Mauricio Pino-Yancovic
University of Chile
Toby Greany
University of Nottingham
Georgina Hudson
University of Nottingham
John O’Connor
Qualifications and Quality Assurance Authority of Ireland
Jørn Pedersen
Stavanger Municipality, Norway
Inger Sofie Berge Hurlen
Stavanger Municipality, Norway
Huw Morris
University College London
Edited by: Melissa Mouthaan
OECD
This chapter presents insights into how policy and practice-oriented organisations create a culture of thoughtful engagement with knowledge and evidence and the role of networks and leadership in this process. The chapter starts with a short overview and framing from different parts of the literature to showcase key perspectives on how leadership and learning around evidence use have been theorised in organisations of policy and practice. This is followed by descriptive and analytical case studies drawn from different countries and different types of organisations. The case studies report research findings on leadership, organisational culture, and learning within and across organisations in Chile, England, Ireland, Norway and Wales.
Organisations play a vital role in promoting the use of research, both internally and outside of their “borders”. Yet, changing existing norms within an organisation, whether a school, ministry or other organisation, has proven to be a highly challenging task in many countries and education systems. Organisational cultures, assumptions and embedded routines can sometimes prevent learning and experimentation (Levitt and March, 1988[1]). In a practice context, the competing pressures practitioners face, and the tendency to work alone to address problems in school environments, increases the difficulty of changing cultural norms (Ainscow and Sandill, 2010[2]; Huber, Moorman and Pont, 2008[3]). This report focuses on the necessary conditions for and barriers to creating a “culture of research use” within and across organisations of policy and practice. This chapter delves into a specific aspect of creating such a culture: the role of leadership.
Good access to high-quality research is of fundamental importance. But it has been well-established that simply providing access to research is not sufficient to stimulate research use or to change established or routine behaviour around it (Levin, 2010[4]; Nutley, Walter and Davies, 2007[5]). This underscores the importance of considering cultural factors in research use and understanding how individuals and leaders within organisations shape and define the organisational culture(s). There is a strong history of research on school leadership and networks that provides key insights into organisational and system-wide learning and leadership in a practice context. “Strong leadership” within schools has been defined in this literature as demonstrating characteristics such as setting direction, developing people and helping them grow professionally by creating opportunities and providing formal training and feedback, and being willing to redesign the organisation (Huber, Moorman and Pont, 2008[3]; Leithwood and Riehl, 2003[6]). The term “system leaders” (Fullan, 2002[7]) took the concept of leadership beyond the school borders: system leaders are, by definition, concerned with improving other schools, not just their own. In exploring how countries lead educational change, the OECD has also promoted system leadership and described how system leaders develop their schools as professional learning communities, building relationships across and beyond schools with the overall goal of sustained improvement of schools through system-level improvement (Hopkins and Pont, 2008[8]). School and system leadership has consistently emerged as a critical component in the creation and nurturing of strong ties among teachers which, in turn, fosters research use (Brown, Daly and Liou, 2016[9]; Coburn and Talbert, 2006[10]). Leaders have been found to play a key role in fostering – or hindering – the use of research among practitioners. However, enabling the conditions for effective school and system leadership is something that many countries still struggle with.
It has increasingly been recognised that achieving a deep and sustainable impact on the culture of schools necessitates long-term and persistent strategies for capacity building at the school level, as well as building and fostering (new) relationships at the system level (Ainscow and Sandill, 2010[2]). There has been a burgeoning of literature in recent years of research on this kind of system change involving leaders and networks, which reflects how thinking on school leadership has evolved. Notably, this recent work has expanded on the concept of system leadership and systemic transformation through innovation networks (Hargreaves, 2003[11]; Fullan, 2002[7]) and has examined the potential of networked leadership for creating a research-engaged system (Díaz-Gibson et al., 2016[12]; Boylan, 2013[13]; Townsend, 2015[14]). Despite these efforts, the question of how a networked leadership can help to promote thoughtful engagement with research in education systems remains underexamined. In addition, a generally positive view of networks – both as forms of governance and as facilitators of school improvement and innovation at scale – has prevailed in education policy discourse (Grimaldi, 2009[15]; European Commission, 2017[16]). Yet research on networks has questioned and deepened the positive discourse, with critical accounts of networks such as inter-school partnerships and how they operate in practice also emerging (see, for example, Greany and Higham (2018[17])). These critical accounts highlight that we need to know more about conditions for their effectiveness in reinforcing thoughtful research engagement. We can start to do this by closely examining the challenges that systems and countries are facing in ensuring effective system leadership.
The literature on research-policy relations has also examined leadership in and across education policy organisations, yet this has developed largely in isolation of the evolving scholarship on leadership and research engagement in practice. To some extent, this reflects the gaps between research, policy and practice in education. It is relevant to first explore how an understanding of organisations and organisational change within policy organisations has evolved over time. While conventional perspectives, stemming from management studies, emphasised the coherence and stability of organisations – where organisational change is understood to occur through top-down leadership and hierarchical management – perspectives on organisations have shifted in many domains of social science. These approaches, in contrast to conventional perspectives, have emphasised the diversity and messiness of organisational practices (Cairney, 2016[18]). They have shown that politics often play a key role in shaping knowledge and knowledge use and that there is often an underlying political project that drives both research production and use (Boswell and Smith, 2017[19]). Research may be strategically deployed, for example to support pre-determined policy preferences (Weiss, 1979[20]). Increasingly, researchers have proposed approaching the study of policy organisations and their culture of interaction with science and knowledge that can provide “thick descriptions” of the daily work and practices that occur within organisations, such as ethnography (Obermeister, 2020[21]).
Compared to the literature on school leadership, there has only been cautious optimism concerning leaders in policy organisations and their role in driving thoughtful research engagement. On the one hand, empirical studies on research use in the “sister sector” of health service organisations (Belkhodja et al., 2007[22]; Ouimet et al., 2009[23]) have found that individual civil servants’ research experience and education level are positively associated with research use (although this tells us little about the quality of such research use). In addition, “policy entrepreneurs”, i.e. individuals with extensive knowledge of the political system that can identify and exploit political opportunities to advance their favoured solutions, can be key actors in creating a culture of research use. One potentially important avenue in furthering a culture of research use is, therefore, to systematically identify such policy entrepreneurs within systems that have both the skills to use evidence and influence policy makers (Cairney, 2016[18]). On the other hand, the ability of policy entrepreneurs to shape or steer policy processes is often thought to be limited: it is more a case of “surfers waiting for the big wave” than individuals who can manipulate processes themselves to create change (Kingdon, 1995, p. 225[24]; Cairney, 2016[18]). OECD/CERI work has also examined networked leadership, specifically in education policy governance, which shows that leadership in this field is also about preparation, framing issues at hand and carefully selecting the appropriate participants in a network (Burns and Köster, 2016[25]). Yet, more research is needed to unpack the characteristics of networked leadership in policy organisations and determine the role of leadership in driving or hindering a culture of research engagement.
Finally, we note that an emphasis on networks is also reflected in novel approaches to theorising research‑policy relations that have focused on co-production; and that, in tangent, networks have been taken up strongly in policy development. Many countries and systems have significantly invested in building networks, partnerships and diverse alliances around the production and use of education research. Co‑production approaches have emerged from diverse fields such as science and technology studies, geography, psychology, and social theories of learning and typically emphasise the networked and unbounded nature of organisational structures (see, for example, Pallett and Chilvers (2014[26])). Engeström’s (2001[27]) theory of expansive learning posits that existing standing practice must be critically examined in any process of knowledge creation and contests the notion that knowledge processes in organisations are smooth and conflict-free. Accounts such as these emphasise how knowledge and governance influence one another and argue for an understanding of the links between knowledge production and governance that recognises their deep complexity (Burns, Köster and Fuster, 2016[28]). Elsewhere, Boswell and Smith (2017[19]) have argued in favour of a research engagement culture that focuses more on relationship-building and less on measuring the impact of research on policy. This focus, they argue, incentivises and rewards the processes of knowledge exchange in themselves. At the same time, some have cautioned against purely “networked” visions of organisational processes, criticising these for their inadequate consideration of the role of power and politics in shaping organisational processes and change (Pallett and Chilvers, 2014[26]). Despite the interest in networks among policy makers and in policy research, our knowledge of the effectiveness of networks in creating or reinforcing a thoughtful engagement with research remains limited.
Taking stock of these different perspectives on leadership, networks and organisations, the OECD invited authors to explore the following questions.
What does strong leadership in a policy or practice organisation look like? How can such leadership help create a culture of research engagement in and across organisations?
What insights can recent research on networks and leadership give us about high-quality evidence use in practice and/or policy-oriented organisations, and within the wider system (e.g. co‑production approaches)? What are the advantages and possible limitations of network research?
What roles can drive a culture of research use and engagement (e.g. policy entrepreneurs, research champions, boundary spanners) and how can leadership strategically leverage these? How can individuals in these roles be identified, and how can their work be supported and scaled up through effective leadership?
These questions are explored by means of case studies. Through these case studies, experts representing different countries, types of organisations and roles examine leadership, organisational culture and learning within and across organisations in their countries or systems. Mauricio Pino-Yancovic examines school networks in Chile, a country that has extensive experience with educational networks but where top-down supervision of schools seems to prevent these networks from achieving their true potential in establishing a research engagement culture. Toby Greany and Georgina Hudson discuss evidence‑informed practice across a network of schools in Cumbria, England. John O’Connor explores research-policy relationships in education in Ireland, noting that Ireland has a sophisticated research and innovation system but a comparatively underdeveloped research-for-policy support system. Jørn Pedersen and Inger Sofie Berge Hurlen analyse how a culture of research involvement was established within the education sector of the municipality of Stavanger in Norway. Finally, Huw Morris’ piece adopts a historical lens to analyse how research played a shifting role in the development of education policy in Wales between 1998 and 2022.
Mauricio Pino-Yancovic, Institute of Education and Center for Advanced Research in Education, University of Chile
The Chilean educational system was structured under a market model imposed during the dictatorship of Pinochet (1973-90). An essential element of this system is financing based on demand, which depends on student enrolment and attendance. In the years that followed, and with the return of democracy, the structure of this system was not modified, but many policies were implemented to provide more significant resources to public education (Bellei and Munoz, 2023[29]; Bellei and Vanni, 2015[30]).
In this context, structured under a competitive system, policies to strengthen public education have gradually been implemented, and strategies have been developed to enhance collaboration between schools through educational networks. Since the 1990s, rural microcenters (usually based in isolated rural areas) have enabled the sharing of experiences and the development of professional capacities of teachers (Ávalos, 1999[31]; Moreno, 2007[32]). Also, there is a great diversity of thematic networks, some dating back to the 1980s, focusing on sharing pedagogical experiences on common topics or subjects. Still, there is little evidence of their implementation and effects (MINEDUC, 2017[33]). More recently, the School Improvement Networks (SIN) strategy was developed, led by the Ministry of Education, which ministry supervisors used as a support strategy for schools. SIN comprises principals and curriculum co‑ordinators from 3-15 schools. In 2020, 307 rural microcenters, 196 thematic networks and 407 SINs were in operation, grouping approximately 6 960 schools (MINEDUC, 2020[34]).
The Direction of Public Education that leads the local public education services, Servicios Locales de Educación Pública (SLEP), also implements networking strategies among their educational institutions. Collaboration and networking, enshrined in Law No. 21.040 that creates this new administration, are among the critical principles of the new public system, which explicitly states that SLEPs:
must carry out collaborative and networking work, based on professional development (…) the generation of learning networks among members of the educational communities, the promotion of joint work and the exchange of good pedagogical and educational management practices (DEP, 2019, p. 6[35]).
Thus, the SLEPs develop various educational networks; some are made up of principals, others of curriculum co-ordinators, school well-being officers, teachers of different subjects (English, mathematics and language), and early childhood education professionals.
One major challenge of educational networks, especially in competitive contexts, is for them to be valuable instances for participants to mobilise knowledge among educational establishments and thus foster research use and research engagement among peers (Armstrong and Ainscow, 2018[36]; Jones et al., 2023[37]). In Chile, many studies have been conducted to assess participants’ appreciation of their functioning and to identify the type of practices carried out collectively (Pino-Yancovic et al., 2019[38]; Ahumada et al., 2018[39]; 2019[40]). In turn, models have been developed to strengthen the functioning of educational networks so that they can have more and greater effects on their schools (Cuadra Charme et al., 2019[41]; Pino-Yancovic et al., 2019[42]; 2021[43]). Nevertheless, as the evidence suggests, just providing tools and good evidence is not sufficient to facilitate and encourage new routines that actually allow the practical application of this knowledge and research use (Nutley, Walter and Davies, 2007[5]). It is required to develop and support professionals’ skills to encourage the generation and use of educational research.
In 2016, the Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) requested a study to identify collaborative practices developed in ten school improvement networks located in different regions of Chile. The key takeaway from this study is the importance of considering the conditions of the territory in which these educational networks operate and their internal functioning to ensure they can be useful in fostering collaborative research (Ahumada. et al., 2020[44]). The authors of this research identified three types of processes that SINs implement:
1. Informative processes: networks characterised by transferring and analysing national educational policy, which has limited research use and focuses much more on sharing regulations and ministry guidance.
2. Collaborative processes: educational networks where successful or innovative practices are shared among different schools, where data and evidence are effectively used, but often focus more on sharing experiences rather than involvement in research processes.
3. Co-operative processes: these networks define common objectives and usually conduct data analysis, generally supported by evidence; in these networks, a sort of collaborative research process is carried out, even when there is not always systematic use of education research.
The 2016 case study was followed by a second study conducted in 2017 using a questionnaire1 answered by principals and curriculum co-ordinators participating in SIN. This mixed-method research first identified that some networks have no clear purpose besides informative meetings. It also identified that many networks focused on the dissemination and analysis of national policies relevant to schools, while others focused on the development of professional capacities by sharing educational experiences and projects between schools (Box 11.1) (Pino-Yancovic and Ahumada, 2020[45]).
The 2016 study found that networks can serve quite distinct purposes. In the case of two networks involving rural and urban primary schools, the network’s purpose could be described as sharing the existing knowledge of each school to solve pedagogical issues they face in their contexts, and to capitalise on this knowledge. These pedagogical issues are closely related to specific policy guidelines promoted by the Ministry of Education and concern the design and implementation of each school's educational improvement plan.
In some cases, the purpose of the network is limited to disseminating ministry policies to school leaders, such as policies concerning school climate and bullying, citizenship education, inclusion and special education needs; or policies related to the reform of public education in Chile.
Source: Pino-Yancovic et al. (2019, p. 72[46]), School Improvement Networks and Collaborative Inquiry, https://doi.org/10.1108/9781787697355.
Regarding the type of activities carried out to mobilise knowledge, networks undertake an identification and replication process of actions performed in the networks into schools, share innovative experiences or practices, and implement joint actions (see example in Box 11.2).
