Indirect routes to strengthening research-practice connections, through intermediaries or knowledge brokers, have received little emphasis in discussions of education research and practice. Joel Malin compares direct and indirect approaches to making these connections and considers how indirect actors are situated in the education system and what roles and functions they perform. He describes some of the well-known intermediaries, assesses the effects of their efforts, and offers ideas for moving forward.
BrownS.AllenA. (2021). The interpersonal side of research-practice partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 102 (7), 20–25.
2.
BurnsT.SchullerT. (2007). Evidence in education: Linking research and policy. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
3.
BushJ. (2017, April27). Am I an evidence broker? Reflections on a trip to North America. Evidence for Learning.
4.
CoburnC.E.PenuelW.R.GeilK.E. (2013). Research-practice partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. William T. Grant Foundation.
5.
ContandriopoulosD.LemireM.DenisJ.-L.TremblayE. (2010). Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: A narrative systematic review of the literature. Milbank Quarterly, 88, 444–483.
6.
CooperA. (2014). Knowledge mobilisation in education across Canada: A cross-case analysis of 44 research brokering organisations. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate & Practice, 10 (1), 29–59.
7.
CordingleyP. (2008). Research and evidence-informed practice: Focusing on practice and practitioners. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38 (1), 37–52.
8.
Editors (2021, Spring). A letter from the editors. Harvard Educational Review.
9.
FandosN.WinesM. (2021, March15). For voting rights advocates, a ‘once in a generation moment’ looms. The New York Times.
10.
Farley-RippleE.N. (2021). A new day for education research and practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 102 (7), 8–13.
11.
Farley-RippleE.GrajedaS. (2020). Avenues of influence: An exploration of school-based practitioners as knowledge brokers and mobilizers. In MalinJ.R.BrownC. (Eds.), The role of knowledge brokers in education (pp. 65–89). Routledge.
12.
Farley-RippleE.MayH.KarpynA.TilleyK.McDonoughK. (2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework. Educational Researcher, 47 (4), 235–245.
13.
Farley-RippleE.TilleyK.TiseJ. (2017, April). Brokerage and the research-practice gap: A theoretical and empirical examination. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.
14.
FarrellC.C.DavidsonK.L.Repko-ErwinM.PenuelW.R.QuantzM.WongH.…BrinkZ. (2018). A descriptive study of the IES researcher-practitioner partnerships in education research program: Final report (Technical Report No. 3). National Center for Research in Policy and Practice.
HewittT.GoupilS. (2020). Imagining the future of knowledge mobilization: Perspectives from UNESCO Chairs. Canadian Commission for UNESCO.
17.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Allen Lane.
18.
Kingdon (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Longman.
19.
LevinB. (2013). To know is not enough: Research knowledge and its use. Review of Education, 1 (1), 2–31.
20.
LubienskiC.MalinJ.R. (2020). Moving the goalposts: the evolution of voucher advocacy in framing research findings. Journal of Education Policy, 1–21.
21.
MalinJ.R. (2020). Mediated, evidence-informed practice as impact. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 16 (8), 1–17.
22.
MalinJ.BrownC. (Eds.). (2020). The role of knowledge brokers in education: Connecting the dots between research and practice. Routledge.
23.
MalinJ.R.BrownCTrubçeacA. (2018). Going for broke: A multiple case study of brokerage in education. AERA Open, 4 (2), 1–14.
24.
MalinJ.R.LubienskiC. (in press). Information pollution in an age of populist politics. Education Policy Analysis Archives.
25.
MalinJ.R.ParalkarV. (2017). Educational knowledge brokerage and mobilization: The Marshall Memo case. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 12 (7), 1–20.
26.
NealZ.P.NealJ.W.LawlorJ.A.MillsK.J. (2015). Small worlds or worlds apart?Using network theory to understand the research-practice gap. Psychosocial Intervention, 24 (3), 177–184.
27.
PrestonT. (2021). A look back: Research meets practice, again and again, in Kappan. Phi Delta Kappan, 102 (7), 5–7.
28.
SinatraG.M.JacobsonN.G. (2020). Zombie concepts in education: Why they won’t die and why you can’t kill them. In KendeouP.RobinsonD.McRuddenM.T. (Eds.), Misinformation and fake news in education (pp. 7–28). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
29.
Van BavelJ.J.HarrisE.A.PärnametsP.RathjeS.DoellK.C.TuckerJ.A. (2021). Political psychology in the digital (mis)information age: A model of news belief and sharing. Social Issues and Policy Review, 15 (1), 84–113.
30.
WellsA.S.ParksS.CabralL.Cordova-CoboD.KeenerA. (2019, November26). Children left behind: Turning education research into film. Phi Delta Kappan.
31.
WelshR.O. (2021). Assessing the quality of education research through its relevance to practice: An integrative review of research-practice partnerships. Review of Research in Education, 45 (1), 170–194.
