Abstract
The research community focuses on conducting research with the purported goal of improving educational practice, yet the two communities largely remain disjointed. This chapter explores the major disconnects between research and practice from the perspectives of both the practice and the research communities, and we present strategies for establishing stronger connections based on the results of our literature analysis. We argue that examining the research–practice gap through the lens of absorptive capacity provides elucidations about the disconnects, and it facilitates the organization of research-based strategies. As a result, both communities are able to jointly determine what constitutes quality research evidence and attenuate the gap between research and practice.
Education research is crucial to improving practice and is defined by the American Educational Research Association (2020) as “the scientific field of study that examines education and learning processes and the human attributes, interactions, organizations, and institutions that shape educational outcomes” (para. 1). As contexts change in schools and society, research has the potential to provide insight into the impacts of these changes. Research can provide valuable information needed to make the best decisions regarding policy and program changes while using resources effectively. It offers predictive ability regarding outcomes and allows practitioners to provide cutting-edge educational practices. When practitioners encounter any problem in educational practice, existing knowledge of the problem and potential solutions likely exists in the form of previous research. Research can be utilized to provide supports for individual students, such as early warning systems, differentiated learning, and interventions. Research yields evidence that can inform decision-making processes with regard to identifying the best actions possible for improving education (Data Quality Campaign, 2016; Farley-Ripple et al., 2018).
There is an abundance of education research produced, the potential impacts of research evidence on education are apparent, and practitioners are not resistant to research evidence (Coburn et al., 2009; Penuel et al., 2017). Despite this, persistent gaps between research and practice have been documented in the social sciences for decades (Broekkamp & van Hout-Wolters, 2007; Farley-Ripple et al., 2018; Ostinelli, 2016). It leaves one to question: Why are there still disconnects between research and practice? If connections could be improved between research and practice, it seems logical that the quality and impact of education research as a mechanism to drive change in education would increase. The purpose of our chapter is to utilize a structured framework to identify and describe the reasons for disconnects between research and practice from the perspectives of both communities and to explore research-based strategies for addressing these disconnects. We both have previous experience as K–12 classroom teachers and now teach research methodology in practitioner-oriented graduate programs in educational leadership. Additionally, a core tenet of each of our research and teaching philosophies is to prepare practitioners to utilize and conduct research in authentic ways.
Literature Review Method
This chapter resulted from a review of the research-to-practice literature. The ERIC database was primarily used to search for the relevant literature in journal articles, dissertations, and books. Google Scholar was also used to identify frequently cited sources and to search for sources that cited an important piece of research-to-practice literature. The search was limited to the most recent 10 years (2010–2020) in order to obtain the most relevant and contemporary information; however, some older literature was examined if it was identified as a frequently cited foundational or seminal publication. Initially, the search was for literature addressing research and practice, but ultimately the search was narrowed to examine a section of the literature covering the research-to-practice gap. It should be noted that the identified literature overlapped with portions of other bodies of literature including research–practice partnerships (RPPs), design-based implementation research, research use, action research, research brokers, data-driven decision-making (DDDM), evidence-based practices, and knowledge mobilization.
The search for literature was delimited to a PK–12 education focus; however, some literature outside of this domain were included if the research-to-practice discussion was relevant to PK-12 education. Literature sources were eliminated if they focused on the translation of specific research into practice (e.g., interventions) in a specific field (e.g., special education, counseling) unless the research-to-practice discussion connected with the broader perspective of overall education research. Furthermore, literature that was limited to a specific context was not included if it could not be connected with the general research-to-practice discussion. The final set of obtained literature was compiled and synthesized to determine disconnects between research and practice and to identify strategies for improving connections.
Framework
Our guiding framework for the synthesis and critical analysis of the literature on disconnects between research and practice was Todorova and Durisin’s (2007) model of absorptive capacity, which is defined as the set of routines that define an organization’s ability to utilize prior knowledge to “recognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and apply it” to achieve its ends (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990, p. 128). Absorptive capacity routines can be internal to an organization (Lewin et al., 2011), but the focus in this framework is on capabilities for assimilating and applying external knowledge. This particular model is an iteration of Zahra and George’s (2002) reconceptualization of Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) original model. At its core, the model purports that an organization’s ability to
recognize the value of new knowledge, which affects its ability to
acquire it, which in turn affects how it can
absorb the knowledge (assimilation) and/or adapt to be able to internalize it (transformation) before the organization is able to
exploit the new knowledge by incorporating it into its operations.
This process collectively constitutes an organization’s absorptive capacity. Importantly, the source of the new knowledge and the organization’s prior knowledge are antecedents to its absorptive capacity. The aspects of this framework will be examined from the perspectives of both the research and practitioner communities, but the overarching emphasis will be on applying the framework to K–12 schools as the organizations of interest.
There are two primary pathways through which an organization can develop new knowledge (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). The first is internally using its own research and development structures. This path requires only internal absorptive capacity routines (Lewin et al., 2011), but it also inhibits an organization’s ability to maximize its potential (Szulanski, 1996). The second is by drawing on knowledge that originated externally, but through the organization’s absorptive capacity and its own research and development capabilities, it is able to utilize it internally. This requires organizational expertise that is relevant, domain-specific, and sufficiently diverse so that appropriate external knowledge can be identified (Farrell & Coburn, 2017). Thus, the knowledge source and prior knowledge are foundational precursors to absorptive capacity—without the appropriate and requisite knowledge to utilize external knowledge, absorptive capacity is diminished.
