TPS3029 – Fall 2012
Mobilizing Research Knowledge in Education
Course Outline
Instructor: Dr. Benjamin Levin
Office: 6-117
Phone: 416-978-1157
E-mail: Ben.levin@utoronto.ca
Homepage:
webspace.oise.utoronto.ca/~levinben/
Research page - www.oise.utoronto.ca/rspe
Twitter: @BenLevinOISE
Classes: as per schedule.
Room 12-105
Welcome to this course. This outline
expresses my hopes for our work together.
These will change as we discuss them so as
to take into account your interests and
wishes. Acting according to one's beliefs is
much harder than expressing them on
paper, so if the course is falling short of
your hopes, or if there is anything I can do
to make the course more educational and
more interesting for you, please let me
know.
Although I travel a lot and am not always at
OISE, I am always available via e-mail and
almost always respond within 48 hours. If
something is urgent, say so in your message.
If you want time to meet, please ask and we
will set something up.
Brief Description: This course examines the
ways that education research is, could be and
ought to be connected to policy and practice.
Format: This is a blended course. It will
consist of 4 Thursday evenings, 2 Saturdays
(9:30-3) and online interactions of various
kinds. It is my first time doing a course in this
format, so I encourage your ongoing feedback
on how it is working for you. However since
a large part of the work we are discussing is
now carried out in hyperspace, it makes sense
that some of the course work should also
happen in that format.
The online portion of the course will
operate throughout, though primarily during
those weeks when we do not have classes.
We will be using C2C software at OISE,
which you connect with through MyOISE.
This software allows various discussion
threads and sharing of various resources.
You must have access to MyOISE
through your UTOR id.
Text:
Nutley, S., Walter, I. and Davies, H (2007).
Using evidence.
Bristol: Policy Press.
Available at Bob Miller Book Room.
I will have supplementary readings for
most classes. These will be posted on C2C.
You will also find my team’s rspe website
(listed at the start of this outline) a useful
resource in many ways. I suggest you visit it
and use the links and resources it provides.
Course Purpose and Objectives:
This is a course about the role of research
in education. How much does research matter
to policy and practice in education? How and
how much should it matter? If the existing
situation is not ideal (and it rarely is in any
area of human endeavour), what steps could
or should be taken that would be
improvements?
In this outline I use the term ‘knowledge
mobilization’ (KM) as shorthand for the
larger issue; we will explore issues of
definition early in the class.
This is an area of deep personal interest to
me; I have been thinking about, studying and
acting on these questions throughout my
career, both in my academic work and as a
practitioner/policy maker.
As in all courses I teach, I place
significant emphasis on research evidence
about the topics under study, but also value
careful conceptual analysis; both are
important. Although data rarely ‘speak for
themselves’, in my view one is more likely to
have good positions if they are supported by
evidence.
Although I have strong views on many of
these issues (which you will doubtless hear or
read), my goal is to have a course that
encourages you to draw your own conclusions
based on your thinking and reading of the
evidence. There is a fine line to tread
between informing you, sharing my
knowledge, and pushing you to adopt my
views; I will try not to do the latter (too
much). My goal is for you to be able to
articulate your own thinking while you also
learn about the literature in the field.
Most of our time will be discussion, both in
person and on-line. I hope for discussions
that are lively and stimulating. This depends
on people being prepared. Students should
feel free to disagree with me or each other,
even strongly, as long as this is done in a way
that is respectful of others’ views. I will try to
promote debate and also to encourage active
listening to each other. Debate works best
when people support their positions with
reasons and evidence.
I will be looking for ways to have
everyone contribute while recognizing
people's different ways of participating and
learning. Diverse backgrounds and points of
views are assets to learning; although it’s
pleasant to have people agree with us, we
really only learn from people who think
differently.
There will be ongoing opportunities to
discuss issues regarding the organization of
the course, assignments, readings, or other
matters. You are encouraged to keep each
other informed of any matters of interest in
relation to the course.
Course atmosphere:
I regard every graduate course as a
"community of inquiry" in which all of us are
learning together, and I regard all graduate
students as self-directed learners, who can and
should take responsibility for their own
learning, with the professor helping if and as
appropriate. The more ownership students
take, the better the course will be.
