Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This chapter calls for researchers to reconceptualize research quality from the perspective of its expected use, attending to power dynamics that influence how knowledge is defined, constructed, and validated through the research enterprise. Addressing these concerns when designing and conducting education research can yield more useful research evidence for building more equitable education systems. Anchored in scholarship on research utilization and methodological critiques, the chapter introduces a research quality framework that integrates relevance and rigor through five key dimensions of Research Worth Using: (1) relevance of question: alignment of research topics to practical priorities; (2) theoretical credibility: explanatory strength and coherence of principles investigated; (3) methodological credibility: internal and external credibility of study design and execution; (4) evidentiary credibility: robustness and consistency of cumulative evidence; and (5) relevance of answers: justification for practical application. This framework simultaneously uplifts the voices and needs of policymakers, practitioners, and community members, while elevating standards for excellence in education research. We call attention to the myriad ways in which the quality of evidence generated can be strengthened, before describing implications for curating and using research. We conclude by offering suggestions for applying and further developing the framework.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adelman

(1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research, 1(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965079930010102

Alemi

Moore

Headrick

Neuhauser

Hekelman

Kizys

(1998). Rapid improvement teams. Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, 24(3), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1070-3241(16)30366-2

Alexander

P. A.

(2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352

Alwan

L. C.

Roberts

H. V.

(1988). Time-series modeling for statistical process control. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 6(1), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1988.10509640

American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Education Researcher, 35(6), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035006033

American Educational Research Association. (2009). Standards for reporting on humanities-oriented research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 38(6), 481–486. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09341833

Amrhein

Greenland

McShane

(2019). Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature, 567, 305–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9

Anderson

Shattuck

(2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813

Arce-Trigatti

Chukhray

Turley

R. N. L.

(2018). Research–practice partnerships in education. In Schneider

(Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education in the 21st century (pp. 561–579). Springer.

10.

Barnett

S. M.

Ceci

S. J.

(2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612

11.

Barrett

S. M.

(2004). Implementation studies: Time for a revival? Personal reflections on 20 years of implementation studies. Public Administration, 82(2), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2004.00393.x

12.

Basbøll

(July 30, 2018). We need our scientists to build models that frame our policies, not to tell stories that shape them. LSE (London School of Economics) Impact Blog. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/07/30/we-need-our-scientists-to-build-models-that-frame-our-policies-not-to-tell-stories-that-shape-them/

13.

Bayes

(1763). An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. By the Late Rev. Mr. Bayes, F.R.S. Communicated by Mr. Price, in a Letter to John Canton, A.M.F.R.S. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 53, 370–418. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1763.0053

14.

Bennett

Provost

(2015). What’s your theory? Quality Progress, 48(7), 36–43.

15.

Benneyan

J. C.

Lloyd

R. C.

Plsek

P. E.

(2003). Statistical process control as a tool for research and healthcare improvement. BMJ Quality & Safety, 12(6), 458–464. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.12.6.458

16.

Bergeron

P.-J.

Rivard

(2017). How to engage in pseudoscience with real data: A criticism of John Hattie’s arguments in visible learning from the perspective of a statistician. McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de l’éducation de McGill, 52(1), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.7202/1040816ar

17.

Berman

McLaughlin

M. W.

(1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 8. Implementing and sustaining innovations. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R1589z8.html

18.

Bishop

R. S.

(1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. Perspectives, 6(3), ix–xi.

19.

Box

G. E. P.

Jenkins

(1970). Time series analysis, forecasting and control. Holden-Day.

20.

Box

G. E. P.

Tiao

G. C.

(1973). Bayesian inference in statistical analysis. Addison-Wesley.

21.

Brick

Freeman

(2019). Communicating evidence for policy makers in icons and tables: What works? Preprint. University of Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ujsxn

22.

Brown

Hare

(2002). Rapid cycle improvement: Controlling change. Journal of the Arkansas Medical Society, 98(10), 2–3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12868134

23.

Bryk

A. S.

(2017, March 27). Redressing inequities: An aspiration in search of a method. Speech presented at Fourth Annual Carnegie Foundation Summit on Improvement in Education in California (CA), San Francisco. https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Carnegie_Bryk_Summit_2017_Keynote.pdf

24.

Bryk

A. S.

Gomez

L. M.

Grunow

LeMahieu

P. G.

(2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.

25.

Bryk

Sebring

P. B.

Allensworth

E. L.

Luppescu

S. S.

Easton

(2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.

26.

Caird

Sutcliffe

Kwan

Dickson

Thomas

(2015). Mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed: Are systematic reviews of systematic reviews a useful approach? Evidence & Policy, 11(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426514X13988609036850

27.

Campbell

D. T.

Stanley

J. C.

(1963). Experimental and quasi experimental designs for research. Rand-McNally.

28.

