Scholarship, Research and the Evidential Basis of Policy Development in Education

Humes, Walter; Bryce, Tom

doi:10.1111/1467-8527.t01-1-00179

Cited by 30 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a range of work, such as thought pieces on how evidence‐use might work or be improved, or developing conceptual models for improving the uptake of evidence (Humes & Bryce, 2001; Harper, 2004; Zlotnik, 2007; Green, 2008; Lingard, 2013; Brown, 2014; Lubienski et al , 2014; Blase et al , 2015; Jordan & Cooper, 2016; Farley‐Ripple et al , 2018; Peterson, 2018). Much is repetitive without apparent progress over many years.…”

Section: The Quality Of Existing Research On Evidence‐into‐usementioning

confidence: 99%

What is the evidence on the best way to get evidence into use in education?

Gorard

See

Siddiqui

2020

Review of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For decades there have been calls by concerned stakeholders to improve the quality of education research, and some progress has been made towards creating a more secure evidence base in some areas. More programmes and approaches that have a reasonable evidence base are now also being used in schools (but not in policy, and not necessarily because they have a reasonable evidence base). However, there has been no equivalent improvement in secure knowledge about how best to get that evidence into use, or even what difference it makes when such evidence is used. This paper looks at what little is already known about the different ways to get research evidence into use in education by summarising the results of a large-scale review of the literature. A total of 323 of the most relevant studies were looked at across all areas of public policy, and judged for quality and contribution. Very few (33) were of the appropriate design and quality needed to make robust causal claims about evidence-intouse, and even fewer of these concerned education. This means that despite over 20 years of modest improvement in research on what works in education policy and practice, the evidence on how best to deploy these findings is still very weak. We consider studies in terms of several issues, including whether they look at changes in user knowledge and behaviour, or student outcomes, and how evidence is best modified before use. Providing access to raw research evidence or even slightly simplified evidence is not generally an effective way of getting it used, even if that evidence is presented to users by knowledge-brokers, in short courses or similar. What is more likely to work for both policy and practice is the engineering of high quality evidence into a more usable format and presenting it actively or iteratively via a respected and trusted conduit, or through population measures such as legislation. Having the users actually do the research is another promising approach. Expecting each individual study they fund to have an impact is not the way forward, as this may encourage widespread use of ineffective or even harmful interventions. Publicly-funded users, including policy-makers, should be required to use evidence-led programmes from those libraries providing them and which are appropriate and relevant to their aims. Research funders should support these approaches, and help to build up libraries of successfully tested programmes. Researchers need to be scrupulous, looking at their new evidence in the context of what is already known and not looking to obtain 'impact' from single studies. More and better research is needed on the best routes for evidence-into-use. However, the improvements required of all parties are as much ethical in nature as they are technical or scientific.Keywords use of evidence, engineering of evidence, translation of evidence, research impact, knowledge transfer, robust evidence.

show abstract

Section: The Quality Of Existing Research On Evidence‐into‐usementioning

confidence: 99%

What is the evidence on the best way to get evidence into use in education?

Gorard

See

Siddiqui

2020

Review of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No such concessions were, however, made by Chris Woodhead, who described qualitative research as 'woolly and simplistic' and a 'massive waste of taxpayers' money' (cited by Wellington, 2000, p. 167). Therefore, if researchers wish to obtain a share of increasingly centralised research funding (Humes & Bryce, 2001) and an influence over policy, they may be forced to adopt more positivistic (and especially quantitative) approaches to research (Nisbet, 2000).…”

Section: P Greenbankmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of values in educational research: the case for reflexivity

Greenbank

2003

British Educational Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the meanings involved in the development and implementation of learning and teaching policies in higher education through a single institution case study in an English university. It draws on interview data collected from middle manager‐academics, located in Schools, who are charged with implementing learning and teaching policies. Tensions and contradictions of practice emerged from a detailed analysis of the data identified through three closely related themes: centre/periphery, time and temporality, and disciplinary locations. The central theme, which frames the discussion of the other two, concerns relations between centre and periphery. The manager‐academics identify themselves with the interests of their colleagues within Schools and use their position to mediate between central pressures and practice on the ground. Rather than identifying with managerialist practices, they rely on projected ideals of collegiality in their relationships with School colleagues. At the core of these experiences are differing conceptions of time in the centre/periphery relationship. Different experiences of temporality, tempo, and timing are explored from the manager‐academics' perspective. There is considerable tension between time understood on the ground and the time‐scales of central learning and teaching initiatives. The final theme concerns the organising role of disciplinary identities in articulating meaning at the periphery. Innovations appear rooted in disciplinary practice and some tensions exist between these and perceptions of educational theory and development. The article suggests that these contradictions and tensions might be a source of strength to the institution rather than having negative effects. It concludes with some reflections on the importance of time to the development of educational theory.

show abstract

“…(See Humes & Bryce, 2001) The third reading of the report would consider it in terms of its adequacy as a piece of research. • If researchers accept an 'evidence-informed' definition of their work, will it imply a restriction of their role, especially that part of their role which has hitherto involved criticism and interrogation?…”

Section: Walter Humes University Of Strathclydementioning

confidence: 99%