Developing a knowledge network for applied education research to mobilise evidence in and for educational practice
Open accessAbstract
Background: The importance of ‘evidence-informed practice’ has risen dramatically in education and in other public policy areas. This article focuses on the importance of knowledge mobilisation strategies, processes and outputs. It is concerned with how these can support the adaptation and implementation of evidence from research and professional knowledge to inform changes in educational practices. It presents a case study of the Knowledge Network for Applied Education Research (KNAER), a tripartite initiative in Canada involving the Ontario Ministry of Education, University of Toronto and Western University and 44 KNAER-funded projects.Purpose: The purpose of the article is to analyse the developing approach towards supporting knowledge mobilisation by the KNAER provincial partners through the governing body of the Planning and Implementation Committee and strategic and operational work of the university teams, and also the knowledge mobilisation strategies, challenges and successes of 44 KNAER projects.Design and methods: We utilised a qualitative case study approach to investigate the Knowledge Network for Applied Education Research’s (KNAER) approaches to developing knowledge mobilisation over four years (2010–2014).To explore the work of the KNAER provincial partners, we analysed 17 meeting notes from the Planning and Implementation Committee and 9 notes from the university KNAER partners’ meetings. To explore the knowledge mobilisation strategies, challenges and successes of KNAER-funded projects, we analysed the 44 knowledge mobilisation plans, 141 interim reports and 43 final reports submitted by projects. To further investigate the experiences of KNAER projects during their implementation, we analysed responses from 21 people from 19 KNAER projects who participated in a facilitated discussion about their experiences.Results: The Planning and Implementation Committee’s role involved three core responsibilities: (1) Approving knowledge mobilisation proposals submitted to the KNAER; (2) Ensuring that collaborative partnerships were developed at the local, provincial, national and international levels; and (3) Approving the KNAER operational and strategic plan. The university partners have taken on the roles of operational management, strategic leadership, and research and knowledge mobilisation expertise. KNAER projects varied in their knowledge mobilisation strategies, challenges and successes. ‘Exploiting Research’ projects focused on establishing connections and engaging communities of practice with people relevant to the project’s focus, creating an analysis of needs, designing or producing a relevant knowledge mobilisation product with the purpose of improving practice, monitoring the results or impact of the new product and sharing the dissemination process and results with others. ‘Building or Extending Networks’ projects engaged in creating or extending existing networks, developing a needs-based or gap assessment and producing appropriate products and dissemination processes based on the results gathered. ‘Strengthening Research Brokering’ projects organised steering committees to guide their work and gathered information via a literature review or by collecting information from stakeholders and then served as research brokers by collecting and mobilising relevant knowledge to inform practice. ‘Visiting World Experts’ projects developed knowledge mobilisation plans for host experts’ visits, involving establishing partnerships with networks, including universities and schools, and utilising social media and communication processes for knowledge mobilisation products.Conclusions: KNAER included aspects of linear, relationships and systems models for connecting evidence and practice. Looking forward, KNAER is seeking to further advance a systemic approach. A systems model is in preference to linear models – which focus on evidence production only without attention to mobilisation or uptake of research, and/or relationships models – which may develop networks, but do not attend to capacity and resource barriers that need to be addressed for systemic and sustainable knowledge mobilisation.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some studies have been conducted on researchers' role in supporting schools' use of data, with promising results.
“Some studies have been conducted in this area with promising results (e.g. Brown 2015; Brown and Greany 2018; Campbell, Pollock, Briscoe, Carr-Harris, & Tuters, 2017; Stoll et al. 2015; Zala-Mezö, Strauss, Müller, Häbig, Kuster, Herzig and Unterweger, 2018).”
From Data-based decision-making for school improvement: Research insights and gaps (2019) · cites this paper as Campbell et al. 2017
The available indexed passages contain the title and a table of contents, including a heading for findings on knowledge mobilisation, but no substantive findings. Searches for researchers supporting schools’ use of data and for promising results returned no passage that addresses those points. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredWhile considerable attention has been paid to the use of data by school leaders and teachers, less attention has been paid to data use by policy-makers and by students.
“While considerable attention has been paid to the use of data by school leaders and teachers, less attention has been paid to data use by policy-makers and by students.”
From Data-based decision-making for school improvement: Research insights and gaps (2019) · cites this paper as Campbell, Pollock, Briscoe, Carr-Harris, & Tuters, 2017
The available indexed passages contain the title and section headings, but no discussion comparing attention to data use by school leaders and teachers with data use by policy-makers and students. Searches for that comparison and for “data use” found no passage that addresses it. (LLM, conf=0.70)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Using evidence: How research can inform public services
Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007) · doi:10.2307/j.ctt9qgwt1 · Cited by 808 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Data-based decision-making for school improvement: Research insights and gaps
Schildkamp, K. (2019) · Educational Research · doi:10.1080/00131881.2019.1625716 · Cited by 347 · see citing works
Bridging the gap between research and practice: Predicting what will work locally
Joyce, K. E., & Cartwright, N. (2020) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/0002831219866687 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Knowledge brokering to bridge the research‐practice gap in education: Where are we now?
Rycroft‐Smith, L. (2022) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.3341 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
- Authors
- Campbell, C., Pollock, K., Briscoe, P., Carr-Harris, S., & Tuters, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Western University (CA)
- Niagara University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Campbell, Carol
- Venue
- Educational Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-04-03
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 209-227
- ISSN
- 0013-1881 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-5847
- OpenAlex
- W2637316373
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 8.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Educational Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Ontario Ministry of Education (0)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Keywords
- knowledge mobilization, evidence-informed practice, research-to-practice translation, knowledge networks, collaborative partnerships, communities of practice, educational practice change, Ontario Ministry of Education, university-government collaboration
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review