This paper examines the politics of knowledge mobilisation in UK education policymaking with a focus on how broader structural and contextual factors shape the production, use, and impact of research evidence across the four nations of the UK. Understanding how knowledge and evidence are used in education policymaking is important because it affects policy decisions, determines whose knowledge is valued, and influences the extent to which policymakers can be held to account. Education policymaking in the UK operates within a devolved governance structure, where England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have developed distinct education policies shaped by historical, cultural, and political contexts that influence governance structures, policy priorities, and approaches to knowledge mobilisation (Raffe, 2006; Ozga, 2023). England’s education policy is market-driven and accountability-focused (Ball, 2008), Scotland emphasises equity and inclusion (Priestley & Biesta, 2013), Wales prioritises collaboration and Welsh language education (Donaldson, 2015), and Northern Ireland focuses on community cohesion. Despite these differences, there has been limited comparative research on how knowledge is mobilised across these systems and the influence of different structural factors on knowledge use in policymaking.

The study explores the following research questions:

• How do historical, political, economic and cultural contexts, along with governance structures and accountability frameworks, shape research uptake and use in education policymaking?
• Who are the key stakeholders in knowledge mobilisation, and what are their roles and responsibilities?
• How does knowledge flow within and between education systems, and what types of knowledge are prioritised?

The study objectives were to:

• Analyse the governance structures and accountability frameworks that influence how knowledge flows between different stakeholders in each system, in what form, and the different responsibilities they are given to act.  
• Identify the barriers and enablers of effective knowledge exchange and evidence use across devolved education systems, providing comparative insights to support collaborative policymaking.
• Contribute to the ESRC Education research programme, whose objectives are to address key challenges in education policy in the UK by identifying new forms of knowledge exchange that can foster more collaborative dialogue between key stakeholders.

Analysing education policy across contexts requires a framework that can capture the complexity of education systems, the power dynamics within them and the interconnections between key actors and processes. To achieve this, we integrate Critical Policy Sociology, which examines how power, control, and ideology shape evidence use, policy agendas, and accountability structures in education policymaking (Apple, 2019; Ball, 2003; Ozga, 2000), with Systems Thinking which explores governance complexity, stakeholder roles, and leverage points for systemic change (Meadows, 2008). Additionally, Best and Holmes’ (2010) Knowledge Exchange Framework provides a structured approach to analysing how knowledge moves between policy actors using linear, relational and systems-based pathways. These approaches provide a comprehensive lens to examine how structural and contextual factors shape research production, use, and impact in UK education policymaking.

This study adopts a comparative, qualitative approach to examine the politics of knowledge mobilisation in UK education policymaking across the four nations of the UK. It combines a desk-based review of policy documents, and semi-structured interviews with key education stakeholders. The desk-based policy analysis (July-Sep 2023) explored national education policies and research strategies such as England’s Areas of Research Interest, Scotland’s Schools Research Plan, and Wales’s National Strategy for Education Research and Enquiry to explore the role of formal frameworks in shaping evidence use. Semi-structured (Nov 2023 - Feb 2024) involved 21 high-level education stakeholders across the four nations including policy insiders, such as government officials, regulators, and research intermediaries, and policy outsiders, including academics, education think tanks, and advocacy groups. Interviews examined stakeholder roles, networks and key features of their respective education systems, including the factors shaping research-policy interactions. Data was analysed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), in NVivo, to identify patterns in governance, knowledge exchange, and stakeholder engagement. One author’s outsider perspective allows for the identification of patterns and contrasts that may be less visible to those embedded within these systems, while the other author’s insider knowledge within the English context, provides firsthand knowledge and a more nuanced interpretation of national policymaking dynamics. Together, these perspectives offer a balanced analysis of knowledge mobilisation across the four nations.

Our findings illustrate how across the four nations, governance structures and political contexts shape knowledge mobilisation differently, influencing who produces research, whose knowledge is valued, and how evidence is used in policy decisions. Specifically, we found: 1. England is defined by a centralised but fragmented system with multiple uncoordinated stakeholders and entrenched power asymmetries that limit the influence of policy outsiders. High-stakes accountability fosters a fear-based culture, reinforcing market-driven reforms and systemic inefficiencies. 2. Within Scotland, the unclear division of responsibilities creates inefficiencies, and there is a disconnect between policy aspirations (Nordic models) and governance practices (Anglo-American accountability). 3. Wales prioritises collaboration and student well-being within minimal private sector involvement but faces governance challenges, particularly in the middle tier, where overlapping roles create inefficiencies. 4. Northern Ireland exhibits a unique policy landscape shaped by broader societal and political tensions, emphasising education’s role in fostering community cohesion in a country where the education system is divided along religious lines. Our findings highlight the importance of contextual understanding in shaping the production, use, and impact of research evidence within the UK's devolved education systems. We emphasise the need for context-sensitive approaches to knowledge mobilisation, recognising that strategies effective in one system may not translate effectively to another. While this study focuses on the four nations of the UK, it also considers broader international implications, including: • The migration of policies and knowledge across devolved governance structures, with potential insights for other countries with similar devolved governance structures, such as France, Greece, and Spain • The influence of transnational actors like the OECD on national-level policymaking which may offer lessons for other European contexts facing similar external influences. Overall, this study contributes to international debates on how politics and governance structures shape knowledge and evidence use, informing policymaking beyond the UK.

Apple, M. W. (2019). Ideology and curriculum (4th ed.). Routledge. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. Ball, S. J. (2008). The education debate (2nd ed.). Policy Press. Best, A., & Holmes, B. (2010). Systems thinking, knowledge and action: Towards better models and methods. Evidence & Policy, 6(2), 145–159. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Donaldson, G. (2015). Successful futures: Independent review of curriculum and assessment arrangements in Wales. Welsh Government. Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing. Ozga, J. (2000). Policy research in educational settings: Contested terrain. Open University Press. Ozga, J. (2023). Education policy and the politics of change (2nd ed.). Routledge. Priestley, M., & Biesta, G. (2013). Reinventing the curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice. Bloomsbury Publishing. Raffe, D. (2006). Devolution and divergence in education policy. Journal of Education Policy, 21(6), 573–594.