Research syntheses have gained increasing importance in educational research as they systematically summarize and evaluate existing empirical evidence and are expected to inform evidence-oriented practice (Sutton et al., 2019). However, despite this expectation, it remains unclear to what extent research syntheses are actually capable of supporting the uptake, transfer and use of research knowledge in practical context (Gorard et al., 2020; Green et al., 2016). This uncertainty is particularly salient given longstanding findings which indicate that educational research in general is only selectively taken up by practitioners (e.g. Bauer & Koller, 2023). Reasons are manifolded and include individual characteristics, structural conditions in research and practice as well as insufficient practical relevance (e.g. Brühwiler & Leutwyler, 2020). Against this backdrop, it would be implausible to assume that research syntheses despite their integrative and summarising character are per se more likely to be used or reused than primary research findings.

As scientific products, research syntheses primarily follow the logics, standards, and objectives of the academic system and are not inherently aligned with the action-oriented logics of educational practice (Kerres et al., 2022; Knight, 2025; von Grünberg & Lange, 2025). Consequently, they may be difficult to access, interpret, and apply for practitioners, particularly when findings are complex, ambiguous, or require advanced methodological expertise (White, 2024; Voss et al., 2020). However, the limited use cannot be explained solely by deficits on the side of practitioners, but must also be understood in relation to how research syntheses are designed, communicated, and positioned as scientific artefacts (Knight, 2025).

This paper addresses the tension between scientific rigor, openness and practical relevance of research syntheses by examining the extent to which syntheses provide practice-oriented implications and which characteristics enhance their relevance, accessibility and usability for educational practitioners. Rather than assessing the impact of research syntheses on practice, the study focuses on design-related conditions that may enable or constrain their comprehension and use. It investigates content-related aspects as well as formal and procedural features that shape how research syntheses can be understood, reused, and translated into practice. Specifically, the paper addresses three research questions (1) which formal features (e.g. boxes, visual elements) are provided to improve comprehensibility for practitioners? (2) to what extent research syntheses address practical goals and practice-relevant questions and formulate actionable recommendations? and (3) whether and how practitioners are considered as addressees or actively involved in the production of research syntheses?

Empirically, the study draws on a sample of 120 research syntheses published between 2015 and 2024 that address the digital competences of young people (Authors, 2025) – an area of high relevance for educational practice in the context of ongoing digital transformation and education policy initiatives. These syntheses were systematically identified as part of an overview of reviews (Polanin et al., 2017) following established methodological standards (Page, 2021). Inclusion criteria compromised a clear syntheses methodology (e.g. systematic review, meta-analysis) and an explicit focus on digital competences of young learners in educational contexts. The material from the overview is re-analysed to answer the research questions using qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz, 2019; Schreier, 2012) along the dimensions of formal, content-related, and procedural features of practice relevance. This approach allows for a systematic and theory-informed examination of both manifest and latent features of research syntheses and is particularly suited for analysing formal and communicative characteristics of texts. The coding scheme was developed based on existing empirical literature on the use of research knowledge in education (Gorard et al., 2020). It comprises three main dimensions: (1) formal features (e.g., structure, summaries, visual elements, reporting conventions), (2) content-related features (e.g., practical goals, relevance claims, recommendations), and (3) procedural features (e.g., addressing of practitioners, stakeholder involvement, dissemination formats). Each dimension includes multiple subcategories with additional coding instructions. The development of the coding scheme followed an iterative process involving multiple independent coders. An initial version was tested on a subsample of research syntheses, first by three and subsequently by four independent coders, and intercoder agreement was calculated. Based on this pilot coding, categories were refined, definitions clarified, and overlaps reduced. Detailed coding guidelines were then developed to ensure transparency and replicability. The full coding is currently conducted by four trained coders using qualitative data analysis software (MAXQDA). To ensure analytical rigor, each coded document will be double-checked by a second coder. The methodological focus of the study is not on measuring the impact of research syntheses on practice, but on systematically analysing their design characteristics as a precondition for reuse.

