TOWARDS AN OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF TEACHER PERFORMANCE Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 13/11/2015 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 16/11/2015 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 24/11/2015 SPECIAL ISSUE Knowledge Mobilization education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 23 Number 118 December 7, 2015 ISSN 1068-2341 Knowledge Brokers in Education: How Intermediary Organizations Are Bridging the Gap Between Research, Policy and Practice Internationally Amanda Cooper & Samantha Shewchuk Queen’s University Canada Citation: Cooper, A. & Shewchuk, S. (2015). Knowledge brokers in education: How intermediary organizations are bridging the gap between research, policy and practice internationally. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(118), http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2355 This article is part of EPAA/AAPE’s Special Issue on Knowledge Mobilization Guest Co-Edited by Dr. Amanda Cooper and Samantha Shewchuk. Abstract: Interest in how to better connect research to policy and practice is gaining momentum globally. Also gaining widespread agreement is the view that intermediary organizations have an important role to play in facilitating multi -stakeholder partnerships between researchers, practitioners and policymakers in order to increase the mobilization of research and its impact in public service sectors. Knowledge mobilization (KMb) includes efforts to strengthen linkages between research, practice and pol icy in public service sectors. This special issue explores a range of intermediary organizations, networks and initiatives in order to showcase how research-practice-policy gaps are being addressed in different contexts. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2355 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 23 No. 118 2 Keywords: knowledge mobilization; knowledge brokering; intermediaries; research brokering organizations Intermediadores de conocimiento en educación: ¿Cómo las organizaciones intermedias están acortando la brecha entre la investigación, la política y la práctica a nivel internacional? Resumen: El interés por mejorar las conexiones entre la investigación y los ámbitos de la política y la práctica está ganando impulso en todo el mundo. También esta generalizándose la opinión de que las organizaciones intermedias tienen un papel importante en la facilitación de asociaciones entre investigadores, profesionales y responsables políticos con el fin de aumentar la movilización de la investigación y su impacto en sectores de servicios públicos. La movilización del conocimiento (KMB) incluye esfuerzos para fortalecer los vínculos entre la investigación, la práctica y la política en los sectores de servicios públicos. Este número especial explora una gama de organizaciones intermedias, redes e iniciativas con el fin de mostrar cómo se están abordando áreas problemáticas en las relaciones entre la investigación-práctica-política en diferentes contextos. Palabras clave: movilización de los conocimientos; intercambio de conocimientos; intermediarias; organizaciones de intermediación de investigación. Intermediadores de conhecimento em educação: Como as organizações intermediárias estão fazendo a ponte entre pesquisa, política e prática internacionalmente? Resumo: O interesse em melhorar as ligações entre a investigação e as áreas da política e prática está ganhando força em todo o mundo. Também esta generalizando a opinião de que as organizações intermediárias têm um papel importante na facilitação de parcerias entre pesquisadores, profissionais e políticos, a fim de aumentar a mobilização dos conhecimentos de investigação e seu impacto nos sectores dos serviços públicos. Mobilização do Conhecimento (KMB) inclui esforços para reforçar as ligações entre a investigação, a prática e política nas áreas de serviços públicos. Este dossiê explora uma série de organizações intermediárias, redes e iniciativas a fim de mostrar como elas estão lidando com problemas das relações entre contextos de pesquisa-prática-política em diferentes áreas. Palavras-chave: mobilização de conhecimentos; partilha de conhecimentos; intermediário; organizações intermediárias na pesquisa. The Rise of Knowledge Brokering An emerging field of inquiry has arisen in order to address the oft-cited gaps between research, policy and practice called knowledge mobilization (KMb) in education and knowledge translation (KT) in the health sector (names vary across sectors and countries). KMb includes efforts to increase the use of research evidence in policy and practice in education. KMb occurs through iterative, social processes involving interaction among two or more different groups or contexts (researchers, policymakers, practitioners, third party agencies, community members) in order to improve the broader education system. Much of the research that does exist on KMb focuses on research producing contexts (such as universities) and research using contexts (such as hospitals and schools) with very few studies addressing the intermediary organizations that often facilitate research use processes. This special issue uses the term ‘research brokering organization’ (RBO) to describe third party, intermediary organizations whose active role between research Knowledge Brokers in E ducation 3 producers and users is a catalyst for research use in education. Intermediaries are important because practitioners rarely come into contact with primary research directly from academic journals or lengthy research reports. Instead, educators engage with research indirectly through colleagues, professional development, the media, and often through various third party organizations. Because of the growing recognition of the prominence of intermediaries, research agencies (e.g. William T. Grant Foundation) and prominent scholars in the field are highlighting the importance of intermediaries’ roles in KMb and emphasizing the need for empirical work on third parties in the KMb process. Cooper (2014) in a study of 44 RBOs across Canada identified eight major brokering functions of RBOs (Figure 1). Figure 1. Brokering Functions of RBOs (adapted from Cooper, 2014). The primary brokering function of intermediary organizations is usually increasing linkages and partnerships among diverse stakeholders. Other brokering functions attempt to increase accessibility and engagement with research by providing shorter, tailored research products that are meant to encourage wider dissemination and uptake. Innovative techniques, such as data visualization and web-based tools, are changing the ways in which research is presented and sometimes allows users to