Knowledge Mobilization Intermediaries in Education

2

Knowledge Mobilization Intermediaries in Education

Former Proposal Title: Knowledge mobilization intermediaries in education: A mixed methods study comparing research use and its impact on policy and practice in Canada, London and Australia

CSSE, Montreal, 2010

Amanda Cooper

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

University of Toronto

Theory and Policy Studies in Education Department

252 Bloor Street West

Toronto, Ontario

M5S 1V6

Canada

E-mail:

**Earlier version presented at AERA, Denver, 2010

Abstract

The gap between research evidence, policy and practice is common across sectors, disciplines and organizations. Many third party agencies and intermediaries (often called knowledge brokers) have arisen as a response to the challenge of connecting research to policy and practice. First, this paper briefly outlines findings (from a study that utilizes interventions to examine research use by educational leaders in Canada) that suggest intermediaries have a potentially powerful role to play increasing research uptake in practice contexts. Second, it provides a literature review of intermediaries - exploring terminology, models and empirical work, albeit sparse, across sectors. Finally, it proposes new ways to conceptualize intermediaries’ roles in knowledge mobilization in education. Ultimately, this paper explores the increasingly prominent role of intermediaries in strengthening connections between research, practice and policy in education.

Key Words

Knowledge mobilization; education; intermediaries; third parties; knowledge brokers; research utilization

Introduction

The gap between research evidence, policy and practice is commonly lamented across sectors, disciplines and organizations (Boaz et al., 2007; Cooper, Levin & Campbell, 2009; Davies, Nutley, & Smith, 2000; Lemieux-Charles, & Champagne, 2004; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). I use the term knowledge mobilization (KM), originally coined by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), to encapsulate efforts to address research-policy-practice gaps in education. In SSHRC’s definition, KM means “moving knowledge into active service for the broadest possible common good”:

Here knowledge is understood to mean any or all of (1) findings from specific social sciences and humanities research, (2) the accumulated knowledge and experience of social sciences and humanities researchers, and (3) the accumulated knowledge and experience of stakeholders concerned with social, cultural, economic and related issues (SSHRC, n.d.).

My conception of KM differs from SSHRC in that it does not incorporate ALL knowledge and experiences from stakeholder groups; conversely, I see KM as a focused attempt to increase the use of research knowledge specifically, outside of academia. Hence, my definition of KM is as follows:

Knowledge Mobilization (KM) includes intentional efforts to increase the use of research evidence (data collected through systematic and established formal processes of inquiry from widely accepted bodies of empirical work, rather than from single studies) in policy and practice at multiple levels of the education sector – between individual, organizational, and system levels. This means “the evidence (however construed) can be independently observed and verified, and that there is broad consensus as to its contents (if not interpretation)” (Davies, Nutley & Smith, 2000, p. 2). KM occurs through iterative, nonlinear social processes involving interaction among two or more groups (researchers, policymakers, practitioners, knowledge brokers, community members) in order to improve the broader education system.

Common criticisms of the evidence-based movement and associated terminology (KM in education; knowledge transfer, exchange or translation in the health sector; knowledge management in the business sector) include: the narrow view of ‘knowledge’ as empirical research; the assumption that practitioners are rationale actors; concerns of research overshadowing the importance of professional expertise and judgment; educators lacking the time necessary to seek out, assess and use evidence in daily practice; debate surrounding the criteria for assessing the quality of evidence; and the ironic lack of evidence surrounding these efforts! (Lemieux-Charles & Champagne, 2004; Nutley, Walter & Davies, 2007).

I acknowledge that there are many important factors that influence policy and practice, beliefs, values, organizational culture to name a few; however, I maintain that research can provide an external check for our beliefs and practices. Stakeholders in education hold many views that influence KM and whether or not particular research messages are resisted or incorporated. When research aligns with beliefs, it is often adopted more quickly than when it runs counter to intuition and pre-existing professional attitudes (Cordingley, 2008; Levin, 2004, 2008; Nutley et al., 2007; Timperley, 2010).

There are many examples in literature in health and education where professional practices based on values or intuition have proven to be ineffective or even harmful according to the research (Estabrooks et al., 2003; Lemieux-Charles & Champagne, 2004; Nutley et al., 2007). Examples in education include tracking or retention in grade or corporal punishment. It took decades for this last practice to change, and research evidence had an important part to play in changing professionals’ beliefs.