The 2016 study identified several forms of collaborative practice around knowledge mobilisation in networks. For instance, one was sharing successful or innovative practices, where the focus was on educational improvement. This creates an opportunity for network partners to reflect on how to change and innovate their own practices. In this example, there is evidence of the important role played by ministry supervisors. Their support is crucial in creating an environment that incentivises network partners to share their practices and lessons learnt from their experience.
In these cases, networks are concerned with understanding what is being done in each school in order to connect partners with similar interests, needs and expertise. The process of knowledge mobilisation in such a network is typically as follows:
first, there is an analysis of each school’s data
second, each school is assessed in terms of its progress in achieving its goals (not only in terms of student outcomes but also teachers’ practices relating to management and leadership)
third, a collective analysis of the network goals is undertaken, with the aim that participants share their ideas and experiences to support the development of those collective goals.
Source: Pino-Yancovic et al. (2019, pp. 86-87[46]), School Improvement Networks and Collaborative Inquiry, https://doi.org/10.1108/9781787697355.
There is evidence that these networks are highly valued by participants, strengthen the professional capital of their members, and facilitate more collaborative work and sharing of successful experiences in each network. Yet, members declared that they would like more influence in the decision-making processes and to have more opportunities to monitor the results of their networks (Pino-Yancovic and Ahumada, 2020[45]).
This mixed-method research highlights three leadership capacities to be fostered in these networks: leading downwards; lateral or distributed leadership; and leading upwards.
Leading downwards relates to a supervisor’s practices to influence the network agenda and its connections with the needs of the school members. Specifically, it relates to how the network leaders are able to prioritise and mobilise meaningful practices that the network members can then implement in their own schools to address local challenges (Brown and Flood, 2019[47]).
Lateral or distributed leadership is linked to network leaders’ skills to mobilise the expertise of network members, mobilising knowledge within, between and across partners. It deals with power relationships, aiming to ensure that the interest of the supervisor does not interfere with the capacity building of the network members (Azorín, Harris and Jones, 2019[48]). A tension of the analysis of SIN strategy was that some networks were instrumental for the dissemination of ministry policies and information by supervisors, and thus replicated the hierarchy of the Chilean education system within the network (Pino-Yancovic et al., 2019, p. 116[46]).
Finally, leading upwards relates to how network members are able to influence stakeholders as a direct result of their participation in the network, such as by using the space of the network as leverage for a policy shift. According to the purpose, actions and values of their network, “leading upwards is related to the idea of supporting activist professionals within networks, as a way of generating appropriate conditions to engage in collaboration and partnership in a given context” (Pino-Yancovic et al., 2019, p. 118[46]).
The results of these studies reflect that the use of educational networks as a supervision strategy to discuss national policies and guidelines limits the possibility that these networks become valuable spaces for collaborative research or for research engagement, and instead of promoting system change, could actually restrain some meaningful innovations. Similar results have been identified regarding the formation of educational networks in the SLEPs. The study of some SLEPs has shown that they are still used as a lead organisation, where a single network member co-ordinates key activities and decisions, which still denotes a hierarchical structure in the network, limiting the possibilities of building real interdependent relationships among network partners in the territories (González, Ehren and Montecinos, 2020[49]; Provan and Kenis, 2008[50]).
As González, Ehren and Montecinos (2020[49]) point out, based on Townsend (2015[14]), it seems that both the SIN and the educational networks led by SLEP from 2016 to 2020 reflect a hybrid structure: a hierarchical work culture that mixes with collaborative and horizontal relationships. The Ministry of Education’s educational networks and those of the local services have improved the development of their collaborative practices. But where more horizontal practices have been generated (CIAE-IE, 2023[51]; Pino-Yancovic and Herrera, 2022[52]), there is still a need for these networks to carry out more and better collaborative work activities, supporting the use of research and the participants’ research engagement to influence schools’ educational practices.
A key element to developing good research engagement is to generate genuine curiosity, respect and active listening among those who generate knowledge, which requires the active involvement of the actors to address issues that are relevant to them, where the knowledge generated in educational networks is effectively mobilised to their establishments. For this, nourishing relationships between different communities through associated partnerships among diverse institutions is key. This does not however arise spontaneously, but requires specific methodologies that allow knowledge to be effectively mobilised (OECD, 2022[53]).
In addition to documents and instruments for collaboration, associative projects have been developed in Chile between universities, educational administrators and educational networks to support knowledge mobilisation. These projects can be situated within a relationship and knowledge-to-action framework where researchers, local education administrators and practitioners are connected to creating and using knowledge generated in educational networks and for its implementation in educational practices (Torres, 2022[54]). From this approach, teachers and administrators are positioned as relevant agents for producing knowledge that affects their practices. Researchers assume a facilitator role to focus and facilitate the use of this knowledge in the daily practices of teachers and administrators.
An interesting experience was developed by the Center for Educational Leadership for Networked Improvement. Between 2016 and 2018, the centre implemented the “critical friends” methodology to develop professional learning communities among principals and curriculum co-ordinators participating in SINs (Box 11.3).
The term “critical friend” refers to the double function of the network leaders, as “friends” (close and trustworthy) and “critics” (who maintain an open and questioning attitude). In essence, the critical friend helps the different educational actors who work in a network to identify “blind spots”, misconceptions and alternative perspectives that perhaps go against their own beliefs (Gurr and Huerta, 2013[55]). This role also supposes that the person who leads the network creates a respectful bond based on horizontality and information, allowing them to collate information about what happens in the network and why (Huerta, 2014[56]).
This project had a diagnosis phase, implementation of the “critical friends” methodology, and evaluation involving 10 educational networks composed of 78 schools. Among the results, the authors indicate that they were able to progress from educational networks focused on the transmission and reproduction of information to the generation of reflective and democratic dialogues to redefine educational practices, esteeming the use of pedagogical knowledge and feedback among peers to address the educational problems of the network participants (Mellado Hernández et al., 2020[57]).
Also, since 2018, the Collaborative Inquiry Network methodology has been implemented. This methodology was developed at the University of Chile in connection with the first Leadership Center for Educators and currently with the Associative Center for School Leadership Clíder. The Collaborative Inquiry Network is comprised of three phases (Pino-Yancovic and Ahumada, 2020, p. 393[45]):
1. common challenges;
2. inquiry and action;
3. monitoring and reflection.
Each of these phases has specific underlying stages that allow participants to focus on their collective work (Figure 11.1).
Source: Adapted from Pino-Yancovic and Ahumada (2020[45]), “Collaborative inquiry networks: The challenge to promote network leadership capacities in Chile”, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1716325.
The Collaborative Inquiry Network started its implementation with 26 schools distributed across 5 teams, in 2019 with 21 schools grouped into 7 teams, and in 2020 (during the pandemic) with 27 schools organised into 6 teams. Common challenges included:
supporting teachers in designing and implementing formative assessment strategies with their students
identifying and developing students’ cognitive abilities
adapting teaching and learning practices to a virtual modality to appropriately respond to the socio‑educational context of students and their families.
The collective actions vary among the research teams, from the development, application and analysis of questionnaires to teachers knowing how to identify and assess cognitive skills during online education. They also range from the design and implementation of workshops on different topics, to the support of student cognitive skills to formative assessment, some of them implemented with the support of researchers and specialists in the field (Pino-Yancovic et al., 2022[58]). In addition, the Collaborative Inquiry Network was implemented in educational establishments in Latin America and the Caribbean in 2021 and 2022 (Bustos, 2023[59]).
In Chile, the researchers found that the methodology improved the inquiry skills of school leaders and their knowledge of the pedagogical practices of their teachers, increasing the achievement expectations of their students. Furthermore, it has developed the professional capital of those who lead this inquiry process, especially their decisional capital (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012[60]), using relevant knowledge to address local challenges identified by the teams (Pino-Yancovic and Ahumada, 2020[45]). The work in collaborative inquiry networks facilitates both the mobilisation of knowledge and pedagogical innovation (Pino-Yancovic and Ahumada, 2020[45]), making it a valuable working methodology for mobilising innovative strategies and the research engagement of its members to address complex educational challenges generated during the most difficult moments of the COVID-19 pandemic (Pino-Yancovic et al., 2022[58]). These conclusions are drawn from field notes, headteachers’ observations and teachers’ collective practices, and participants’ surveys. Despite these meaningful findings, more research is needed in regards to student outcomes.
Chile has extensive experience fostering educational networks to strengthen the professional development of its members. One of the tensions of school networks is that they operate in an educational system that has prioritised educational policies that incentive schools to compete instead of collaborate, and also traditional hierarchical supervision of schools. In the last ten years, many educational policies have been introduced to support the quality and equity of public education, and interesting alliances have been generated between educational networks in association with universities and leadership centres.
Current research on school networks in Chile seems to suggest that initiatives guided by a transparent methodology, that are coherent and with strong institutional support can facilitate the research inquiry skills of principals, curriculum co-ordinators and teachers, which are fundamental for their research use and research engagement. In this way, mobilising knowledge ceases to be a linear process created by higher education institutions and filtered “downward” to school centres; instead, it is established as an associative and collaborative practice where the value and interests of teachers are fundamental to promote school improvement.
Despite these innovative projects, it is not possible to affirm that these experiences have been scaled throughout the country. What is perhaps the case is that these collaborative endeavours are engendering a cultural change: one that promotes new educational policies that value collaboration over competition. The goal of promoting a culture of collaboration, shared responsibility and systemic improvement necessitates both recognising and empowering school leaders to influence the practices of others, and to influence the structure of the educational system (Pino-Yancovic et al., 2019, p. 124[46]). Therefore, it is very relevant to continue research in Chile on how educational networks, in association with universities, the educational community and the Ministry of Education, can scale these projects, aiming to expand these innovations to the entire school system.
Toby Greany and Georgina Hudson, University of Nottingham
This case study draws on an ongoing evaluation of the Western Excellence in Learning and Leadership (WELL) initiative – a GBP 3.9 million three-year programme (2021-24) which aims to sustainably improve educational outcomes for all young people in the west of Cumbria (United Kingdom), particularly disadvantaged youth.2 A core thrust of WELL’s approach is to strengthen the use of evidence by schools and teachers in the 121 primary and secondary schools it supports, in particular through a partnership with the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) and its Research School Network.3
This case study draws on findings from the first year (2021-22) of the independent evaluation of WELL (Greany et al., 2022[61]).4 It starts by providing a brief description of the context of schools in western Cumbria before outlining how the WELL programme operates. It then introduces vignettes of two secondary schools, showing how leaders in these schools have selected and begun to implement evidence-informed improvement projects. It concludes by discussing some of the strategic choices and operational dilemmas facing system leaders seeking to develop evidence-informed practice across large networks of schools.
The WELL programme is funded by the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, reflecting the location of the Sellafield nuclear power station in the area. WELL is part of Cumbria County Council, but has an independent board and a small dedicated team, so it is perceived by local stakeholders as largely independent.
WELL works with all 121 state-funded primary and secondary schools in the districts of Allerdale and Copeland. These districts span most of Cumbria’s remote western coast, encompassing a mixture of post‑industrial and maritime centres, small market towns, and rural communities. Overall, Allerdale and Copeland sit within the 10% most deprived areas of England (MHCLG, 2019[62]).
Educationally, the region has many strengths, including that around 91% of local schools had been graded by Ofsted – England’s school inspectorate – as either good or outstanding by autumn 2022. However, average pupil outcomes on national tests and exams across both primary and secondary schools were mostly below the national average before the pandemic.
Evaluation interviews with schoolteachers and leaders and local “system leaders” (e.g. local authority, Ofsted, Cumbria Research School, etc.) revealed a strong sense of community and connection to west Cumbria, but also highlighted systemic challenges, including high levels of deprivation and inter‑generational poverty. This was coupled with a sense of geographical isolation and recognition that schools of different sizes serve very different communities, making collaborative learning and improvement challenging. Furthermore, many small, remote village schools have limited capacity to attend external professional development (PD) events or engage in collaboration. These issues were compounded by parental choice mechanisms, meaning that schools often compete with one another to attract pupils – particularly at the secondary level.
In this context, the WELL project offered a range of support to schools structured in three strands:
1. raising educational standards;
2. closing achievement gaps between more and less advantaged students;
3. improving pupil well-being.
A core focus was on strengthening the extent to which school leaders and teachers drew on evidence to inform their decision making and practice. In practical terms, the support included a number of professional development and training programmes as well as wider initiatives and capacity-building efforts. For example, WELL provided funding for an additional EEF Research School based in the west of Cumbria, thereby increasing local capacity for – and access to – evidence-informed PD.
Just over half of the total WELL budget in 2021-22 was distributed in the form of grants to schools. Schools were allocated between GBP 4 500 and GBP 22 600 in funding depending on school size and the number of disadvantaged children (in receipt of free school meals) in the school. School leaders could decide how this grant funding was spent, in line with the school’s priorities, but the money was only released once the school’s action plan had been approved by the WELL Project Director. To support this process, leaders from all schools attended training on the EEF’s Putting Evidence to Work: A School’s Guide to Implementation (Sharples, Albers and Fraser, 2018[63]).5 Following this training, school leaders undertook an internal review to identify a problem they wanted to address and an associated evidence-based intervention, in principle drawn from the EEF’s tiered model of teacher development, targeted intervention or wider strategies. All schools were then encouraged to apply the EEF implementation guide approach in how they worked, with further training provided to reinforce this over the course of the year.
This large secondary school is based in a rural town, with over 1 000 pupils on roll. There are relatively few disadvantaged pupils or those with additional needs among the pupil population.
The school has used its WELL funding to implement the Reciprocal Reader intervention, developed by the Fisher Family Trust. Funding has also been used to provide wider training for teaching staff in areas such as mental health.
The Reciprocal Reader intervention is targeted at pupils in the first three years of secondary school (7‑9) who are assessed as having below-average reading skills. In the Year 7 group, all these students are on the school’s special educational needs and disabilities register or have an education, health and care plan, or speak English as a second language, and/or are disadvantaged. According to the school’s Assistant Head, who oversees the project, they selected Reciprocal Reader because it “suits our context, we thought we could deliver it well and I liked the look of the evaluation (evidence) so far”. The school has an implementation plan and is seeking to “deliver a quality intervention, with real integrity and then measure it to see the impact”.
The target students receive two small-group Reciprocal Reader sessions each week over a six-week period. Three members of staff attended training run by the Fisher Family Trust, then cascaded this to the wider staff group of English teachers and teaching assistants who deliver the intervention.
Over the course of the year, the school regularly assessed participating pupils’ reading skills. A majority of target students in all three-year groups were making strong progress. The Assistant Head also interviewed a number of teachers across the school later in the year to understand attitudes towards the project as well as barriers to reading comprehension for students. This review indicates a promising impact from the intervention, although a key challenge remains to embed the approach across the wider curriculum and subject departments.
This small secondary school is located in a coastal town, with above-average levels of children on free school meals. The school’s headteacher has focused on developing a student-centred ethos with an emphasis on high-quality teaching and extra-curricular enrichment activities.
