This paper takes a starting point in policy expectations, in Norway and internationally, that teachers and student teachers to a greater extent are to make use of research-based knowledge and student data, and to increasingly be accountable for students’ learning outcomes. Teachers and student teachers are also increasingly expected to be able to discuss their knowledge and their practice publicly. Thereby, teachers’ may not only be able to obtain a more relevant knowledge base, but also to strengthen their trust and legitimacy. It can also be argued that decreased autonomy and professionalism can be the result, particularly of an increased emphasis on more strict evidence-based knowledge.

The attention to research and evidence implies that teachers have increasingly more knowledge sources to deal with. Previous studies have to a limited extent investigated how teachers talk about the relevance of research, and have rather been on the lack of emphasis on scientific knowledge. This paper investigates the meaning-making that occur among teachers, how tensions are negotiated, and how teachers seek to legitimize practice on these grounds. The following research questions are pursued:

• How do teachers give meaning to forms of scientific knowledge, and how is it negotiated in terms of other knowledge sources?
• Can such sources of knowledge contribute to broaden teachers' knowledge base or will it rather blur it? How can it possibly be taken up and used?
• In what ways do teachers regard expectations and demands for a more research-based practice as relevant for professional work?

Professionals bring their expert knowledge to society's disposal, in exchange for the right to regulate their own activity (Chambliss, 1977). However, this ‘right’ to autonomy only applies as long as the professionals act in ways that make no doubts that their activities are of sufficient quality and relevance.  This could be done using both on research-based and experience-based knowledge. Teachers may have to unify the analytical and research-based with the normative and experience-based (Bulterman-Bos 2008). We will examine how these forms of knowledge are combined and what concepts of knowledge that emerge.

In our investigations we distinguish between teachers’ reflective practice on two levels. First-level reflective practice refers to what Dewey (1933) outlines as the reflection needed to solve concrete problems through the application of thought. The second-level reflection is related to the former, implying that the teacher also normatively problematizes first-level thinking by questioning the premises and standards involved in the practical solution (Clark 2011). This  second-level  reflection can be experience-based and research-based, implying that these forms of knowledge are not dichotomous but rather multifaceted concepts that may complement each other; however, on the basis of different epistemological assumptions (Hammersley, 2007). This is so because research-based knowledge can be used to serve practice in a technical way. Or it may have an enlightening meaning in bringing alternative perspectives to the situation, increasing the critical, reflective evaluation of practice. The above-mentioned concepts are analytical distinctions that in practice may be combined in various ways. Whether they are so or not is an empirical matter.

Bulterman-Bos, J.A. (2008): Relevance in educational research: Will a clinical approach make education research more relevant for practice? Educational Researcher, 37 (7), pp. 412-420. Chambliss, W.J. (1977). Motsättning och konflikt. En introduktion till sociologin [Opposition and Conflict: An introduction to sociology]. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand. Clark, C. (2011). Education(al) research, Educational Policy-Making and Practice. In: Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 45, No 1. Blackwell Publishing, pp. 37-57. Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. Boston, M.A., D.C.: Health and Co. Hammersley, M. (2007) (ed.). Educational Research and Evidence-Based Practice. London: SAGE Publications. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews : learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage. Winther Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (1999). Diskursanalyse som teori og metode. Frederiksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag Samfundslitteratur.