KM based on research evidence, from credible bodies of research knowledge, has the potential to debunk some of the views that exist in education (such as smaller classes improving student outcomes, or that education cannot counteract external family and societal factors) that are simply not consistent with large bodies of research evidence. Though I also recognize, sometimes the research also turns out to be wrong, even occasionally in comparison to conventional wisdom. In some cases, today’s conventional wisdom is yesterday’s research. So while I argue that research provides an important external balance to professional opinion and experiences, this point is not necessarily one directional.

The literature on KM highlights that research use (or the lack thereof) is a function of the interaction among a number of different organizational contexts that exist within systems (Amara et al., 2004; Nutley et al., 2007). Levin (2004, 2005, 2006) identifies, from the cross-disciplinary research on KM, three areas where this work occurs: research producers (primarily universities), research users (ministries of education, teachers, school districts, principals, and professional organizations), and third party agencies that mediate between the two groups (charitable foundations, research centers, government agencies, providers of professional development, media, think tanks, lobbyists, funding agencies and so on).

Much of the research that does exist on KM focuses on research producing contexts (e.g. Belkhodja & Landry, 2007; Landry et al., 2001) and research using contexts (e.g. Amara et al., 2004; Biddle & Saha, 2002; Cordingley, Bell, Evans & Crawford, 2004; Cordingley, 2008; Lavis, Robertson, et al., 2003) with very few studies addressing the intermediary organizations that participate in research use processes. This paper focuses on the many third party agencies and intermediaries[1] (often called knowledge brokers) that have arisen as a response to the challenge of addressing research-practice-policy gaps in education.

Significance

Most professionals come in contact with research indirectly, through various mediating processes such as professional development, media, professional or consultancy organizations (Cooper, Levin & Campbell, 2009; Nutley et al., 2007). These third parties fulfill a variety of functions: from providing training in research literacy, to tailoring and adapting research products contextually to make research more accessible and relevant to busy professionals (Honig, 2004; Nutley, Walter & Davies, 2007).

The number of intermediaries in education is rising. Think tanks in the US alone have “quadrupled from fewer than seventy to more than 300 between 1970 and the turn of the century” (Rich, 2004, p. 4). Honig (2004), labeling intermediaries ‘the new middle management’, also maintains that the number of intermediaries in education has increased dramatically in the past decade. Sugrue (2008) similarly provides an overview of the many established and emerging national and international educational intermediaries highlighting that while ‘these lists are not exhaustive...they are illustrative of recent proliferation of both statutory and less permanent bodies” (p.58). The rising number of intermediaries is not matched by empirical studies investigating them; in fact, very little empirical work on intermediaries exists.

Research agencies (e.g. William Grant Foundation) and prominent scholars in the field are highlighting the importance of intermediaries’ roles in KM and emphasizing the need for empirical work on third parties in the KM process (e.g. Davies & Nutley, 2008; Honig, 2004; Nutley et al., 2007; Levin, 2004, 2008). Researchers and educators are beginning to ask who is involved in these roles, what functions they perform, how they accomplish these tasks, and what impact these third parties play, could play or should play in educational improvement initiatives (Datnow & Honig, 2004; Feldman, 2001; Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate & Kyriakidow, 2004; Kitson, Harvey & McCormack, 1998; Sin, 2008).

Organization of the paper

This paper is organized into four sections: the first is a brief overview of the original study that acts as a catalyst for the paper. The second section is a literature review on intermediaries exploring the multiple terms, models as well as empirical studies that exist across sectors. The third section outlines some personal contributions to conceptualizing KM and intermediaries in education.

Research use by leaders in Canadian secondary schools

This paper arises as an offshoot from a mixed methods study examining research use by leaders in Canadian secondary schools. The original study, funded by the Canadian Education Association (CEA), involved the collaboration of a faculty of education research team at OISE (University of Toronto) and eleven participating school districts in four provinces across Canada. This project explored research use among secondary school leaders (superintendents, principals and others with designated leadership roles) in Canada using pre- and post-intervention quantitative survey data as well as qualitative data collected from implementing modest interventions in nine school districts to increase research use.