The school has appointed a pupil premium mentor separately to the WELL project funding to help individual students and meet with them one-to-one. From this, the school has created pupil premium profiles for every student on free school meals and/or with special educational needs and disabilities. The headteacher explains that the idea is “not treating pupil premium as a homogeneous blob, but looking at individual students … it’s a bespoke personalised approach to addressing the issues of chronic underperformance of pupil premium students.” The interviews and profiles ensure the school gets “to know individual students in terms of context” and can then “improve … our staff knowledge of those individual students” (headteacher).
The school is using the WELL funding to build on the existing profiles, extending these to cover additional year-groups. Class teachers are allocated time to read the profiles and decide on any support that might be required.
In addition, the school has accessed several WELL-provided continuing professional development programmes in areas including mental health support for students and the effective deployment of teaching assistants.
WELL is an ambitious place-based initiative that seeks to influence significant change across multiple schools. This is in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the many wider challenges that schools in England currently face, including tight budgets, teacher recruitment shortfalls, a fragmented school improvement and support infrastructure, and significant issues relating to pupil well-being and special needs support. The Year 1 impact evaluation compared pupil test outcomes in WELL-supported schools with a matched group of schools elsewhere in England: it did not show evidence of impact, but this is not surprising in the first baseline year. What the evaluation does show is that the vast majority of schools have engaged positively with WELL, with the grants process, in particular, helping to ensure that evidence‑informed implementation gains traction.
In terms of evidence-informed practice, the evaluation found that WELL increased access to sources of evidence – albeit from a relatively low base – and that many schools were beginning to make evidence‑informed changes as a result. Case study headteachers reported feeling able to think more clearly about evidence and its use, in particular through the use of the EEF implementation guidance. Meanwhile, some school leaders were engaging more critically with evidence, for example, recognising that “robust” scientific evidence does not offer easy solutions and must always be adapted to different contexts by thoughtful professionals.
Clearly, there are risks in appearing to draw direct conclusions from the two vignettes provided here. We have included them mainly to illustrate how different schools have adapted the WELL process to reflect specific contextual priorities. However, they also help to illuminate some of the strategic choices and operational dilemmas facing system leaders seeking to strengthen the use of evidence at scale, which we explore in relation to two questions: what should count as evidence? And where and how can “evidence” add value given all the other priorities that schoolteachers and leaders face?
WELL has had the advantage of being able to piggy-back on the EEF’s established work and tools, including the Teaching and Learning Toolkit, the Implementation Guide, and the Research Schools Network. This has offered many advantages, not least by serving to amplify and reinforce an agenda that is already well-established in policy terms and that has been adopted by many schools across England (although with less engagement in west Cumbria at the start of WELL). However, this approach also carries some risks, which the WELL team were aware of as they designed their approach. The EEF is committed to a “what works” agenda, meaning that it funds only experimental and quasi-experimental studies (e.g. randomised controlled trials - RCTs) and directs schools to draw on such studies in its guidance and tools. This gives confidence that schools will adopt “proven” interventions, but also risks downgrading other valid forms of research and evidence (such as school-level assessment data, qualitative evidence derived from teachers or students, and non-experimental research). Furthermore, there are many gaps in the EEF evidence base: for example, the Teaching and Learning Toolkit does not include entries on significant areas of school practice, such as leadership, curriculum development or pupil well-being, often because these areas are not amenable to RCT-type evaluations. Another challenge for “what works” approaches is that they risk reducing appetite for innovation – if schools can only adopt “proven” approaches, why would they try something new?
It goes without saying that schools are busy places and teachers are busy people: children, families, colleagues, lunch boxes, attendance registers, lesson plans, multi-agency meetings, accountability audits and so on can all be insatiable, making time a precious commodity. In truth, “evidence” has little to say on many of these topics. Even when it does have something to say, it rarely offers simple “how to” advice; instead, infuriatingly, it can often lead to further questions! Faced with these well-known issues, strategic leaders must find ways to make evidence simple but not simplistic, important but not just one more imperative.
What should count as evidence? The first school (Box 11.4) adopted the Reciprocal Reader scheme, having looked at the evidence and found that it had some evidence of impact – although it had only been evaluated in primary schools at the time. So, the school needed to take a risk (i.e. that the approach would work in a secondary school) and find ways to adapt the intervention to its context. As we see, the school’s leaders have collected their own evidence to assess progress and impact, but this is not “what works” evidence. Rather, the school captured this evidence through its involvement in action research, which all WELL schools could volunteer to participate in as part of the evaluation. This action research strand encouraged participating schools to capture and reflect on wider forms of evidence, such as pupil assessments, teacher interviews and professional judgement. Meanwhile, the second school (Box 11.5) adopted an approach – pupil premium profiles – that does not have any supporting evidence in the EEF Teaching and Learning Toolkit. Clearly, the school’s leaders believe that by getting to know their most deprived students better, they will build stronger relationships and have a greater chance of understanding and addressing their needs; however, evaluating the impact of such an ambitious and multi-faceted intervention presents some challenges.
This takes us to our second question – where and how can “evidence” add value? This is where strategic choices and operational dilemmas must find the sweet spot between purism and pragmatism. A “what works” purist might insist on only allowing the most rigorous evidence to be used, but this would risk turning off sceptical schools and teachers who have more pressing priorities to attend to. Equally, an overly pragmatic approach might not be demanding enough, allowing schools to continue with business as usual. The sweet spot – or Goldilocks zone in which the “porridge” is just the right temperature – will be somewhere in between, focused on school engagement, working flexibly and responsively within a clear process and set of tools and, above all, encouraging a collective process of learning and reflection on where and how “evidence” can add value and how all schools can get better at getting better.
In conclusion, it seems that evidence-informed learning and improvement at scale require sophisticated forms of system and network leadership. The kinds of leadership required in an era of complex educational networks (Greany and Kamp, 2022[64]) draw on three particular capabilities: 1) leaders work productively with tensions and paradox; 2) leaders facilitate collective sensemaking; 3) leaders adopt an ecological approach.
Various observers have noted the tensions and paradoxes that lie at the heart of many networks. For example, networks can face demands for measurable “results” within set time frames, despite the reality that relationship-building takes time and that network outcomes can be hard to measure. Embracing paradox involves the recognition that leaders can respond to system complexities without needing to fully resolve conflicts to the point of non-existence. In this case study, the decision to focus on school engagement and avoid an overly purist approach to what counts as evidence is one example of what such leadership involves.
First propounded by the organisational theorist Karl Weick, sensemaking is key to how network leaders work productively with paradox by acknowledging ambiguities while also learning, collectively, how best to move forward. As Bauer (2019, p. 133[65]) puts it “leading is a social process of learning together”. In this case study, this includes the decision to support schools to undertake action research, allowing them to evaluate whether and how the Reciprocal Reading scheme can be successfully adopted in secondary schools, and sharing that learning with other schools locally and more widely.
Leading an ecosystem requires “big picture” meta-analytical thinking together with firm ethical foundations. Eco-leadership also recognises the need for innovation, not least through a radical distribution of leadership – thereby becoming “open” (Hallgarten, Hannon and Beresford, 2015[66]). Space has not allowed a detailed exploration of such leadership in this case study, but we see it developing in the wider WELL project, for example through a serious effort to draw together key stakeholders and wider providers of professional development across the region to shape a coherent local learning landscape (Greany et al., 2023[67]).
Based on this case study, we suggest that network leadership of evidence-informed improvement at scale in education deserves greater attention from policy, practice and research. These system “knowledge brokers” must be seen as far more than implementers of proven interventions. We have highlighted some of the nuances involved and the capabilities required.
John O’Connor, Qualifications and Quality Assurance Authority of Ireland
Addressing a seminar on evidence and policy in January 2021, Simon Harris, the Minister responsible for Higher Education, Science and Research in Ireland, remarked that any time politicians don’t listen to scientific advice or research in relation to big policy decisions, they make mistakes, and that people want their leaders, their policy makers, to collaborate with, listen to, and support their research and scientific community.6
Ireland has an advanced research and innovation system but relatively underdeveloped research for policy support systems (Boyle, 2020[68]; Ruane, 2021[69]; Watt and Perkins, 2020[70]; O’Connor, 2022[71]). Research use in public policy includes the generation of policy-relevant scientific knowledge; the filtering, synthesis and mobilisation of scientific findings; and the procurement and use of scientific evidence, across all stages of the policy-making process. The systematic use of research has the potential to contribute to a more transparent, democratically accountable, effective education policy in Ireland (O’Connor, 2022[72]).
This case study shows that research use in education policy is a complex social process, where central decision making is shaped as much or more by political interests, values and professional identities as it is informed by research. This complexity will be explored using the “two-communities theory”, which assumes that effective research use is hampered by officials and researchers operating within distinct institutional settings with their own principles, cultures, incentives, professional values and ways of working (Šucha and Sienkiewicz, 2020[73]). Findings presented in this case study also lend support to the growing body of literature documenting the central role of leadership at system, institutional and professional levels in driving and embedding a culture of research use in policy making (Mair et al., 2019[74]; Head, 2015[75]; European Commission, 2022[76]; Khosrowi and Reiss, 2019[77]; Šucha and Sienkiewicz, 2020[73]; OECD, 2022[53]; Stone, 2012[78]; Cairney, 2016[18]).
The Irish education system has many strengths, but examples of research use in policy and practice are typically fragmented and lack coherence and co-ordination. This case study is informed by first-hand accounts from both senior departmental officials and experienced educational researchers collected as part of a PhD study on evidence-based education policy making in Ireland (O’Connor, 2018[79]).7 These insider accounts suggest that four dimensions of culture are particularly influential on the prospects for research-informed policy: incentives, values, communication and collaboration. These four dimensions are interdependent and are played out within a wider science for policy ecosystem, so any reform requires systems thinking together with leadership approaches that are collaborative, connected and inclusive.
As public servants, government officials are expected to comply with legal requirements and work for the public good. They are accountable to parliamentary oversight, the courts, stakeholders, including the public and their political masters. Research use is seen in these terms:
It is public money that we are spending so I think accountability is important. You are making a decision about how you are going to use public funds, so you must present the evidence base for the decisions that we are making (Official C).
Incentives are often towards the status quo in educational policy (Fullan, 2023[80]), and officials in Ireland recognise the essential conservativism in education policy exemplified by incrementalism and the pursuit of consensus-driven reform:
So people say policy making is slow and its ponderous and it takes years, but they never talk about what the alternative is, where a minister can dictate by fiat, and I believe that is a dangerous thing for education systems … anytime we have pushed the accelerator, the system has kicked back (Official E).
Rewards shape researchers’ attitudes towards undertaking policy-oriented studies (Gough, 2021[81]; Shaxson and Boaz, 2021[82]). Academic incentives, in the form of professional recognition and promotion within the academic system, can be seen as incompatible with the interests of policy makers:
It is currently not in the interest of academics who want to climb the ladder to become professors to bother spending much time producing documents that are accessible to policy makers (Researcher B, university).
Such misalignment of incentives is not inevitable and can depend on the institutional culture in which researchers work. In Ireland, educational researchers working in research institutes, such as the Education Research Centre or the Economic and Social Research Institute, report higher levels of research uptake by officials compared to researchers working in universities:
It’s part of our mission, our research is meant to inform policy, it needs to be accessible. You have to be prepared to do the presentations because you can’t expect people to read full reports, dissemination and accessibility are very important. There is no point in doing research if nobody gets to hear about it or just the two people who will read the paper in an academic journal (Researcher F, research institute).
Incentives and rewards influence researchers’ and policy makers’ attitudes and behaviours towards research use. The recent publication of a national research and innovation strategy (Impact 2030) will inevitably raise interest in how research assessment might support a culture of research use in public policy. Arguably, any such scheme should recognise the rich diversity of value that educational research can bring to public policy and pay less attention to bibliometrics. There is growing interest in the role of research assessment in promoting research-informed public policy. The main funders of public research in Ireland have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment,8 indicating a move away from traditional academic measures and towards incentivising the impact of research on society, including policy making. Meanwhile, the recent European Council conclusion on research assessment (European Union, 2022[83]), has received political backing from Ireland.
Policy makers are required to engage with the values of many, including the public, politicians, the scientific community and other interested stakeholders (Ruggles, 2004[84]). Democratic accountability is played out in bureaucratic norms requiring officials to use educational research to inform policy rather than to determine policy, as the following comments show:
Research will never tell you what to do, that is a complex political decision. If you ever try that in public policy, get up and say that research is telling us to do something, nobody will be compelled to act. Research can only inform; I am a fan of “evidence-informed” and not “evidence-based” policy because there are other factors that must be considered (Official D).
There is a certain mystique about how values shape the use of research in making education policy, partly because this is an under-researched phenomenon, but perhaps also as a result of what some academics see as a tendency to defend the existing policyscape:
I am not sure where that comes from, whether that’s a sense of institutional insecurity or a rendering of it where “we have constructed the best of all possible worlds so, therefore, how can it be wrong” (Researcher D, university).
In conversations, officials in senior leadership roles display high levels of scientific literacy and appreciate the limitations of technocratic and linear forms of research use. They acknowledge the “messiness” of making education policy and the importance of pragmatic brokering between the analytical (research) and normative (value) dimensions of policy making:
It is not like you can design a clear-cut initiative to solve a particular problem. Usually that problem is embedded in a much wider social and political context so there are a lot of factors that you have to take into account and you usually can’t give very neat answers (Official F).
Academics are often portrayed as working primarily within their own professional and disciplinary values and not inclined to incorporate public or political values. However, many academics see their research as imbricated within society and are very interested in better policy and better outcomes for citizens. Mutual understanding of how values influence researchers and policy makers can lead to more realistic expectations about research use in education policy:
I don’t think that we pay enough attention to the complexities of policy making, all of the other things that policy makers have to take into account beyond the evidence. In my experience, research rarely makes, or even has the potential to make, policy making easier. It rarely supplies a straightforward answer to a policy question (Researcher G, research institute).
Deficit models of research use assume that simply increasing the volume of educational studies will automatically increase the level of research engagement and use. This ignores the centrality of accessibility. The costs of translating educational research for policy makers can hinder research use (Grimshaw, Eccles and Lavis, 2012[85]; Thomas and Bussières, 2021[86]). Many educational researchers see their core job as gathering data, analysing data and reporting data, and that translating research findings for policy makers is a luxury they can’t afford. That said, many researchers are alert to the limitations of this position:
The language of academia and the language of politics have moved much further apart. There are often findings that would be useful and interesting to policy makers, but they are not in a language that is accessible to them. The way that we as academics write for publication is not in a form that is useful for policy makers. There is a strong case for academics to engage more with occasional papers, which aren’t necessarily published in a peer reviewed journal but are published on a website in accessible language and are available to policy makers (Researcher B, university).