I expect all students to be prepared for
classes. This means doing the reading and
thinking about the issues we will be
discussing.
I do not take or reward attendance; sitting
in class should not be confused with learning.
However it would be courteous to notify me
in advance if possible if you are going to be
absent.
I do not give lectures, though I will
sometimes interject 10 minutes or so of ideas.
Reading: Reading is fundamental to graduate
work. I expect you to read widely during the
course. I will assign parts of the text or other
readings on a regular basis. For purposes of
this course ‘reading’ also involves delving
into online sources including social media.
You should not limit yourself to sources I
provide; a wide range of material could turn
out to be relevant to you, and one of the best
things about graduate work is finding paths
that work for you, whether others have
followed them or not. Familiarity with basic
reference sources and tools, including use of
the internet and online library searching, are
essential in graduate education. The web is
increasingly the prime way that people access
research information. Feel free to consult me
for ideas about additional readings or sources.
Grades and Assignments:
Grades are not the point of this course;
learning is. As graduate students you have
already demonstrated your capacity to do well
in university studies. I hope to reduce any
anxieties about grades so that they do not stand
in the way of doing interesting and challenging
work.
OISE uses 3 grades (also with + and -) for
graduate courses:
A: original work, very well organized and
expressed, sound critical evaluation, clear
command of techniques and principles of the
discipline, etc.
B: good grasp of the topics, accurate knowledge,
some evidence of critical evaluation, ability to
synthesize and to discriminate relevant issues,
etc. .
FZ: glaring inaccuracy and confusion, little or no
grasp of techniques and principles, trivial and
irrelevant treatment of topics; in general, a failure
to demonstrate the minimal knowledge and skills
for effective work in the discipline.
In discussion with colleagues we
generally find that we give very few A+
grades; this is for exceptional work that is of
publishable quality.
I try to practice principles of formative
assessment. Although I propose specific
assignments, I also encourage you to think
about forms of evaluation that will be most
meaningful to you. You are welcome to
propose alterations in your evaluation
including:
- proposing assignments different than those
described here (such as fiction, case studies,
analysis of secondary data, original research,
or simulations);
- doing assignments using alternative media
such as social media, video, audio, or
websites;
- assigning different weightings to the various
assignments;
- suggesting marking schemes which you feel
would be more reflective of your approach to
learning;
- making any other suggestions which you
feel would be improvements.
In short, I hope your work for this course will
be a meaningful part of your learning rather
than a chore to be completed in order to get a
grade.
Criteria for assignments
Unless otherwise agreed between us, I
judge assignments and online contributions
based on:
- the degree to which you develop and
support a point of view;
- knowledge of previous research (which
does not necessarily mean a large number of
references);
- effective use of primary and secondary
sources (i.e. data you collect directly and
material drawn from the literature);
- the level of sophistication of your work
(does it go beyond simply repeating what is
already well known; does it address important
questions, and with some subtlety).
- for written work, the clarity and quality of
the writing;
- for work in other media, the effective use
of those media to convey your thinking in a
way appropriate to academic work.
Your work should draw on your research
for the course as well as on your own thinking
and other sources such as popular media.
Writing/Communication
Writing
and
other
forms
of
communication, like any skill, improve with
practice and effort. We will discuss writing
issues in class as required.
As a writer, I always revise my work
several times before I regard it as ready. I
encourage you to submit outlines or drafts of
assignments at any time for formative
evaluation. You are free to revise and
resubmit work after I have marked it if
you wish to do so; revised work will be
remarked, and your mark will be based on
the best product.
There is no reason that scholarly writing
should be verbose or obscure: I encourage
you to write in plain language and avoid
jargon. Length of assignments depends on
how many you are doing, and on what is
required to treat the topic appropriately, but I
always encourage work that is concise.
Longer is not necessarily better.
For all work you should also observe
academic conventions about references (i.e.
make sure your reference list is accurate and
complete), and use a standard style for
referencing. Any style is fine as long as you
use one consistently.
I invite you to give me any suggestions
you have as to how my feedback on your work
can be most useful to you. If you have
particular concerns about your work, please
discuss them with me so that I can try to assist
you. If you feel that my evaluation is unfair,
please let me know
Suggested assignments
The purpose of the assignments is to
increase
your
familiarity with
and
understanding of important work and ideas
related to the course topic. Keep that purpose
in mind as you do the work.
