developed without any corresponding thought given to how
educators would actually use the system. ERIC, as designed, was
not, and is still not, “user friendly”. (Seashore Louis and Jones, 2001, p.
6) [emphasis added]
This is helpful in highlighting the sorts of shortcomings that NEEP must seek
to avoid. Unlike ERIC, NEEP needs to give every thought to ‘how educators
would actually use the system’, and, judging by the contents of this review,
there is at least some research evidence that can help to inform this. From
this review, there seem to be four issues that have potential implications for
the future development of NEEP.
6.1
Support for online research resources
Several of the studies in this review highlighted ‘how difficult it was [for
practitioners] to get information already generated by research’ (St. Clair et
al., 2003; no page numbers; Williams and Coles, 2003; Wilson et al., 2003;
Ratcliffe et al., 2004). This is true for electronic media as much as for other
information sources:
Participants referred to the usefulness of search engines as a starting
point for finding research, although they all commented on the difficulty
of finding exactly what they wanted. (Sanders et al., 2005, p. 4)
These kinds of challenges suggest that there is a demand for high quality,
well designed and easily navigable online research resources such as that
envisaged by the NEEP Development Group. Indeed, Williams and Coles
(2003, p. 22)
state specifically that:
the key to overcoming access problems appear to be to have a single
point of access, organised and navigable to allow teachers to find their
way to what they want in the limited time available, and to site that
resource within the school.
31
6.2
Guidance on content and design issues
The development of NEEP does not need to start from scratch. There is now
a developing evidence base on the kinds of research outputs that are
appealing and useful to education practitioners. This was discussed earlier
(Section 5.1), but the following suggestions from recent studies are worth
reiterating:




6.3
provide ‘brief summaries [that can] help teachers decide quickly whether
the study is likely to be useful’ (Cordingley, 2000, p. 3; Rickinson et al.,
2003) as well as ‘clear layout and good signposting’ (Sanders et al., 2005,
p. 18)
use ‘crisp, plain language’, ‘case study portraits of strategies’ and ‘short
relevant video clips of authentic teaching and learning situations’
(Cordingley, 2000, p. 2; Olivero et al., 2004)
feature ‘use of colour and visual illustrations’ and, for websites, ‘a limited
amount of text on screen, clear sections with easy navigation, good
printing capabilities and tool such as search facilities and “email to a
friend”’ (Sanders et al., 2005, p. 18; Taggart et al., 2004)
have convincing findings, that is ‘from studies with clear, rigorous methods
which seem likely to generalise to other contexts’ (Ratcliffe et al., 2004, p.
iv).
Relationships to other initiatives
The ‘evidence-into-practice’ agenda is associated with an increasingly
complex variety of interventions, programmes and initiatives (Nutley et al.,
2002). Education is no exception, which means that NEEP will need to
consider how it relates to other existing and planned developments. As
Atherton (1999, p. 3) has argued in the relation to similar development in
social care:
A consequent task for all these initiatives is to be clear between
themselves, and to others, about what each offers, what is the same
and what is different and to then be clear to potential users about what
can be expected from each service.
A framework that may prove helpful in exploring these issues is a taxonomy
developed by Walter et al. (2003) to make sense of the many interventions
designed to enhance the impact of research within the criminal justice, health,
education and social care sectors. The taxonomy is based on eight
‘mechanisms’ that drive research impact, and 32 ‘intervention types’ that are
similar in form and content (Figure 6.1). The detail of the different types
featured in Figure 6.1 is not important to go into here; the purpose of sharing
this framework is to highlight the complexity that will surround NEEP and the
need to consider carefully how NEEP can support and connect with other
related developments.
32
Figure 6.1: A taxonomy of research impact interventions (adapted from
Walter et al., 2003)
MECHANISMS
Dissemination
Education
Social influence
Collaboration
Incentives
Reinforcement
Facilitation
Multifaceted
6.4
INTERVENTION TYPES
Written materials General
Feedback
Oral
education
Reminders
presentations
Endorsement
Changes in
Alternative
Lobbying
structures
formats
Client-mediated
Office systems
Mass media
interventions
Computer
Research access Boundary
support systems
Research-based spanners
guidance
Networks
Use of internet
Educational
Expert support
Quality systems
materials
Research-inOrganisational
Passive
practice
Multi-component
education
Research
initiatives
Staff
planning
development
Collaboration
Educational
Research
outreach
incentives
Interactive
Financial
education
incentives
Beyond dissemination and access?