Scientific evidence rarely speaks for itself, and so knowledge-brokering mechanisms, the connective tissue in the research-policy ecosystem, play an important role in synthesising and translating scientific knowledge in the context of complex policy problems. This kind of organised knowledge synthesis has not been a feature of the Irish education system (European Commission, 2017[87]). Some officials do see the school inspectorate system as fulfilling an important intermediary-type role, undertaking research and filtering research from school evaluations and bringing it to the attention of policy makers:
Our school inspectors are always pursuing further studies and they are our links to other institutions, they have access to researchers, academics, experts in particular areas (Official B).
No doubt the inspectorate is a useful source of advice, but it is not designed to conduct systematic or meta‑reviews of existing educational studies to advise policy makers about what is known and not known about policy problems. The recently reconstituted Education Research Centre or the emerging institutes of education in Irish universities may yet take on a more central role in making sense of science for policy makers in education.
A shared culture of research use in education policy is more likely when key actors are fluent in the language and discourses of both policy and research. Such bilingualism requires experience and practice, but it is worth it:
There is an issue about how both sides communicate with each other, I would have to admit that as policy makers, I’m not sure that we are always very good at articulating what our research interests are or what we want out of research and how we want it given to us or fed back to us (Official A).
One mechanism to promote mutual understanding and a shared language between policy makers and researchers is the use of structured mobility programmes, where policy makers and researchers are seconded into each other’s communities. In Ireland, there is scope for more strategic use of such schemes to support the professional formation of both educational researchers and policy makers:
We are not always speaking the same language or linking in as well as we might with the concerns of policy makers. Where you get that dialogue building up from an understanding of where people are coming from and to mutually shape an agenda, that can work very well (Researcher F, research institute).
Researchers report that the single most important variable explaining the use of educational research in policy making is the frequency of collaboration between researchers and policy makers (O’Connor, 2022[72]):
We have a kind of ongoing relationship. I get to speak to people in the department an awful lot and I would have quite a good relationship with members of the Inspectorate for example, because I’ve been around for quite a long time we collaborate on things (Researcher H, research institute).
In Ireland, some educational researchers actively seek out opportunities to interact and engage with policy makers:
From a researcher’s perspective it’s about making sure that your results are being disseminated as widely as possible and that we are creating these opportunities where we are disseminating the results and offering a platform where there can be discussion among policy makers and other research users (Researcher I, research institute).
Proximity can be a major influence on research use in Ireland. If a researcher is close to somebody in a senior policy position, particularly a politician, they can be asked to comment or advise on a policy:
Personalism is a recognised feature of Irish political culture. It comes down to a particular politician knowing a particular academic, knowing them and respecting them and being willing to listen to what they say about their research (Researcher B, university).
Privileging certain research and granting selected researchers access to policy makers may be a practical way for busy officials to filter the huge volume of educational studies, but it risks marginalising other potentially useful sources of research. At the same time, some researchers are wary of getting too close to policy makers, concerned that their independence may be compromised:
You need to be very clear on what your role is as a researcher, that you are independent, that you are critical, so that findings have credibility and trustworthiness (Researcher D, university).
Effective collaboration between researchers and policy makers is more likely when leaders seek to co‑create support systems and mechanisms. Challenges are resolvable and worthwhile and can emerge from common sense:
If you have more interaction of people who are part of the same fold, it makes it easier to make some headway and to have those conversations about research and policy (Official C).
Embedding a culture of research use in education policy is complex and takes time. Evidence from Ireland confirms that there is much truth in the archetypal portrayal of policy makers and educational researchers, and the inevitable tension between both cultures. This case study suggests that paying attention to values, incentives, communication and collaboration can help establish and embed a shared culture of research engagement and use. Important initiatives by government and the academy to better connect research and policy are underway and there is optimism that this dynamism will inspire and strengthen reciprocal initiatives in education planning and decision making.
In March 2023, the Irish government indicated its intention to appoint a government science advisor and to establish a National Science Advice Forum “to provide cross-sectoral and multi-disciplinary science advice to the government on complex policy issues”.9 This significant announcement builds upon several related developments. A new government department responsible for research, innovation, science and higher education policy in Ireland was established in 2020 and recently published a national research and innovation strategy, Impact 2030,10 highlighting the need to “maximise the impact of research on public policy making and implementation”. A new Evidence for Policy Unit in the department has been tasked with forging better links between public policy makers and the public research system. As part of the Civil Service Renewal 2030 Strategy,11 an independent review of the public policy development process in Ireland highlighted areas of opportunity and action to strengthen the policy development system (OECD, 2023[88]). These featured proposals for making better use of research. In parallel to these reforms, the Royal Irish Academy has led strategic engagement by the scientific community in making better use of public science.12
In education, there is renewed momentum to build new networks and communities, connecting those with a shared interest in research use for better policies and better outcomes for people. The complex nature of research use in education policy means that top-down, centralised and hierarchical tendencies could easily dampen enthusiasm (Ansell and Geyer, 2017[89]). As indicated in the introduction to this chapter, networked leadership approaches based on partnership and collaboration seem more suited to build and strengthen trust and create a shared cultural mindset, both of which are conducive conditions for the systematic and inclusive use of research in education policy in Ireland. Of course, as advocates for better research-policy engagement, we should all lead by example and place the best available research at the centre of our shared ambition to strengthen the use of research in education.
Jørn Pedersen and Inger Sofie Berge Hurlen, Stavanger Municipality, Norway
This case study examines Stavanger Municipality’s efforts to create a culture of research engagement in its school sector. It first provides an overview of the legal framework for primary education in Norway and the Norwegian curriculum. It then presents partnerships that foster research use in Stavanger and discusses the role of leadership in these partnerships. The last section explores the notion that for schools to become learning organisations, professional collaboration is dependent on good leadership and management.
The Norwegian school sector and Stavanger Municipality are regulated by national laws and regulations in education from kindergarten through university. The Education Act gives all children between the ages of 6 and 18 a right to education, and the content of the education is regulated through a core curriculum with associated subject plans.
School development requires school staff to take an active part in the professional learning environment. There should be room to ask questions, use research and look for answers on how school practice can contribute to pupils’ learning and development. Through the Education Act, all municipalities and county municipalities have an obligation to work continuously on quality development.
The municipality […] must ensure that the schools always assess the extent to which the organisation, arrangement and implementation of the training contribute to achieving the goals set out in the national curriculum. The pupils must be involved in this assessment. (Ministry of Education and Research, Norway, 2020[90]; Ministry of Education and Research, Norway, 2017[91]) § 13-3e)
The national core curriculum lays down guidelines for Norwegian schools to establish a professional environment where teachers, leaders and other staff members reflect on common values, assess and develop their practice, and where school development is research-informed.
All school staff must take an active part in the professional learning environment to develop the school. This means that everyone in the environment must reflect on the value choices and development needs, and use research, experience-based knowledge and ethical assessments as the grounds on which to base targeted measures. Well-developed structures for collaboration, support and guidance between colleagues and across schools promote a sharing and learning culture (Ministry of Education and Research, Norway, 2017, p. 20[91])
Stavanger Municipality has approximately 145 000 inhabitants and 50 public primary schools. It is in a region that, over time, has been concerned with development and research, building up to become a high‑tech industrial region with a relatively high level of education and particularly good competence in vocational subjects. The region is one of the most international cities in Norway, with about 190 nationalities. One in four inhabitants in Stavanger have an international background and as English is compulsory from the age of six, Norwegians are quite fluent in English.
As a municipality, Stavanger has, over time, been concerned with a research-based approach to quality development in schools. In 2022, it established a Research Department, which will contribute to stronger research-based public service development. The strategy for research in Stavanger is to develop and use knowledge to solve the social challenges the municipality faces. The research strategy outlines four goals and defines strategic measures to achieve them. Stavanger municipality:
has good research expertise and capacity in its own organisation
uses research as a basis for decisions, planning and development of municipal services
is an attractive and professional research and development partner
is a regional engine for investment in research.
Schools in Norway are state-funded and are not fully exposed to competition. This low level of competition means they do not run the risk of losing students or income if some schools become better or just as good as others.
Norwegian society is also characterised by a large degree of trust in the authorities and each other. This form of funding of schools and the degree of trust probably contribute to the culture of sharing knowledge with each other across schools.
Together with its neighbouring municipalities and the local university, Stavanger Municipality has established an inter-organisational system for learning through partnership. The partnership in the district is in its fifth year and has developed collaborative structures to increase collective learning capacity (Paulsen, 2021[92]; Silins, Mulford and Zarins, 2002[93]). The partnership contributes to developing local competence in the schools in the region and raising both the quality development and research orientation of the schools.
As part of the partnership’s initiatives, arenas have been established for leaders and schools to learn from one another and actively use research literature. One such initiative is the inter-municipal leadership network, where leadership groups from different schools in other municipalities meet regularly to disseminate research and share experiences. In between these meetings, the partners collaborate on joint assignments for learning, which the individual schools work on, preferably with partners. For instance, research on student engagement (Shirley and Hargreaves, 2021[94]) was disseminated among the network and translated into the schools’ own context through collaborative efforts between meetings.
In addition, some schools establish partnerships with other schools and university partners to develop organisational learning capacity through collaborative efforts within the school. These partnerships are used to support the implementation of the core curriculum and curricula and are considered arenas for ensuring a common understanding and direction of the work, both in the inter-municipal leadership network and in individual schools.
Figure 11.2 presents a model that illustrates what we should strive for and what characterises partnerships that have built organisational learning capacity (Silins, Mulford and Zarins, 2002[93]; Paulsen, 2021[92]; Hurlen and Bræin, 2022[95]).
Source: Adapted from Silins et al. (2002[93]), “Organizational learning and school change”, https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02239641; Paulsen (2021[92]), Schools Learning Collectively: Learning Together Through Trust-based Leadership; Hurlen and Bræin (2022[95]), Partnership – A Space for Knowledge Development? https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/99778.
For a partnership to build organisational learning capacity, it must establish a trust-based and co‑operation oriented climate with measures that support teachers’ professional development, where a culture has been created to take the initiative and there is a shared understanding of the mission that is followed up on (Silins, Mulford and Zarins, 2002[93]). Through the partnerships, schools can build learning capacity, and through their close contact with the university, use increasingly research-based approaches in their development. A combination of research and shared experiences serve to enhance the comprehension of the directives provided in the national curricula and facilitate the implementation of new practices in schools.
An inter-organisational infrastructure creates opportunities for learning between the partners in municipalities, schools and the university. The infrastructure and co-operation in the partnership contribute to the school owner being able to support the schools in their development work, and even out differences between municipalities of different sizes (Forfang and Paulsen, 2019[96]).
The partner from the university also takes learning from practice back to their own teacher training by demonstrating various methods observed in the field of practice or sharing insights on the concerns, struggles and successes of teachers in the field. The work is financed by national funds obtained through joint applications from the university and municipalities to state authorities. The distribution of funds relies on the collaboration between the university and the schools, ensuring mutual benefits, and is determined by the guidelines governing local competency development.
It takes time to establish well-functioning partnerships, and relationships must be built and nurtured over time. The municipality tries to ensure sustainable funding (through the applications mentioned above) to maintain relationships. Productive interactions in partnerships depend on equality between the partners, which we consciously aim to ensure. Equality is a central concept important for understanding the phenomenon of partnership. Within the Municipality’s partnerships, participants are cognisant of each other’s knowledge bases and complementary roles and recognise each other as equally worthy contributors. Furthermore, establishing equality requires clarified expectations and definition of roles and firmly established trust (Coburn, Penuel and Geil, 2013[97]; Lillejord and Børte, 2016[98]; Hurlen and Bræin, 2022[95]).
Partnerships are managed at both the owner and school level to ensure progress and development. Ensuring equal participation in development work is crucial for establishing symmetry, and managers must be particularly attentive to this aspect.
In our partnerships, we develop (or encourage) agreements and norms together to support co-operation and create predictability. The relationships between the partners seems to create the greatest mutual obligation. The size of the partnership can be significant, and it may be challenging to strike a balance between ensuring research relevance for all participants and establishing a knowledge-developing partnership with every teacher involved. Establishing good relationships through close dialogue and trust can be difficult to achieve if the distance becomes too great (Hurlen and Bræin, 2022[95]).
It has been a priority for Stavanger Municipality to establish a research-based culture for school development. Over the past ten years, strategic decisions have been based on research and experience.
An important enabler of creating a research-use culture is that schools in Stavanger Municipality all have one to three hours per week for professional development, where all teachers gather for professional learning. The municipality, school and elected representatives of the teachers have made agreements on the allocated time to be used, which is managed by the headmaster.
For schools to become learning organisations, professional collaboration is dependent on good leadership. Professional learning communities in schools also require good management, which facilitates and leads teachers’ learning and development (Kools and Stoll, 2016[99]; Robinson, 2016[100]). The role of leadership in nurturing professional collaboration is explicit in the Norwegian core curriculum:
Professional collaboration in school requires good leadership. Good school leadership in turn requires legitimacy in professional leadership and good understanding of educational and other challenges teachers and other members of staff are facing. Good leadership gives priority to developing collaboration and relationships to build trust in the organisation. The school leaders are in charge of and facilitate the learning and development of pupils and teachers. The school leaders must lead the educational and professional collaboration between the teachers and help to develop a stable and positive environment where everyone is focused on performing at his or her best. It is the duty of the school leaders to ensure that all staff can make use of their strong sides, experience mastering and develop in their profession. Good school development requires that there is room to ask questions and look for answers, and needs a professional environment interested in how the school’s practice contributes to the pupils’ learning and development. (Ministry of Education and Research, Norway, 2017, p. 20[91])
Stavanger Municipality has established learning arenas for the management groups in the schools, which include learning networks, principals’ meetings and school leaders’ gatherings. In recent years these have evolved from more administrative meetings to learning meetings where participants gather to read research-based books and articles. The emphasis is on modelling collaborative cultures, creating and sharing knowledge, and investigating approaches to learning to establish a professional learning community (Stoll et al., 2005, p. 206[101]). The various arenas are intended to contribute to both learning and training (Fixsen et al., 2005[102]). Preparing for learning meetings requires investing a significant amount of time and effort from system leaders, like the municipality. Meetings should be relevant and build on each other to strengthen the learning points through dialogue with managers. School leaders also need to dedicate time for preparations and interim work.
Digital tools have made administration more efficient, freeing up time for more learning meetings. The shift from administrative to learning meetings is motivating for school leaders, who increasingly demand more of these opportunities. In the past year, we have focused on developing effective leadership groups (Bang and Midelfart, 2022[103]) that balance administration and development in an efficient manner.
There are many groups that must create results together and we depend on effective leadership groups (Bang and Midelfart, 2022[103]) to contribute to quality in the school and build collective capacity, but where sharing and learning is an intrinsic value for the leaders involved. Principals have been tasked with facilitating learning within and across schools. The leaders again bring their experiences when municipal managers facilitate learning between leaders, in networks and meetings. Learning must be high on the agenda. In recent years we have focused more on reflecting our experiences in research.