Although I suggest 2 assignments plus
online contributions, you may choose to do
more or fewer if you wish. You may also
choose to build one assignment on another –
for example by extending the same topic in
different ways.
Assignment 1 is normally due by Oct 15
and will ordinarily be 30%.
Assignment 2 is normally due by Dec 20
and will ordinarily be 40%.
Online contributions occur throughout the
course as described below and will ordinarily
be 30%.
Assignment 1 (due approx. Oct. 10)
Option 1 – Examine the use of research
evidence in your own career or current
workplace. How, if at all has research
influenced that work or setting? Which
research, from which sources, and in through
what modalities? What has fostered this
influence? What has hindered it? How does
this experience illuminate the ideas we have
been discussing in the course? These minicase studies would normally be 7-10 pages
(about 2500-3000 words). They need not be
limited to education organizations.
Option 2 – Choose one or two organizations
and examine its/their KM practices using
whatever sources are available to you (such as
websites, publications and reports, or the
website analysis tool on the RSPE site).
Analyze their work in relation to our KM
framework. I can suggest organizations for
this purpose from work the RSPE team has
done.
These would also be approximately 7-10
pages/ 2500-3000 words.
Online participation (During entire course)
I expect all students to participate actively
in the online discussions on Myoise – C2C.
Participation can consist of:
- Contributing empirical evidence on KM
practices in various organizations
- Providing examples of interesting KM
practices
- Finding and sharing interesting readings on
KM and related issues
- Discussing how to study/research KM
- Comment on or contribute to studies done
by the KM team (RSPE)
- Reflection on your own experiences related
to KM
- Contributing to the discussion of key issues
that emerge from our shared work
- Sharing the work you are doing for your
course assignments.
As the course develops, so will a series of
online discussions on topics of interest to the
class.
You are invited to begin new
discussions or response to issues raised by
others. Not everyone will respond to all the
threads, but everyone should participate
actively in at least some of them.
What could this organization do to make
better use of research knowledge? What
would be required for this to happen? What
are the barriers and how could they be
addressed?
Etiquette for online participation:
- Keep comments brief but not too brief. Up
to a page or so (300-500 words) may be
needed to make a point, even longer if you are
introducing a new topic. Responses to topics
should be shorter but not be too laconic. You
want to say enough to explain your thinking
and the sources behind it. Let’s avoid Twitter
language here, though in rare cases a very
short post may be effective in raising a
question or making a point.
- Support your ideas with reasons and
evidence. Include examples, links, quotes,
citations so that others can learn what you
have learned.
- Asking questions is a good form of building
discussion – for example why someone holds
a particular position, or whether they have
considered some alternative view, or how
they came to a certain conclusion.
- Always be respectful. No sarcasm. But
honest disagreement is entirely appropriate,
indeed essential.
- Try to find ways to include others in the
discussion; I want to avoid the online
discussion overall being dominated by a small
number of people, though there may be
particular threads where only a few people
participate.
Option 2 – Instead of an organization, think of
a group within the education system –
teachers, support staff, students, parents,
principals, etc. and posse the same question.
How could education research play a more
significant role in the way this group works?
What would be required for this to happen?
What are the barriers and how could they be
addressed?
Assignment 2 (Due at end of course)
Option 1 – Propose a KM approach for an
organization (a school or other organization).
Option 3 – Propose a research study on KM;
some piece of inquiry that could contribute to
knowledge in an important or understudied
area.
Late Assignments: I expect work to be
handed in when due unless other
arrangements are made in advance or lastminute sickness or an emergency prevented
completion. If you think you may not be able
to complete work on time, please let me know
as early as possible.
The success of this course is a shared
responsibility. If you are unhappy at any time
with the way the course is progressing, please
talk to me about it.
Students should be aware of the
University’s policy on plagiarism which is in
the Calendar and on the website.
Reading list
(I do not expect anyone to read everything or even a lot of what is on this list. However it provides
you with a range of work all of which is worth reading, depending on your time and interest.)
Amara, N., Ouimet, M., & Landry, R. (2004).
New evidence on instrumental,
conceptual, and symbolic utilization of
university research in government
agencies. Science Communication,
26(1), 75-106.