interact with the content in various ways. Brokering also happens at the organizational level, with intermediaries providing help with organizational development, KMb planning and implementation support. Capacity building, while widely acknowledged as an important part of evidence-informed change, is less prevalent than other functions although it remains a critical focus in successful change initiatives. Policy influence is also a brokering function of many intermediaries and takes on various forms -- from advocacy to building relationships with policymakers and media outlets. These brokering functions all seek to build bridges between research, policy and practice in order to improve societal systems. It is now widely acknowledged that brokering has an important function to play in KMb and research impact. This special issue will explore the nature and impact of the work of RBOs in research mediation in education in Canada, the US and internationally. The special issue begins by looking at global issues, then drills down to national and local concerns. This issue opens with an article by Jack Schneider that compares knowledge mobilization efforts across the “helping” sectors of nursing, social work in order to inform thinking in the Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 23 No. 118 4 education sector. It also provides a framework including four factors that shape the movement of research into practice: visibility (research is accessible to working teachers and its quality can be determined by them), acceptability (research is understood as valuable by teachers and is compatible with their professional worldview), feasibility (research has practical applications that do not require a dramatic overhaul of the profession), and transportability (research, as well as teacher views on that research, can be easily shared across classrooms and organizations). The second paper, written by Paul Whitinui et al. discusses the origins of the World Indigenous Research Alliance (WIRA), a bottom-up movement of passionate Indigenous scholars who are making a difference for Indigenous peoples and their education. The WIRA collaboration showcases how intermediaries can share best practices across respective countries and help to co-design interdisciplinary research. Whitinui’s et al. paper provides an example of how knowledge mobilization and evidence based initiatives can promote equity for disadvantaged groups. The article by Kochanek, Scholz, and Garcia provides a how-to-guide on how to set up multi-stakeholder collaborations based off of the American Institutes for Research (AIR) Logic Model which has successfully led to AIR researchers developing eight successful research partnerships. Kochanek’s et al. contribution provides a theory- based approach on research-practice partnerships. Ng-A-Fook, Kane, Butler, Glithero, and Forte discuss how they were able to develop and extend a KMb network with two local school boards for the development and application of curriculum. Ng-A-Fook et al. develop a relational conceptual model for analyzing KMb networks among policy makers, educational researchers, and public school practitioners. Alongside the growing momentum of brokering networks trying to bridge the gaps between research, policy and practice, is a struggle to find tools to measure knowledge mobilization efforts within networks. The second last paper highlights a methodology to explore evidence use across networks. Joelle Rodway uses social network analysis to explore how a school mental health network mobilizes knowledge across the education system in Ontario, Canada. Rodway’s work reveals how social network analysis can be used to inform educational improvement initiatives longitudinally and also to measure how mobilization networks develop over time. The final article by Scott, Jabbar, LaLonde, DeBray and Lubienski looks at how the increasing involvement of philanthropists in education policy is changing the education landscape in the USA, as intermediary organizations are converging and pushing incentivist reforms such as “parent trigger” laws, charter schools, vouchers, teacher merit pay or sanctions tied to teacher performance. This work is funded by the William T. Grant Foundation. Together this set of articles offers diverse perspectives on networks and knowledge brokering efforts that are occurring to improve public service sectors. As knowledge mobilization and research impact agendas continue to increase globally, so too will interest in brokering and how to measure these efforts across multi-stakeholder, large scale systems. About the Co-Guest Editors Amanda Cooper Queen’s University amanda.cooper@queensu.ca Dr. Amanda Cooper is an Assistant Professor in Educational Policy and Leadership at Queen’s University in Canada. She is the Principal Investigator of RIPPLE - Research Informing Policy, Practice and Leadership in Education (www.ripplenetwork.ca) - a program of research, training and KMb aimed at learning more about how knowledge brokering (KB) can increase research file:///C:/Users/ssmcb/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/Templates%20and%20Style%20Information/www.ripplenetwork.ca Knowledge Brokers in E ducation 5 use and its impact in public service sectors by facilitating collaboration betwe en multi- stakeholder networks. Samantha Shewchuk Queen’s University s.shewchuk@queensu.ca Samantha Shewchuk is an elementary school teacher and a doctoral student in the Faculty of Education at Queen’s University. Her research explores knowledge mobilization at the intersection of the education and child welfare sectors; more specifically, how outcomes for abused children can be improved by increasing research use in these sec tors. She is the program manager of Dr. Amanda Cooper’s RIPPLE program, Research Informing Policy Practice and Leadership in Education (www.ripplenetwork.ca). SPECIAL ISSUE Knowledge Mobilization education policy analysis archives Volume 23 Number 118 December 7, 2015 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is distributed for non- commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in th e work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the author(s) or EPAA. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A2 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank; SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). Please contribute commentaries at http://epaa.info/wordpress/ and send errata notes to Gustavo E. Fischman fischman@asu.edu Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter feed @epaa_aape. file:///C:/Users/ssmcb/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/Templates%20and%20Style%20Information/www.ripplenetwork.ca http://www.doaj.org/ mailto:fischman@asu.edu https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 23 No. 118 6 education policy analysis archives editorial board Editor Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University), Rick Mintrop, (University of California, Berkeley) Jeanne M. Powers (Arizona State University) Jessica Allen University of Colorado, Boulder Christopher Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign Gary Anderson New York University Sarah Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Samuel R. Lucas University of California, Berkeley Angela Arzubiaga Arizona State University Maria Martinez-Coslo University of Texas, Arlington David C. Berliner Arizona State University William Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder Robert Bickel Marshall University Tristan McCowan Institute of Education, London Henry Braun Boston College Heinrich Mintrop University of California, Berkeley Eric Camburn University of Wisconsin, Madison Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Wendy C. Chi* University of Colorado, Boulder Julianne Moss University of Melbourne Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio Arnold Danzig Arizona State University Noga O'Connor University of Iowa Antonia Darder University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign João Paraskveva University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Laurence Parker University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign Chad d'Entremont Strategies for Children Susan L. Robertson Bristol University John Diamond Harvard University John Rogers University of California, Los Angeles Tara Donahue Learning Point Associates A. G. Rud Purdue University Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Felicia C. Sanders The Pennsylvania State University Christopher Joseph Frey Bowling Green State University Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley Melissa Lynn Freeman* Adams State College Kimberly Scott Arizona State University Amy Garrett Dikkers University of Minnesota Dorothy Shipps Baruch College/CUNY Gene V Glass Arizona State University Maria Teresa Tatto Michigan State University Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut Harvey Goldstein Bristol University Cally Waite Social Science Research Council Jacob P. K. Gross Indiana University John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Eric M. Haas WestEd Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Kimberly Joy Howard* University of Southern California Ed Wiley University of Colorado, Boulder Aimee Howley Ohio University Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University Craig Howley Ohio University John Willinsky Stanford University Steve Klees University of Maryland Kyo Yamashiro University of California, Los Angeles Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo * Members of the New Scholars Board Knowledge Brokers in E ducation 7 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores. Asociados Alejandro Canales (UNAM) y Jesús Romero Morante (Universidad de Cantabria) Armando Alcántara Santuario Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM México Fanni Muñoz Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile Imanol Ordorika Instituto de Investigaciones Economicas – UNAM, México Pilar Arnaiz Sánchez Universidad de Murcia, España Maria Cristina Parra Sandoval Universidad de Zulia, Venezuela Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España Miguel A. Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Jose Joaquin Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile Monica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Paula Razquin UNESCO, Francia María Caridad García Universidad Católica del Norte, Chile Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España Raimundo Cuesta Fernández IES Fray Luis de León, España Daniel Schugurensky Universidad de Toronto-Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, Canadá Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México Orlando Pulido Chaves Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, Colombia Inés Dussel FLACSO, Argentina José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia Rafael Feito Alonso Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, México Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM México Verónica García Martínez Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco, México José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Francisco F. García Pérez Universidad de Sevilla, España Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Edna Luna Serrano Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, México Aida Terrón Bañuelos Universidad de Oviedo, España Alma Maldonado Departamento de Investigaciones Educativas, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados, México Jurjo Torres Santomé Universidad de la Coruña, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM México Antoni Verger Planells University of Amsterdam, Holanda José Felipe Martínez Fernández University of California Los Angeles, USA Mario Yapu Universidad Para la Investigación Estratégica, Bolivia Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 23 No. 118 8 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Associados: Rosa Maria Bueno Fisher e Luis A. Gandin (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) Dalila Andrade de Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Paulo Carrano Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brasil Luciano Mendes de Faria Filho Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil Alicia Maria Catalano de Bonamino Pontificia Universidade Católica-Rio, Brasil Lia Raquel Moreira Oliveira Universidade do Minho, Portugal Fabiana de Amorim Marcello Universidade Luterana do Brasil, Canoas, Brasil Belmira Oliveira Bueno Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona, Portugal Gaudêncio Frigotto Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Pia L. Wong California State University Sacramento, U.S.A Alfredo M Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brasil Sandra Regina Sales Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Petronilha Beatriz Gonçalves e Silva Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Brasil Elba Siqueira Sá Barreto Fundação Carlos Chagas, Brasil Nadja Herman Pontificia Universidade Católica –Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Manuela Terrasêca Universidade do Porto, Portugal José Machado Pais Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal Robert Verhine Universidade Federal da Bahia, Brasil Wenceslao Machado de Oliveira Jr. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brasil Antônio A. S. Zuin Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Brasil