An organization’s ability to value external knowledge is the first element of absorptive capacity. This is a foundational dimension of the framework because an organization must be able to value new, external knowledge before it can begin the process of absorbing it. Todorova and Durisin (2007) noted that this valuation is not automatic. Routines must be established and norms cultivated within an organization to foster and facilitate recognition of the potential for external knowledge in the organization’s success and then prioritizing it. The degree to which these routines exist within an organization defines its base-level absorptive capacity. Examples of these norms include utilizing boundary-spanning, or navigating differences between organizations, (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Penuel et al., 2015) and active pursuance of new, external knowledge (Lewin et al., 2011). The second element of absorptive capacity is the organization’s ability to identify and acquire external knowledge. There are multiple components within this dimension that affect absorptive capacity at this stage including the intensity and speed with which the organization identifies and gathers the new knowledge, as well as the direction that the new knowledge orients the organization (Zahra & George, 2002). The third and fourth elements of Todorova and Durisin’s (2007) absorptive capacity framework reflected an organization’s capabilities to use existing routines to assimilate new information into their existing knowledge structures or, when the new knowledge does not fit within existing schemas, to transform both individual and organizational knowledge structures and routines to allow absorption. These are separate but related paths in the framework, and an organization may move back and forth between these two phases before moving to the final stage, exploitation, in which the organization is able to apply the new knowledge it has incorporated. It is important to note that a high degree of capacity in one element of the framework does not guarantee a high degree of the others, but a high degree of all is necessary to effectively use new knowledge for organizational improvement (Jansen et al., 2005; Todorova & Durisin, 2007; Zahra & George, 2002).
Todorova and Durisin’s (2007) model also included four different contingency factors on which absorptive capacity is conditioned. The main contingency factor is social integration mechanisms, which refers to the organizational structures and norms that facilitate knowledge sharing and utilization (Zahra & George, 2002). If absorptive capacity is the “machine” that has the ability to put knowledge into use, then social integration mechanisms are the “oil” that allow it to function. The other three factors affect the degree to which an organization is compelled to develop absorptive capacity and to utilize the knowledge obtained from it. They are activation triggers, regimes of appropriability, and power relationships. Activation triggers are any events that compel an organization to seek out new knowledge, and they can be internal or external to the organization (Zahra & George, 2002). The regimes of appropriability contingency factor has been applied in other disciplines as being concerned with knowledge protection for the purposes of competitive advantage. For the purposes of this review, we examine the framework from the perspective of connecting research and practice to serve the common good instead of using external knowledge from research to make schools have a competitive edge. We focus instead on the more applicable factor of power relationships, which emphasizes “the use of power and other resources by an actor to obtain [their] preferred outcomes” (Todorova & Durisin, 2007, p. 782). This is an important consideration for absorptive capacity because power relationships ultimately dictate knowledge management by playing an influential role in both activation triggers and social integration mechanisms (Argote et al., 2003; Wang & Noe, 2010).
While this absorptive capacity framework is rooted in organizational learning theory and is positioned to focus on innovation as a means of enhanced competitive advantage in the business literature, we find that the core ideas in the model are applicable when examining organizational change in education as well. It provides a clear structure for examining the issue explored in this literature review: the lack of application of research in practice. We were interested in examining the absorptive capacity of educational organizations as it relates to applying research to practice and the various disconnects that lead to breakdowns in the connections between research and practice. This framework provides guidance for this examination and enhances our understanding of how organizational beliefs, routines, and processes within the practitioner and research communities affect practitioners’ capabilities for acquisition, assimilation, and application of new knowledge in educational organizations.
This framework has not been widely applied in education research despite its clear connection to many related research topics about educational decision-making and the gap between research and practice. It has been incorporated within a larger conceptual framework in studies on partnerships between universities and school districts (e.g., Farrell & Coburn, 2017; Farrell et al., 2019), but these focused primarily on the prior knowledge antecedent and the social integration mechanisms contingency factor from the perspective of external partnerships, not the individual absorptive capacity elements themselves. We contend that the absorptive capacity framework has the potential to facilitate a deeper understanding of the disconnects between research and practice that span all of the aspects beyond prior knowledge. Furthermore, there is a need to understand impediments to schools’ capacities to independently absorb external knowledge from the research community when external partnerships are not available. Consequently, we focus on examining disconnects between the researcher and practitioner communities within each of the core elements of the framework in addition to the antecedents and contingency factors. We do not examine exploitation because our interest was in understanding the disconnects that prevent new knowledge from being exploited. This allows for an improved understanding of why disconnects persist between research and practice despite a plethora of research on the issue, and it offers a new perspective of the definition of quality research evidence in education.
Disconnects Between Research and Practice
Disconnects between the research and practice communities result in reduced capacity for absorption of available information and knowledge for practitioner decision-making. The absorptive capacity framework enables a focused examination of the disconnects that occur between the practitioner and the research communities. We define the research community as composed primarily of academics, who have been referred to as producers of research. We define the practice community to include district and school practitioners, who have been referred to as the consumers, or users, of research.
In this section, we will first unpack the disconnects that exist at each stage or component of the framework (i.e., prior knowledge/knowledge sources, recognizing the value, acquisition, and assimilation/transformation). Next, we will discuss how each of the contingency factors (i.e., activation triggers, power relationships/dynamics, and social integration mechanisms) affect disconnects. Two aspects of the framework are not part of this discussion (i.e., appropriability regimes and exploitation) for reasons previously discussed. When discussing the disconnects in each framework component or contingency factor subsection, we do so from the perspective of each community, including how each community contributes to the disconnects and how each community is affected. In addition, avenues for future research on bridging the disconnects within each component or factor are described. Table 1 summarizes the primary disconnect issues that are described for each framework component or factor from the perspectives of each community.