Campbell

McKenzie

J. E.

Sowden

Katikireddi

S. V.

Brennan

S. E.

Ellis

Hartmann-Boyce

Ryan

Shepperd

Thomas

Welch

Thomson

(2020). Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: Reporting guideline. BMJ, 368, 1–6. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890

29.

Cartwright

(2019). What is meant by “rigour” in evidence-based educational policy and what’s so good about it? Educational Research and Evaluation, 25(1–2), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2019.1617990

30.

Cartwright

Hardie

(2012). Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. Oxford University Press.

31.

Cartwright

Hardie

(2017). Predicting what will happen when you intervene. Clinical Social Work Journal, 45(3), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-016-0615-0

32.

Castles

Rastle

Nation

(2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271

33.

Century

Cassata

(2016). Implementation research: Finding common ground on what, how, why, where, and who. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 169–215. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16665332

34.

Chambers

D. A.

Glasgow

R. E.

Stange

K. C.

(2013). The dynamic sustainability framework: Addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science, 8(1), 117. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-117

35.

Chambers

J. G.

(1999). Measuring resources in education: From accounting to the resource cost model approach (Working Paper Series). Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center of Education Statistics. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED433613

36.

Chicago Beyond. (2019). Why am I always being researched? Vol. 1. Chicago beyond equity series. https://chicagobeyond.org/researchequity/

37.

Claes

van Loon

Vandevelde

Schalock

(2015). An integrative approach to evidence based practices. Evaluation and Program Planning, 48, 132–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.08.002

38.

Coburn

C. E.

(2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032006003

39.

Coburn

C. E.

Honig

M. I.

Stein

M. K.

(2009). What’s the evidence on districts’ use of evidence. In Bransford

J. D.

Stipek

D. J.

Vye

N. J.

Gomez

L. M.

Lam

(Eds.), The role of research in educational improvement (pp. 67–87). Harvard Education Press.

40.

Coburn

C. E.

Penuel

W. R.

(2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750

41.

Coburn

C. E.

Talbert

J. E.

(2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 469–495. https://doi.org/10.1086/505056

42.

Coburn

C. E.

Toure

Yamashita

(2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1115–1161.

43.

Cohen

D. K.

(1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737012003311

44.

Cohen

D. K.

Moffitt

S. L.

(2009). The ordeal of equality: Did federal regulation fix the schools? Harvard University Press.

45.

Cohen

(1962). The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(3), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045186

46.

Coldwell

Greaney

Higgins

Brown

Maxwell

Stiell

Stoll

Willis

Burns

(2017, July). Evidence-informed teaching: An evaluation of progress in England. (Research Report). Department for Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-informed-teaching-evaluation-of-progress-in-england

47.

Conaway

Goldhaber

(2018). Appropriate standards of evidence for education policy decision-making (CEDR Policy Brief No. 04032018-1-3). University of Washington.

48.

Cooke

Smith

Booth

(2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1435–1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938

49.

Cowen

(2019). For whom does “what works” work? The political economy of evidence-based education. Educational Research and Evaluation, 25(1–2), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2019.1617991

50.

Creswell

J. W.

(1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage.

51.

Creswell

J. W.

Clark

V. L. P.

(2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.

52.

Davies

Powell

(2010). Helping social research make a difference. In Health Foundation Seminar, November (Unpublished Discussion Paper). https://www.tepou.co.nz/assets/images/content/training_funding/tools-for-learning/files/Davies%20%20Powell%20-%20Helping%20social%20research%20make%20a%20difference%20final.pdf

53.

Davies

H. T. O.

Nutley

(2008). Learning more about how research-based knowledge gets used (Unpublished Working Paper). William T. Grant Foundation. http://wtgrantfoundation.org/library/uploads/2015/10/Guidance-in-the-Development-of-New-Empirical-Research.pdf

54.

Day

Wadsworth

S. M.

Bogenschneider

Thomas-Miller

(2019). When university researchers connect with policy: A framework for whether, when, and how to engage. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(1), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12306

55.

Deaton

(2019). Randomization in the tropics revisited: A theme and eleven variations. In Bédécarrats

Guérin

Roubaud

(Eds.), Randomized controlled trials in the field of development: A critical perspective (pp. 29–46). Oxford University Press.

56.

Deming

W. E.

(1942). On a classification of the problems of statistical inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 37(218), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.2307/2279212

57.

Deming

W. E.

(1953). On the distinction between enumerative and analytic surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 48(262), 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1953.10483470

58.

Deming

W. E.

(1975). On probability as a basis for action. The American Statistician, 29(4), 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1975.10477402

59.

Deming

W. E.

(1982). Quality, productivity and competitive position. MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

60.

Deming

W. E.

(1994). The new economics for industry, government, education (2nd ed.). MIT Press.

61.

DesForges

(2001). Putting educational research to use through knowledge transformation: The agency comments. Learning and Skills Development Agency. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED451373.pdf

62.

Detterman

D. K.

(1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In Detterman

D. K.

Sternberg

R. J.

(Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 1–24). Ablex.