Any other work by Rodrigue Landry or his team.
Armstrong, R., Water, E., Crockett, B., &
Keleher, H. (2007). The nature of
evidence resources and knowledge
translation for health promotion of
practitioners. Health Promotion
International, 22, 254-260.
Becham, B., Kalucy, L., McIntyre, E. & Veale, B.
(2005). Understanding and measuring
research impact. Focus On, 1, 1-20.
Behrstock, E., Drill, K. & Miller, S. (2009). Is the
supply in demand? Exploring how,
when and why teachers use research.
Learning Point Associates. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting for
American Education Research
Association, Denver, Colorado.
Belkhodja, O., Amara, N., Landry, R., & Ouimet,
M. (2007). The extent and
organizational determinants of research
utilization in Canadian health services
organizations. Science Communication,
28(3), 377-417.
Biddle, B., & Saha, L. (2002). The untested
accusation: Principals, research
knowledge, and policy making in
schools. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Boaz, A., Grayson, L, Levitt, R. & Solesbury, W.
(2008). Does evidence-based policy
work? Learning from the UK
experience. Evidence and Policy, 4(2),
233-255.
Bradley, P., Nordheim, L., De La Harpe, D., Innvaer,
S., & Thompson, C. (2005). A systematic
review of qualitative literature on
educational interventions for evidencebased practice. Learning in Health and
Social Care, 4(2), 89-109.
Bransford, J., D. Stipek, N. Vye, L. Gomez, and D.
Lam. 2009. The role of research in
educational improvement. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Chavkin, N. & Chavkin, A. (2008). Promising
website practices for disseminating
research on family-school partnerships
to the community. The School
Community Journal, 18(1), 79-92.
CHSRF (2003). The theory and practice of
knowledge brokering in Canada's health
system. A report based on a CHSRF
national consultation and a literature
review.
www.chsrf.ca/brokering/pdf/Theory_an
d_Practice_e.pdf
Coburn, C., & Talbert, J. (2006). Conceptions of
evidence use in school districts:
Mapping the terrain. American Journal
of Education, 112, 469-95.
Coburn, C. (2005). The role of nonsystem
actors in the relationship between policy
and practice: The case of reading
instruction in California. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27 (1),
23-52.
Coburn, C. & Stein, M. (2010). Research and
Practice in Education: Building alliance,
bridging the divide. Rowman and Little
Publishers: United Kingdom.
Cordingley, P. (2008). Research and evidenceinformed practice: focusing on practice
and practitioners. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 38(1), 37-52.
And other work by Philippa Cordingley and
team.
Court, J., & Young, J. (2003). Bridging research and
policy: Insights from 50 case studies.
Overseas Development Institute. Retrieved
from http://www.odi.org.uk
Davies, H., & Nutley, S. (2008). Learning more
about how research-based knowledge
gets used: Guidance in the development
of new empirical research. William T.
Grant Foundation, New York, NY.
Davies, H., Nutley, S., & Smith, P (2000). What
works? Evidence-based policy and
practice in public services. Bristol:
Policy Press.
Dobbins, M., P. Rosenbaum, N. Plews, M. Law,
and A. Fysh. 2007. Information transfer:
What do decision makers want and
need from researchers?
Implementation Science 2: 20.
www.implementationscience.com/cont
ent/2/1/20
Estabrooks, C. A., Floyd, J. A., Scott-Findlay, S.,
O'Leary, K. A., & Gushta, M. (2003).
Individual determinants of research
utilization: A systematic review. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 43(5), 506-520.
Feldman, P. H., Nadash, P. and Gursen, M.
(2001). Improving communication
between researchers and policy makers
in long-term care: or, researchers are
from Mars; policy makers are from
Venus. The Gerontologist, 41 (3), 31221.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A.,
Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis
of the literature. Tampa, FL: University
of South Florida, Louis de la Parte
Florida Mental Health Institute, The
National Implementation Research
Network.
Gawande, A. 2007. Better. London: Picador.
Glasziou & Haynes (2005). The paths from
research to improved health outcomes.
Evidence Based Medicine, 10, p.4-8.
Gough, D., Tripney, J., Kenny, C., & Buk-Berge,
E. (2011). Evidence Informed Policy in
Education in Europe: EIPEE final report.