The original study starts from the framework developed by Levin (2004) and similar framing by Nutley et al (2007) suggesting that knowledge and use of research in schools depends on: characteristics of research (accessibility, perceived quality), characteristics of the educators and schools (research background, interest level, supporting processes and structures), and the role of third parties as distributors of knowledge (general and professional media experts, professional development providers).

Our research team implemented three interventions to increase research use among educational leaders in nine school districts. Three districts were assigned to each intervention: (1) A system to share research (providing districts with a website containing research reports and executive summaries) (2) Study groups (principals were provided with research reports, executive summaries and guided questions for three sessions) (3) Districts conducted research to collect local data (we provided districts with the survey instrument and methodology to obtain data on the post-destinations of a former cohort of students).

Findings

This paper briefly describes qualitative data from districts on the role of intermediaries involved in the most ‘successful’ interventions (for more details on the original study please visit www.oise.utoronto.ca/rspe).

Interventions

In each intervention, one of the three school districts outperformed their counterparts (as determined by conference calls with districts exploring extent, nature and uptake of research materials). As we delved into reasons why this occurred we realized that, in all three cases, the successful districts had an individual responsible (a knowledge broker) for facilitating these interventions.

One district, in particular, was much more successful in its efforts. This district was involved in the most difficult intervention (having districts conduct their own research to collect local data). This district utilized an intermediary (a district research services team) that acted as a knowledge broker throughout the project. Students from three schools involved in the intervention in this district, assisted by the intermediary, created a number of products to present to senior administration in their district the following year including:

·  A report comparing two research surveys in their district (one from this study, and one from another CEA project, Tell Them From Me)

·  A power point presentation on the results of post-secondary destinations surveys

·  A YouTube video presenting the findings

·  A student voice handout for educational leaders in the district

This district also, through meetings of the research services team, dedicated time to creating and thinking through a knowledge mobilization plan for the student outputs created from the project. This district intended to use and circulate these products in meetings with district administrators in the following academic year. This timeline for KM from the project was set to happen after the study had been completed; hence, while the district sent us final versions of the products, we do not know about extent and nature of use with educational leaders in the district or the subsequent impact of this use on district and school planning.

Importance of facilitation

Participants across districts consistently spoke of the need for facilitation in order to increase knowledge mobilization. Where interventions had virtually no uptake, leaders mentioned the lack of formalized role coordinating their efforts: “I think one of our struggles is that we don’t have a formal facilitator” (Secondary School Principal, Study Group District B). One principal discussed the need for facilitation in order to address the discrepancy between the acknowledgement of the importance of research and modest levels of actual use:

We are looking at ways of supporting teachers to access and utilize research; hence, the need for a facilitator. I think for many of us, that’s still where we are at - that [increasing research use] still requires [facilitation]. For the most part, the majority of teachers will not seek [research] out on their own, unless there is someone there that prompts them to do so or facilitates it (Secondary School Principal, Website District A).

Another argument for facilitation revolved around these individuals possessing particular skills to optimize engagement with research: “It is important to have a facilitator who will bring skills to keep people in the discussion” (Elementary Division Leader, Study Group District A). Special skills were also mentioned in relation to creating action plans from discussion of research.

As stated earlier, a significant finding that arose from the intervention phase of our original study relates to the role of intermediaries and the importance of a key person dedicated to KM. As one participant highlighted:

I do think there is a huge role for us as knowledge brokers, of moving things along that also it helps if we know our local context so we’re able to take from the material and align it with things we are already doing in our districts, it is pretty important to have someone in-house to do that work. (Manager, Data District C).

This recurrent theme throughout the intervention phase of the study prompted us to further explore the roles of facilitators in successful districts. To this end, we created post-intervention interview questions for those individuals who acted as knowledge brokers in the most ‘successful’ districts and set up a conference call to discuss how they conceptualized their role in the intervention in relation to its uptake in their districts (Appendix A). We asked these facilitators to describe how they defined their role in the intervention, what benefits resulted from their interaction, barriers they faced, skills necessary for knowledge brokers in school districts, leverage points for intermediaries within the system and other key learnings from their involvement in the project (Table 1).