63.

Diaz

Neuhauser

(2005). Pasteur and parachutes: When statistical process control is better than a randomized controlled trial. BMJ Quality & Safety, 14(2), 140–143. http://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2005.013763

64.

Dobson

Cook

T. J.

(1980). Avoiding Type III error in program evaluation: Results from a field experiment. Evaluation and Program Planning, 3(4), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(80)90042-7

65.

Donaldson

S. I.

Christie

C. A.

Mark

M. M.

(2009). What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice? Sage.

66.

Donnelly

C. A.

Boyd

Campbell

Craig

Vallance

Walport

Whitty

C. J. M.

Woods

Wormald

(2018). Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy. Nature, 558, 361–364. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05414-4

67.

Doucet

(2019). Centering the margins: (Re)defining useful research evidence through critical perspectives. William T. Grant Foundation. http://wtgrantfoundation.org/library/uploads/2019/12/Fabienne-Doucet-2019-WTG-Digest.pdf

68.

Duncan

G. J.

Magnuson

(2007). Penny wise and effect size foolish. Child Development Perspectives, 1(1), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2007.00009.x

69.

Erickson

Gutierrez

(2002). Comment: Culture, rigor, and science in educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 21–24. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008021

70.

Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015–2016).

71.

Farley-Ripple

May

Karpyn

Tilley

McDonough

(2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework. Educational Researcher, 47(4), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18761042

72.

Fixsen

D. L.

Naoom

S. F.

Blase

K. A.

Friedman

R. M.

Wallace

(2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).

73.

Forman

M. L.

Stosich

E. L.

Bocala

(2017). The internal coherence framework: Creating the conditions for continuous improvement in schools. Harvard Education Press.

74.

Fretheim

Tomic

(2015). Statistical process control and interrupted time series: A golden opportunity for impact evaluation in quality improvement. BMJ Quality & Safety, 24, 748–752. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003756

75.

Gambrill

(2006). Critical thinking in clinical practice: Improving the quality of judgments and decisions. Wiley.

76.

Gamoran

(2015). The future of educational inequality in the United States: What went wrong, and how can we fix it? William T. Grant Foundation. http://wtgrantfoundation.org/resource/the-future-of-educational-inequality-what-went-wrong-and-how-can-we-fix-it

77.

Gelman

Robert

C. P.

(2014). Revised evidence for statistical standards. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(19), E1933. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1322995111

78.

Gillborn

Warmington

Demack

(2018). QuantCrit: Education, policy, “big data” and principles for a critical race theory of statistics. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 158–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1377417

79.

Ginsburg

Smith

M. S.

(2016). Do randomized controlled trials meet the “gold standard”? American Enterprise Institute. https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Do-randomized-controlled-trials-meet-the-gold-standard.pdf

80.

Glass

G. V.

(1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003

81.

Gorard

(2006). Towards a judgement-based statistical analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690500376663

82.

Gorard

(2010). All evidence is equal: The flaw in statistical reasoning. Oxford Review of Education, 36(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980903518928

83.

Gorard

See

B. H.

Siddiqui

(2017). The trials of evidence-based education: The promises, opportunities and problems of trials in education. Routledge.

84.

Gorard

See

B. H.

Siddiqui

(2020). What is the evidence on the best way to get evidence into use in education? Review of Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3200

85.

Green

L. W.

Glasgow

R. E.

Atkins

Stange

(2009). Making evidence from research more relevant, useful, and actionable in policy, program planning, and practice: Slips “twixt cup and lip.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(6), S187-S191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.08.017

86.

Grimshaw

J. M.

Eccles

M. P.

Lavis

J. N.

Hill

S. J.

Squires

J. E.

(2012). Knowledge translation of research findings. Implementation Science, 7(1), Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-50

87.

Gutiérrez

K. D.

Penuel

W. R.

(2014). Relevance to practice as a criterion for rigor. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13520289

88.

Hammersley

(1990). Reading ethnographic research: A critical guide. Longman.

89.

Hammond

(2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press.

90.

Hargreaves

(1998). Creative professionalism: The role of teachers in the knowledge society. Demos.

91.

Harris

D. N.

(2009). Toward policy-relevant benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes: Combining effects with costs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708327524

92.

Head

B. W.

(2008). Three lenses of evidence-based policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00564.x

93.

Hedges

L. V.

Olkin

(2014). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press.

94.

Hemsley-Brown

Sharp

(2003). The use of research to improve professional practice: A systematic review of the literature. Oxford Review of Education, 29(4), 449–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498032000153025

95.

Henrich

Heine

S. J.

Norenzayan

(2010). Beyond WEIRD: Towards a broad-based behavioral science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x10000725

96.

Hill

H. C.

Erickson

(2019). Using implementation fidelity to aid in interpreting program impacts: A brief review. Educational Researcher, 48(9), 590–598. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19891436

97.