London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science
Research Unit, Institute of Education,
University of London. ISBN: 978-1907345-15-9
Graham, I., J. Logan, M. Harrison, S. Straus, J.
Tetroe, W. Caswell et al. 2006. Lost in
knowledge translation: Time for a map?
Journal of Continuing Education in the
Health Professions 26, no. 1: 13–24.
Graham, I., and J. Tetroe. 2007. Some
theoretical underpinnings of knowledge
translation. Academic Emergency
Medicine 14: 936–41.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, T., MacFarlane, F., Bate,
P., & Kyriakidow, O. (2004). Diffusion of
innovations in service organizations:
Systematic review and
recommendations. The Milbank
Quarterly, 82(4), 581-629.
Grimshaw, J., Eccles, M., Thomas, R.,
MacLennan, G., Ramsay, C., Fraser, C.,
& Vale, L. (2006). Toward evidencebased quality improvement: Evidence
(and its limitations) of the effectiveness
of guideline dissemination and
implementation strategies 1966-1998.
Journal of General Internal Medicine,
21, S14-20.
Haas, E. (2007). False equivalency: Think tank
references on education in the news
media. Peabody Journal of education,
82(1), 63-102.
Journal of Health Services Research and
Policy, 17(4), 239-244.
Kitson, A., Harvey, G., & McCormack, B.
(1998). Enabling the implementation of
evidence based practice: a conceputal
framework. Quality in Health Care, 7,
149-58.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. London:
Routledge.
Knott, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1980). If
dissemination is the solution, what is
the problem? Knowledge: Creation,
Diffusion, Utilization, 1(4), 537-578.
Hemsley-Brown, J. (2004). Facilitating research
utilization: A cross-sector review of
research evidence. The International
Journal of Public Sector Management
Vol. 17 No. 6, 534-552.
Kuruvilla, S., Mays, N., Pleasant, A., & Walt, G.
(2006). Describing the impact of health
research: a research impact
framework. BMC Health Services
Research, 6, 134-142.
Hemsley-Brown, J. & Sharp, C. (2003). The use of
research to improve professional practice: a
systematic review of the literature. Oxford
Review of Education, 29(4), 449-470.
Landrum, T., B. Cooke, M. Tankersley, and S.
Fitzgerald. (2002). Teacher perceptions
of the trustworthiness, usability and
accessibility of information from
different sources. Remedial and Special
Education 23 (1), 42–48.
Hess, F. (Ed.) (2007). When research matters.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Honig, M. (2004). The new middle
management: Intermediary
organizations in education policy
implementation. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1),
65-87.
Hooley, T. (September 1, 2011). Using social
media to transfer research knowledge.
Presentation KTE COP. Available at
http://www.ktecop.ca/presentations/u
sing-social-media-to-transfer-researchknowledge/
Innvaer, S., Vist, G., Trommald, M., & Oxman, A.D.
(2002). Health policymakers' perceptions of
their use of evidence: A systematic review.
Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamary, M. (2001).
Utilization of social science research
knowledge in Canada. Res Policy, 30,
333-349.
Lavis, J. (2006). Research, public policymaking,
and knowledge-translation
processes: Canadian efforts to build
bridges. The Journal of Continuing
Education in the Health Professions, 26
(1), 37- 45.
And any other work by Jon Lavis and team.
Lavis, J., Robertson, D., Woodside, J. M.,
McLeod, C. B., Abelson, J. (2003).
How can research organizations more
effectively transfer research knowledge
to decision makers? Milbank Quarterly,
81(2), 221-248.
Lavis, J., Lomas, J., Hami, M. & Sewankambo,
N. (2006). Assessing country-level
efforts to link research to action.
Bulletin of the World Helath
Organization, 84, 620-628.
Lemieux-Charles, L., & Champagne, F. (2004).
Using knowledge and evidence in health
care: Multidisciplinary perspectives.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Lomas, J. (2007). The in-between world of
knowledge brokering. British Medical
Journal, 334, 129-132.
Manion, I., D. Buchanan, M. Cheng, J. Johnston,
and K. Short. (2009). Embedding
evidence-based practice in child and
youth mental health in Ontario.