We, therefore, open up our schools so that universities and others can carry out research, and we have gradually become better at ensuring that the research that is carried out is also useful for the municipality and the schools. Stavanger Municipality was recently awarded a public PhD13 through its Research Department’s partnership with the University of Stavanger. One of our teachers will conduct research on collective teacher efficacy (Donohoo, Hattie and Eells, 2018[104]). Additionally, Stavanger Municipality is collaborating with the National Knowledge Center for Education at the University of Stavanger on a project to enhance the use of research in schools. The municipality intends to establish a public PhD in this area as well. Research must tackle the pertinent issues in schools concerning students and have methodological implications for teachers to help with school-based improvement.
Another enabler of research-focused learning is ensuring that teachers are trained to engage with research. The teacher education system in Norway was reformed in 2017, resulting in newly qualified teachers with Master’s degrees, thus better equipped to use research. As a result, they have the potential to act as catalysts for change and foster a more analytical approach to teaching, increasing motivation among new graduates to continue in the profession. The establishment of a research-oriented culture in schools necessitates proactive principals to establish a professional learning community for all teachers. The municipality is reflecting on how it can support leaders to make the best use of newly qualified teachers with research skills.
Achieving even more research-informed practices requires awareness of how we request and use research and ensuring that the management arenas are not used for administrative tasks or disseminating information. At a higher level, the municipality aims to model good learning arenas where research is used so that the leaders do the same for their teachers. It takes time to find good research literature that is relevant, and there is potential to further develop our partnership with universities to make research more accessible.
To further develop our schools, the municipality plans to design and incorporate a research-based framework for leadership practice into deep collaboration with school leaders. In designing the framework, emphasis will be placed on reading research literature at the same time as the framework evolves. The use of research will also be one of the hallmarks of good practice in the framework for school leaders. More active use of research in schools requires conscious municipal supervisors and school leaders who lead by example on all levels. A school’s experiences should be reflected in the research literature, and researchers should investigate relevant problem situations so that practice and research inform each other and contribute to the school’s and pupils’ learning and development.
As system leaders of schools in Stavanger Municipality, we have identified several factors – both systemic and local – that are crucial to establishing a more research-oriented practice in our schools. Systemic factors include:
schools having incentives to collaborate rather than compete
national policies that emphasise research engagement
school leaders being trained to facilitate professional learning and engagement with research.
Local factors include:
initiatives and activities that facilitate research engagement
appropriate arenas for research to meet practice
local initiatives for relevant PhD positions that can be useful for schools.
In Stavanger, we aim to create these local enablers of research-oriented practice by engaging with research ourselves. As demonstrated above, we read, interpret and apply the evidence on facilitating collaborative professional learning, supporting leadership, managing partnerships and research mobilisation. By doing so, we believe that the education system can promote a more research-oriented practice in schools.
Huw Morris, Institute of Education, University College London
The role of research in the development of government policy in Wales is complex and has changed significantly over recent years following changes in government; changes in ministerial responsibilities; shifting circumstances and changes in civil service personnel; and parliamentary scrutiny and challenges from stakeholders. This case study seeks to chart some of the key features of these changes in the field of education policy in the period 1998-2022.
Wales is a small nation of 3.1 million people within the United Kingdom. Over the last 150 years, an increasing range of government policy, funding and regulatory decisions has been devolved to agencies and, since 1998, to the National Assembly, which, in the course of the last 20 years, has developed to become a devolved government and parliament (Knight and Crick, 2022[105]).
A common theme through this case study is the role of particular thought leaders in policy development and the gradual emergence of a supportive culture for research-informed policy and practice. The complexity and dynamism of this system as a whole have meant that it is beyond the direction of any one leader or group. System leadership is important, as witnessed by the number of system leaders who influence policy and practice through a series of shifting compromises. These shifts have consequences for the dominant narratives that represent current practice and intended future change (Rickinson et al., 2019[106]; Gerson, 2020[107]).
This case study is divided into five sections. The first section considers how the place of research in education policy was established during the formation of the Welsh government. The second section looks at how budget cuts, new ministers and a review by the OECD changed this approach in the late 2000s. The third section outlines how increases in the number of staff with research expertise improved the use of evidence and evaluation. The fourth section details a number of initiatives that increased the demand for research to inform policy and strengthened the capability of the organisation to deliver on this agenda. The last section describes the measures taken to encourage practitioner engagement and involvement with research.
The importance of research in the development and evaluation of policy and practice has been a key theme in the work of the Welsh government’s Education Department since its formation in 1998. In the early years of the Welsh Assembly Government, the selection of government ministers, special advisors and civil servants with a background in university-based education research helped to establish a culture which supported this activity. Pivotal in these early stages were Jane Davidson (Minister for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills) and her team of civil servants and specialist advisors who oversaw the drafting of The Learning Country. This was the first comprehensive statement of the new government’s education strategy and policy intentions (Egan, 2022[108]). This paving document made frequent reference to the aims of increasing the use of educational research to raise whole school attainment, reduce exclusion, promote Welsh language provision and widen access to higher education (National Assembly for Wales, 2001[109]). This link between research and policy was further reinforced in the successor strategy introduced by the same minister in 2007, shortly after the formation of a Labour Plaid Cymru coalition government with the support of a new Director of Education and an expanded team of advisors. “The Learning Country: Vision into Action” strategy included comments on what research and analysis revealed before detailing future objectives in each of its constituent six sections (Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills, Wales, 2007[110]).
National Assembly ministers sought to work with the representatives of key stakeholders and respect the autonomy of the teaching profession and educational leadership in the gradual development of practice while implementing significant new initiatives like a play-based foundation phase in primary education influenced by Scandinavian approaches and a Welsh Baccalaureate to complement the existing suite of academic and vocational qualifications influenced by the International Baccalaureate.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the newly elected Labour-led government in Wales was complemented by a Labour-led UK government with a similar outlook. The UK government, under the leadership of Tony Blair with David Blunkett as Secretary of State for Education, looked to Michael Barber, a former National Union of Teachers researcher and chair of a local government education committee in London, to help develop and implement policy. The approach that Michael Barber adopted drew on debates about evidence-based policy in health and education to map out the cases for change and logic models for any proposed policy changes, as well as systems for monitoring implementation and impact. This approach became known as “deliverology” and was documented in a series of books over the next decade (Barber, 2007[111]; Barber, Moffit and Kihn, 2011[112]). In the late 1990s and early 2000s, this approach had a significant impact on the way the UK government monitored and attempted to influence the delivery and outcomes achieved by new education policies in England. It had, however, relatively little impact in Wales in the early 2000s after the formation of the Welsh Assembly Government as the Welsh Labour Party and Government, under the leadership of Rhodri Morgan, sought to maintain their policy differences with their UK Labour Party counterparts in England. This was a policy referred to locally as establishing “clear Red Water” between Wales and England (Davies and Williams, 2009[113]).
In 2010, the newly appointed Welsh Minister for Education, Leighton Andrews, faced significant challenges due to disappointing results in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a critical report from the Chief Inspector of Education and an 8% cut in the budget as a consequence of austerity measures introduced by the United Kingdom’s newly elected coalition government of Conservative and Liberal Democrat ministers (Reid, 2011[114]). Leighton Andrews was determined to address the perceived shortfall in pupil performance and challenge the approach adopted previously by school leaders, teacher educators, universities and civil servants. In 2011, a 20-point plan was published to address these issues, which was informed by policy-oriented education research reviews of the sort provided by the Sutton Trust Toolkit, which later became known as the Education Endowment Foundation’s Teaching and Learning Toolkit (EEF, 2023[115]; Higgins, Kokotsaki and Coe, 2011[116]).
Leighton Andrews and his team were influenced by the ideas of Michael Barber about how change can be effectively implemented within education settings (Barber, 2007[111]; 2016[117]). Key to this approach was a belief that there are approaches to teaching and the organisation of education which are more effective and, therefore, the task for ministers is to encourage educational leaders and teachers to adopt these practices (Barber, 2009[118]). This message was relayed by senior civil servants who had been newly recruited to the Welsh government from previous roles in the Labour government-led Department for Education in London. Through this approach, effective policy and practice are determined by reference to a hierarchy of less or more valid research approaches from classroom observation to randomised control trials (HM Treasury, 2011[119]; Puttick and Ludlow, 2013[120]). Once established, it was suggested these more valid methods could be introduced through a mix of professional autonomy, top-down targets or quasi‑markets (Barber, 2009[118]). Leighton Andrews shunned his predecessors’ emphasis on professional autonomy and the market-based model of English ministers, preferring instead to focus on top-down targets. This approach prompted a challenge from a number of university researchers and media commentators in Wales (Rees and Taylor, 2015[121]; Evans, 2015[122]; Dixon, 2016[123]; Power, 2016[124]).
A new Education Minister, Huw Lewis, was appointed in 2013. One of his first actions was to ask experts from the OECD to review the department’s education strategy and outline proposals to improve it (OECD, 2014[125]). In response to this review, the Welsh government reviewed its education strategy and published a new one entitled “Qualified for Life”, drawing on advice from university-based researchers, including professors Mel Ainscow, Graham Donaldson and John Furlong, among others (Welsh Government, 2014[126]). As the objectives and commitments to action in this document made clear:
Our plan for improving education is based on evidence of what works. It is essential that we are evidence‑based, both as policy makers and as practitioners. We know that resources are tight; in future years there will be further pressure on budgets and this places a premium on knowing and implementing what works. (Welsh Government, 2014, p. 11[126])
The implementation of this new strategy was supported by publicly available guidance from a range of bodies, not least the EEF. This “What Works Centre” modelled its work on the What Works Clearinghouse introduced in the United States in 2002. The EEF was established with an anticipated budget of GBP 200 million from the UK government for a 15-year programme of research to establish the most effective educational practices based on randomised control trials and systematic reviews (Edovald and Nevill, 2021[127]).
The new approach in “Qualified for Life” was less managerial in approach, as it placed a greater emphasis on supporting teachers to develop strong pedagogy, engaging learners with attractive curricula and maintaining internationally respected qualifications, as well as education leaders supporting each other to create a self-improving system.
Civil servants in Wales are part of a wider UK civil service, where recruitment takes place through annual apprenticeship and graduate fast-stream processes, as well as internal promotion arrangements and direct external recruitment. Once recruited, civil servants are regularly reminded of the organisation’s four core values – honesty, objectivity, impartiality and integrity – which support a research-based approach to policy development. Civil servants are also encouraged to align their career development with one of 27 professions (Civil Service, 2023[128]). Reforms introduced since 2013 have strengthened the role of these professions and improved the training and support available to staff. The policy profession is one of the largest occupational groups within the civil service, with close to 30 000 members. The professional standards for this group require staff at senior levels to demonstrate a range of skills arranged under three pillars (Figure 11.3). Under the first of these pillars – strategy – policy professionals are expected to be able to apply research methods to model, test and improve policy solutions, as well as to commission, understand and use data, evidence and advice from analytical, scientific and technical sources.
Source: Adapted from Policy Profession (2021[129]), “Policy Profession Standards”, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
Since these standards were introduced in 2013, they have strengthened the pre-existing expectation that civil servants will base policy proposals on a review of the evidence and use evaluation throughout the policy implementation process (Policy Profession, 2021[129]).
Staff in the policy profession are supported by civil servants in the analysis profession, which draws together statisticians; economists; operational researchers; social researchers; and digital, data and technology specialists. Each of these occupations has its own dedicated recruitment and staff development channels. To support staff in the policy profession and their analyst colleagues in the Welsh government, a series of meetings and, since the COVID-19 pandemic, online seminars, have provided a platform for researchers and officials to talk about policy issues, review evidence and consider evaluation plans. There have also been secondment arrangements for researchers and policy specialists from other organisations, student placements at Master’s and PhD levels and, more recently, policy fellowship opportunities for mid‑career university researchers. This and other direct recruitment activities have steadily increased the number of civil servants in the Welsh government with research skills and experience. This, in turn, has increased the volume and diversity of research used to inform policy development and evaluation.
Welsh and UK government agencies have sponsored a series of initiatives to bolster the policy expertise of university-based researchers in Wales. A key component of this activity was the establishment of the Public Policy Institute for Wales in 2014, with matched funding from the Welsh government and the Economic and Social Research Council. This new organisation was established to:
stimulate policy-maker demand for evidence by working with ministers to identify their evidence needs and make connections across policy areas
improve the supply of evidence by making policy-maker evidence needs known and generating independent authoritative analysis and advice
support interaction between evidence suppliers and policy makers.
facilitate knowledge exchange between Wales, the rest of the United Kingdom and beyond.
The Public Policy Institute for Wales was renamed the Wales Centre for Public Policy in 2017 as a member of the newly established UK network of What Works Centres with funding for a five-year period of GBP 7.4 million from the Economic and Social Research Council, the Welsh government and Cardiff University (Bristow, Carter and Martin, 2015[130]; UKRI, 2023[131]).
In Wales, contrary to the wider United Kingdom, there are relatively few policy think tanks and independent research organisations (exceptions are the Bevan Foundation, the Institute of Welsh Affairs, and the Learning and Work Institute). In addition, the Welsh government makes less use of large consultancy companies and audit firms to provide policy advice or undertake programme evaluations than its counterparts in government departments in London (Box 11.6).
Those consultancies that are contracted generally have local expertise and the ability to use the Welsh language. Considerable funding and policy makers’ time has been devoted to working with a growing network of university-based research centres, especially in the field of education. Chief among these centres are:
Y Lab – a public services innovation lab for Wales
Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research and Data – a national, interdisciplinary, social science research institute
Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre – conducts systematic research and commissions new studies
four collaborative research networks designed to engage school-based teachers with university‑based research and associated policy
Children’s Social Care and Development Centre – improving the well-being of children and their families.
The centres listed in Box 11.6 operate across Wales and are co-located with the Welsh nodes of several pan-UK research institutes (e.g. the Productivity Institute, the International Public Policy Observatory and the Administrative Data Repository) as well as a number of other public and private sector research users in SPARK, a dedicated building dubbed the Social Science Park (SPARK, 2023[132]).
The physical co-location of policy researchers from a number of different centres was intended to promote innovation through the exchange of ideas and staffing. The shift to increased home and online working that accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have reduced the scale of this interaction, but the joint organisation and branding have helped to raise the status and alter the representation of these researchers.
The appointment to a Labour-led government of Huw Lewis as Education Minister from 2013 to 2016 and subsequently Kirsty Williams, the only liberal democrat minister in the Welsh government, from 2016 to 2021, presaged the development of a more collaborative approach to policy development (see Box 11.7). This new approach expressed the values of the Labour government as articulated in the Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. This act advocated five ways of working, with an emphasis on long‑term planning, integration, collaboration, involvement and problem prevention (Welsh Government, 2021[133]). In retrospect, it is possible to see evidence of this change in approach in a series of reviews which were then commissioned by ministers and led by university professors supported by expert panels. These reviews sought to synthesise research findings while seeking to develop a policy consensus between stakeholders to guide future action. This was achieved by allowing time for the reviews, arranging in-person meetings with stakeholder groups and key individuals, and providing for extensive formal consultation and response when recommendations were published. Among the issues covered through these reviews were:
curriculum and assessment arrangements (Donaldson, 2015[134])
initial teacher education (Furlong, 2015[135])
higher education funding (Diamond, 2016[136])
tertiary education (Hazelkorn, 2016[137])
further education teachers and work-based learning staff development (Lucas, 2017[138])
accountability in a tertiary education system (Weingarten, 2018[139])
research funding (Reid, 2018[140])
the role of civic universities (Goddard et al., 2018[141]).