This final issue picks up on what has been a recurring theme throughout the
review, namely that practitioner research utilisation involves much more than
‘bringing new information to bear on professional practice’ (Cordingley, 2004,
p. 80). This raises the question of the extent to which NEEP will be
concerned with promoting research use as well as dispersing research
information. In other words, will the remit of NEEP go beyond dissemination
and access? To what extent will NEEP be concerned not just with providing
‘a single point of access to aggregated information’ (Devedzic, 2005, p. 96),
but also with: facilitating practitioners’ research information literacy and
professional learning; supporting research mediation by leaders, advisors and
information specialists; and enhancing research cultures within and between
organisations?
According to Louis and Dentler (cited in Seashore Louis and Jones, 2001, p.
13), ‘dissemination systems that are designed to spread information as widely
as possible may be different from those that are intended primarily to
encourage use’. In the light of the evidence presented in this review, careful
consideration for how NEEP can work towards encouraging use as well as
spreading information will be critical.
33
References
ABBOTT, M., WALTON, C., TAPIA, Y. and GREENWOOD, C. R. (1999).
‘Research to practice: a “blueprint” for closing the gap in local schools’,
Exceptional Children, 65, 3, 339–52.
ATHERTON, C. (1999). ‘Getting a GRIP’, Research Policy and Planning.
[online].
Available:http://www.elsc.org.uk/socialcareresource/rpp/articles/1711999art1.
htm [10 August, 2005]
BARTELS, N. (2003). ‘How teachers and researchers read academic articles’,
Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 737-753.
BARTHOLOMEW, H., HAMES, V., HIND, A., LEACH, J., OSBORNE, J. and
RATCLIFFE, M. (2003). Towards Evidence-based Practice in Science
Education 4: Users’ Perceptions of Research (Teaching and Learning
Research
Briefing
4)
[online].
Available:
http://www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/no4.pdf [11 August, 2005].
BELL, M., CORDINGLEY, P., CURTIS, A., EVANS, D., HUGHES, S. and
SHREEVE, A. (2002). ‘Bringing research resources to practitioner users via
web technology: lesson learned to date.’ Paper presented at the British
Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Exeter,
12-14 September.
BEVAN, R. B. (2004). ‘Filtering, fragmenting and fiddling? Teachers’ life
cycles and phases in their engagement with research’, Teacher Development,
8, 2/3, 325–39.
BIDDLE, B. J. and SAHA, L. J. (2000). ‘Research knowledge use and school
principals.’ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 24 April.
BOAZ, A., SOLESBURY, W. and SULLIVAN, F. (2004). The Practice of
Research Reviewing: an Assessment of 28 Review Reports. London: ESRC
UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice.
COATE, K., BARNETT, R. and WILLIAMS, G. (2001). ‘Relationships between
teaching and research in higher education in England’, Higher Education
Quarterly, 55, 2, 158–74.
CORDINGLEY, P. (2000). ‘Teacher perspectives on the accessibility and
usability of research outputs.’ Paper presented at the British Educational
Research Association Annual Conference, University of Cardiff, 7-9
September.
CORDINGLEY, P. (2004). ‘Teachers using evidence: using what we know
34
about teaching and learning to reconceptualize evidence-based practice.’ In:
THOMAS, G. and PRING, R. (Eds) Evidence-Based Practice in Education.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
CORDINGLEY, P., WILSON, J., SEDDON, K. and THOMAS, F. (2002).
‘Encouraging discerning research involvement by schools and developing the
role of CPD co-ordinators – the contribution of the National Teacher Research
Panel’, Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association
Annual Conference, University of Exeter, 12-14 September.
CENTRE FOR THE USE OF RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE IN EDUCATION
(CUREE) (2003a). Leading the Research-engaged School: Why and How
School Leaders Engage with Educational Research [online]. Available:
http://www.ncsl.org.uk/media/F7B/94/randd-engaged-full.pdf [3 September,
2005].
