IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v7y2020i1d10.1057_s41599-020-00587-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

World-wide barriers and enablers to achieving evidence-informed practice in education: what can be learnt from Spain, England, the United States, and Germany?

Author

Listed:
  • Joel R. Malin

    (Miami University)

  • Chris Brown

    (Durham University)

  • Georgeta Ion

    (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)

  • Isabell Ackeren

    (University Duisburg-Essen)

  • Nina Bremm

    (Zurich University of Teacher Education)

  • Ruth Luzmore

    (Durham University)

  • Jane Flood

    (Durham University)

  • Gul Muhammad Rind

    (Miami University)

Abstract

A global push exists to bolster the connections between research and practice in education. However, fostering evidence-informed practice (EIP) has proven challenging. Indeed, this ‘problem’ requires simultaneously attending to multiple aspects/levels of education systems, and to the contexts within which they reside. As such, comparative analyses using systems approaches hold potential for achieving context-specific insights regarding how to foster EIP. However, such analyses have been scarce, and what research does exist has generally been limited relative to methods and theory. Given this, the present study executes and describes/reflects upon a novel approach for analysing and comparing EIP in/across systems. In this study, educators’ evidence use patterns are described and comparatively analysed, using a sample of four regions within high-income national settings: Catalonia (Spain), England (UK), Massachusetts (USA), and Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany). This study employs a dual analytical frame (a cohesion/regulation matrix and institutional theory) to supply a methodological lens through which to understand EIP within and across these four systems. Together, this approach not only provides a way of accounting for the macro-level differences between contexts, it also enables a comparison of meso-level and micro-level factors (via institutional theory) that might be common and distinct across systems. This study’s findings reveal substantial diversity in the extent and nature of evidence use between systems, which in turn patterned according to distinctive cultural, systemic, and institutional features. Considering these findings, this study’s discussion advances some provisional insights and reflections regarding actual and potential EIP in education. For example, variability relative to the types/extents of accountability pressures, and how this affected educators’ data and evidence use, enabled a discussion holding relevance for policymakers. We also share process-related insights—i.e., describing the advances and challenges we experienced while undertaking this new approach. These points hold relevance for colleagues wishing to emulate and improve upon the efforts described herein, which we argue are applicable both in and beyond the education sector. Relative to education, these approaches can be applied and improved with an eye toward developing context-specific (vs. one-size-fits-all) packages for fostering EIP and, ultimately, achieving high quality and progressively improving schools/systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Joel R. Malin & Chris Brown & Georgeta Ion & Isabell Ackeren & Nina Bremm & Ruth Luzmore & Jane Flood & Gul Muhammad Rind, 2020. "World-wide barriers and enablers to achieving evidence-informed practice in education: what can be learnt from Spain, England, the United States, and Germany?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:7:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-00587-8
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-00587-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-020-00587-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-020-00587-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carrie Conaway, 2020. "Maximizing Research Use in the World We Actually Live In: Relationships, Organizations, and Interpretation," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 15(1), pages 1-10, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anna March & Emma Ashworth & Carla Mason & Joao Santos & Rosie Mansfield & Emily Stapley & Jessica Deighton & Neil Humphrey & Nick Tait & Daniel Hayes, 2022. "‘Shall We Send a Panda?’ A Practical Guide to Engaging Schools in Research: Learning from Large-Scale Mental Health Intervention Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-12, March.
    2. Ruiqiao Bai & Jacqueline C. K. Lam & Victor O. K. Li, 2023. "What dictates income in New York City? SHAP analysis of income estimation based on Socio-economic and Spatial Information Gaussian Processes (SSIG)," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Elena Popkova & Aleksei V. Bogoviz & Bruno S. Sergi, 2021. "Towards digital society management and ‘capitalism 4.0’ in contemporary Russia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:7:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-00587-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.