For a number of these initiatives, there was unanimity or a very substantial majority among the stakeholders represented on the committee or steering group developing the recommendations. On no occasion were there minority reports or documented dissenting opinions in these groups, although wider consultation processes invariably revealed a greater diversity of views among the tens or hundreds of stakeholder groups replying.
This collaborative systems-based approach was further formalised with the publication of a revised strategy, “Education in Wales: Our National Mission”, in 2017 following another review of educational progress in Wales by the OECD (OECD, 2017[142]; Welsh Government, 2021[143]). The key theme linking these initiatives in this new document was the focus on creating a self-improving schools system, parelleled by similar developments in the post-compulsory phase as detailed in a ten-year strategy for tertiary education and an associated Tertiary Education and Research Act (2022) (Welsh Government, 2022[144]). To support this work, sizeable investments were made for developing the research skills of teachers and the university staff who support them in initial teacher education and continuous professional development. The vision behind these investments and the methods that would be used to realise it was then spelt out in more detail in the National Strategy for Educational Research and Enquiry (Welsh Government, 2021[143]).
The collaborative approach to education policy development informed by research was reinforced through the experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Between March 2020 and November 2022, the Welsh government’s Cabinet, supported by officials organised through a technical advisory group, held a series of regular meetings which mirrored the operations of the Scientific Advisory Group on Epidemics with corresponding sub-committees, not least in the field of education, where four groups met regularly with practitioners and researchers specialising in early years, schools, further education and universities. Through these groups, research was considered to inform the drafting of advice and regulation for consideration by ministers. This close co-operation helped to further forge a collaborative culture but did not seek to remove scrutiny or challenge by those present or others not yet involved. The publication of the OECD’s PISA results in December 2023 will reveal the strength of these arrangements.
As the approach for using research in policy development and implementation has changed in Wales over the last 20 years, so have the dominant leadership styles and cultures of engagement from politicians, policy makers, intermediate body representatives, education institution leaders and practitioners. During the period of professional autonomy, institution leaders were encouraged by ministers and policy makers who co-operated with institutional leaders and practitioners in their interactions with other stakeholders. This light-touch collaboration was in marked contrast to the more rigorous top-down leadership, target setting and performance management, which became more prevalent during the period of more overt “deliverology”. During this time, system leadership was more overt and often subject to a single point of direction. In the last of the three phases reviewed, a more co-ordinated, co-operative and distributed form of systems leadership emerged, with clear evidence of multiple points of influence and development from a shifting array of policy makers, institution leaders, practitioners and other stakeholders.
How the arrangements described in this case study will fare in the future is impossible to predict, but there is evidence that over a sustained period, the Welsh government has sought to encourage and embed a partnership approach for using research evidence and methods and the co-construction and implementation of existing and new policies. This approach has supported the introduction of activities which have endured and have improved educational performance as measured by a range of external benchmarks, including PISA and qualification attainment.
Melissa Mouthaan, OECD
The five case studies in this chapter presented different examples of leadership for research engagement in organisations of policy and practice. They explored the challenges and opportunities that systems experience, as well as the practices that different systems are experimenting with to establish a culture of research engagement.
The introduction to this chapter invited authors to explore specific questions relating to leadership in education. What does strong leadership in a policy or practice organisation look like? What insights can recent research on networks and leadership give us regarding high-quality evidence use in organisations? What roles can drive a culture of research use and how can leadership strategically identify individuals in these roles and leverage them?
These questions were explored to different degrees, and from different angles. While drawing on often quite different contexts, three common themes clearly emerge.
Several of the case studies discussed the complex social processes that characterise research engagement. The authors gave concrete examples that speak to this complexity and indicate some of the initiatives that systems and organisations have put in place to promote relationship-building and collaboration. They illustrate how relationship-building must feature as a core component of building a culture of research engagement, examining the need for better relationships among different actors and between systems.
Looking at research-policy relationships, Huw Morris and John O’Connor discuss the need to build stronger and more effective links in Wales and Ireland. Morris notes some of the initiatives that UK government agencies have put in place to build the policy expertise of education researchers, such as the establishment of what is now the Wales Centre for Public Policy within the UK network of What Works Centres. Beyond research-policy relationships, Morris reminds us that a key role of knowledge brokers can also include facilitating knowledge exchange between systems, similar to how the Wales Centre for Public Policy facilitates such exchanges between Wales and other systems. Finally, relationship-building also needs to be threefold in the form of stronger research-policy-practice links, and Wales is also trialling a more collaborative approach to education policy development whereby policy makers meet regularly with practitioners and researchers. John O’Connor’s piece illustrates that building relationships in Ireland is done formally but also often informally. He notes that personal networks of academic researchers with policy makers is an important influence on education research use in the Irish system – and concludes that a more systematic, less ad hoc approach of drawing research and researchers into education policy development could be more effective. Notably, he suggests that co-creating support systems and mechanisms would be a better solution.
Jørn Pedersen and Inger Sofie Berge Hurlen’s Stavanger case study gives valuable insights into a Norwegian municipality’s efforts to establish partnerships between schools, universities and other actors. Their analysis illustrates two points. First, that an important condition for a culture of research engagement is funding for relationship-building and dedicated time. Ensuring stable funding for Stavanger Municipality’s partnerships with other actors enables it to operate sustainably in the long term, and securing such funding is thus an important activity for the municipality. Second, its experiences confirm what has also been found in the literature: that partnerships and networks work best when there is equality among the different participants, and clear expectations regarding roles and the purpose of the network or partnership (see also Chapter 2). The importance of the equal nature of relationships is echoed in Mauricio Pino-Yancovic’s analysis of educational networks in Chile. He suggests that the use of these networks as a supervision mechanism by the Ministry of Education gives them a hierarchical structure that network participants struggle with – and limits the ability of these networks to become spaces for genuine collaborative research and research engagement. Overall, both these case studies and wider studies on how to conduct collaborative research offer excellent insight into the nature of relationships that can contribute to establishing a culture of research engagement, and how to build effective partnerships in diverse contexts.
We previously noted that strategic leadership within and across organisations is needed to drive the dynamics of research production and use (Révai, 2022[145]). The case studies in this chapter articulate what this concept involves, some of the challenges of this role and demonstrate through diverse examples that creating a culture of research use in education requires a nuanced set of leadership skills. First, it requires leaders take concrete actions that redefine organisational culture in favour of a culture of research engagement, such as taking the lead in ensuring staff time is used optimally. Second, leaders are required to navigate a complex or uncertain environment and take strategic, thoughtful decisions with respect to using research to improve practice.
Within organisations, leaders play an important role in (re)defining organisational practices and (re)arranging how scarce resources, such as time, are allocated. Toby Greany and Georgina Hudson’s case study highlights that one of school leaders’ key tasks is to make evidence both simple, and important, given how time-poor teachers are. Several of the pieces, and particularly the case studies describing the work context of leaders in practice organisations, remind us that working behind the scenes as a facilitator of meaningful interactions that promote thoughtful engagement with research, and being the organiser of the spaces and places where such interactions take place, is an important aspect of leadership that is perhaps underestimated. Jørn Pedersen and Inger Sofie Berge Hurlen note the important role played by headmasters in managing teachers’ professional development time. Leaders of schools in their municipality have increasingly shifted from organising administrative meetings to organising “learning meetings”, where practitioners gather to read and discuss research articles. Preparations for such meetings take time: crucially, school leaders need both the time and the training to perform this supporting role well. Taken together, leaders can take concrete actions to promote changes in organisational culture that lead to more systematic engagement with research.
The case studies provided rich insights into the complex and uncertain decision-making environment that organisational leaders work in. Toby Greany and Georgina Hudson illustrate the competing pressures that school leaders in England are faced with. Their analysis of two interventions in Cumbria, England, shows the tensions and paradoxes that exist in many school networks and with which school leaders are confronted. The authors conclude that effective leadership in such networks must aim to strike a balance between a “what works” purist approach (only drawing on proven interventions and particular methodologies) and a more pragmatic approach that also draws on different and more diverse types of evidence, and addresses schools’ needs. In many instances, there are no obvious answers concerning the exact balance or approach to take when taking decisions in complex environments. In sum, leaders’ individual qualities and concrete actions in bringing together actors, and taking strategic decisions, is an important aspect of a culture of research engagement.
The case studies demonstrate that coherent and effective system leadership is critical to building such a culture. Effective system leadership supports networks and leaders in schools and policy organisations in research engagement rather than obstructing these.
We noted in the introduction to this chapter that system leadership in the traditional sense can be defined as school leaders who operate beyond the immediate borders of their own schools, concerned with the improvement of schools in the wider system, not only their own (Fullan, 2002[7]). The case studies lend themselves to a broader understanding, however, of “system leadership”. Drawing on the different national contexts illustrated by the case studies, we demonstrate how different types and levels of system leadership are needed – but also, robust connections between them.
Several examples in this chapter illustrate how system leadership at the national level is critical to ensuring the conditions for creating research-engaged schools. Mauricio Pino-Yancovic demonstrates how a confusing double focus at the system level acts as an obstacle to the effective running of school networks in Chile, as there is a lack of clarity in these networks’ goals. His case study illustrates how politics shape the dynamics of knowledge use in schools in Chile, as well as conditions for network leadership. Both the Chilean case study and the English case study presented by Toby Greany and Georgina Hudson emphasise the disruptive nature of inter-school competition. It is clear from these pieces that schools need to be incentivised to collaborate with each other rather than to compete, and national-level system leadership plays a key role in establishing such a collaborative, rather than competitive, environment. Huw Morris illustrates how a vision for widespread civil service reform introduced in the United Kingdom in 2013 has better equipped policy makers in education and other policy fields with the skills to understand, analyse and use data and evidence, but also to engage with researchers, research institutions and commission research. Finally, John O’Connor’s study of education research policy relations in Ireland highlights a common issue that Ireland and other systems experience: the misalignment of academic incentives with the research impact and engagement agenda. As O’Connor also concludes, this misalignment is not inevitable. But addressing this will require significant and concerted efforts at the system level.
In Stavanger, Jørn Pedersen and Inger Sofie Berge Hurlen discuss the role of local governance actors, in their case, the municipality, as a system-level leader. They demonstrate that their own understanding of, and interactions with, national policy instruments have resulted in them securing funding for school partnerships, which is, in turn, a key support that allows municipalities to establish a culture of research engagement through tailored initiatives.
The findings of the case studies point to a critical role of systems thinking in connecting these different types and levels of system leadership. System leaders, in the traditional sense, are better equipped to build a culture of research engagement in their schools and networks when the appropriate conditions are ensured at the local and the national level. Such conditions, as illustrated above, include less inter-school competition, more time (or allowing the reallocation of it) and appropriate incentives. There is also a role in many systems for local governance actors, such as municipalities, to capitalise on these conditions, or to advocate for them when they are not yet in place. Arguably, local governance actors are well-placed for this kind of work, given their strong links with schools but also other levels of governance. Finally, Toby Greany and Georgina Hudson’s case study is an excellent illustration of how school network system leaders navigate the conditions and constraints that are ultimately defined elsewhere in the system in an effort to make the best out of the given possibilities. In sum, effective system leadership, and strong connections between different levels and types of system leadership, enables schools and policy organisations to establish a culture of research engagement. While this chapter has focused on culture and learning within and across organisations of policy and practice, it is also evident that such organisations operate in a context characterised by relations with actors at other levels that also shape the nature of engagement with research in education. This includes organisations responsible for funding, creating and synthesising knowledge and supranationational actors. The existence of this wider group of actors bolsters the case for better system co-ordination and having appropriate forms of system leadership in place.
Our last publication concluded that strategic leadership, incentives and resources are key factors for evidence-informed education policy and practice (Révai, 2022[145]). The case studies presented in this chapter dug deeper into what exactly leadership, incentives and resources mean for a stronger culture of research engagement, but also how these play out together.
The different cases demonstrated some of the qualities associated with the type of leadership that strengthens research engagement, including leadership taking a role in interpreting research findings and adapting it to the local or school context. This can be considered a form of “thoughtful engagement” with research that leaders demonstrate (Rickinson et al., 2022[146]). The cases also gave insights into what could be considered good or promising practices in practice and policy organisations in establishing the necessary incentives and resources for research engagement.
At the same time, the research questions laid out in the introduction to this chapter and the accompanying case studies also show that there is scope for further research in a few key areas. Largely, the case studies reported on leaders in organisations and in the system who are easily identifiable. The literature, on the other hand, suggests that some actors perform key support roles implicitly within the system, without this necessarily being a key part of their formal role or identity (Cairney, 2016[18]; Aldrich and Herker, 1977[147]; Schotter et al., 2017[148]). Individuals in these types of roles have been shown, for example, to be essential in encouraging or facilitating research use in organisations as builders of networks or as research champions. Future research would benefit from understanding these key roles that can drive a culture of research use, how to identify individuals in these roles, and how to strategically leverage and support their work.
In addition, several of the case studies suggest that strategic leadership of relationships and interactions with the goal of reinforcing research engagement (among other goals) would be welcome. This resonates with the concept of networked leadership, which spans several organisations and sometimes also boundaries of communities (e.g. policy makers and researchers). What exactly is distinct in networked leadership from system leadership and how each concept can support our understanding of the role of leadership in improving research generation and engagement are still open questions. These case studies may prompt further efforts to investigate the nature and quality of networked and system leadership approaches.
On a final note: this chapter, by examining both cases of practice and policy organisations, draws together different strands and traditions of research that have developed somewhat in isolation, but that nonetheless run on parallel tracks, and address common issues. We hope, therefore, that this type of analysis provides food for thought for ways in which practice and policy can learn from each other.
[44] Ahumada., L. et al. (eds.) (2020), Aprendizaje en Red: Fortaleciendo la colaboración en contextos de competencia [Networked Learning: Strengthening Collaboration in Competitive Contexts], RIL Editores, Santiago.
[40] Ahumada, L. et al. (2019), “Informe de evaluación sobre el funcionamiento de las Redes de Mejoramiento Escolar del Ministerio de Educación [Evaluation report on the operation of the Ministry of Education’s school improvement networks]”, Informe Técnico No. 4, Lideres Educativos, Centro de Liderazgo para la Mejora Escolar.
[39] Ahumada, L. et al. (2018), “Evaluación sobre el funcionamiento de las Redes de Mejoramiento Escolar del Ministerio de Educación (RME) – 2018 [Evaluation on the functioning of the Ministry of Education’s school improvement networks (RME) – 2018]”, Informe Técnico No. 1, Lideres Educativos, Centro de Liderazgo para la Mejora Escolar.