Hollands

Pan

Escueta

(2019). What is the potential for applying cost-utility analysis to facilitate evidence-based decision making in schools? Educational Researcher, 48(5), 287–295. https://doi.org/0013189X19852101

98.

Honig

M. I.

(2013). Beyond the policy memo: Designing to strengthen the practice of district central office leadership for instructional improvement at scale. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2), 256–273.

99.

Honig

M. I.

Coburn

(2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices: Toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy, 22(4), 578–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807307067

100.

Honig

M. I.

Venkateswaran

(2012). School-central office relationships in evidence use: Understanding evidence use as a systems problem. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1086/663282

101.

Honig

M. I.

Venkateswaran

McNeil

(2017). Research use as learning: The case of fundamental change in school district central offices. American Educational Research Journal, 54(5), 938–971. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217712466

102.

Hughes

C. A.

Dexter

D. D.

(2011). Response to intervention: A research-based summary. Theory Into Practice, 50(1), 4–11. http://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.534909

103.

Hume

(1975). An enquiry concerning human understanding. In Nidditch

(Ed.), Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals (3rd ed.). Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1748)

104.

Humphrey

Lendrum

Ashworth

Frearson

Buck

Kerr

(2016). Implementation and process evaluation (IPE) for interventions in education settings: An introductory handbook. Education Endowment Foundation.

105.

Iatarola

Stiefel

(2003). Intradistrict equity of public education resources and performance. Economics of Education Review, 22(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(01)00065-6

106.

Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (n.d.). Science of improvement: Establishing measures. http://www.ihi.org/knowledge/Pages/HowtoImprove/ScienceofImprovementEstablishingMeasures.aspx

107.

Ioannidis

J. P.

(2019). The importance of predefined rules and prespecified statistical analyses: Do not abandon significance. Journal of American Medical Association, 321(21), 2067–2068. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.4582

108.

Irons

(2019). Shifting the lens: Why conceptualization matters in research on reducing inequality. William T. Grant Foundation. http://wtgrantfoundation.org/digest/shifting-the-lens-why-conceptualization-matters-in-research-on-reducing-inequality/jenny-irons-2019-wtg-digest

109.

Jacob

R. T.

Doolittle

Kemple

Somers

M. A.

(2019). A framework for learning from null results. Educational Researcher, 48(9), 580–589. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19891955

110.

Johnson

V. E.

(2013). Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(48), 19313–19317. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313476110

111.

Jones

Okun

(2001). White supremacy culture: From dismantling racism: A workbook for social change groups. http://www.cwsworkshop.org/PARC_site_B/dr-culture.html

112.

Joyce

K. E.

(2019). The key role of representativeness in evidence-based education. Educational Research and Evaluation, 25(1–2), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2019.1617989

113.

Joyce

K. E.

Cartwright

(2019). Bridging the gap between research and practice: Predicting what will work locally. American Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219866687

114.

Juran

J. M.

(1951). Quality control handbook. McGraw-Hill.

115.

Kelle

(2006). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in research practice: Purposes and advantages. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(4), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478088706070839

116.

Kemmis

McTaggart

Nixon

(2014). Introducing critical participatory action research. In The action research planner (pp. 1–31). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2_1

117.

Kennedy

M. M.

(1982). Working knowledge and other essays. Huron Institute.

118.

Kim

A. M.

Tingen

C. M.

Woodruff

T. K.

(2010). Sex bias in trials and treatment must end. Nature, 465(7299), 688–689. https://doi.org/10.1038/465688a

119.

Kirkland

D. E.

(2019). No small matters: Reimagining the use of research evidence from a racial justice perspective. William T. Grant Foundation. http://wtgrantfoundation.org/digest/no-small-matters-reimagining-the-use-of-research-evidence-from-a-racial-justice-perspective/david-e-kirkland-2019-wtg-digest

120.

Kraft

M. A.

(2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20912798

121.

Kvarven

Strømland

Johannesson

(2019). Comparing meta-analyses and preregistered multiple-laboratory replication projects. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0787-z

122.

Ladson-Billings

(1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465

123.

Ladson-Billings

(2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: Aka the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751

124.

Lagemann

E. C.

(2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. University of Chicago Press.

125.

Lavis

J. N.

(2009). How can we support the use of systematic reviews in policymaking? PLoS Medicine, 6(11), e1000141. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000141

126.

Lavis

J. N.

Robertson

Woodside

J. M.

McLeod

C. B.

Abelson

, & the Knowledge Transfer Study Group. (2003). How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Quarterly, 81(2), 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00052

127.

LeMahieu

(2011, October 11). What we need in education is more integrity (and less fidelity) of implementation [blog post]. https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/blog/what-we-need-in-education-is-more-integrity-and-less-fidelity-of-implementation/

128.

Levin

(2004). Making research matter more. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(56), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v12n56.2004

129.

Levin

(2008). Thinking about knowledge mobilization. Institute for Studies in Education. http://en.copian.ca/library/research/ccl/knowledge_mobilization/knowledge_mobilization.pdf

130.

