This paper explores the varied conceptualizations of research and evidence use within education policy, examining the forms, systemic influences, and drivers of engagement with research aimed at school improvement. The roles of stakeholders and the nature of their engagement are critically assessed, proposing a framework for considering the use of research and evidence in education policy and possible alternatives. Although research and evidence use seem straightforward, they are challenging to define (Cairney, 2016; Pellegrini & Vivanet, 2020). The influence of organizations like the OECD and the World Bank has heightened attention to the use of research and evidence in education policy and school improvement over recent decades (Lingard & Sellar, 2014; Wieczoec et al., 2020; Wiseman, 2010). This paper addresses the following research questions: 1. How are research and evidence use conceptualized in the literature? What are the purposes, processes, and outcomes of their use in education? 2. What considerations are needed for impactful research and evidence use in education policymaking and school improvement practices? Using an interpretive analysis approach (Yanow, 2000), this paper analyzes documents from organizations involved in school improvement, examining language, conceptualizations, and stakeholder implications. Literature on research engagement, evidence-informed education, and global policy development processes is reviewed as well. Preliminary findings reveal the evolving role of organizations in promoting research and evidence-informed approaches. Key insights for systems and researchers include: 1. Conceptions of research engagement and evidence use: the need for definitional clarity, associated meaning making processes within and across systems, and the accessibility of this for stakeholders involved. 2. Systemic conditions and traditions: the varied and shared contextual influences and drivers of research engagement and evidence use, and the associated enablers and barriers. 3. Processes and experience of policy translation and enactment: the influence of actors, roles, policy translation and sensemaking processes, and the imagining of alternatives. 4. Established and emerging approaches to policy development and evaluation: the role of policy frameworks, role(s) of research and evidence use, and the related processes for maintaining or imagining new policy making and practice frameworks. Despite shared goals behind research and evidence-informed policymaking in education globally, much remains to be learned about systematically including such approaches in policymaking and school improvement practices (Mason, 2016; Pellegrini & Vivanet, 2020). This paper proposes a framework and considerations for research and evidence use, and potential alternative education policy frameworks, drawing on examples and empirical and conceptual development from around the world.

Cairney, P., 2016. The Politics of Evidence-based Policy Making. London/New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Lingard, B. & Sellar, S. (2014). Representing Your Country: Scotland, PISA and New Spatialities of Educational Governance. In, Scottish Educational Review, 46(1), 5-18. Mason, M. (2016). Is Thorough Implementation of Policy Change in Education Actually Possible? What Complexity Theory Tells Us About Initiating And Sustaining Change. European Journal of Education, 51(4). Pellegrini, M. & Vivanet, G. (2020). Evidence-Based Policies in Education: Initiatives and Challenges in Europe. ECNU Review of Education, 4(1), 25-45 Scanlon, D., MacPhail, A., & Calderón, A. (2023). A figurational viewpoint of the complexity of policy enactment: An opportunity for agonistic dialogue? The Curriculum Journal, 34, 265–283. Wieczorek, O., Münch, R., Brand, A., & Schwanhäuser, S. (2020). Governing the School by Transnational Networks. The OECD PISA Policy Advisor Network in the Global Field of Power. Swiss Journal of Sociology, 45(3), 447-466. Wiseman, A. W. (2010). The Uses of Evidence for Educational Policymaking: Global Contexts and International Trends. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 1-24. Yanow, D. (2000). Underlying assumptions of an interpretive approach: the importance of local knowledge. In Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis (pp. 1-26). SAGE Publications, Inc.,