[2] Ainscow, M. and A. Sandill (2010), “Developing inclusive education systems: The role of organisational cultures and leadership”, International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 14/4, pp. 401-416, https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802504903.
[147] Aldrich, H. and D. Herker (1977), “Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization Structure”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 2/2, p. 217, https://doi.org/10.2307/257905.
[89] Ansell, C. and R. Geyer (2017), ““Pragmatic complexity” a new foundation for moving beyond “evidence-based policy making”?”, Policy Studies, Vol. 38/2, pp. 149-167, https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2016.1219033.
[36] Armstrong, P. and M. Ainscow (2018), “School-to-school support within a competitive education system: Views from the inside”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 29/4, pp. 614-633, https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1499534.
[31] Ávalos, B. (1999), “Desarrollo docente en el contexto de la institución escolar. Los microcentros rurales y los grupos profesionales de trabajo en Chile [Teacher development in the context of the school institution. Rural microcenters and professional work groups in Chile]”, support material for the conference "Teachers in Latin America: New Perspectives on their Development and Performance", 28-31 June, San José, Costa Rica.
[48] Azorín, C., A. Harris and M. Jones (2019), “Taking a distributed perspective on leading professional learning networks”, School Leadership & Management, Vol. 40/2-3, pp. 111-127, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1647418.
[103] Bang, H. and T. Midelfart (2022), Effektive ledergrupper. 2. utgave [Effective Management Teams, 2nd Edition], Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, Oslo.
[117] Barber, M. (2016), How to Run A Government: So that Citizens Benefit and Taxpayers Don’t Go Crazy, Penguin, London.
[118] Barber, M. (2009), “From system effectiveness to system improvement: Reform paradigms and relationships”, in Hargreaves, A. and M. Fullan (eds.), Change Wars, Solution Tree, Bloomington, IN.
[111] Barber, M. (2007), Instruction to Deliver: Fighting to Transform Britain’s Public Services, Methuen Publishing Ltd, Slingsby, Yorkshire.
[112] Barber, M., A. Moffit and P. Kihn (2011), Deliverology 101: A Field Guide for Educational Leaders, Corwin, London.
[65] Bauer, S. (2019), “Karl Weick’s organizing”, in Johnson, B. and S. Kruse (eds.), Educational Leadership, Organizational Learning and the Ideas of Karl Weick: Perspectives on Theory and Practice, Routledge, London.
[22] Belkhodja, O. et al. (2007), “The extent and organizational determinants of research utilization in Canadian health services organizations”, Science Communication, Vol. 28/3, pp. 377-417, https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547006298486.
[29] Bellei, C. and G. Munoz (2023), “Models of regulation, education policies, and changes in the education system: A long-term analysis of the Chilean case”, Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 24, pp. 49-76, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09435-1.
[30] Bellei, C. and X. Vanni (2015), “Chile: La evolución de la política educativa, 1980-2014 [Chile: The evolution of educational policy, 1980-2014]”, Educación en América del Sur, Vol. 1980/179.
[19] Boswell, C. and K. Smith (2017), “Rethinking policy ‘impact’: Four models of research-policy relations”, Palgrave Communications, Vol. 3/1, pp. 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0042-z.
[13] Boylan, M. (2013), “Deepening system leadership”, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Vol. 44/1, pp. 57-72, https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213501314.
[68] Boyle, R. (2020), “Hindsight, insight and foresight: Some reflections on reforming public service”, Administration, Vol. 68/4, pp. 7-26, https://doi.org/10.2478/admin-2020-0021.
[130] Bristow, D., L. Carter and S. Martin (2015), “Using evidence to improve policy and practice: The UK What Works Centres”, Contemporary Social Science, Vol. 10/2, pp. 126-137, https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2015.1061688.
[9] Brown, C., A. Daly and Y. Liou (2016), “Improving trust, improving schools: Findings from a social network analysis of 43 primary schools in England”, Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 1/1, pp. 69-91, https://doi.org/10.1108/jpcc-09-2015-0004.
[47] Brown, C. and J. Flood (2019), Formalise, Prioritise and Mobilise: How School Leaders Secure the Benefits of Professional Learning Networks, Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley.
[25] Burns, T. and F. Köster (eds.) (2016), Governing Education in a Complex World, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-en.
[28] Burns, T., F. Köster and M. Fuster (2016), Education Governance in Action: Lessons from Case Studies, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264262829-en.
[59] Bustos, N. (2023), Guía práctica para implementar la indagación colaborativa en red: Aprendizajes de una red de escuelas de Latinoamérica y el caribe [Practical guide to implement collaborative network inquiry: Learning from a network of schools], CIAE-IE, Universidad de Chile, Santiago.
[18] Cairney, P. (2016), The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making, Palgrave Macmillan London, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4.
[51] CIAE-IE (2023), Experiences, Learning and Challenges of Educational Networks to Strengthen Public Education, workshop held in the context of the FONDECYT Project N°11221222: "Mobilization of the Knowledge Generated in the Educational Networks and Their Influence on the Teaching and Learning Activities of their Teachers".
[128] Civil Service (2023), Civil Service careers, web page, https://www.civil-service-careers.gov.uk/professions/ (accessed on 14 June 2023).
[97] Coburn, C., W. Penuel and K. Geil (2013), Research-Practice Partnerships: A Strategy for Leveraging Research for Educational Improvement in School Districts, William T. Grant Foundation, New York, NY.
[10] Coburn, C. and J. Talbert (2006), “Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain”, American Journal of Education, Vol. 112/4, pp. 469-495, https://doi.org/10.1086/505056.
[41] Cuadra Charme, G. et al. (eds.) (2019), Redes de líderes educativos: Herramientas para la colaboración [Networks of Educational Leaders: Tools for Collaboration], Centro de Desarrollo del Liderazgo Educativo, Santiago de Chile, https://liderazgoeducativo.udp.cl/libros/redes-de-lideres-educativosherramientas-para-la-colaboracion.
[113] Davies, N. and D. Williams (2009), Clear Red Water: Welsh Devolution and Socialist Politics, Francis Boutle Publishers, London.
[152] DeLuca, C. et al. (2015), “Collaborative inquiry as a professional learning structure for educators: A scoping review”, Professional Development in Education, Vol. 4/4, https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.933120.
[35] DEP (2019), Cuenta Pública Participativa 2019: Educación Pública [Participatory Public Account 2019: Public Education], Ministry of Education, Chile.
[110] Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills, Wales (2007), The Learning Country: Vision into Action, Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills, https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/8834/3/A9R3F9F_Redacted.pdf.
[136] Diamond, I. (2016), The Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance Arrangements in Wales, Welsh Government, Cardiff.
[153] Díaz-Gibson, J., M. Civís-Zaragoza and J. Guàrdia-Olmos (2014), “Strengthening education through collaborative networks: Leading the cultural change”, School Leadership & Management, Vol. 34/2, pp. 179-200, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.856296.
[12] Díaz-Gibson, J. et al. (2016), “Networked leadership in educational cllaborative ntworks”, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Vol. 45/6, pp. 1040-1059, https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216628532.
[123] Dixon, P. (2016), Testing Times: Success, Failure and Fiasco in Education Policy in Wales Since Devolution, Welsh Academic Press, Cardiff.
[134] Donaldson, G. (2015), Successful Futures Independent Review of Curriculum and Assessment Arrangements in Wales, Welsh Government, Cardiff, https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2018-03/successful-futures.pdf.
[104] Donohoo, J., J. Hattie and R. Eells (2018), “The power of collective efficacy”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 75/6, pp. 40-44.
[127] Edovald, T. and C. Nevill (2021), “Working out what works: The case of the Education Endowment Foundation in England”, ECNU Review of Education, Vol. 4/1, pp. 46-64, https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120913039.
[115] EEF (2023), Teaching and Learning Toolkit, Education Endowment Foundation, https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit.
[108] Egan, D. (2022), “Education in Wales since devolution”, in Williams, J. and A. Eirug (eds.), The Impact of Devolution in Wales: Social Democracy with a Welsh Stripe, University of Wales Press, Cardiff.
[27] Engeström, Y. (2001), “Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 14/1, pp. 133-156, https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747.
[76] European Commission (2022), Commission Staff Working Document: Supporting and Connecting Policymaking in Member States with Scientific Research, SWD(2022)346 final, European Commission, Brussels, https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/file/staff-working-document-supporting-connecting-policymaking-member-states-scientific-research_en.
[16] European Commission (2017), Communication on School Development and Excellent Teaching for a Great Start in Life, European Commission, Brussels, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2017%3A248%3AFIN (accessed on 28 April 2023).
[87] European Commission (2017), Support Mechanisms for Evidence-based Policymaking in Education, Eurydice Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://eige.europa.eu/resources/206_EN_Evidence_based_policy_making.pdf.
[83] European Union (2022), Council Conclusion on Research Assessment and Implementation of Open Science, Council of the European Union, Brussels.
[122] Evans, G. (2015), A Class Apart: Learning the Lessons of Education in Post-Devolution Wales, Welsh Academic Press, Cardiff.
[102] Fixsen, D. et al. (2005), Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, Louis de la Parte Flordia Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network, https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/implementation-research-synthesis-literature.
[96] Forfang, H. and J. Paulsen (2019), “Under what conditions do rural schools learn from their partners? Exploring the dynamics of educational infrastructure and absorptive capacity in inter-organisational learning leadership”, Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), Vol. 3/4, pp. 65-81, https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.3368.
[80] Fullan, M. (2023), Why we can’t escape the status quo in education, https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-why-we-cant-escape-the-status-quo-in-education/2023/01.
[7] Fullan, M. (2002), “Principals as leaders in a culture of change”, Educational Leadership, https://michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/13396053050.pdf.
[135] Furlong, J. (2015), Review of Initial Teacher Training 2015: Teaching Tomorrow’s Teachers, Welsh Government, Cardiff, https://www.gov.wales/review-initial-teacher-training-2015-teaching-tomorrows-teachers.
[107] Gerson, D. (2020), “Leadership for a high performing civil service: Towards senior civil service systems in OECD countries”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 40, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ed8235c8-en.
[141] Goddard, J. et al. (2018), Maximising Universities’ Civic Contribution, Wales Centre for Public Policy, https://www.wcpp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/181102-WCPP-submission-Maximising-universities-civic-contribution.pdf.
[49] González, Á., M. Ehren and C. Montecinos (2020), “Leading mandated network formation in Chile’s new public education system”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 40/5, pp. 425-443, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1783649.
[81] Gough, D. (2021), “Appraising evidence claims”, Review of Research in Education, Vol. 45/1, pp. 1-26, https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985072.
[61] Greany, T. et al. (2022), WELL Project Evaluation Report: Year 1 – 2021-2022, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
[17] Greany, T. and R. Higham (2018), Hierarchy, Markets and Networks: Analysing the “Self-improving School-led System” Agenda in England and the Implications for Schools, UCL Institute of Education Press, London.
[64] Greany, T. and A. Kamp (2022), Leading Educational Networks: Theory, Policy and Practice, Bloomsbury, London.
[67] Greany, T. et al. (2023), Local Learning Landscapes: Exploring Coherence, Equity and Quality in Teacher Professional Development in England, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
[150] Greene, J. (2007), Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
[15] Grimaldi, E. (2009), “Governance and heterachy in education: Enacting networks for school innovation”, Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 3/2, http://ijse.padovauniversitypress.it/2011/2/7.
[85] Grimshaw, J., M. Eccles and J. Lavis (2012), “Knowledge translation of research findings”, Implementation Science, Vol. 7/50, https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-50.
[55] Gurr, D. and M. Huerta (2013), “The Role of the Critical Friend in Leadership and School Improvement”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 106, pp. 3084-3090, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.356.
[66] Hallgarten, J., V. Hannon and T. Beresford (2015), Creative Public Leadership: How School System Leaders Can Create the Conditions for System-wide Innovation, WISE, Doha.
[60] Hargreaves, A. and M. Fullan (2012), Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
[11] Hargreaves, D. (2003), Education Epidemic: Transforming Secondary Schools Through Innovation Networks, Demos, London.
[137] Hazelkorn, E. (2016), Towards 2030: A Framework for Building a World-Class Post-Compulsory Education System for Wales, Welsh Government, Cardiff.
[75] Head, B. (2015), “Towards more evidence-informed policy”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 76/3, pp. 472-484, https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12475.
[116] Higgins, S., D. Kokotsaki and R. Coe (2011), Toolkit of Strategies to Improve Learning: Summary for Schools Spending the Pupil Premium, Durham University, Durham.
[119] HM Treasury (2011), The Magenta Book: Guidance for Evaluation, HM Treasury, London, https://golab.bsg.ox.ac.uk/documents/magenta_book_combined.pdf.
[8] Hopkins, D. and B. Pont (2008), “Approaches to system leadership: Lessons learned and policy pointers”, in Hopkins, D., D. Nusche and B. Pont (eds.), Improving School Leadership, Volume 2: Case Studies on System Leadership, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264039551-10-en.
[3] Huber, S., H. Moorman and B. Pont (2008), “The English approach to system leadership”, in Hopkins, D., D. Nusche and B. Pont (eds.), Improving School Leadership, Volume 2: Case Studies on System Leadership, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264039551-6-en.
[56] Huerta, M. (2014), The role of the critical friend in leadership and school improvement, Masters Research thesis. University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
[95] Hurlen, I. and L. Bræin (2022), Partnerskap- et rom for kunnskapsutvikling? [Partnership – A Space for Knowledge Development?], Masters thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo, https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/99778.
[149] Institute for Government (2017), “Professions and functions in the civil service”.
[37] Jones, M. et al. (2023), “Leading professional networks: Different perspectives”, School Leadership & Management, Vol. 43/1, pp. 1-7, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2023.2175564.
[77] Khosrowi, D. and J. Reiss (2019), “Evidence-based policy: The tension between the epistemic and the normative”, Critical Review, Vol. 31/2, pp. 179-197, https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2019.1688520.
[24] Kingdon, J. (1995), Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Longman, New York, NY.
[105] Knight, C. and T. Crick (2022), “Inclusive education in Wales: Interpreting discourses of values and practice using critical policy analysis”, ECNU Review of Education, Vol. 5/2, pp. 258-283, https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311211039858.
[99] Kools, M. and L. Stoll (2016), “What makes a school a learning organisation”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 137, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlwm62b3bvh-en.
[6] Leithwood, K. and C. Riehl (2003), What We Know about Successful School Leadership, National College for School Leadership, Nottingham.
[4] Levin, B. (2010), “Leadership for evidence-informed education”, School Leadership & Management, Vol. 30/4, pp. 303-315, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.497483.
[1] Levitt, B. and J. March (1988), “Organizational learning”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14, pp. 319-338, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001535.
[98] Lillejord, S. and K. Børte (2016), “Partnership in teacher education – A research mapping”, European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 39/5, pp. 550-563, https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1252911.
