Factors influencing knowledge mobilization in education: a perspective of policy-makers in Romania
Author(s):
Simona Iftimescu (presenting / submitting) Carmen Proteasa (presenting) Elena Marin Mihaela Stingu
Conference:
ECER 2017
Network:
Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Format:
Paper

Session Information

ERG SES G 12, Knowledge and Education

Paper Session

Time:
2017-08-22
09:00-10:30
Room:
W4.21
Chair:
Rachel Shanks

Contribution

The present paper attempts to bring new insights onto the characteristics of the policymaking field in education and aims to analyze the perception of policymakers on the educational research use in policymaking, focusing on the factors which influence transfer from research to policy.

The literature in the field of knowledge mobilization tends to focus on challenges, rather than on opportunities or areas of improvement. The overall image depicted in the literature points at several challenges faced by transfer and mobilization of educational research to policy, mostly from the researchers’ perspective. Our research intends to fill this gap and move forward the debate on the topic of knowledge mobilization adding the perceptions of policymakers.

The process of knowledge mobilization in policymaking implies a variety of factors, agents and contexts (Levin, 2013). In order to be mobilized, knowledge should be produced, transferred and finally used by policymakers. The context of knowledge production is dominated by the role of universities and research institutions in generating knowledge based on evidences (Ion & Castro, 2016). In this context, the knowledge production literature generally focuses on research funding, on research management and on the strategies used by academics in order to enhance the research transfer and utilization (Cummings et al., 2007; Kwiek, 2015; Honerød, 2012). In what concerns educational research, the domain is considered ‘too small, not well organized, and the results are not effectively communicated or shared’ (Levin, 2013, p. 15). It is considered to have little 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). Locke (2009) also mentions policymakers’ perception of research described as irrelevant, lacking quality, untimely and poorly presented.

Literature suggests that research outcomes must be comprehensible for policymakers, stakeholders and practitioners or other type of audience (Conrad, 2005; Whitty, 2006; Bell, et.al, 2010; Levin, 2011; and Ion & Iucu, 2015), which would imply researchers taking on a more active role in making research accessible outside the academia and specialized audiences.

As far as the Romanian particular case is concerned, a specific challenge is underlined by Popa (2012), who argues that the highly bureaucratic system might play a significant role in the way of knowledge transfer and mobilization, while Ion and Iucu (2014) reveal both the significant role of bureaucracy, but it also brings into discussion individual factors, which limit practitioners’ ability to engage in genuine and sustainable research-based practices. In Kappel’s view (2012), there is no dialogue between fundamental research and applied research, but rather a flux of communication based on information transfer, different both in nuance and practice from knowledge transfer and mobilization. Also, the quality of applied research is affected by an interference with the design stage and micro-production, especially when compared to other EU countries, where applied research is not government-funded, as it is usually the case in Romania.

Given the current state of research in Romania, and of educational research in particular, the paper aims to identify other potential factors influencing its evolution, but from a policymakers’ perspective.

Method

In order to identify the factors which influence the transfer from research to policy and the role of decision-makers in the process, a qualitative methodological approach was used, namely semi-structured in-depth interviews. The interview guide was based on the categories established “a priori” and based on the literature on the research utilization in policy making. Therefore, the interview guide sought to evaluate policymakers’ perspectives regarding: 1. the process of research production and mobilization 2. the importance given to research results 3. the factors that may influence the research production and transfer 4. building a partnership that will support the process of research mobilization 5. priorities in the field of research mobilization 13 in-depth interviews were conducted over a period of 5 months between March and July 2016 with representatives of national institutions in the field of education and decision-makers from educational bodies at a national and local level such as: the Ministry of National Education and Scientific Research; the Public Policy Department within Ministry of National Education and Scientific Research; The Romanian Agency for Quality Assurance in Pre-university Education; The Romanian Agency for Quality Assurance in Higher Education; The Institute of Educational Sciences; The Romanian Presidential Administration (Education and Research Department); The National Agency for Community Programs in the Field of Education and Vocational Training; The National Authority for Qualifications; The Bucharest Center for Educational Resources; The National Center for Recognition and Equivalence of Diplomas; The Center for Educational Resources; and The World Bank in Romania. The code used to identify interviews in this article is I1 to I13. The interviews have a duration between 25 – 92 minutes and have been transcribed and validated with the participants. All transcriptions were coded using line-by-line coding in accordance with Charmaz’s (2006) guidelines on coding for grounded theory. This process generated over 20 codes. The Maxquda 11 software for qualitative data analysis was used to facilitate coding, data management and promote transparency. The generated codes were then grouped under 18 emergent categories, which were ultimately grouped under 5 broader core categories relating to the specific research questions. Internal validity was ensured by the selection of respondents using the following criteria: length of professional experience in their current position, type of institutional body (national or local), training and academic background. This ensured that there was sufficient variety in our respondents’ profiles.

