The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

World-wide barriers and enablers to achieving evidence-informed practice in education: what can be learnt from Spain, England, the United States, and Germany?

World-wide barriers and enablers to achieving evidence-informed practice in education: what can be learnt from Spain, England, the United States, and Germany?
World-wide barriers and enablers to achieving evidence-informed practice in education: what can be learnt from Spain, England, the United States, and Germany?
A global push exists to bolster the connections between research and practice in education. However, fostering evidence-informed practice (EIP) has proven challenging. Indeed, this ‘problem’ requires simultaneously attending to multiple aspects/levels of education systems, and to the contexts within which they reside. As such, comparative analyses using systems approaches hold potential for achieving context-specific insights regarding how to foster EIP. However, such analyses have been scarce, and what research does exist has generally been limited relative to methods and theory. Given this, the present study executes and describes/reflects upon a novel approach for analysing and comparing EIP in/across systems. In this study, educators’ evidence use patterns are described and comparatively analysed, using a sample of four regions within high-income national settings: Catalonia (Spain), England (UK), Massachusetts (USA), and Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany). This study employs a dual analytical frame (a cohesion/regulation matrix and institutional theory) to supply a methodological lens through which to understand EIP within and across these four systems. Together, this approach not only provides a way of accounting for the macro-level differences between contexts, it also enables a comparison of meso-level and micro-level factors (via institutional theory) that might be common and distinct across systems. This study’s findings reveal substantial diversity in the extent and nature of evidence use between systems, which in turn patterned according to distinctive cultural, systemic, and institutional features. Considering these findings, this study’s discussion advances some provisional insights and reflections regarding actual and potential EIP in education. For example, variability relative to the types/extents of accountability pressures, and how this affected educators’ data and evidence use, enabled a discussion holding relevance for policymakers. We also share process-related insights—i.e., describing the advances and challenges we experienced while undertaking this new approach. These points hold relevance for colleagues wishing to emulate and improve upon the efforts described herein, which we argue are applicable both in and beyond the education sector. Relative to education, these approaches can be applied and improved with an eye toward developing context-specific (vs. one-size-fits-all) packages for fostering EIP and, ultimately, achieving high quality and progressively improving schools/systems.
2662-9992
Malin, Joel R.
af109798-fe38-4804-81e4-f9b36c87051d
Brown, Chris
0a08cd63-080d-49a7-8e4f-1c11fcdc1e5d
Ion, Georgeta
516c8a06-1c26-4902-a056-b5adf206be01
van Ackeren, Isabell
cb6c516b-3f08-47f0-b5a4-763567fac0b2
Bremm, Nina
b743554d-af76-438c-9ea6-1727ed001e08
Luzmore, Ruth
b898f63b-2b3a-4134-8cdc-6fe0e2bc9af9
Flood, Jane
4e966928-3355-4ef9-a07c-3912714c7762
Rind, Gul Muhammad
d7f915d6-cf50-4008-9133-4517548557e6
Malin, Joel R.
af109798-fe38-4804-81e4-f9b36c87051d
Brown, Chris
0a08cd63-080d-49a7-8e4f-1c11fcdc1e5d
Ion, Georgeta
516c8a06-1c26-4902-a056-b5adf206be01
van Ackeren, Isabell
cb6c516b-3f08-47f0-b5a4-763567fac0b2
Bremm, Nina
b743554d-af76-438c-9ea6-1727ed001e08
Luzmore, Ruth
b898f63b-2b3a-4134-8cdc-6fe0e2bc9af9
Flood, Jane
4e966928-3355-4ef9-a07c-3912714c7762
Rind, Gul Muhammad
d7f915d6-cf50-4008-9133-4517548557e6

Malin, Joel R., Brown, Chris, Ion, Georgeta, van Ackeren, Isabell, Bremm, Nina, Luzmore, Ruth, Flood, Jane and Rind, Gul Muhammad (2020) World-wide barriers and enablers to achieving evidence-informed practice in education: what can be learnt from Spain, England, the United States, and Germany? Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7, [99]. (doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00587-8).

Record type: Article

Abstract

A global push exists to bolster the connections between research and practice in education. However, fostering evidence-informed practice (EIP) has proven challenging. Indeed, this ‘problem’ requires simultaneously attending to multiple aspects/levels of education systems, and to the contexts within which they reside. As such, comparative analyses using systems approaches hold potential for achieving context-specific insights regarding how to foster EIP. However, such analyses have been scarce, and what research does exist has generally been limited relative to methods and theory. Given this, the present study executes and describes/reflects upon a novel approach for analysing and comparing EIP in/across systems. In this study, educators’ evidence use patterns are described and comparatively analysed, using a sample of four regions within high-income national settings: Catalonia (Spain), England (UK), Massachusetts (USA), and Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany). This study employs a dual analytical frame (a cohesion/regulation matrix and institutional theory) to supply a methodological lens through which to understand EIP within and across these four systems. Together, this approach not only provides a way of accounting for the macro-level differences between contexts, it also enables a comparison of meso-level and micro-level factors (via institutional theory) that might be common and distinct across systems. This study’s findings reveal substantial diversity in the extent and nature of evidence use between systems, which in turn patterned according to distinctive cultural, systemic, and institutional features. Considering these findings, this study’s discussion advances some provisional insights and reflections regarding actual and potential EIP in education. For example, variability relative to the types/extents of accountability pressures, and how this affected educators’ data and evidence use, enabled a discussion holding relevance for policymakers. We also share process-related insights—i.e., describing the advances and challenges we experienced while undertaking this new approach. These points hold relevance for colleagues wishing to emulate and improve upon the efforts described herein, which we argue are applicable both in and beyond the education sector. Relative to education, these approaches can be applied and improved with an eye toward developing context-specific (vs. one-size-fits-all) packages for fostering EIP and, ultimately, achieving high quality and progressively improving schools/systems.

Text
s41599-020-00587-8 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (651kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 26 August 2020
Published date: 17 September 2020

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 492491
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/492491
ISSN: 2662-9992
PURE UUID: 407c904f-3403-446b-a2b5-3eb2b68e3720
ORCID for Ruth Luzmore: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-2454-9407

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 30 Jul 2024 16:32
Last modified: 31 Jul 2024 02:10

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Joel R. Malin
Author: Chris Brown
Author: Georgeta Ion
Author: Isabell van Ackeren
Author: Nina Bremm
Author: Ruth Luzmore ORCID iD
Author: Jane Flood
Author: Gul Muhammad Rind

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×