Disconnects Between Research and Practice
Prior Knowledge and Knowledge Sources
Absorptive capacity is an organization’s potential for acquiring, assimilating, transforming, and exploiting new knowledge. There are different types and sources of knowledge. Types of knowledge include experience, tradition, advice of authorities (i.e., experts), assumptions, reasoning, law/policy, examples, data, and research findings (Asen et al., 2011; Bridges, 2017; Cain et al., 2016; Johnson & Christensen, 2019). The source of knowledge is based on whether it comes from within (i.e., internal knowledge) or from outside the organization (i.e., external knowledge). Any of the knowledge types can come from internal or external sources (Aarons et al., 2011). Prior knowledge is needed for efficient and effective acquisition, assimilation, and transformation of new knowledge. Practitioners not only need prior knowledge to understand new knowledge but also need to understand how new knowledge connects with prior knowledge. Consequently, increased prior knowledge increases absorptive capacity, especially when the prior knowledge is most relevant to the new knowledge (Aarons et al., 2011; Daly & Finnigan, 2010; Farrell et al., 2019).
Practitioner Community
The practitioner and research communities differ regarding the types of knowledge they use the most. Practitioners use specific types of knowledge that include content knowledge and knowledge about the organization’s context and history. Mandinach and Gummer (2016) described seven types of knowledge that educators utilize, including “content knowledge; general pedagogical knowledge; curriculum knowledge; pedagogical content knowledge; knowledge of learners and their characteristics; knowledge of educational contexts; and knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values” (p. 369). Furthermore, they noted that these types of knowledge are key to effectively using data for decision-making in schools because they are crucial elements of good teaching.
Practitioners rely heavily on internal sources of institutional knowledge, but when seeking external sources, they turn to practitioner conferences, professional development, and comparable, neighboring schools and districts (Daly & Finnigan, 2010; Neal et al., 2018). In essence, external sources are other practitioners. Penuel et al. (2017) surveyed over 700 school and district leaders who indicated that they look to professional networks for research more often than they look to formal and informal sources. Research has shown that denser connections during knowledge-sharing both internally and externally lead to increased absorptive capacity (Daly & Finnigan, 2010; Farrell et al., 2019). Through these connections, practitioners are able to exchange knowledge and innovations and to synthesize complex information. When connections are dense, increasing the absorptive capacity of one organization benefits other organizations during knowledge exchange.
Asen et al. (2011) found that policymakers used experience and examples more often than research evidence. When these policymakers used research, it was in a vague way to support arguments and to deal with conflicting viewpoints. Specific research was not cited nor was rigor discussed. Coburn et al. (2009) found after a review of the literature that districts may use research evidence but not to the extent possible for reasons such as an inability to interpret the research and apply the findings as well as a lack of awareness of the role research evidence can play in the decision-making process. Galway and Sheppard (2015) compared how policymakers and practitioners in Canada use research as a source of evidence. They found that both groups used multiple types of evidence with different ones prioritized, and when research was used, it was primarily internal research. Similarly, Newman et al. (2016) found that policymakers and administrators in Australia differ in their uses of research; however, it was also found that the degree to which research is utilized occurs on a continuum.
Research Community
It is obvious that the research community primarily relies on one type of knowledge: research. External sources are used (i.e., research conducted by others) as well as internal sources (i.e., their individual research findings). Extant research is obtained from sources (e.g., databases, journals, scholarly books) and from research conferences. When considering the research community as a whole, members of this community mostly use an internal source, which is research conducted by members of their own community (Snow, 2015). However, researchers tend to operate in silos with groups of researchers studying similar topics but using different terminology. Knowledge advancement is hindered when we do not know how pockets of literature are connected and overlap. Some researchers value practitioner-based research in natural settings, but this source for research may not be considered scientifically based (Asen et al., 2011). Furthermore, members of the research community often conduct their research without input from the practitioners who understand the educational contexts where the research is conducted and where the findings need to be applied (Snow, 2015). This is counterintuitive to the fact that most of the research community conduct nonpartisan research to benefit the common good (Cain et al., 2016).
Disconnects and Absorptive Capacity
We identified two disconnects between research and practice regarding prior knowledge and knowledge sources. First, the two communities rely predominantly on different types of knowledge (Snow, 2015). Practitioners do not use research enough as a type of knowledge for decision-making, and when it is used, it is often not used appropriately or to its fullest capacity. The overreliance on a portion of knowledge types and on internal knowledge, especially when research is excluded, keeps practitioners in a holding pattern for improving their absorptive capacity. Why do practitioners rely less on research? Cain et al. (2016) suggested that it is because research has to compete with other types of knowledge. In addition, research is often an external source that is conducted by others (Asen et al., 2011). The research community relies on previous research as knowledge sources and includes practitioner knowledge in a limited way (Snow, 2015). In schools, the consideration of multiple types of knowledge obtained from internal and external sources benefits absorptive capacity (Brown et al., 2017; Tseng, 2012). Types of knowledge are not independent; they influence one another. Consequently, including only some types of knowledge results in an incomplete understanding. What is important for maximized absorptive capacity is to have access to the best knowledge, to integrate new knowledge with existing knowledge, and then to leverage the combined knowledge in order to improve practice.
A second disconnect between the two communities is the type of prior knowledge each community has to their advantage. While some members of the research community do have prior knowledge from earlier experiences as practitioners themselves, this is usually not recent experience. The research community is made up of members who have more extensive training in conducting research, while the practitioner community has lived experience and expertise in understanding real-world contexts and educational phenomena in real time. Increased prior knowledge leads to increased absorptive capacity (Aarons et al., 2011; Daly & Finnigan, 2010; Farrell et al., 2019). Some educational organizations have increased absorptive capacity because they have individuals who have training in research (e.g., from graduate education). This leads to the continuum of prior knowledge for research use referred to by Newman et al. (2016). Consequently, some organizations are at a disadvantage by having a lower absorptive capacity for making improvements based on new knowledge, and the gaps between those with high and low absorptive capacity increase exponentially because absorptive capacity has a cumulative effect.
