Despite two decades of global emphasis on the Use of Research Evidence (URE) to improve educational practice, international assessments indicate a decline in student outcomes across many systems, notwithstanding continuous reform efforts (OECD, 2023a; Sahlberg, 2023). This discrepancy suggests that the prevailing focus on standardized, instrumental applications of evidence may be less effective than more nuanced, conceptual engagement. While interest in URE has expanded significantly across various sectors (Rickinson et al., 2023), there remains a pressing need to further conceptualize how research is actually integrated within the school environment and to identify the mechanisms that govern its use.

This systematic review addresses that gap by providing a comprehensive overview of how research use in schools is framed and described in recent empirical literature. By identifying the primary barriers and enablers of URE, the study aims to examine how these empirical findings align with a consolidated multi-level framework. In doing so, it seeks to move beyond the symbolic appropriation of evidence toward a more sophisticated understanding of research use that can foster meaningful educational impact.

Previous reviews and reports have established a substantial cumulative knowledge base for URE. Following the seminal debates of the late 1990s (Hargreaves, 1996, 1997; Hammersley, 1997, 2000), Hemsley-Brown and Sharp (2003b) argued that the cultural shifts necessary to support URE must originate in policy. While subsequent strategies and the rise of "What Works" clearinghouses sought to address this (Révai, 2022), research use remained scarce by the early 2010s. This led Dagenais et al. (2012b) and later Finnigan (2021) to call for clearer conceptualization and more empirical rigor—calls that have been answered by recent large-scale projects across the US, Australia, UK, and Norway (Farley-Ripple et al., 2022; Godfrey & Brown, 2019; Mausethagen et al., 2023; Rickinson et al., 2023).

To integrate this evolving knowledge base, this review employs a framework synthesis to map emerging themes. We developed an initial consolidated framework anchored in the QURE framework (Rickinson et al., 2020), while incorporating the Depth of Use model (Farley-Ripple et al., 2018), the research-engaged school ecosystem (Godfrey & Brown, 2019), research-literacy sensitivities (Eriksen, 2022), and perspectives on internal and external complexity (Kvernbekk, 2016; Perry & Morris, 2023). These frameworks range in scope from individual professional virtues to broad systemic conditions; by consolidating them, this review aims to capture the multi-level nature of URE and address the fragmentation identified in previous research.

To get a thorough and updated overview of various conceptualizations and components used in international research on URE, this systematic review addresses the following research questions:

• How is use of research evidence framed and described in empirical research on use of research in schools?
  • What components of research use emerge in empirical research?
  • What relations among these components are identified?
• Which barriers and enablers of research use in schools are described in extant empirical research?

An initial a priori framework based on a preliminary literature review was developed to guide this systematic review. In adherence to principles of transparency and rigor, the study protocol was pre-registered in the Open Science Framework, and the process strictly follows PRISMA reporting guidelines. The formal literature search was executed in January 2025 across three core databases: Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC. This search employed a strategy calibrated for both sensitivity and specificity, utilizing a broad range of terms related to the use of research evidence (URE) within K-12 educational settings. Eligibility criteria were established a priori to ensure methodological consistency. Drawing upon Finnigan’s (2021) conceptualization, "use" was operationalized as the active engagement with research evidence to inform or improve professional practice. Consequently, inclusion was limited to empirical, peer-reviewed journal articles in English that specifically focused on teachers or school leaders in compulsory education. Studies describing only the passive implementation of pre-packaged programs were excluded unless they detailed practitioners’ active engagement with the underlying evidence. To minimize bias, study eligibility was determined through a two-stage, double-blind screening process conducted within EPPI-Reviewer software, with any discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. The analytical methodology employed is framework synthesis, which facilitates the iterative integration of diverse empirical findings with established theoretical constructs. The primary analytical lens is the a priori framework, a consolidated framework grounded in the QURE framework (Rickinson et al., 2022), further enriched by the Depth of Use framework (Farley-Ripple et al., 2018) to detail practitioner activities and by an "ecosystem" model (Godfrey & Brown, 2019) to capture organizational and contextual subthemes. This multi-level approach allows the synthesis to address complexity, ranging from individual professional practices to broader systemic influences. Data extraction and analysis proceeded in distinct, sequential phases. First, administrative and descriptive characteristics of all included studies were mapped in Excel to provide an overview of the field. Subsequently, data were extracted and coded into NVivo 15 inductively, before they were systematically mapped onto the deductive structure of the QURE framework. Finally, the methodological quality of every included study was critically appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) through a double-blind process.