CENTRE FOR THE USE OF RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE IN EDUCATION
(CUREE) (2003b). How do leaders and their teacher colleagues become
interested in using research evidence to inform their practice? What
conditions encourage active engagement in research? [online]. Available:
http://www.curee-paccts.com/dynamic/curee43.jsp?m=46
[3
September,
2005].
COSTA, N., MARQUES, L. and KEMPA, R. (2000). ‘Science teachers’
awareness of findings from education research’, Research in Science and
Technological Education, 18, 1, 37–44.
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS (DfES) (2002). Research
and Development in England: Background Report Prepared for the OECD
Review. London: DfES.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, TRAINING AND YOUTH AFFAIRS
(DETYA) (2000). The Impact of Educational Research [online]. Available:
http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/respubs/impact/overview.htm
[12 August, 2005].
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, TRAINING AND YOUTH AFFAIRS
(DETYA) (2001). Educational Research: In Whose Interests? (Higher
Education Series Report No. 39). Canberra: DETYA Higher Education
Division.
DEVEDZIC, V. (2005).
‘Research community knowledge
International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 1, 1/2, 96-112.
portals’,
ELLIOTT, J. (2000). ‘How do teachers define what counts as ‘credible
evidence’? Some reflections based on interviews with teachers involved in the
Norwich Area Research Consortium.’ Paper presented at the British
Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Cardiff,
7-9 September.
35
ESTABROOKS, C.A. (2001). ‘Research utilization and qualitative research.’
In: MORSE, J.M., SWANSON, J.M. and KUZEL, A.J. (Eds) The Nature of
Qualitative Evidence. London: Sage.
EVERTON, T., GALTON, M. and PELL, T. (2000). ‘Teachers’ perspectives on
educational research: knowledge and context’, Journal of Education for
Teaching, 26, 2, 168–82.
EVERTON, T., GALTON, M. and PELL, T. (2002). ‘Educational research and
the teacher’, Research Papers in Education, 17, 4, 373–401.
FIGGIS, J., ZUBRICK, A., BUTORAC, A., and ALDERSON, A. (2000).
‘Backtracking practice and policies to research.’ In: DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND YOUTH The Impact of Educational Research
[online].
Available:
http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/respubs/impact/overview.htm
[12 August, 2005].
GERSTEN, R., CHARD, D. and BAKER, S. (2000). ‘Factors enhancing the
sustained use of research-based instructional practices’, Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 33, 5, 445–57.
GERSTEN, R. and DIMINO, J. (2001). ‘The realities of translating research
into classroom practice’, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 2,
120–30.
GINSBURG, M. B. and GOROSTIAGA, J. M. (2001). ‘Relationships between
theorists/researchers and policy makers/practitioners: rethinking the twocultures thesis and the possibility of dialogue’, Comparative and International
Education Society, 45, 2, 173–96.
GOODRHAM, M. (2004). ‘Using research to enhance professionalism in
further education (FE)’, Paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference of the
Teaching and Learning Research Programme, Cardiff, 22-24 November.
HAMMERSLEY, M. (2001). Educational Research, Policy Making and
Practice. London: Paul Chapman.
HANNAN, A., ENRIGHT, H. and BALLARD, P. (2000). Using Research: the
Results of a Pilot Study Comparing Teachers, General Practitioners and
Surgeons
[online].
Available:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000851 [29 July 2005].
HANDSCOMB, G. and MACBEATH, J. (2003). The Research Engaged
School. Chelmsford: Essex County Council.
HEMSLEY-BROWN, J. and SHARP, C. (2003). ‘The use of research to
improve professional practice: a systematic review of the literature’, Oxford
Review of Education, 29, 4, 449–70.
36
HUBERMAN, M. A. (1994). ‘Research utilization: the state of the art’,
Knowledge and Policy, 7, 4, 13–34.
HUBERMAN, M. A. (2002). ‘Moving towards the inevitable: the sharing of
research in education’, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8, 3/4,
257-68.
JAWORSKI, B. (2000). ‘Research or research and its relation to mathematics
teaching.’ Paper presented at the Conference of the British Society for
Research into Learning Mathematics.
JOHN, P. and PRIOR, J. (2003). ‘Conceptions, contentions and connections:
how teachers read and understand different genres of educational research.’
In: SUTHERLAND, R., CLAXTON, G. and POLLARD, A. (Eds) Learning and
Teaching: Where Worldviews Meet. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.