Evidence and Policy 5 (2) 141–
Marzano, R. 2003. What works in schools:
Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Maynard, A. 2007. Translating evidence into
practice: Why is it so difficult? Public
Money and Management 25(2), 251–56.
Maynard, R. A. (2006). Evidence-based
decision making: What will it take for
the decision makers to care? Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management,
25(2), 249-265.
McLaughlin, M. (2008). Beyond “misery
research”. In C. Sugrue, (Ed.). The
future of educational change:
International perspectives (pp.176-185).
London and New York: Routledge.
Mitton, C., Adair, C. E., McKenzie, E., Patten, S.
B., & Perry, B. W. (2007). Knowledge
transfer and exchange: Review and
synthesis of the literature. The Milbank
Quarterly, 85(4), 729-768.
National Research Council. (2003). Engaging
schools: Fostering high school students’
motivation to learn. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Nutley, S., S. Morton, T. Jung, and A. Boaz.
(2010). Evidence and policy in six
European countries: Diverse approaches
and common challenges. Evidence and
Policy 6, no. 2: 131–44.
Nutley, S., J. Percy-Smith, and W. Solesbury.
(2003). Models of research impact: A
cross-sector review of literature and
practice (Building Effective Research: 4).
London: Learning and Skills Research
Centre.
Nutley, S., I. Walter, and H. Davies. (2009).
Promoting evidence-based practice:
Models and mechanisms from crosssector review. Research on Social Work
Practice 19, no. 5: 552–9.
Nutley, S., Jung, T., & Walter, I. (2008). The
many forms of research-informed
practice: a framework for mapping
diversity. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 38:1, 53-71.
Any other work by Sandra Nutley and
colleagues
OECD. 2007. Knowledge management:
Evidence and education: Linking
research and practice. Paris: OECD.
Osborne, T. (2004). On mediators: Intellectuals
and the ideas in the knowledge society.
Economy and Society, 33(4), 430-447.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2000). The knowingdoing gap: How smart compaies turn
knowledge into action. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Pfeffer, J. & Sutton, R. (2006). Hard facts,
dangerous half-truths and total
nonsense: Profiting from evidencebased management. Cambridge:
Harvard Business School Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations
(5th ed.) New York: Free Press.
Sá, C., Li, S. & Faubert, B. (2011). Faculties of
education and institutional strategies
for knowledge mobilization: An
exploratory study. Higher Education,
61(4), 501-512.
Sebba, J. (2004). Developing evidenceinformed policy and practice in
education. In G. Thomas & R. Pring
(eds.) Evidence Based Practice in
Education. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Sin, C. H. (2008). The role of intermediaries in
getting evidence into policy and
practice: some useful lessons from
examining consultancy- client
relationships. Evidence & Policy, 4(1),
85-103.
Stone, D., Maxwell, S., & Keaton, M. (2001).
Bridging Research and Policy. An
International workshop funded by the
UK department for international
development. Retrieved March 15,
2010 from
http://depot.gdnet.org/newkb/fulltext/
Bridging.pdf
Thompson, G., Estabrooks, C., & Degner, L.
(2006). Clarifying the concepts in
knowledge transfer: A literature
review. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
53 (6), 691-701.
Timperley, H. (2010). Using evidence in the
classroom for professional learning.
Paper presented at the Ontario
Education Research Symposium,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Tseng, V., Granger, R., Seidman, E., Maynard, R.,
Weisner, T. & Wilcox, B. (2007).
Studying the use of research evidence
in policy and practice. The William T.
Grant Foundation.
Ward, V., House, A., & Hamer, S. (2009).
Knowledge brokering: the missing link
in the evidence to action chain?
Evidence & Policy, 5(3), 267-279.
Walter, I., Nutley, S., & Davies, H. (2003).
Developing a taxonomy of interventions
used to increase the impact of research.
Research Unit for Research Utilisation,
Department of Management, University
of St Andrews, St Andrews.
Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of
research utilization. Public
Administration Review, 39(5), 426-31
Some of my/my team’s work related to knowledge mobilization in education; many of these and
other papers on specific projects are on the RSPE website.
Cooper, A. & Levin, B. (2010). Some Canadian
contributions to understanding knowledge
mobilization. Evidence and Policy, 6(3),
351-369.
Cooper, A., Levin, B., & Campbell, C.