Expected Outcomes

Our research identifies a series of factors facilitating knowledge mobilization. From policymakers’ perspective, one such factor would be for the research community to take on greater responsibility in transferring results from research to practice. Policymakers recommend researchers to work within interdisciplinary teams, underlining the need for more transparency in communicating and increased proactivity from the researchers. Another factor could be the development of public-private partnerships, improving financing and making research more relevant for policy, industry or practice. Extending the area of cooperation from the research community towards other stakeholders could also be achieved by developing more formal partnerships between policymakers and researchers. Nevertheless, policymakers suggest there could also be a stronger partnership within the research community itself, so that different research teams would pull together resources and have a greater impact together, and even create active research-networks to use complementary expertise and gain more leverage in promoting their results. Another suggestion refers to identifying or creating a mediating body that could bridge the gap between researchers and different stakeholders. This would help reduce researchers’ dissatisfaction and increase access to more valuable and relevant research reports. Another opportunity refers to creating institutional structures able to facilitate knowledge transfer or increasing institutional capacity to accommodate such initiatives, doubled by coherent financing strategies. Policymakers appear to have little experience in connecting the two fields and the political factors still weighs significantly more in the formulation of public policies. However, the results of our study point out willingness on the policymakers’ side to acknowledge the importance of using research to inform decisions and their potential role in facilitating this process. This shows there is an interested audience for research, even though it needs to be activated and pursued in a more proactive manner, which requires researchers to take on more responsibility, despite systemic challenges.

References

Bell, M., Cordingley,P., Isham.,C., & Davis.,R. (2010), Report of professional practitioner use of research review: Practitioner engagement in and/or with research. Available at: http://www.curee—paccts.com/node/2303 Charmaz, K. (2006), Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: SAGE. Cherney, A., Head, B., Boreham, P., Povey, J., & Ferguson, M. (2012), Perspectives of academic social scientists on knowledge transfer and research collaborations: a cross-sectional survey of Australian academics. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 8(4), 433-453 Coburn, C., & Talbert, J. (2006), Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112, 469–495. Conrad, C. F., & Serlin, R. C. (2005), The Sage handbook for research in education: Minding The Gap Between Research And Policymaking, Sage Publications. Cummings, GG, Estabrooks, CA, Midodzi, WK, Wallin, L & Hayduk L. (2007), Influence of organizational characteristics and context on research utilization. Nurs Res. 56(4 Suppl), 24-39 Hess, F.M. (2008), When research matters: How scholarship influences education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Honerød, M. (2012), Educational Research and Useful Knowledge: production, dissemination, reception, implementation. European Educational Research Journal, 11(1), 56-61 Ion, G & Castro, D. (2016), Transitions in the manifestations of the research culture of Spanish universities, Higher Education Research and Development 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 Kappel, W., & Ignat, M. (2012), Unele probleme ale cercetării ştiinţifice aplicative în România, 1(2), 137–141. Kwiek, M. (2015), Academic generations and academic work: patterns of attitudes, behaviors, and research productivity of Polish academics after 1989, Studies in Higher Education, 40:8, 1354-1376 Levin, B. (2011), Mobilizing research knowledge in education. London Review of Education, 9(1), 15–26. Levin, B. (2013), To know is not enough: Research knowledge and its use. Review of Education, 1(1), 2-31. Levin, B., & Edelstein, H. (2010), Research, policy and practice in education. Education Canada, 50(2), 29–30. Locke, W. (2009), Reconnecting the Research – Policy – Practice Nexus in Higher Education : “Evidence-Based Policy” in Practice in National and International Contexts, 119–140. Popa, V. (2012), Cercetarea ştiinţifică şi transferul tehnologic, 1(4), 327–332. Whitty, G. (2006), Education research and education policy making: is conflict inevitable? British educational research journal, 32(2), 159-176.

Author Information

Simona Iftimescu (presenting / submitting)
University of Bucharest - Center for Development and Training in Higher Education - CDFIS
Carmen Proteasa (presenting)
University of Bucharest - Center for Development and Training in Higher Education - CDFIS
Elena Marin
University of Bucharest - Center for Development and Training in Higher Education - CDFIS
Mihaela Stingu
University of Bucharest - Center for Development and Training in Higher Education - CDFIS

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.