Investigating Relationships Between Research and Practice Communities: Practitioner Perspectives

• In Event: Navigating Boundaries at the Nexus of Research and Practice

Abstract

Purpose
With increased policy emphasis on connecting research and practice communities, there is a pressing need to understand schools’ structures, processes, and incentives (SPIs) that mediate practitioners’ access to and use of research. This paper presents initial findings from a survey about SPIs in K-12 schools in the U.S., how research use occurs within or is supported by SPIs, and perceptions about their relationships to the research community.

Framework
This study is grounded in Caplan's (1979) "two communities" theory, which hypothesizes that cultural differences between research and practice contribute to underutilization of research. A growing literature suggests that SPIs that guide the work of each community are not aligned and therefore impede research use in education (Burkhardt & Schoenfeld, 2003; Honig, 2003; Spillane, 1998).

Data Sources and Methods
Descriptive analyses of survey data collected as part of a large-scale pilot study of school-based practitioners’ use of research are presented. The survey was administered to instructional staff in 33 schools, representing a range of contexts and demographics (n=633, median 30 respondents per school). This paper attends to a series of closed-ended questions about school, district, and other (e.g. professional) SPIs that support engagement with research and/or members of the research community.

Results
Structures. Professional learning communities (PLCs), instructional leadership teams, and instructional coaching were the most common structures through which research was used in schools. PLCs occurred most often (22% occurred weekly), followed by instructional coaching.

Processes. Participants indicated an absence of formal processes for engaging with research (45%), although they considered the practice important. Many (44%) agreed that non-administrative staff participated in examining research and that their school was expected to use research in decision making (63%). However, most (58%) indicated that their schools lacked opportunities for teachers to consult research. Furthermore, most (89%) said that in the last two years they had not contacted a researcher nor had most (68%) been contacted a researcher.

Incentives. Few institutionalized incentives to connect research to practice existed, but there were a variety of motivating factors. Intrinsic motivation seemed prevalent. Most respondents agreed with the importance of research (77%) and its ability to improve practice (70%), but that there were few incentives to use it (64%). Practitioners indicated their schools and districts were externally motivated by supervisors/administrators (50%) or achievement scores (53%) to use research.

Perceptions about connections. Data indicate education research could be more relevant to the needs and context of practice (67%). Practitioners felt research does not address the most critical issues in practice (58%), nor does it reflect the resources available for implementation of findings (66%). However, practitioners believed that research improves school effectiveness (64%).

Significance
Practitioners value education research, but there is evidence of gaps in opportunities to connect research and practice. Findings reveal opportunities to leverage school structures, processes, and incentives in support of stronger ties. This paper, and the larger work in which it is situated, offers insights from a range of school contexts that can support more meaningful and effective connections between communities.

Authors

• Horatio W Blackman, University of Pennsylvania

• Sara Bernice Grajeda, University of Delaware