Future Research
Because practitioners and researchers rely on different types of knowledge, the reasons for using or not using certain types and sources of knowledge need exploration as well as how multiple types of knowledge can be utilized. Since increased prior knowledge leads to more efficient and effective absorptive capacity, research is needed to examine how to increase prior knowledge related to both content and research. Previous research has also shown that denser connections among knowledge sources increase absorptive capacity. How can knowledge exchange be maximized? Learning more about how to improve prior knowledge within organizations would yield insights that could be used to increase absorptive capacity within individual organizations. Also, increasing the knowledge base at one organization affects knowledge exchange with connected individuals and organizations. This is particularly crucial for organizations with limited prior knowledge due to inequitable conditions. Future research is needed on the impacts of gaps in prior knowledge and the ways these gaps can be reduced.
Recognize the Value
The first stage of the absorptive capacity framework is recognizing the value of new knowledge. Before knowledge can be put to use in an organization, the value of the new knowledge has to be realized. Practitioners need the prior knowledge required to identify valuable types and sources of knowledge (Farrell et al., 2019). The two communities have different ways of recognizing value because each community has different definitions of what constitutes valuable research. According to Finnigan et al. (2013), some practitioners define research as being quantitative data (e.g., standardized test scores) and determining what other schools are doing to improve student outcomes (Neal et al., 2018). Mills et al. (2020) studied practitioners’ conceptualizations of research in the United States as compared to the way research was portrayed in federal policy, and found that practitioners and policies (e.g., No Child Left Behind) have similar definitions with some nuanced differences. When practitioners have more evolved conceptions of research, they value rigorous research and reduce the amount they judge quality based solely on fit to their contexts or recognition of a study or the authors (Coburn & Talbert, 2006; Farley-Ripple, 2012; Mills et al., 2020).
Practitioner Community
Practitioners need research evidence that is relevant to their unique contexts (Mills et al., 2020). Practitioners value research that is conducted in contexts similar to their own. The transferability of study findings to their own settings is of more importance than whether the findings generalize to broad groups. Research conducted using in-depth study in similar contexts yields more usable information for practitioners. Practitioners value the results of research conducted in contexts that are similar with regard to variables such as school/district performance, urbanicity, student demographics, and teacher quality (Farley-Ripple et al., 2018; Joyce & Cartwright, 2019). They need research knowledge that is comprehensive and provides details of implementation and impacts; research evidence has to enable educators to meet a need for them to be motivated to use it (Ostinelli, 2016).
Practitioners value research on relevant problems of practice (Neal et al., 2018; Newman et al., 2016). The highest priority topics in need of study vary by context (Farley-Ripple et al., 2018). Practitioner expertise, wisdom, and limited research are all very focused on immediate problems, and as a result, the broader picture is not considered (Palys, 2008). When practitioners attempt to access research that is broad in scope, they may deem the findings to be remote and not relevant to their contexts. Furthermore, research evidence needs to be timely or it becomes obsolete for addressing current problems of practice. Because the translation of research findings to educational practice is often slow, practitioners may not rely on research findings when making decisions because they do not view research as an up-to-date resource that they can count on to be available when it is most needed (Abrams & Grimes, 2017; Galway & Sheppard, 2015). Also, when research is not provided in usable formats, practitioners may be skeptical of the unknown and view research as easily manipulated and untrustworthy. When practitioners encounter research studies that contradict one another or are inconclusive, their doubts about using research increase (Penuel et al., 2017; Tseng, 2012).
Research Community
The research community values rigorous research studies. Both funding for education research and federal policy have placed more priority on controlled experiments and examination of large data sets via quantitative methods primarily because of the increased ability to more broadly generalize the results (Reyna, 2002). Funding and policy have placed lesser value on studies conducted in natural contexts via qualitative methods because of the limited generalizability (Asen et al., 2011). Although in the past the research community placed higher priority on quantitative research, the research community has since acknowledged the value of all research paradigms (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research) and has established criteria/norms for rigor for all paradigms (Tashakkori et al., 2020). However, increasing rigor in a study can limit the authentic study of research problems because of the indirect relationship between internal validity and external validity. Having a rigorous study means internal validity has been maximized, but doing so may result in study conditions that do not match the real world and limit the usability of the results. Rigid controls make it more difficult to translate research into practice (Boone & Higgins, 2019). Furthermore, without practitioner input, the way a topic is researched may not align with how it presents in practice. For example, if an intervention is implemented artificially in a controlled research setting, the significance of the results is meaningless from the perspective of practitioners. Boone and Higgins (2019) stated that rigorous internal validity measures may need to be sacrificed to make the research more generalizable.
The research community selects topics for study based on individual research agendas, the gaps in the literature, and recommendations from other researchers for future research (Snow, 2015). Also, researchers test theories, including theories that were not developed in the field of education (Brooks & Normore, 2018). For these reasons, the two communities often have different views on how a problem is defined (Farley-Ripple et al., 2018; Penuel et al., 2015). The research community has been criticized for focusing on purely academic pursuits and not considering the real problems that need to be resolved in education and society (Palys, 2008). Without input from practitioners, the research evidence they need may not be produced.
Disconnects and Absorptive Capacity
We identified three disconnects between research and practice regarding recognizing the value of research as knowledge. First, the two communities differ with regard to which research topics are most valued. Practitioners value topics that are focused on current problems of practice and specific to their contexts (Runesson Kempe, 2019). The research community values the study of topics that come from gaps in the previous research and the recommendations of other researchers for avenues of future research.