Levin

(2011). Mobilising research knowledge in education. London Review of Education, 9(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460.2011.550431

131.

Levin

(2013). To know is not enough: Research knowledge and its use. Review of Education, 1(1), 2–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3001

132.

Levin

H. M.

(1975). Cost-effectiveness analysis in evaluation research. In Guttentag

Struening

E. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of evaluation research (Vol. 2). Sage.

133.

Levin

H. M.

(1983). Cost-effectiveness analysis: A primer. Sage.

134.

Levin

H. M.

(1995). Cost-effectiveness analysis. In Carnoy

(Ed.), International encyclopedia of economics of education (Vol. 2, pp. 381–386). Pergamon.

135.

Levin

H. M.

(2001). Waiting for Godot: Cost-effectiveness analysis in education. New Directions for Evaluation, 2001(90), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.12

136.

Levin

H. M.

Belfield

(2015). Guiding the development and use of cost-effectiveness analysis in education. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(3), 400–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2014.915604

137.

Levin

H. M.

McEwan

P. J.

(2002). Are cost-effectiveness methods used correctly? In Masse

L. N.

Barnett

W. S.

Levin

H. M.

McEwan

P. J.

(Eds.), Cost-effectiveness and educational policy (pp. 37–53). Eye on Education.

138.

Levin

H. M.

McEwan

P. J.

(2003). Cost-effectiveness analysis as an evaluation tool. In Kellaghan

Stufflebeam

D. L.

(Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 125–152). Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0309-4_10

139.

Lewin

(1951). Field theory in social science. Harper & Row.

140.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

141.

Lugo-Gil

Jean-Baptiste

Jaramillo

L. F.

(2019). Use of evidence to drive decision-making in government. Mathematica Policy Research.

142.

Massoud

M. R.

Nielsen

G. A.

Nolan

Schall

M. W.

Sevin

(2006). A framework for spread: From local improvements to system-wide change. IHI Innovation Series White Paper. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/IHIWhitePapers/AFrameworkforSpreadWhitePaper.aspx

143.

Maxwell

J. A.

(1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826

144.

Mayo

D. G.

(2019). P-value thresholds: Forfeit at your peril. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 49(10), e13170. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13170

145.

McCannon

C. J.

Schall

M. W.

Perla

R. J.

(2008). Planning for scale: A guide for designing large-scale improvement initiatives. IHI Innovation Series White Paper. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/IHIWhitePapers/PlanningforScaleWhitePaper.aspx

146.

McKenzie

K. B.

Phillips

G. A.

(2016). Equity traps then and now: Deficit thinking, racial erasure and naïve acceptance of meritocracy. Whiteness and Education, 1(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2016.1159600

147.

McShane

B. B.

Gal

Gelman

Robert

Tackett

J. L.

(2019). Abandon statistical significance. The American Statistician, 73(Suppl. 1), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1527253

148.

Meadows

D. H.

(2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green.

149.

Means

S. N.

Magura

Burkhardt

J. T.

Schröter

D. C.

Coryn

C. L.

(2015). Comparing rating paradigms for evidence-based program registers in behavioral health: Evidentiary criteria and implications for assessing programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 48, 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.09.007

150.

Methley

A. M.

Campbell

Chew-Graham

McNally

Cheraghi-Sohi

(2014). PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Services Research, 14(1), Article 579. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0

151.

Michener

(2020, October 14). Research evidence for an equitable democracy [Conference presentation]. Panel Discussion: Critical Race Perspectives on the Use of Research Evidence. W. T. Grant Foundation.

152.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.

153.

Milner

H. R.

IV . (2020). Disrupting racism and whiteness in researching a science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S249–S253. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.347

154.

Ming

N. C.

Kennedy

A. I.

(2020). Developing and using indicators for continuous improvement. Teachers College Record (Yearbook), 122(14). https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=23462

155.

Mishan

E. J.

(1976). Cost-benefit analysis (Vol. 454). Praeger.

156.

Munro

Cartwright

Hardie

Montuschi

(2016). Improving child safety: Deliberation, judgement and empirical research. Centre for Humanities, Engaging Science and Society (CHESS). http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/86549

157.

Munthe-Kaas

Nøkleby

Lewin

Glenton

(2020). The TRANSFER approach for assessing the transferability of systematic review findings. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0834-5

158.

Murawski

W. W.

Hughes

C. E.

(2009). Response to intervention, collaboration, and co-teaching: A logical combination for successful systemic change. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(4), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.4.267-277

159.

National Equity Project. (2020). The lens of systemic oppression [web page]. https://www.nationalequityproject.org/frameworks/lens-of-systemic-oppression

160.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: Reports of the subgroups (00-4754). Government Printing Office.

161.

National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academies Press.

162.

