Within this article, the authors explore the disconnect between research production, dissemination, and utilization, particularly within the field of educational leadership in the United States. Their exploration begins with an examination of the macro-level contexts within which such activities currently take place. They then turn to an examination of the relative value placed on educational research and its utilization as well as the threats that emerge when high-quality research is not (perceived as) accessible or aligned with perceived needs. Through their explorations, the authors identify significant challenges to research utilization, challenges they argue can be understood, addressed, and overcome.
AlstonJ. (2005). Tempered radicals and servant leaders: Black females persevering in the superintendency. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 675-688.
2.
BakerR.GillA. J.CassellJ. (2008). Reactive redundancy and listener comprehension in direction-giving. In Proceedings of the 9th SIGDIAL Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 37-45). Columbus, OH: SIGDIAL.
3.
BallD. L.ForzaniF. M. (2007). What makes education research “educational”?Educational Researcher, 36, 529-540.
4.
BeckerJ. (2011, Summer). Scholar 2.0: Public intellectualism meets the open web. UCEA Review, 52(2), 17-19.
5.
Budget Control Act, Pub. L. No. 112–25, S. 365 (2011).
6.
CooperA.LevinB.CampbellC. (2009). The growing (but still limited) importance of evidence in education policy and practice. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 159-171.
7.
CorwinR. G.Seashore LouisK. (1982). Organizational barriers to the utilization of research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 623-664.
8.
CousinsJ. B.LeithwoodK. A. (1986). Current empirical research on evaluation utilization. Review of Educational Research, 56, 331-364.
9.
Darling-HammondL.MeyersonD.LaPointeM.OrrM. T. (2007). Preparing leaders for a changing world. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
10.
Darling-HammondL.MeyersonD.LaPointeM. M.OrrM. T. (2009). Preparing principals for a changing world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11.
DaviesP. (2000). The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education, 26, 365-378.
12.
FarkasS.JohnsonJ.DuffettA.FolenoT. (2001). Trying to stay ahead of the game: Superintendents and principals talk about school leadership. New York, NY: Public Agenda.
13.
GilbertN. (1997). Advocacy research and social policy. Crime and Justice, 22, 101-148.
14.
HakimC. (1996). The sexual division of labour and women’s heterogeneity. British Journal of Sociology, 47, 178-189.
15.
HaleE. L.MoormanH. N. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national perspective on policy and program innovations. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
16.
HallingerP.HeckR. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 329-351.
17.
HonigM. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 65-87.
18.
HubermanM. (1990). Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 363-391.
19.
JacksonB. L.KelleyC. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 192-212.
20.
KaestleC. F. (1993). The awful reputation of education research. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 23-31.
21.
KeldermanE. (2012a, January12). The rapidly rising cost of higher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(21), p. A1.
LeithwoodK.JantziD. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 496-528.
25.
LeithwoodK.RiehlC. (2005). What we know about successful school leadership. In FirestoneW.RiehlC. (Eds.), A new agenda: Directions for research on educational leadership (pp. 22-47). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
26.
LeithwoodK.Seashore LouisK.AndersonS.WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: Learning from leading project. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
27.
LevinB. (2011). Mobilising research knowledge in education. London Review of Education, 9, 15-26.
LindblomC. E.CohenD. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30.
MarshJ.PaneJ.HamiltonL. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education: Evidence from recent RAND research. Washington, DC: RAND Corporation.
31.
McCarthyM. (1990). University-based policy centers: New actors in the education policy arena. Educational Researcher, 19(8), 25-29.
32.
McDonnellL. (1988). Can education research speak to state policy?Theory Into Practice, 27, 91-97.
33.
MeyersonD. (2001). Radical change, the quiet way. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 92-100.
34.
MitchellD. (1981). Social science utilization in state legislatures. Review of Research in Education, 9, 257-308.
35.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1999). Principals of change: What principals need to lead schools to excellence. Washington, DC: Author.
NelsonS. R.LefflerJ. C.HansenB. A. (2009). Toward a research agenda for understanding and improving the use of research evidence. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
38.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110 (2002).
39.
NutleyS. M.WalterI.DaviesH. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol, England: The Policy Press.
OrrM. T.O’DohertyA. (2012). UCEA curriculum mapping guide. Charlottesville, VA: University Council for Educational Administration.
42.
OrrM. T.PounderD. G. (2010). Teaching and preparing school leaders. In ConleyS.CooperB. S. (Eds.), Finding, preparing, and supporting school leaders: Critical issues, useful solutions (pp. 11-40). Lanham, MD: Rowman Littlefield.
43.
OrrM. T.YoungM. D.RorrerA. K. (2010). UCEA evaluation research planner. Austin, TX: University Council for Educational Administration.
44.
RobinsonV. M. J.LloydC. A.RoweK. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 635-674.
45.
RorrerA.SkrlaL.ScheurichJ. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 307-358.
46.
RynesS.BartunekJ. M.DaftR. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 340-355.
47.
SkrlaL.ScheurichJ. J.JohnsonJ. F. (2000). Equity-driven achievement focused school districts: A report on systemic school success in four Texas School districts serving diverse student populations. Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Research Center.
48.
SlavinR. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15-21.
49.
SusawadP. (2007). Knowledge translation: Introduction to models, strategies and measures. Available from the http://www.ncddr.org/
50.
TsengV. (2010). Learning about the use of research to inform evidence-based policy and practice: Early lessons and future directions (William T. Grant Foundation 2009 Annual Report). New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation.
Wallace Foundation. (2006). Leadership for learning: Making the connections among state, district, and school policies and practices. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
55.
WeissC. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426-431.
YoungM. D.CrowG.MurphyJ.OgawaR. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research on the education of school leaders. New York, NY: Routledge.
59.
YoungM. D.OrrM. T.SpringelM. (2011). Prominent, policy influential, but not peer-reviewed: Advocacy research at work. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