A second disconnect between the two communities involves the extent to which rigorous methods are valued and what constitutes rigor. When practitioners have a more evolved understanding of what constitutes rigor in research, the differences in definitions of research are minimized. Where the two communities actually differ is not how each defines quality research in general but how each defines qualities of research that make the knowledge most useful. Practitioners are more concerned with the extent to which the research conditions resemble natural settings, unlike the research community that places an emphasis on rigorous controls in a study. In other words, external validity is more important to practitioners while internal validity is more important to researchers.
Research produced by the research community can also be valuable to practitioners, but practitioners often do not consider how problems may occur across settings and how their settings fit into the bigger picture and the related fields of research (Snow, 2015). It is obvious that practitioners need to see the value in using research that is directly applicable to their settings, but they also need to see the value in research that is not. Relevant research literature can still be informative for practitioners when it is not directly applicable to their contexts—especially if researchers provide practical information about how it could be applied in other settings through explanations of transferability and generalizability. Scholars should “openly discuss their perspective on the conditions under which other schools might meet failure or success should they try and implement a similar initiative” and clearly describe the conditions that “practitioners would expect to encounter if the initiative were undertaken in another setting: policy context, finance, curriculum history, equity dynamics, . . .” (Brooks & Normore, 2015, p. 803). Furthermore, practitioners are less concerned about research being value-free than are members of the research community who often focus on controlling subjectivity when conducting research. Practitioner values are an embedded part of selecting relevant research. When the quality and rigor of scientific research are valued by practitioners, the research-to-practice connection is improved (Farley-Ripple et al., 2018).
The third disconnect regarding valuing research involves the outcomes of research each community most values. Members of the research community value research that is accepted for peer-reviewed presentations, publications, and grants. However, practitioners value research that provides details of both implementation and impacts in a format that can be easily utilized to put the knowledge into practice. Practitioners need to know about the practical significance of the research and the practical aspects of using the research knowledge (Cain et al., 2016). The research community should consider applied research and the dissemination of research to practitioners to be just as important as more theoretical research and dissemination to scholarly audiences. Moreover, Johnson and Christensen (2019) included pragmatic legitimation in their list of criteria for quality research and defined this concept as research helping to solve practical problems, providing clear answers to questions, and motivating people to take action. This should also be a major reason for conducting research (Gutiérrez & Penuel, 2014). When research findings are credible and have a substantial, direct impact on practice, it is negligent to not translate the results into practice as long as the translation is done in a noncondescending manner that acknowledges the practitioner’s knowledge that the researcher may not have (Bartunek & Rynes, 2010). When the information is delivered appropriately, it demonstrates that the research community identifies practitioners as an important audience, which, in turn, makes the research more valuable (Mills et al., 2020).
Research knowledge exists, but it is not used in practice to the extent that it could be. Practitioners may value knowledge obtained using rigorous research methods, but when they deem it to be inapplicable to their own settings because of irrelevant and outdated topics, broad scope, or lack of practicality, they do not have the motivation to seek it out. Furthermore, it is difficult for practitioners to use research knowledge when it is delivered in unusable formats or using technical jargon. Ultimately, when practitioners deem that their needs are not valued by the research community, the result is a lack of trust in research as a useful source of knowledge. If research is not valued, the amount and quality of external research knowledge are limited and absorptive capacity becomes greatly reduced.
Future Research
There are several avenues for future research that can shed light on how to make research knowledge more valuable to practitioners. First, insight is needed into ways researchers can better identify research topics that are timely from a practitioner standpoint and not timely based only on the perspective of others in the research community. How much do these perspectives of timeliness differ and in what ways do they differ? In addition, it would be useful to increase understanding of how research can better reflect the real world. Another avenue for future research involves increasing practitioner value of research that may not meet what they deem to be their specific needs. How can practitioners find value in using research conducted in broader contexts? It has been shown that when practitioners understand the importance of rigorous research, they find value in robust methods. How can practitioner understanding of research rigor be increased? Another area for future research on practitioner value of research knowledge would be to explore what types of information practitioners need for research to be valuable for them. Moreover, how do they need to have information articulated?
Acquisition
The second stage of the absorptive capacity framework is acquisition. Once practitioners are aware of valuable research knowledge, they need to know where new knowledge can be found and how to access it (Penuel et al., 2017).
Practitioner Community
Typically, research knowledge is disseminated in scholarly publications that practitioners cannot easily access. When practitioners seek out research evidence, they encounter a body of literature that is vast to the point of becoming excessive and confusing. As a result, one has to cast a wide net to identify the most pertinent literature and then appropriately synthesize the information. This is a skill that many practitioners, and even more seasoned researchers, may not have. It is easy to become distracted by too many options and choices when searching for literature. When practitioners use a search process that is not systematic, the result is a biased selection of research that may be aligned with political agendas and individual values (Coburn et al., 2009; Farley-Ripple et al., 2018; Ostinelli, 2016; Penuel et al., 2017). Systematic literature reviews allow for more assurance that the obtained literature is comprehensive and selected without bias (Konrad et al., 2019; Leko et al., 2019). However, these types of reviews are extremely time-consuming and not practical for the practitioner community. They need a manageable yet effective way to navigate through all of the literature and identify quality literature that is most relevant to their needs. Organization and objective synthesis skills are crucial literature review methods for everyone to possess—academicians and practitioners alike.
More practitioners would use traditional forms of research if they are aware of efficient and effective mechanisms for access (Accardo & Finnegan, 2019; Konrad et al., 2019). One such mechanism is the federally funded and operated What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), which extensively examines the literature about various educational products, programs, policies, and practices (Institute of Education Sciences, n.d.). The reports published by the WWC are free, concisely synthesize and critique the research on a given topic, and provide ratings about the potential impacts of each intervention based on the research in practitioner-friendly terms. This increases the dissemination of rigorous research (Farley-Ripple et al., 2018). There are also other mechanisms that provide practitioners with research findings (e.g., think tanks, briefs from professional associations), but practitioners may not be aware of these or not know which to use (Levin, 2011; Penuel et al., 2017).