At the time of submission, the full analysis is still ongoing. Preliminary findings indicate variation in how research syntheses are designed with regard to accessibility and practice orientation. Some syntheses include structured summaries, explicit relevance claims, or practice-oriented recommendations. Other syntheses remain strongly oriented towards academic audiences and provide little guidance for non-academic reuse, even in cases where the reported findings would allow for more concrete implications. From an open research perspective, this highlights the need to consider not only open access to publications, but also the communicative and procedural openness of research outputs. The paper contributes to discussions on the openness and reuse of research outputs in education. It argues that research syntheses should be understood as part of broader knowledge infrastructures and that their potential for reuse depends on design decisions made during their production. Recent conceptual work offers initial methodological approaches to addressing this challenge, for example by reorienting evidence syntheses towards practice-relevant questions and contextual conditions (Knight, 2025). An alternative strategy is to promote intermediary formats such as clearinghouse products or knowledge-brokering structures that translate syntheses and mediate between research and practice. Importantly, the study does not assess whether research syntheses are actually used successfully in educational practice. Investigating the design-related characteristics of research syntheses helps to clarify the possibilities and limits of research syntheses within broader knowledge transfer processes. In this sense, such characteristics are understood as necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for their potential use. Rather than offering normative prescriptions, the study provides empirically informed criteria that can support future discussions on how research syntheses may be designed, complemented, or embedded in open knowledge ecosystems. In doing so, it contributes to a more differentiated understanding of the role of research syntheses in evidence-informed and open educational research.

Bauer, J., & Kollar, I. (2023). (Wie) kann die Nutzung bildungswissenschaftlicher Evidenz Lehren und Lernen verbessern? Thesen und Fragen zur Diskussion um evidenzorientiertes Denken und Handeln von Lehrkräften. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 51(1), 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-023-00166-1 Brühwiler, C., & Leutwyler, B. (2020). Praxisrelevanz von Forschung als gemeinsame Aufgabe von Wissenschaft und Praxis: Entwurf eines Angebots-Nutzungs-Modells. Beiträge zur Lehrerinnen und Lehrerbildung, 38(1), S. 21-36. https:///doi.org/10.25656/01:21772 Gorard, S., See, B. H., & Siddiqui, N. (2020). What is the evidence on the best way to get evidence into use in education? Review of Education, 8(2), 570–610. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3200 Green, C., Taylor, C., Buckley, S., & Hean S. (2016). Beyond synthesis: augmenting systematic review procedures with practical principles to optimise impact and uptake in educational policy and practice. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 39(3), 329-344, https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2016.1146668 Kerres, M., Sander, P., & Waffner, B. (2022). Zum Zusammenwirken von Bildungsforschung und Bildungspraxis: Gestaltungsorientierte Bildungsforschung als Ko-Konstruktion. Bildungsforschung, 2. https://doi.org/10.25539/bildungsforschun.v0i2.935 Knight, S. (2025). Identifying and designing evidence-informed practice, in practice: The case for Pragmatic Evidence Synthesis Matrices (PESM). International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251318590 Kuckartz, U. (2019). Qualitative text analysis: A systematic approach. In G. Kaiser &. N. Presmeg (Eds.), Compendium for Early Career Researchers in Mathematics Education (pp. 181–198). Springer Open. Authors (2025) Page, M. J., et al. 2021. “The PRISMA 2020 Statement.” BMJ 372: n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 Polanin, J. R., Maynard, B. R., & Dell, N. A. (2017). Overviews in Education Research: A Systematic Review and Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 172–203. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316631117 Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage. Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276 von Grünberg, H.-H., & Lange, L. (2025). On the divergence of function and service: Knowledge and technology transfer understood as the service processes of the science system. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 16(3), 881-900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-025-02646-4 Voss, T., Zeeb, H., Dehmel, A., & Fauth, B. (2020). Forschungsmethoden in der Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung. In C. Cramer, J. König, M. Rothland, & S. Blömeke (Eds.), Handbuch Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung (pp. 667–672). Klinkhardt. https://doi.org/10.35468/hblb2020-080 White, H. (2020). The global evidence architecture in health and education: A comparative scorecard. In Getting Evidence into Education (1st ed., pp. 20-33). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429290343-3