[138] Lucas, B. (2017), Professional Standards for Further Education Teachers and Work-based Learning Practitioners in Wales, Welsh Government, Cardiff, https://hwb.gov.wales/api/storage/460a740a-7bf1-4c7b-b4ae-348ae380879b/professional-standards-further-education-teachers-work-based-lear.
[74] Mair, D. et al. (2019), Understanding Our Political Nature: How to Put Knowledge and Reason at the Heart of Political Decision-Making, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2760/910822.
[57] Mellado Hernández, M. et al. (2020), “Acompañamiento a redes de líderes escolares para su transformación en comunidades profesionales de aprendizaje [Accompanying networks of school leaders to transform them into professional learning communities]”, Perfiles educativos, Vol. 42/169, pp. 52-69, https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.24486167e.2020.169.59363.
[62] MHCLG (2019), The English Indices of Deprivation (IoD2019), https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ (accessed on 13 June 2023).
[34] MINEDUC (2020), Presentación sobre Situación y Panorama de las Redes en Chile a los Centros de Liderazgo Escolar [Presentation on the Situation and Overview of Networks in Chile to School Leadership Centres], Ministry of Education, Chile.
[33] MINEDUC (2017), Estudio sobre la implementación de las Redes de Mejoramiento Escolar [Study on the Implementation of School Improvement Networks], Ministry of Education, Chile.
[90] Ministry of Education and Research, Norway (2020), Act on Primary and Secondary Education and Training (the Education Act), LOV-1998-07-17-61, Ministry of Education and Research, https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1998-07-17-61.
[91] Ministry of Education and Research, Norway (2017), Core Curriculum – Values and Principles for Primary and Secondary Education, Ministry of Education and Research, Oslo, https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/53d21ea2bc3a4202b86b83cfe82da93e/core-curriculum.pdf.
[32] Moreno, C. (2007), “Las escuelas rurales en Chile: La municipalización y sus fortalezas y debilidades [Rural schools in Chile: Municipalization and its strengths and weaknesses]”, Revista Digital eRural, Educación Cultura y Desarrollo Rural, Vol. 4/8, pp. 1-6.
[109] National Assembly for Wales (2001), The Learning Country: A Paving Document: A Comprehensive Education and Lifelong Learning Programme to 2010 in Wales, National Assembly for Wales, https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5147/1/learning_country_paving_document.pdf.
[5] Nutley, S., I. Walter and H. Davies (2007), Using Evidence – How Research Can Inform Public Services, Policy Press, Bristol.
[72] O’Connor, J. (2022), “Evidence based education policy in Ireland: Insights from educational researchers”, Irish Educational Studies, https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.2021101.
[71] O’Connor, J. (2022), “Strengthening the science-policy interface in Ireland”, Administration, Vol. 70/4, pp. 29-52, https://doi.org/10.2478/admin-2022-0026.
[79] O’Connor, J. (2018), Education Policymaking in Ireland, Does Research Matter?, unpublished doctoral thesis, University College Dublin. Dublin.
[21] Obermeister, N. (2020), “Tapping into science advisers’ learning”, Palgrave Communications, Vol. 6/1, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0462-z.
[88] OECD (2023), Strengthening Policy Development in the Public Sector in Ireland, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6724d155-en.
[53] OECD (2022), Who Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice?: Strengthening Research Engagement, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d7ff793d-en.
[142] OECD (2017), Developing Schools as Learning Organisations in Wales, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/education/Developing-Schools-as-Learning-Organisations-in-Wales-Highlights.pdf.
[125] OECD (2014), Improving Schools in Wales: An OECD Perspective, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/education/Improving-schools-in-Wales.pdf.
[23] Ouimet, M. et al. (2009), “The absorption of research knowledge by public civil servants”, Evidence & Policy, Vol. 5/4, pp. 331-350, https://doi.org/10.1332/174426409X478734.
[26] Pallett, H. and J. Chilvers (2014), “Organizations in the making”, Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 39/2, pp. 146-166, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513518831.
[92] Paulsen, J. (2021), Skoler som lærer kollektivt. Læring i fellesskap gjennom tillitsbasert ledelse [Schools Learning Collectively: Learning Together Through Trust-based Leadership], Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
[43] Pino-Yancovic, M. (2021), Collaborative Inquiry Networks in Latin America: Facing Together Difficult Challenges, Keynote at International Professional Development Association (IPDA) Marginalised Voices in Contemporary Times: Addressing Inequities through Professional Learning and Education.
[45] Pino-Yancovic, M. and L. Ahumada (2020), “Collaborative inquiry networks: The challenge to promote network leadership capacities in Chile”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 40/2-3, pp. 221-241, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1716325.
[58] Pino-Yancovic, M. et al. (2022), “Collaborating inside and outside the school: together overcoming COVID-19 challenges in Chile”, Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 7/4, pp. 390-405, https://doi.org/10.1108/jpcc-04-2022-0025.
[151] Pino-Yancovic, M., Á. González and L. Ahumada (2018), “Indagación colaborativa: Elementos teóricos y prácticos para su uso en redes educativas [Collaborative inquiry: Theoretical and practical elements for its use in educational networks]”, Informe Técnico No. 4, Líderes Educativos, Centro de Liderazgo para la Mejora Escolar, Santiago de Chile, https://www.lidereseducativos.cl/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/IT4_L2_M.P.-A.G.-L.A._INDAGACION-COLABORATIVA-ELEMENTOS-TEORICOS-Y-PRACTICOS-PARA-USO-EN-REDES_27-11-18.pdf.
[52] Pino-Yancovic, M. and A. Herrera (2022), Atravesando una pandemia: Acciones, desafíos y aprendizajes de las redes educativas en Chile [Crossing a Pandemic: Actions, Challenges and Lessons Learned from Educational Networks in Chile], paper presented at VI Jornada Investigación en Liderazgo Escolar, 10 November, Santiago.
[42] Pino-Yancovic, M. et al. (2019), “Un modelo para el acompañamiento a redes escolares: Herramientas y estrategias [A model for the accompaniment of school networks: Tools and strategies]”, Nota Técnica No. 10, Lideres Educativos, Centro de Liderazgo para la Mejora Escolar, Valparaíso.
[38] Pino-Yancovic, M. et al. (2019), “Promoting collaboration in a competitive context: School improvement networks in Chile”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 58/2, pp. 208-226, https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-11-2018-0213.
[46] Pino-Yancovic, M. et al. (2019), School Improvement Networks and Collaborative Inquiry: Fostering Systemic Change in Challenging Contexts, Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, https://doi.org/10.1108/9781787697355.
[129] Policy Profession (2021), Policy Profession Standards, Policy Profession, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1065808/UPDATED_PP_Standards_main_v5_acc.pdf.
[124] Power, S. (2016), “The politics of education and the misrecognition of Wales”, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 42/3, pp. 285-298, https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2016.1184871.
[50] Provan, K. and P. Kenis (2008), “Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 18/2, pp. 229-252, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015.
[120] Puttick, R. and J. Ludlow (2013), Standards of Evidence: An Approach that Balances the Need for Evidence with Innovation, National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, London, https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/standards_of_evidence.pdf.
[121] Rees, G. and C. Taylor (2015), “Is there a ‘crisis’ in Welsh education?”, Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, pp. 97-113, https://www.cymmrodorion.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Is-There-a-%E2%80%98Crisis%E2%80%99-in-Welsh-Education.pdf.
[140] Reid, G. (2018), Review of Government Funded Research and Innovation in Wales, Welsh Government, Cardiff, https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2019-04/review-of-government-funded-research-and-innovation-reid-review.pdf.
[114] Reid, K. (2011), “Changes to educational policy and management in Wales: Facing the ’cuts’ and new strategic challenges”, Educational Review, Vol. 63/4, pp. 439-453, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.603825.
[145] Révai, N. (2022), “Improving research-policy-practice engagement: Lessons learnt and ways forward”, in Who Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice?: Strengthening Research Engagement, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/77e56f3d-en.
[146] Rickinson, M. et al. (2022), “A framework for understanding the quality of evidence use in education”, Educational Research, Vol. 64/2, pp. 133-158, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2022.2054452.
[106] Rickinson, M. et al. (2019), “Understanding evidence use within education policy: A policy narrative perspective”, Policy and Evidence, Vol. 15/2, pp. 235-252, https://doi.org/10.1332/174426418X15172393826277.
[100] Robinson, V. (2016), Elevsentrert skoleledelse [Student-centered School Management], Cappelen Damm Akademisk, Oslo.
[69] Ruane, F. (2021), “Introducing evidence into policy in Ireland”, in Hogan, J. and M. Murphy (eds.), Policy Analysis in Ireland, pp. 63-78, Bristol University Press, Bristol.
[84] Ruggles, A. (2004), Regulatory vs. Academic Science, http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ogmius/archives/issue_9/research_highlight.html (accessed on 29 May 2023).
[148] Schotter, A. et al. (2017), “Boundary Spanning in Global Organizations”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 54/4, pp. 403-421, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12256.
[63] Sharples, J., B. Albers and S. Fraser (2018), Putting Evidence to Work: A School’s Guide to Implementation, Education Endowment Foundation, London, https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/implementation.
[82] Shaxson, L. and A. Boaz (2021), “Understanding policymakers’ perspectives on evidence use as a mechanism for improving research-policy relationships”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 27/4, pp. 518-524, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1764505.
[94] Shirley, D. and A. Hargreaves (2021), Five Paths of Student Engagement: Blazing the Trail to Learning and Success, Solution Tree Press.
[93] Silins, H., W. Mulford and S. Zarins (2002), “Organizational learning and school change”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38/5, pp. 613-642, https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02239641.
[132] SPARK (2023), Social Science Research Park: About us, https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/social-science-research-park/about-us (accessed on 14 June 2023).
[101] Stoll, L. et al. (2005), What Is a Professional Learning Community? A Summary, National College of School Leadership, https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10106722/11/PLC%20source%20materials_Summary.pdf.
[78] Stone, D. (2012), Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (3rd ed.), W.W. Norton & Co., New York, NY.
[73] Šucha, V. and M. Sienkiewicz (eds.) (2020), Science for Policy Handbook, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
[86] Thomas, A. and A. Bussières (2021), “Leveraging knowledge translation and implementation science in the pursuit of evidence informed health professions education”, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Vol. 26, pp. 1157-1171, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-020-10021-y.
[54] Torres, J. (2022), “Louder than words: Review and comparative analysis of knowledge mobilisation models”, in Who Cares About Using Education Research in Policy and Practice? : Strengthening Research Engagement, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a68ad484-en.
[14] Townsend, A. (2015), “Leading school networks”, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Vol. 43/5, pp. 719-737, https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214543205.
[131] UKRI (2023), Wales Centre for Public Policy, United Kingdom Research and Innovation, Swindon, https://gtr.ukri.org/project/7AC4D53B-878C-4D32-B44B-510551170696?.
[70] Watt, R. and M. Perkins (2020), “Leading public sector reform: Some reflections”, Administration, Vol. 68/4, pp. 55-72, https://doi.org/10.2478/admin-2020-0024.
[139] Weingarten, H. (2018), Maximising the Contribution of the Post-Compulsory Education and Training System to the Achievement of Welsh National Goals, Welsh Government, Cardiff.
[20] Weiss, C. (1979), “The many meanings of research utilization”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 39/5, p. 426, https://doi.org/10.2307/3109916.
[144] Welsh Government (2022), Tertiary Education and Research Act (Wales) 2022, https://www.gov.wales/tertiary-education-research-bill-wales.
[143] Welsh Government (2021), The National Strategy for Educational Research and Enquiry (NSERE): Vision Document, Welsh Government, Cardiff, https://www.gov.wales/national-strategy-educational-research-and-enquiry-nsere-vision-document-html.
[133] Welsh Government (2021), Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015: Essentials Guide, Welsh Government, https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-10/well-being-future-generations-wales-act-2015-the-essentials-2021.pdf.
[126] Welsh Government (2014), Qualified for Life: An Education Improvement Plan, Welsh Government, https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/21054/1/141001-qualified-for-life-en_Redacted.pdf.
← 1. This study applied a mixed-method research guideline (Greene, 2007[150]). The questionnaire was answered by 1 786 principals and curriculum co-ordinators who participate in 483 SIN. For this study, the Educational Collaborative Networks Questionnaire (ECN-Q) by Díaz-Gibson et al. (2014[153]), a Likert-scale questionnaire, was adapted and validated. The 2016 and 2017 studies were integrated using the theoretical perspective on collaborative inquiry (DeLuca et al., 2015[152]; Pino-Yancovic, González and Ahumada, 2018[151]) to identify the common challenges defined in educational networks, the type of inquiry and action carried out, and the monitoring and reflection processes they undertake.
← 2. For more information on the WELL initiative see: https://welleducation.uk.
← 3. The EEF is an independent charity which supports schools to improve teaching and learning through better use of evidence, including through the national Research Schools Network; see: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk.
← 4. The WELL Year 1 evaluation report is available at: https://welleducation.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/WELL-Project-Evaluation-Year-1-Report-FINAL-REVISED-24.1.23v2.pdf (accessed on 6 March 2023).
← 5. The EEF guide sets out six principles/steps for leaders to follow: 1) treat implementation as a process, not an event; 2) create a conducive climate; 3) explore – identify the problem to address and the programmes/practices to implement; 4) prepare – the staff and resources required; 5) deliver – support staff, monitor progress, adapt if needed; 6) sustain – plan for sustaining and scaling from the outset.
← 6. The Research for Public Policy seminar series was a joint initiative of the Royal Irish Academy and the Irish Research Council. The first seminar took place on 27 January 2021 and can be viewed at: https://www.ria.ie/news/policy-and-international-relations-policy-working-groups-research-public-policy/research-public.
← 7. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior policy makers in the Department of Education and Skills and with educational researchers in Irish universities and two main research institutes – the Education Research Center and the Economic and Social Research Council. In July 2020, the government approved the establishment of a new Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. The Department of Education and Skills was renamed the Department of Education.
← 8. The Declaration on Research Assessment recognises the need to improve the ways in which researchers and the outputs of scholarly research are evaluated. See: https://sfdora.org.
← 9. See: https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/f343c-national-science-advice-forum-and-government-science-advisor.
← 10. Impact 2030: Ireland’s Research and Innovation Strategy was published in 2022: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/27c78-impact-2030-irelands-new-research-and-innovation-strategy.
← 11. For further details see: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/efd7f-civil-service-renewal-2030.
← 12. The Royal Irish Academy (RIA) have put the issue of science advice for policy on the agenda of research‑performing organisations in Ireland. For examples of RIA initiatives, see: https://www.ria.ie/policy-and-international-relations/science-advice.
← 13. A public PhD is a study scheme in Norway whereby the doctoral student works part time in a university and part time in a public service body (e.g. ministry, school). The theme of the doctoral research has to be relevant for the public institution.
← 14. This article represents the author’s personal views based on his experience of working in the Welsh government between 2013 and 2022; a review of the literature; and discussions with colleagues within the Welsh government, universities, colleges and schools. The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article. The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.