Not only does research knowledge need to be accessible for practitioners, but also the information needs to be usable (Ostinelli, 2016). Practitioners need to acquire the research knowledge source and then acquire the research knowledge contained within that source. Scholarly journals are not often read by practitioners, partly due to access limitations but also because the format is not easy for practitioners to interpret. Practitioners need access to research knowledge that is disseminated in easy-to-understand formats that facilitate translation into practice (Nutley et al., 2009). Brooks and Normore (2018) provided some examples, including executive summaries of studies, policy briefs of literature, digital interviews with key researchers, sit-down discussions of findings, and research-based professional development.
Research Community
Who should be responsible for creating usable research products for practitioners and disseminating knowledge and products to varied audiences? Members of the research community are more inclined toward disseminating their research using certain sources (e.g., academic journals; Farley-Ripple et al., 2018). However, researchers need increased capacity to provide research-based products to practitioners in formats they deem usable as a means of increasing practitioner access to research. Mills et al. (2020) recommended that researchers use checklists to ensure they are meeting the needs of practitioners by providing research results that are consistent with practitioner conceptualizations. Cook et al. (2013) applied Heath and Heath’s (2008) six principles of communication for messages that “stick” with an audience. Research reports should present research using techniques that are “simple, unexpected, concrete, credible, emotional, or [tell] a story” (Cook et al., 2013, p. 165).
Even when research knowledge is disseminated to practitioners, the information may not be usable because the knowledge is outdated. The time line for producing research from conceptualization of research ideas to data collection and ultimately to publication is lengthy, and by that point, the topic of study may no longer be relevant. The research community should prioritize making results available in a timely fashion (Farley-Ripple et al., 2018; Gutiérrez & Penuel 2014). The publication time frame is beyond the control of the researcher; however, researchers can present results to practitioners—especially those who participated in the research—as soon as the results are finalized and interpreted.
Disconnects and Absorptive Capacity
We identified two disconnects between research and practice that affect acquisition of knowledge, and each is a way that research knowledge is disseminated. One disconnect involves the access and use of traditional sources of research knowledge (e.g., academic journals). These traditional sources are produced by and primarily for members of the research community; hence, this information is readily accessible to researchers. Furthermore, navigating the research literature is second nature for researchers. However, practitioners, when they do gain access to research literature, can easily be overwhelmed by the abundance of information. A published, high-quality literature review is of tremendous benefit, especially since the amount of research on a given topic is vast. The research community needs to actively engage practitioners with mechanisms that provide practitioners with research findings (e.g., WWC). What, though, should practitioners do when existing literature reviews on topics of interest are not available? Practitioners need to know how to access appropriate research, how to synthesize relevant literature, and how to be good consumers of research (Accardo & Finnegan, 2019; Farley-Ripple et al., 2018; Konrad et al., 2019). Improved literature search and synthesis skills can facilitate practitioners accessing existing research more expeditiously. Ultimately, practitioners being able to access research will not address this disconnect if the research community does not operate as if practitioners are reading their research. If traditional research knowledge dissemination formats are not viewed as useful to practitioners, the value is diminished, and the absorptive capacity for that knowledge is halted.
The second disconnect involves the access and use of practitioner-friendly formats. Researchers are not trained in how to produce these formats, and the research community as a whole values scholarly formats. Formats that practitioners can easily interpret and put into use facilitate more efficient knowledge acquisition and assimilation/transformation. These formats can be disseminated faster than the traditional scholarly publication route, making the research knowledge timely and of more relevance. Practitioner-friendly formats make research knowledge more usable and therefore more valued by practitioners.
Future Research
Education research is an applied discipline that is done for the sake of improving the common good. However, if the generated research knowledge is not delivered to practitioners in usable formats when the information is most needed, no practical good can come from the efforts of the research community to increase knowledge. One avenue for future research is to determine the most effective ways for practitioners to gain access to traditional research formats. How effective are preparation programs in providing practitioners with the capacity to access, synthesize, and interpret scholarly formats? In addition, how could these existing formats be modified to better meet the needs of practitioner audiences?
Another avenue for future research would be the investigation of which alternative formats are the most useful to practitioners and why. How does the research community disseminate these alternative formats to practitioners? Cain et al. (2016) described that other entities can publish faster than university researchers do in journals. What can be learned from these other organizations? How does the knowledge differ by institution type?
The focus in this subsection on acquisition has been on practitioners obtaining research knowledge produced by the research community. What about practitioners gaining access to knowledge from other organizations (e.g., similar schools)? As previously discussed, this type of knowledge is valued by practitioners. How can school districts promote exchange of knowledge among their schools? How can schools promote the exchange of knowledge among its own staff? How can the research community participate in this exchanging of knowledge to further close gaps? Whether the research knowledge comes from the research community or external organizations, increasing the production of research that is valued by practitioners and employing effective dissemination strategies will lead to increased practitioner acquisition and improved absorptive capacity for practitioners.
Assimilation and Transformation
The third stage of the absorptive capacity framework is assimilation and transformation. Once new knowledge is acquired, an organization makes meaning from the knowledge by either assimilating the knowledge through absorption or transforming their existing knowledge structures to absorb new knowledge.
Practitioner Community
What occurs during this stage of the absorptive capacity framework is described within the DDDM process as converting data into information and knowledge. Knowledge for effective decision making is not based on raw data. The data have to be converted into knowledge. First, data are analyzed to become information. Then, this newly acquired information is merged with existing knowledge that can be used to make decisions about actions going forward (Marsh & Farrell, 2015). The DDDM process is the way schools convert and assimilate knowledge.