Neal

J. W.

Neal

Z. P.

Lawlor

J. A.

Mills

K. J.

McAlindon

(2018). What makes research useful for public school educators? Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 45(3), 432–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-017-0834-x

163.

Nutley

Walter

Davies

H. T. O.

(2003). From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation, 9(2), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389003009002002

164.

Nutley

Walter

Davies

H. T. O.

(2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Policy Press.

165.

O’Brien

Martinez-Vidal

(2016). Evidence-based state health policymaking. https://www.academyhealth.org/sites/default/files/AH%20Evidence%20Based%20State%20Health%20report.pdf

166.

O’Donnell

C. L.

(2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33–84. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313793

167.

Oliver

Cairney

(2019). The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: A systematic review of advice to academics. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0232-y

168.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Leech

N. L.

(2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500402447

169.

Palinkas

L. A.

Finno

Fuentes

Garcia

Holloway

I. W.

(2011, August). Evaluating dissemination of research evidence in public youth-serving systems. Paper presented at the National Child Welfare Evaluation Summit, Washington, DC.

170.

Palinkas

L. A.

Saldana

Chou

C. P.

Chamberlain

(2017). Use of research evidence and implementation of evidence-based practices in youth-serving systems. Children and Youth Services Review, 83, 242–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.11.005

171.

Pearl

MacKenzie

(2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. Basic Books.

172.

Penuel

W. R.

Briggs

D. C.

Davidson

K. L.

Herlihy

Sherer

Hill

H. C.

Farrell

C. C.

Allen

A. R.

(2016). Findings from a national survey on research use among school and district leaders (Technical Report No. 1). National Center for Research in Policy and Practice. http://ncrpp.org/assets/documents/NCRPP_Technical-Report_180302.pdf

173.

Penuel

W. R.

Farrell

C. C.

Allen

A. R.

Toyama

Coburn

C. E.

(2016). What research district leaders find useful. Educational Policy, 32(4), 540–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904816673580

174.

Penuel

W. R.

Fishman

B. J.

Haugan Cheng

Sabelli

(2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11421826

175.

Penuel

W. R.

Means

(2004). Implementation variation and fidelity in an inquiry science program: Analysis of GLOBE data reporting patterns. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 294–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20002

176.

Philip

T. M.

Bang

Jackson

(2018). Articulating the “how,” the “for what,” the “for whom,” and the “with whom” in concert: A call to broaden the benchmarks of our scholarship. Cognition and Instruction, 36(2), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1413530

177.

Phillips

D. C.

(2019). Evidence of confusion about evidence of causes: Comments on the debate about EBP in education. Educational Research and Evaluation, 25(1–2), 7–24. http://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2019.1617980

178.

Piaget

(1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press.

179.

Pigott

Polanin

(2020). Methodological guidance papers: High-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319877153

180.

Pogrow

(2019). How effect size (practical significance) misleads clinical practice: The case for switching to practical benefit to assess applied research findings. The American Statistician, 73(Suppl. 1), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1549101

181.

Popay

Roberts

Sowden

Petticrew

Arai

Rodgers

Britten

Roen

Duffy

(2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Lancaster University. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/fhm/dhr/chir/NSsynthesisguidanceVersion1-April2006.pdf

182.

Popper

(2005). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge. (Original work published 1934)

183.

Posner

G. J.

Strike

K. A.

Hewson

P. W.

Gertzog

W. A.

(1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.

184.

Provost

L. P.

(2011). Analytical studies: A framework for quality improvement design and analysis. BMJ Quality & Safety, 20(Suppl. 1), i92–i96.

185.

Provost

L. P.

Murray

(2011). The health care data guide: Learning from data for improvement. Wiley.

186.

Ravallion

(2018). Should the randomistas (continue to) rule? (Working Paper No. 492). Center for Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/should-randomistas-continue-rule-revised-jan-2019.pdf

187.

Rayner

Foorman

B. R.

Perfetti

C. A.

Pesetsky

Seidenberg

M. S.

(2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.00004

188.

Rice

J. K.

(1997). Cost analysis in education: Paradox and possibility. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737019004309

189.

Rittle-Johnson

Siegler

R. S.

Alibali

M. W.

(2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346–362. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346

190.

Ross

J. A.

(2008). Cost–utility analysis in educational needs assessment. Evaluation and Program Planning, 31(4), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.06.003

191.

Roweis

Ghahramani

(1999). A unifying review of linear Gaussian models. Neural Computation, 11(2), 305–345. http://doi.org/10.1162/089976699300016674

192.

Russell

G. M.

Kelly

N. H.

(2002, September). Research as interacting dialogic processes: Implications for reflexivity. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3). http://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-3.3.831

193.

Russell

J. L.

Bryk

A. S.

Dolle

Gomez

L. M.

LeMahieu

Grunow

(2017). A framework for the initiation of networked improvement communities. Teachers College Record, 119(7), 1–36.

194.

Schanzenbach

D. W.

(2012). Limitations of experiments in education research. Education Finance and Policy, 7(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00063

195.

