Researchers and policymakers’ perception on research mobilization in education in Romania

Author(s):

Carmen Alexandra Proteasa (presenting / submitting) Simona Iftimescu (presenting) Elena Marin Georgeta Ion Iucu Romita Stingu Mihaela

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

ERG SES D 06, Policies and Education

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-22

13:30-15:00

Room:

OB-E1.19

Chair:

Helene Ärlestig

Contribution

The following paper brings into discussion the perception of both researchers and policy makers on research mobilization. Research mobilization is used to define an action of advancing research results in policy-making processes which implies the interaction of two or more stakeholders (researchers, policymakers, practicionaires, relevant institutions).

The aim of the present research is to analyse policymakers and researchers perception regarding the use of educational research in the process of decision making. The data is collected from 3 mixed focus-groups (researches and policymakers) and in-depth interviews with policymakers. The paper derives from a research project funded by the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-1605.

Although the research is ongoing, the results that emerge from this research contribute to enlarging the general perception of stakeholders on research. It is expected that policymakers to elaborate on a hyphothesized gap between them and the researchers and on problems that block the communication

The background of this subject is in relation to research production and its impact in society. In particular, the research in education is considered to have a small impact in society and often fails to meet the decision-makers’ needs (Coburn & Talbert, 2006; Hess, 2008; Levin & Edelstein, 2010; Cherney, Povey, Head, Boreham, & Ferguson, 2012). Authors have elaborated on a series of aspects describing the misalingment between stakeholders and researchers. From funding that sustains research to lack of communication between policy makers and researchers (Bell, Cordingley, Isham, & Davis, 2010; Levin, 2011; and Ion and Iucu, 2015) and from perceptions of policy-makers on research to lack of traning of researchers to involve in activities of transfer of knowledge (Ion & Iucu 2015).

On one hand, researchers consider that the dissemination of scientific results and the transfer of research is not a priority for them. Their perceive the educational field as being conservative and reluctant to change. Lack of funding was also mentioned as a barrier in disseminating scientific outcome of their work (Ion & Iucu, 2015).

On the other hand, policy-makers make decisions based on public or political agenda and researchers engage in elaborated activities and contribute to knowledge enlargement. In relation to research, authors argue that research projects fail to address solutions and answer to political issues from the public agenda, because of their scientific methodology planned on long time scale (Scott, 2000).

Even with this distinction between the two processes, research outcomes must be comprehensible for both policymakers, stakeholders and practitioners or other type of audience (Conrad, & Serlin, 2005; Whitty, 2006; Bell, Cordingley, Isham, & Davis, 2010; Levin, 2011; and Ion & Iucu, 2015).

Behind the factors that inhibit communication between policymakers and researchers, it is important to underline who are the educational entities involved in the process of research mobilization that can involve in creating an environment of collaboration. The three educational entities: communities of researchers, policymakers and practitioners should be partners in the process of knowledge mobilization. These entities should also be aware of the fact that this process is in a constant change, sculptured by social and political contexts and that other factors too, except research evidence, can influence the decision making process (Levin, 2011).

Taking in consideration the theorethical framework, the present research aims at analysing the perception of politicians on research mobilization in education and the use of educational research in the process of decision making.

Method

In order to bring together the two different perspectives of researchers and policy-makers, the present research is based on an integrated qualitative methodology. First, in what concerns the policy-makers perception on research, we use qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews. The participants are members of the national institutions responsible with education, like the Ministry of Education, the Comission for Education from the National Parliament, The Institute of Educational Sciences and others. The interview guide is based on the following topics: their perception of the impact of educational research in the last 2-3 years, their perception of the areas in which research was widely used and their opinion on the factors that inhibit or contribuite to the use of research in the decision making process. We currently use Maxgda 11 software to analyze the data obtained from the conducted interviews. Secondly, we use data collected from three focus groups with both researchers and policy makers with the aim of bringing toghether the two different perspectives and elaborate more on the different aspects that arose in politicians’ perception. We focused on identifying the key themes that emerged from the interviews, as well as any issues or themes that could be considered contentious. The research is currently ongoing at the Center for Development and Training in Higher Education, but we can advance some of the preliminary results.

Expected Outcomes

The research will bring into discussion some aspects which weights researchers activity and policy-makers perception about research mobilization in education. Researchers might consider their responsability ends after their research activity is finalised. This could be a first factor that contributes to a weak advance of results into practice. Their misperception on their status could be because of the unequal structured and disorganized domain in which they practice scientific research. Besides, it was mentioned by authors that there is a limit on research development and that limit is characterized by the lack of coherent politics and strategies promoted from top management in order to sustain researchers’ status and activity. It was said that in the Romanian university there is a poorly developed culture of research (Ion & Iucu, 2015). Regarding the policy-makers, we expect to find that there is a need to restructure the scientific discourse for a better understanding of the research results. Moreover, policy-makers might mention the absence of an institutional framework for both parties that could facilitate communication and interraction between them and researchers. Finally, it could come out that their priorities are not declared very public and transparent so that researchers could cope with the local needs. After shaping policy makers perception alongside researchers, the result constitutes to a better understanting of the barriers that inhibit a research mobilization between stakeholders and can become a base in offering solutions to this barriers.

References

References: 1. Bell, M., Cordingley, P., Isham, C., & Davis, R. (2010). Report of professional practitioner use of research review: Practitioner engagement in and/or with research. Coventry: CUREE, GTCE, LSIS, & NTRP. Available at: http://www.curee—paccts.com/node/2303 2. Cherney, A., Povey, J., Head, B., Boreham, P., & Ferguson, M. (2012). What influences the utilisation of educational research by policy-makers and practitioners? The perspectives of academic educational researchers. International Journal of Educational Research, 56, 23-34. 3. Conrad, C. F., & Serlin, R. C. (2005). The Sage handbook for research in education: Minding The Gap Between Research And Policymaking, Sage Publications. 4. Coburn, C., & Talbert, J. (2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112, 469–495. 5. Hess, F.M. (2008). When research matters: How scholarship influences education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 6. Ion, G & Iucu, R. (2015) Does Research Influence Educational Policy? The Perspective of Researchers and Policy- Makers in Romania. In: Curaj, A., Matei, L., Pricopie, R., Salmi, J. & Scott, P. (eds) The European Higher Education Area: Between Critical Reflections and Future Policies. Springer, pp.873-889 7. Levin, B. (2011). Mobilising research knowledge in education. London Review of Education,9(1), 15–26. 8. Levin, B., & Edelstein, H. (2010). Research, policy and practice in education. Education Canada, 50(2), 29–30. 9. Scott, P. (2000) ‘Higher Education Research in the Light of a Dialogue between Policy-Makers and Practitioners’ in U. TEICHLER and J. SADLAK (eds.) Higher Education Research: Its Relationship to Policy and Practice. Oxford: Pergamon and IAU Press, pp.43-54. 10. Whitty, G. (2006). Education (al) research and education policy making: is conflict inevitable?. British educational research journal, 32(2), 159-176.