KENNEDY, M. (1999) ‘A test of some common contentions about educational
research’, American Educational Research Journal, 36, 3, 511–41.
LANDRUM, T. J., COOK, B. G., TANKERSLEY, M. and FITZGERALD, S.
(2002). ‘Teacher perceptions of the trustworthiness, usability and accessibility
of information from different sources’, Remedial and Special Education, 23, 1,
42–8.
MARKET AND OPINION RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL (MORI) (2004).
MORI Teachers' Omnibus 2004 (Wave 2). London: MORI.
McLEARY, L. and BROWN, G. T. (2003). ‘Association between nurses’
education about research and their research use’, Nurse Education Today,
23, 556–65.
MILLAR, J. and HAMES, V. (2003). ‘Using diagnostic assessment to enhance
teaching and learning: a study of the impact of research-informed materials on
science teachers’ practices.’ Paper presented at ESERA Conference,
Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands, 19-23 August.
NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP (NCSL) (2003).
Backtracking Practice and Policies to Research. Nottingham: NCSL.
NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH FORUM (NERF) (2000). The Impact
of Educational Research on Policy and Practice: Sub-group Report. London:
NERF.
NUTLEY, S., WALTER, I. and DAVIEW, H. (2002). From Knowing to Doing: a
Framework for Understanding the Evidence-Into-Practice Agenda [online].
Available: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/%7Eruru/KnowDo%20paper.pdf [20
August, 2005]
NUTLEY, S., PERCY-SMITH, J. and SOLESBURY, W. (2003). Models of
Research Impact: a Cross-sector Review of Literature and Practice (Building
37
Effective Research: 4). London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
OANCEA, A. (2005) ‘Criticisms of educational research: key topics and levels
of analysis’, British Educational Research Journal, 31, 2, 157–83.
OLIVERO, F., JOHN, P. and SUTHERLAND, R. (2004). ‘Seeing is believing:
using videopapers to transform teachers’ professional knowledge and
practice’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 34, 2, 179–91.
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
(OECD) (2002). Educational Research and Development in England.
Examiners’ Report (OECD Review). Paris: OECD.
PENDRY, A. and HUSBANDS, C. (2000). ‘Research and practice in history
teacher education’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 30, 3, 321–34.
RATCLIFFE, M., BARTHOLOMEW, H., HAMES, V., HIND, A., LEACH, J.,
MILLAR, R. and OSBORNE, J. (2003). ‘Evidence-based practice in science
education: The researcher-user interface.’ Paper presented at the British
Educational Research Association Annual Conference, September.
RATCLIFFE, M., BARTHOLOMEW, H., HAMES, V., HIND, A., LEACH, J.,
MILLAR, R. and OSBORNE, J. (2004). Science Education Practitioners’
Views of Research and its Influence on their Practice. York: University of
York.
RICKINSON, M. (2003). ‘Reviewing research evidence in environmental
education: some methodological reflections and challenges’, Environmental
Education Research, 9, 1, 257–71.
RICKINSON, M., ASPINALL, C., CLARK, A., DAWSON, L., McLEOD, S.,
POULTON, P., ROGERS, J. and SARGENT, J. (2003). Connecting Research
and Practice: Education for Sustainable Development. Southwell: British
Educational Research Association.
RICKINSON, M., CLARK, A., MCLEOD, S., POULTON, P. and SARGENT, J.
(2004). ‘What on earth has research got to do with me?’ Teacher
Development, 8, 2/3, 201–20.
RICKINSON, M. and REID, A. (2003). ‘What’s the use of research in
environmental education?’ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 21-25 April [online].
Available:
http://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/other-publications/conferencepapers/pdf_docs/AERAMR.pdf [28 September, 2005].
ROGERS, S. E. (2000). ‘A study of the utilization of research in practice and
the influence of education’, Nurse Education Today, 20, 279–87.
SANDERS, D., WHITE, K., SHARP, C. and TAGGART, G. (2005). Evaluation
of the NERF Bulletin Trial. Phase Two Report. Slough: NFER.
38
SAUNDERS, L. (2004). ‘Doing things differently?’ Teacher Development, 8,
2/3, 117–26.
SEASHORE LOUIS, K. and JONES, L. M. (2001). Dissemination with Impact:
What Research Suggests for Practice in Career and Technical Education.