Practitioners need to know how to connect broad research to their contexts by being aware of how closely the study participants and setting match their own settings. And, when they do not, they need to know how to still obtain useful information from the research. Knowledge from previous research needs to be connected and synthesized appropriately to maximize the quality of the research evidence in their settings. Practitioners need to understand how to connect theory and practice (i.e., apply to a certain context, compare theories, and select the most appropriate), and they need to know when it is appropriate to couple and decouple theory and practice. When they think about the impacts of coupling theory with practice, practitioners become more aware of why they do what they do (Roegman & Woulfin, 2019).
Consuming and conducting research should not be something that is added to practitioners’ already lengthy list of responsibilities. Instead, it should occur naturally by embedding it as part of DDDM (Ostinelli, 2016). Practitioners use applied research skills to obtain, collect, and manage and analyze data (Brown et al., 2017). A crucial point of the DDDM process is when the decisions are made for future action. Practitioners need to become critical consumers of research in order to identify quality research that is relevant (Farley-Ripple et al., 2018), and they need the ability to synthesize literature in an efficient manner to obtain a concise understanding of the research evidence and to identify if evidence-based practices will be suitable for their own contexts.
In the DDDM literature, developing meaningful implications from data analysis is referred to as sense-making (Lai & Schildkamp, 2013). Sense-making may include identifying root causes and potential solutions, defining evidence-based practices, and determining actions to take. The research on sense-making has indicated ways to increase the meaningfulness of implications: use collaboration when sense-making, have participants trained to use introspection and reflection appropriately, develop school structures as venues for sense-making, utilize an organized process, and develop group norms to allow for positive and productive discussions. Furthermore, several factors should be considered when developing implications, such as all stakeholders’ views and impacts, the school vision and context, priorities, political issues, and available resources (Bertrand & Marsh, 2015; Lai & Schildkamp, 2013; Vanlommel & Schildkamp, 2019). In other words, new research knowledge needs to be merged with existing knowledge from multiple sources, such as professional knowledge, content knowledge, expertise, policies, and knowledge of the organization’s history and context (Brown et al., 2017; Mandinach & Jimerson, 2016; Marsh & Farrell, 2015). Merging knowledge from multiple sources allows for a comprehensive picture for decision-making (Asen et al., 2011).
Prospective principals and teachers need training on how to incorporate research evidence into DDDM processes (McLeskey et al., 2018). Cain et al. (2016) described evidence that school leaders and teachers interpret knowledge differently. Also, there are different levels of ability among school leaders and teachers for knowing how to effectively merge multiple sources of knowledge. Individual experiences and qualifications affect how research knowledge is understood and used. State and district leaders should train and guide practicing teachers and principals to merge knowledge effectively (Maggin et al., 2010). Another strategy for improving knowledge use as part of the DDDM process is by creating structures, such as data teams and professional learning communities (Accardo & Finnegan, 2019; Anwaruddin, 2015; Dimmock, 2016; Rey & Gaussel, 2016). Working collaboratively enables the building of individual expertise in a collective way, thereby creating a culture that develops professional capital. When practitioners have increased capacity to conduct internal research and interpret external research as part of their routine DDDM processes, they can obtain and incorporate their own research information immediately and appropriately.
Research Community
Overall, the research community does not disseminate research in usable formats or ways that practitioners can easily understand. Writing for a scholarly audience using jargon and technical writing conventions results in an unusable product for practitioners. Research findings are not often well-translated into practical knowledge (Coburn et al., 2009). Arguments are made for why this is the case, such as the limitations of research hinder the transferability to practice, some research does not have direct application, and researchers may seem condescending because of their lack of practitioner wisdom (Bartunek & Rynes, 2010).
Researchers can facilitate appropriate application by including cautions for interpretation given the study limitations (Brutus et al., 2013), as well as unpacking how to apply the research and concisely translating this information for practitioners using nontechnical language (Cooper et al., 2018). Researchers should describe how to implement the study findings and provide sufficient details to allow practitioners to gauge how to apply them to their contexts (Cukurova et al., 2018; Maggin et al., 2010; Mills et al., 2020). Not only would this enhance the value of research to practitioners, but also it would increase the likelihood that research will be used effectively in practice. Including research-to-practice translations in scholarly writing is also beneficial to readers within the research community. Other researchers can see examples to model in their own writing, and they can have case studies to utilize when teaching coursework (Bartunek & Rynes, 2010).
What do well-written implications look like? One way to provide useful implications for practice is to connect findings to examples of practice and to major education principles and concepts. There should be an objective of explaining what practitioners may not understand, providing practical information, and demonstrating why the knowledge is of value to practitioners. Practitioners need to be given real-world information, informed about what to be cautious about, and given a thorough description of the context of the study, and practitioners can then make decisions about how to integrate the implications of research into their decision-making processes (Bartunek & Rynes, 2010).
In addition to studying the effectiveness of interventions, researchers should also focus on studying the implementation of interventions (Snow, 2015). Often, the research community does not give much focus to the implementation of an intervention when conducting a study other than examining threats to internal validity and treatment fidelity. Practitioners want to know if an intervention works, but they also need to know important aspects of implementation, including the most difficult areas of implementation, stakeholder perceptions of implementation, and how to overcome obstacles (Cook & Odom, 2013). They want to know how to implement interventions in varying contexts and how to further modify the intervention to better fit contexts. Researchers could collect information during their research on the details of implementation (e.g., how it was developed, how it should look, what could go wrong, how to modify to fit a context) and include this information when describing study procedures or implications (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017; O’Cathain et al., 2015). Furthermore, when researchers collect multiple data sources to better understand the perspectives of multiple groups within a context, they synthesize the findings across the various data sources. Tashakkori et al. (2020) described this as developing meta-inferences. When multiple data sources are collected, a researcher contemplates how to integrate methods within a study in the most effective way, especially when developing meta-inferences (Fetters et al., 2013).