(2009). The growing (but still limited)
importance of evidence in education
policy and practice. Journal of
Educational Change, 10(2-3), 159-171.
Edelstein, H., Shah, S., & Levin, B. (2012). Mining for
data: Assessing the use of online research.
International Journal of Humanities and
Social Sciences, 2(2), 1-14.
Levin, B. (2004). Making research matter more.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12
(56).
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n56/
Levin, B. (2008). Thinking About Knowledge
Mobilization. Paper prepared for an
invitational symposium sponsored by
the Canadian Council on Learning and
the Social Sciences and Humanities
research Council of Canada. Vancouver.
Available at
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/rspe/Conf
erence_Presentations_Publications/ind
ex.html
Levin, B. (2008). Knowledge for action in
education research and policy: What we
know, what we don’t know and what
we need to do. In Wissen fur Handeln –
Forschungsstraategien fur Eeine
Evidenzbasierte Bildungspolitik, 35–44.
Bonn: Bundesministerium for
forschung.
Levin, B. (2009). How governments decide: The role
of research. In Desjardins, R., & Rubenson,
K. (eds). Research of vs research for
education policy in an era of transnational
policy-making. 44-57. Saarbrucken: VDM
Dr. Müller.
Levin, B. (2010). Can Education Be a ResearchBased Profession? The Australian
Educational Leader. 32(2), 21-23
Levin, B. (2010). Leadership for evidence
informed education. School Leadership
and Management 30, no. 4: 303–15.
Levin, B. (2011), ‘Theory, research and
practice in mobilizing research
knowledge in education’, London
Review of Education, vol 9, no 1,
pp 15-26.
Levin, B. (2012) Research and practice: Using
what we know. Phi Delta Kappan 93(6),
72-73.
Levin, B., Cooper, A., Arjomand, S., Thompson,
K. (2010). Research use and its impact
in secondary schools: Exploring
knowledge mobilization in education.
CEA/OISE Collaborative Mixed Methods
Research Project Final Report. Available
at http://www.ceaace.ca/sites/default/files/cea-2011research-use.pdf
Levin, B. & Cooper, A. (2012). Theory, research
and practice in mobilizing research
knowledge in education. In T Fenwick
and L Farrell (eds.), Knowledge
mobilization and educational research:
Politics, languages and
responsibilities.(17-29) London:
Routledge
Levin, B., Cooper, A., Arjomond, S. Thompson, K.
(2011). Can simple interventions
increase research use in secondary
schools? Canadian Journal of
Educational Administration and Policy,
Issue #126, Dec 5, 2011.
Levin, B. & Edelstein, H. (2010). Research,
policy and practice in education.
Education Canada 50(2), 29-30.
Levin, B. & Read, R. (2010). Research, policy
and practice. Education Canada, 50(3),
28.
Levin, B & Cooper, A. (2010). How do people
learn about research? Education
Canada. 50(5), 26-28.
Levin, B. & Cooper, A. (2010). Research use in
secondary schools. Education Canada.
50(5), 58-62.
Topical outline
Thurs Sept 13 - Introductions, review course outline, what is knowledge mobilization, your
experience with research use/impact, what are some of the issues we might take up? Participation
by RSPE team students, overview of the work of the RSPE team
Thurs Sept 20 - review of course outline and assignments, basic model of KM and its
implications, review of issues in light of initial readings, discussion of first ‘online period’
Challenges in studying KM
Reading – Levin 2011; Nutley et al. 2007
First online discussion period
- Analysis of empirical evidence on KM practices of organizations using RSPE team tools
- Examples of interesting practices
- Discussion of issues
First Sat – Oct 6
Building on work so far, revisit the basic model and discuss what we are learning about KM
Second online discussion period
- Further empirical data on issues raised in the course
- Examples of interesting practices
- Further discussion of issues and perspectives
Second Sat – Nov 3
Focus on ways to improve research impact in organizations – producers, consumers, intermediaries
Role of graduate students as KM advocates
Review and sharing of first assignments and your plans for further work
Third online discussion period
- What are you learning, how your assignments are developing
Thurs Nov 22
- Review of student work, learning
- Review of online discussions
Thurs Nov 29
- Final class – lessons learned, ideas for further study or practice