The issue of knowledge transfer is not a new topic (e.g. Havelock, 1960). However, in educational research in the Czech Republic it is not familiar, not even researched on purpose. Therefore, my aim is to elaborate on this topic in the context of the Czech Republic. This issue is approached differently in respect to its name. For example, there are authors dealing with “research use” (Davies & Nutley, 2008, “utilization of research” (Cherney, et al., 2012),”knowledge utilization” (Landry, 1998; Cousin & Laithwood, 1993) and “diffusion of innovation” (Rogers, 2003), etc. The spectrum of topics reflects the extent of generality and field specialization which the authors focus on (e.g. medicine, education). However, there is one main moment in the topic knowledge transfer, known as utilization. The knowledge transfer in education aims to increase the use of research results by potential users – teachers (Huberman 1983, Havelock, 1973). Therefore, the authors often consider the knowledge transfer as utilization. From this perspective, it is possible to understand utilization as a process which is a part of the transfer and is considered an application phase by end-users (Becheikh, at al., 2010). The transfer itself, besides the utilization, includes other phases: knowledge generation by academics, adaptation and dissemination (diffusion) of research. These phases belong to the academics. On the other hand, next phases, reception, adoption and knowledge utilization (Becheikh, at al., 2010) belong to end-users – teachers who accept or reject knowledge. This means that knowledge transfer is a process that connects two ideas world: world of academics and world of practitioners (in education area – teachers or decision makers). The whole process is influenced by determinants related to transferred knowledge attributes and to actors’ determinants: teachers and academics as researchers (Funks et al., 1191; Becheikh, at al., 2010). Rogers (2003) speaks about four elements of the process: innovation, communication, channels and time. Rogers’s elements are similar as determinants of Funks, Becheikh and other authors. On the other hand, when looking at the topic of knowledge transfer or utilization through the concept of evidence based practice, policy (EBP), it can be understood as an outcome (product of EBP), not as a process. EPB provides a macro view on the topic knowledge transfer (knowledge utilization). It provides orientation among many models of utilization:  model RDD (research – development – diffusion), Science Push Model or Knowledge–Driven Model. Other models are the Problem-Solving model and the interactive and linkage model that are the most frequently used models. All models are possible to see in Wiess (1979), Evans and Benefield (2001).

If we return to knowledge transfer as a process, there are many studies referring to barriers (e.g. lack of time, accessibility, applicability or negative attitudes and language) usage to the knowledge use of researches (Gore & Gitlin, 2011; Latham, 1993; Joram, 2007; Vanderline & Braak, 2010; Shkedi, 1998; Zeuli, 1994). During the first literature search referring to knowledge transfer I identified some linkage between transfer phases and barriers.  This linkage could be very important to find out or identify the level of knowledge transfer. My aim is to create an exact (hierarchical) map (or systematic view) of concepts that related and support topic knowledge transfer. The main research question is what kind of concepts is based topic education research knowledge transfer about. Others concepts, that you can see in journals, are school improvement, evaluation of educational research (Leviton 1981), and development of teachers (Rhine, 1998). Next question is what the school improvement, the evaluation and the teacher’s development relates to topic knowledge transfer (utilization) or concepts EBP. 

Becheikh, N., et al. (2010). How to improve knowledge transfer strategies and practices in education? Answers from a systematic literature review. Research in higher education journal, 7, 1-21. Cousins, J. B., & Leithwood, K. A. (1993). Enhancing knowledge utilization as a strategy for school improvement. Science Communication, 14(3), 305-333. Davies, H. T., & Nutley, S. (2008). Learning more about how research-based knowledge gets used. Unpublished Working Paper. William T. Grant Foundation. Evans, J., & Benefield, P. (2001). Systematic reviews of educational research: does the medical model fit?. British educational research journal, 27(5), 527-541. Funk, S.G., et al. (1991). Barriers to using research findings in practice: the clinician's perspective. Appl Nurs Res. 90–5. Gore, J. M., & Gitlin, A. D. (2004). (Re)visioning the academic-teacher divide: Power and knowledge in the educational community. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 10(1), 35-58. Havelock, R. (1969). Planning for innovation through the dissemination and utilization of scientific knowledge. MI:CRUSK. Huberman, M. (1983). Recipes for busy teachers, Knowledge: creation, diffusion, utilization, 4, pp. 478-510. Cherney, A., et al. (2012). What influences the utilisation of educational research by policy-makers and practitioners? International Journal of Educational Research, 56, 23-34. Joram, E. (2007). Clashing epistemologies: Aspiring teachers’, practicing teachers’, and professors’ beliefs about knowledge and research in education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(2), 123-135. Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamari, M. (2001). Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research policy, 30(2), 333-349. Latham, G. (1993). Do Educators Use the Literature of the Profession?. NASSP Bulletin, 77(550), 63-70. Leviton, L. C., & Hughes, E. F. (1981). Research On the Utilization of Evaluations A Review and Synthesis. Evaluation review, 5(4), 525-548. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed). New York:Free Press. Rhine, S. (1998). The role of research and teachers' knowledge base in professional development. Educational Researcher, 27-31. Shkedi, A. (1998). Teachers' attitudes towards research: A challenge for qualitative researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(4), 559-577. Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2010). The gap between educational research and practice: views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299-316. Weiss, C.H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426-431. Zeuli, J. S. (1994). How do teachers understand research when they read it?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(1), 39-55.