Columbus, OH: National Center for Career and Technical Education.
SEBBA, J. (2004). ‘Developing evidence-informed policy and practice in
education.’ In: THOMAS, G. and PRING, R. (Eds) Evidence-Based Practice in
Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
SHARP, C., EAMES, A., SANDERS, D. and TOMLINSON, K. (2005).
Postcards from Research-engaged Schools. Slough: NFER.
SHEFFIELD, P. and SAUNDERS, S. (2004). Scoping Study Related to the
Development of a Web Portal for Users of Education Evidence Bases.
Unpublished report.
SMITH, C., BINGMAN, M. B., HOFER, J., MEDINA, P. and PRACTITIONER
LEADERS (2002). Connecting Practitioners and Researchers: an Evaluation
of NCSALL’s Practitioner Dissemination and Research Network. Cambridge,
MA: NCSALL.
ST. CLAIR, R. (2004). ‘From abstract to action: how adult literacy and ESL
educators make use of research’, Perspectives: The New Your Journal of
Adult Learning, 2, 1, 49-61.
ST. CLAIR, R., CHEN, C. and TAYLOR, L. (2003). How Adult Literacy
Practitioners
Use
Research
[online].
Available:
http://wwwtcall.tamu.edu/orp/orp2.htm [25 May, 2005].
TAGGART, G., KENDALL, L., BENTON, T. and SHARP, C. (2004).
Evaluation of the NERF Bulletin Trial. Phase One Report (Unpublished
report).
WALTER, I., NUTLEY, S. and DAVIES, H. (2003). Developing a Taxonomy of
Interventions used to Increase the Impact of Research [online]. Available:
http://www.standrews.ac.uk/~ruru/Taxonomy%20development%20paper%200
70103.pdf [25 May, 2005].
WILLIAMS, D. and COLES, L. (2003). The Use of Research by Teachers:
information literacy, access and attitudes. Final Report [online]. Available:
http://www.nerf-uk.org/word/Fullreport.doc?version=1 [3 October, 2005]
WILSON, R. (2004). ‘Taking control: how teachers use research’, TOPIC:
Practical Applications of Research, Issue 31. Slough: NFER.
WILSON, R., HEMSLEY-BROWN, J., EASTON, C. and SHARP, C. (2003).
Using Research for School Improvement: the LEA’s Role (LGA Research
39
Report 42). Slough: NFER.
WITTROCK, B. (1991). ‘Social knowledge and public policy: eight models of
interaction.’ In: WAGNER, P., WEISS, C.H., WITTROCK, B. and WOLLMAN,
H. (Eds) Social Sciences and Modern States. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
40
Appendix 1: Database Search Strategy
A number of relevant educational and social science databases were
searched using terms from the relevant thesauri (where these were available)
in combination with free text searching. The keywords used in the database
searches, together with a brief description of each of the databases searched,
are outlined below. In all cases, the searches were for the period 1999-2004
and were performed on 22 April 2005.
BRITISH EDUCATION INDEX (BEI)
BEI provides bibliographic references to 350 British and selected European
English-language periodicals in the field of education and training, plus
developing coverage of national report and conference literature.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
Research utilisation
Use of research (ft)
Research utilization (ft)
Research use (ft)
Evidence use (ft)
Evidence-based practice (ft)
Information utilisation
Theory-practice relationships
Research (ft)
#8 and #9
(ft) Denotes free-text searching
BRITISH EDUCATION INTERNET RESOURCE CATALOGUE
This is a database of information about professionally evaluated and
described internet sites which support educational research, policy and
practice.
#1
Research utilisation
ERIC
ERIC is sponsored by the United States Department of Education and is the
largest education database in the world. It indexes over 725 periodicals and
currently contains more than 7,000,000 records. Coverage includes research
documents, journal articles, technical reports, program descriptions and
evaluations and curricula material.
#1
#2
#3
#4
Research utilization
Research use (ft)
Information utilization
Research (ft)
41
#5
#6
#7
#8
#3 and #4
Theory-practice relationships
Educational research
#6 and #7
SWETSWISE
SwetsWise is a searchable database of almost 5,000 full-text journal titles
from a number of publishers.
#1
#2
Research utilisation
Research utilization
42