The riddle of the middle: Understanding how intermediaries promote research use in K-12 education

• In Event: Positionality and Research Use in Educational Policy and Practice: Toward Evidence-Informed Decisions

Abstract

1. Objectives or purposes
Intermediary organizations (IOs) play an important role in brokering research evidence within K-12 education (Malin & Brown, 2020; Reckhow, 2016; Scott, 2017; Weber & Yanovitzky, 2021). Yet despite the wide variety of IOs – including think tanks, philanthropic foundations, technical assistance providers, associations and advocacy organizations – we know much less about similarities and differences in their goals and approaches for promoting research use. This poster presentation will map the various intermediary organizations according to how they promote research use based on their positionality, the criteria by which they select research, the basis for their legitimacy, and the different constraints and opportunities they face.
2. Perspective(s) or theoretical framework
We draw on the literature on research use, education policy, political science, philanthropy, think tanks, science communication, expertise (Eyal & Medvetz, 2023; Pamuk, 2021), trust (O’Neill, 2020; Simon, 2020), and polarization bearing on knowledge-producing institutions (Brady & Kent, 2022; Finkel, 2020, and mis and disinformation (Berinsky, 2023.) We employ frameworks, theories and models including the Advocacy Coalition Framework, Multiple Streams Framework (Kingdon, 2010), Narrative Policy Framework (Jones, 2014), the functional theory of think tanks (Medvetz, 2012), persuasion theory (O’Keefe, 2015; Coppock, 2023), and democratic deliberation (Bächtiger, 2024). Lastly, we incorporate research on how polarization affects knowledge-producing institutions
3. Methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry
We will address three questions:
1) Positionality. What are the distinctive opportunities and constraints of each type of IO, as well as commonalities across them? For example, think tanks may exert more influence during the agenda-setting phase of policymaking (Rich, 2005) and as boundary spanners (Medvetz, 2012), while foundations may be well-suited to support heterophilous diffusion (Anheier & Leat, 2006).
2) Impact. What are examples of impact, both more and less successful? What strategies are effective (Garcia, 2021; Crowley, 2021)? And what does the mixed record of the Common Core State Standards tell us about influence and limitations (McDonnell & Weatherford, 2020)?
3) Legitimacy. How do these intermediaries, in their respective roles, contribute to or detract from the ideal of democratic governance in public education (Tyack, 2007), whether epistemically (William, D., 2020) or normatively?
4. Data sources, evidence, objects, or materials
In addition to synthesizing literature, we will interview at least two representatives of each of the following categories of intermediaries: think tanks, endowed foundations, advocacy organizations, government-funded centers, professional associations, and technical assistance providers.
5. Results and/or substantiated conclusions or warrants for arguments/point of view
The results are a work in progress. For the conference, we will present a summative grid, based on extant research and interviews, will identify affordances and constraints for each category of intermediary.
6. Scientific or scholarly significance of the study or work
We aim to contribute to greater clarity about the role of intermediaries, both to aid future research and to help policymakers and practitioners work productively with them.

Authors

• Lucas Held, Strategic Communications Consultant

• Ece Tekbulut, Columbia University