This article argues that because the U.S. dissemination system in education is based on a
research-driven rather than a user-focused model, the system has frequently seemed unresponsive to organizational improvement needs that have arisen from the field. Development of this
bias has been exacerbated by political, organizational, and programmatic thrusts in federal
agencies. In contrast, dissemination systems in the Netherlands and Denmark have achieved a
different balance of support for locally and centrally initiated improvements. An examination of
systems in other countries can provide useful models for adapting the U.S. system to current
needs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Corwin, R., & Louis, K.S. (1982). Organizational barriers to the utilization of research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 623-640.
2.
Dentler, R., Louis, K.S., Kell, D., Corwin, R., & Sieber, S. (1980). General purpose dissemination assistance: Technical report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates .
3.
de Ponti, N., & Willems, J. (1989). Dissemination in the local situation: The case of regional and local support. In R. van den Berg, U. Hameyer, & K. Stokking (Eds.), Dissemination reconsidered: The demands of implementation (pp. 143-162). Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
4.
House, E. (1981). Three perspectives on innovation: Technological, political and cultural. In R. Lehming & M. Kane (Ed.), Improving schools: Using what we know (pp. 17-41). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5.
Knott, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1980). If dissemination is the solution what is the problem?Knowledge: Creation, Diffuscon, Utilization, 1, 537-578.
6.
Kollen, E. (1989). The Dutch educational support system and policy (an introduction. In R. van den Berg, U. Hameyer, & K. Stokking (Eds.), Dissemination reconsidered: The demands of implementation (pp. 99-108). Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
7.
Louis, K.S., Bodstrom, L., & Teichler, U. (1990). Review of the Dutch educational system. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development .
8.
Louis, K.S., & Dentler, R. (1988). Knowledge use and school improvement. Curriculum Inquiry, 18, 32-62.
9.
Louis, K. S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (Eds.). (1990). Supporting school improvement: A comparative perspective. Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
10.
Louis, K.S., & Simsek, H. (1991, October). Paradigm change and organizational learning: Implications for school restructuring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration , Baltimore, MD.
11.
Miedma, R., & van Velzen, B. (1989). Schools in development: The case for national support. In R. van den Berg, U. Hameyer, & K. Stokking (Eds.), Dissemination reconsidered: The demands of implementation (pp. 129-142). Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
12.
Miles, M.B. (1978). Linkage in a new key: The DTA experience. Chicago: Center for New Schools.
13.
Olsen, T.P., & Anderson, H. (1990). Responsiveness, cooperation and development: A Danish school improvement model. In K. S. Louis & S. Loucks-Horsley (Eds.), Dissemination reconsidered: The demands of implementation (pp. 132-155). Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
14.
Sieber, S., Louis, K.S., & Metzger, L. (1972). The use of educational knowledge. New York: Columbia University, Bureau of Applied Social Research.
15.
Sproull, L., Weiner, S., & Wolff, S. (1978). Organizing an anarchy. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
16.
van den Berg, R., Hameyer, U., & Stokking, K. (1989). Dissemination reconsidered: The demands of implementation . Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
17.
van den Berg, R., & van Wijlijk, W. (1990). Supporting school improvement: The Dutch case. In K. S. Louis & S. Loucks-Horsley (Eds.), Supporting school improvement: A comparative perspective (pp. 185-198). Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
18.
van Velzen, W., Miles, M. , Ekholm, M., Hameyer, U. & Robin, D. (Eds.). (1985). Making school improvement work. Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