Schmidt

R. A.

Bjork

R. A.

(1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x

196.

Scott

(2020, July 22). Challenges to transforming education practice: The role of politics in centering equity [Conference presentation]. National Network of Education Research-Practice Partnerships (NNERPP) Virtual Annual Forum. https://nnerppannualforum.rice.edu/

197.

Scoville

Little

Rakover

Luther

Mate

(2016). Sustaining improvement (IHI White Paper). Institute for Healthcare Improvement. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/IHIWhitePapers/Sustaining-Improvement.aspx

198.

Shalowitz

M. U.

Isacco

Barquin

Clark-Kauffman

Delger

Nelson

Quinn

Wagenaar

K. A.

(2009). Community-based participatory research: A review of the literature with strategies for community engagement. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 30(4), 350–361. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181b0ef14

199.

Sharples

Albers

Fraser

Kime

(2019). Putting evidence to work: A school’s guide to implementation (2nd ed.) [Online Guidance Report]. Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Publications/Implementation/EEF_Implementation_Guidance_Report_2019.pdf

200.

Shea

B. J.

Reeves

B. C.

Wells

Thuku

Hamel

Moran

Moher

Tugwell

Welch

Kristjansson

Henry

D. A.

(2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. British Medical Journal (Online), 358, j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008

201.

Sherer

Norman

Bryk

A. S.

Peurach

D. J.

Vasudeva

McMahon

(2019). Evidence for improvement: An integrated analytic approach for supporting networks in education. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

202.

Shewhart

(1931). Economic control of quality of manufactured product. Macmillan.

203.

Shonkoff

J. P.

(2000). Science, policy, and practice: Three cultures in search of a shared mission. Child Development, 71(1), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00132

204.

Siddiqui

Gorard

See

B. H.

(2018). The importance of process evaluation for randomised control trials in education. Educational Research, 60(3), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2018.1493349

205.

Siegler

R. S.

Crowley

(1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist, 46(6), 606–620.

206.

Simpson

(2017). The misdirection of public policy: Comparing and combining standardised effect sizes. Journal of Education Policy, 32(4), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1280183

207.

Simpson

(2018). Princesses are bigger than elephants: Effect size as a category error in evidence-based education. British Educational Research Journal, 44(5), 897–913. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3474

208.

Simpson

(2019). Separating arguments from conclusions: The mistaken role of effect size in educational policy research. Educational Research and Evaluation, 25(1–2), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2019.1617170

209.

Simpson

(2020). On the misinterpretation of effect size. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 103(1), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09924-4

210.

Singer

J. D.

(2019). Reshaping the arc of quantitative educational research: It’s time to broaden our paradigm. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12(4), 570–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1658835

211.

Singleton

G. E.

(2014). Courageous conversations about race: A field guide for achieving equity in schools. Corwin Press.

212.

Slavin

(2018, June 21). John Hattie is wrong [Robert Slavin’s blog]. https://robertslavinsblog.wordpress.com/2018/06/21/john-hattie-is-wrong

213.

Smith

G. C. S.

Pell

J. P.

(2003). Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 327(20–7), 1459–1461. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459

214.

Smith

(2010). A bubble for the spirit level: Metricophilia, rhetoric and philosophy. In Smeyers

Depaepe

(Eds.), Educational research: The ethics and aesthetics of statistics (Vol. 5, pp. 189–204). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9873-3_13

215.

Solberg

L. I.

Mosser

McDonald

(1997). The three faces of performance measurement: Improvement, accountability, and research. Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, 23(3), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1070-3241(16)30305-4

216.

Spillane

J. P.

(1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312035001033

217.

Spillane

J. P.

Reiser

B. P.

Reimer

(2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387

218.

Sue

D. W.

Capodilupo

C. M.

Torino

G. C.

Bucceri

J. M.

Holder

Nadal

K. L.

Esquilin

(2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271

219.

Sutherland

W. J.

(2013). Review by quality not quantity for better policy. Nature, 503(7475), 167. https://doi.org/10.1038/503167a

220.

Sutherland

W. J.

Burgman

(2015). Policy advice: Use experts wisely. Nature, 526(7573), 317–318. https://doi.org/10.1038/526317a

221.

Taylor

J. A.

Davis

Michaelson

L. E.

(2021). Considerations for evidence frameworks in education research. Review of Research in Education, 45(1), 101–128. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985077

222.

Thomas

(1985). Force field analysis: A new way to evaluate your strategy. Long Range Planning, 18(6), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(85)90064-0

223.

Thor

Lundberg

Ask

Olsson

Carli

Härenstam

K. P.

Brommels

(2007). Application of statistical process control in healthcare improvement: Systematic review. BMJ Quality & Safety in Healthcare, 16(5), 387–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2006.022194

224.

Topp

Mair

Smillie

Cairney

(2018). Knowledge management for policy impact: The case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre Introduction: Why we need knowledge management for policy. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), Article 87. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0143-3

225.