This review screened 23,300 articles, selecting 109 eligible studies from 28 countries (primarily the UK and US). Publication on research use in schools has grown significantly since 2000. Despite varying study quality, a clear consensus identified four cross-cutting mechanisms governing how research is integrated: 1. Trust: Acts as a foundational regulator. High-stakes accountability often breeds "institutional distrust," reducing research to a compliance tool, while high-trust environments enable professional agency. 2. Skills Development: A systemic responsibility. Weak leadership capacity leads to superficial use, whereas robust training empowers meaningful integration. 3. Sustainable Structures: Govern the practical possibility of use through allocated time and working conditions that enable long-term engagement beyond short-term projects. 4. Relationships: Provide the essential social infrastructure. Bridging the research-practice gap requires mutual respect, positioning research as a "third voice" alongside professional experience and contextual knowledge. These mechanisms collectively suggest a needed shift from "implementation" to "integration." Moving beyond adopting pre-packaged evidence—which often yields symbolic use—systems must prioritize professional discretion, allowing practitioners to reconcile research with practical wisdom. Currently, quality use, characterized by thoughtful engagement and ethical, collaborative inquiry, is scarce in the included studies. Most research use remains sporadic, superficial, and symbolic. By consolidating diverse frameworks, this review provides a coherent synthesis, offering a map for teachers and leaders to cultivate a sustainable research culture. The identified mechanisms illustrate how to progress from superficial use to authentic, embedded integration, ultimately making a more meaningful difference in classrooms.

Dagenais, C., Lysenko, L., Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Ramde, J., & Janosz, M. (2012). Use of research-based information by school practitioners and determinants of use: A review of empirical research. Evidence & Policy, 8(3), 285–309. Eriksen, A. (2022). The research literacy of professionals: Reconciling evidence-based practice and practical wisdom. Professions and Professionalism, 12(3), Article 3. Farley-Ripple, E., May, H., Karpyn, A., Tilley, K., & McDonough, K. (2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework. Educational Researcher, 47(4), 235–245. Farley-Ripple, E. N., Tilley, K., Mead, H., Van Horne, S., & Agboh, D. (2022). How is evidence use enacted in schools? A mixed methods multiple case study of “deep-use” schools. The Center for Research Use in Education (CRUE) and the Center for Research Use in Education and Social Policy (CRESP), University of Delaware. Godfrey, D., & Brown, C. (2019). An eco-system for research engaged schools: Reforming education through research. Routledge. Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., Vedel, I., & Pluye, P. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291. Kvernbekk, T. (2016). Evidence-based practice in education: Functions of evidence and causal presuppositions. Routledge. Mausethagen, S., Bøyum, S., Caspersen, J., Prøitz, T. S., & Thue, F. W. (Eds.). (2023). En forskningsbasert skole? Universitetsforlaget. Révai, N. (2022). The changing landscape of research use in education. In Who Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice? OECD Publishing. Rickinson, M., Cirkony, C., Walsh, L., Gleeson, J., Cutler, B., & Salisbury, M. (2022). A framework for understanding the quality of evidence use in education. Educational Research, 64(2), 133–158. Rickinson, M., Walsh, L., Gleeson, J., Cutler, B., Cirkony, C., & Salisbury, M. (2023). Understanding the quality use of research evidence in education: What it means to use research well. Routledge. Sahlberg, P. (2023). Trends in global education reform since the 1990s: Looking for the right way. International Journal of Educational Development, 98, 102748.