Tseng

(2012). The uses of research in policy and practice. Society for Research in Child Development. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2379-3988.2012.tb00071.x

226.

Tseng

Easton

J. Q.

Supplee

L. H.

(2017). Research-practice partnerships: Building two-way streets of engagement. Social Policy Report, 30(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2379-3988.2017.tb00089.x

227.

Tseng

Nutley

(2014). Building the infrastructure to improve the use and usefulness of research in education. In Finnigan

Daly

(Eds.), Using research evidence in education: Policy implications of research in education (Vol. 2, pp. 163–175). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04690-7_11

228.

Tuck

Yang

K. W.

(2014). R-words: Refusing research. In Paris

Winn

M. T.

(Eds.), Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities (pp. 223–247). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544329611.n12

229.

Tucker

Slavin

(2018, April 23). What should researchers research? Point and counter-point from Marc Tucker and Robert E. Slavin. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy. https://edpolicy.education.jhu.edu/researchers-research-point-counter-point-marc-tucker-robert-e-slavin/

230.

Vakil

McKinney

Royston

Suad Nasir

N. I.

Kirshner

(2016). Rethinking race and power in design-based research: Reflections from the field. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1169817

231.

Valentine

J. C.

Aloe

A. M.

Wilson

S. J.

(2019). Interpreting effect sizes. In Cooper

Hedges

L. V.

Valentine

J. C.

(Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 433–452). Russell Sage Foundation.

232.

VanLehn

(1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 513–539. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.513

233.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

234.

Walker

S. C.

Lyon

A. R.

Aos

Trupin

E. W.

(2017). The consistencies and vagaries of the Washington state inventory of evidence-based practice: The definition of “evidence-based” in a policy context. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 44(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-015-0652-y

235.

Ward

(2017). Why, whose, what and how? A framework for knowledge mobilisers. Evidence & Policy, 13(3), 477–497. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426416X14634763278725

236.

Wasserstein

R. L.

Lazar

N. A.

(2016). The ASA statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133, https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108

237.

Watkins

West Meiers

Visser

(2012). A guide to assessing needs: Essential tools for collecting information, making decisions, and achieving development results. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8868-6

238.

Watt

(2007). On becoming a qualitative researcher: The value of reflexivity. Qualitative Report, 12(1), 82–101. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ800164

239.

Weiss

C. H.

(1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3(4), 531–545. www.jstor.org/stable/42783234

240.

Weiss

C. H.

(1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge, 1(3), 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708000100303

241.

Weiss

C. H.

Bucuvalas

M. J.

(1980). Truth tests and utility tests: Decision-makers’ frames of reference for social science research. American Sociological Review, 45(2), 302–313. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095127

242.

Weiss

C. H.

Murphy-Graham

Birkeland

(2005). An alternate route to policy influence: How evaluations affect DARE. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214004273337

243.

Westbrook

T. P. R.

Avellar

S. A.

Seftor

(2017). Reviewing the reviews: Examining similarities and differences between federally funded evidence reviews. Evaluation Review, 41(3), 183–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X16666463

244.

White

(2019). The twenty-first century experimenting society: The four waves of the evidence revolution. Palgrave Communications, 5(47), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0253-6

245.

Wiggins

(2009). William James and methodological pluralism: Bridging the qualitative and quantitative divide. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 30(3), 165–183. www.jstor.org/stable/43854247

246.

Wiliam

(2019). Some reflections on the role of evidence in improving education. Educational Research and Evaluation, 25(1–2), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2019.1617993

247.

Winter

(2000). A comparative discussion of the notion of validity in qualitative and quantitative research. Qualitative Report, 4(3), 1–14. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol4/iss3/4

248.

Wong

C. P.

(2021). The wretched of the research: Disenchanting Man2-as-educational researcher and entering the 36th chamber of education research. Review of Research in Education, 45(1), 27–66. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X21990609

249.

Wrigley

McCusker

(2019). Evidence-based teaching: A simple view of “science.” Educational Research and Evaluation, 25(1–2), 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2019.1617992

250.

W. T. Grant Foundation. (n.d.). Research grants on improving the use of research evidence. http://wtgrantfoundation.org/grants/research-grants-improving-use-research-evidence

251.

Yeaton

Sechrest

(1981). Meaningful measures of effect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(5), 766–767. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.49.5.766

252.

Zack

M. K.

Karre

J. K.

Olson

Perkins

D. F.

(2019). Similarities and differences in program registers: A case study. Evaluation and Program Planning, 76, 101676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101676

253.

Zhao

(2017). What works may hurt: Side effects on education. Journal of Educational Change, 18(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-016-9294-4

254.

Ziliak

McCloskey

D. N.

(2008). The cult of statistical significance: How the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. University of Michigan Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB

Research Worth Using: (Re)Framing Research Evidence Quality for Educational Policymaking and Practice

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material