Disconnects and Absorptive Capacity
We identified two disconnects between research and practice regarding assimilation and transformation; both of these disconnects stem from the differences in the ways that each community goes through knowledge assimilation and transformation within its own community. First, practitioners use a more applied approach to assimilation and transformation. Traditionally, most research—both basic and applied research—is conducted by academicians in universities, with practitioner-researchers conducting limited applied research usually in the form of action research (Snow, 2015). Practitioners typically do not conduct research studies in the traditional sense because that is not an embedded job responsibility. Instead, they use the DDDM process to convert and assimilate knowledge. Research conducted by the research community is considered more rigorous than the applied action research and practitioner DDDM (Snow, 2015). Criticisms of action research include being too context-specific and conducted by untrained researchers due to the fact that most practitioners do not receive formal training in research methods unlike researchers who are formally trained in graduate school and who remain immersed in conducting research professionally. However, as has been previously discussed, definitions of what constitutes valuable research puts applied research in a new light.
Based on these issues, it may seem that the practitioner and researcher communities are very different in the extent to which they conduct research. However, the disconnect here is not as vast as it may seem. The DDDM process is an applied form of the research process that is a more natural way for schools to conduct research as part of their normal processes (Brown et al., 2017; Mandinach & Gummer, 2013). For this reason, conversion and assimilation have counterparts in the research process. These occur during the DDDM process when data are analyzed to become information (i.e., findings) that are then interpreted to become knowledge. The merging of knowledge sources is akin to triangulation of data sources and development of meta-inferences. Because DDDM is an applied form of the research process, the development of applied research skills for practitioners helps to build the absorptive capacity of an organization. As practitioners continually experience the cyclical DDDM process, their prior knowledge and absorptive capacity will both increase with the start of each new cycle (Aarons et al., 2011). Nevertheless, until practitioners further develop their applied research skills, they would benefit from the research community translating research findings into practical information (Bartunek & Rynes, 2010).
The second disconnect involves the aptitude of researchers to make interpretations from their research findings that meet the needs of practitioners. Many researchers have less practical wisdom because their real-world experiences are not as extensive as that of practitioners; however, several members of the research community are or have been members of the practitioner community (Newman et al., 2016). The reduced practical knowledge affects the level of real-world information that is provided in published research. Researchers are formally trained in technical writing and produce scholarly writing as part of their jobs. Practitioners typically have minimal training in technical writing or even in how to interpret it, so how can they effectively put research evidence into practical use? If the two communities meet halfway, interpretations of research findings can be more meaningful. When researchers provide practical information derived from the research findings, practitioners can apply that information to their own settings and merge the knowledge with other sources. Lack of technical training in research terminology and methodology is a significant barrier for many practitioners seeking to utilize research in their decision-making. “Educational research knowledge is generally formal and rational in its nature, while practical knowledge is more tacit, holistic and based on experience” (Ostinelli, 2016, p. 542). This disconnect could be bridged if researchers were able to increase their practical knowledge and practitioners increase their research knowledge.
Future Research
It is clear that, as a whole, the translation of research findings into practical knowledge would be better facilitated if practitioners increased their research knowledge and researchers increased their practical knowledge. Increased capacity to conduct research and apply research skills would allow practitioners to smoothly navigate through the absorptive capacity process. When researchers have increased practical knowledge, they are better able to conduct and report research that yields knowledge that can be readily assimilated with other knowledge without undergoing involved transformation. How can the two communities increase these types of knowledge? RPPs are a research-based approach to bringing the two communities together to learn from one another and to address most of the disconnects that have been discussed (Coburn et al., 2013). However, not every school and district can have a research partner for every problem. How can the knowledge practitioners need be increased on a broader scale?
DDDM and research processes are not the same, and each has strengths and weaknesses; however, merging the two processes together allows one to compensate for the weaknesses of the other and vice versa (Brown et al., 2017; Crain-Dorough & Elder, 2018). Preparation programs can prepare prospective teachers and leaders to conduct more rigorous DDDM processes and to see how to integrate research knowledge into organizational practices. One way this can occur is to connect theory to practice in coursework and during field experiences. Research-to-practice can be modeled by using theory to guide preparation program planning and improvement. Being transparent with students about these endeavors allows them to see examples (Roegman & Woulfin, 2019). How can DDDM research skills be developed in preparation programs? What can district and school leaders do to increase these skills for practicing teachers and leaders (Marsh & Farrell, 2015)? Future research is needed to examine the impacts on absorptive capacity based on different levels of prior knowledge (e.g., research skills, content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge) overall and by roles (Coburn & Turner, 2011; Farrell et al., 2019; Mandinach & Gummer, 2016).
Contingency Factors
There are three contingency factors that affect how an organization moves through the absorptive capacity process. Activation triggers are events that motivate an organization to seek new knowledge. Power relationships are the internal and external power dynamics that affect absorptive capacity. Social integration mechanisms are structures and norms that facilitate knowledge sharing and use.
Practitioner Community
Several activation triggers motivate practitioners to seek external knowledge, including planning, encountering problems in practice, making improvements to curriculum and instruction, meeting student needs, and fulfilling accountability demands (Abrams & Grimes, 2017; Cho & Wayman, 2014; Shen et al., 2012). Also, when practitioners value innovation, are lifelong learners, and have growth mindsets, they become motivated to seek external knowledge (Aarons et al., 2011). Singer et al. (2017) explained that the value placed on using research increases when practitioners understand that the use of research is ethical, practical, and even legal. Research produced by practitioners themselves as part of a research-embedded DDDM process will be instantly valued because it is both timely and highly relevant (Mandinach & Gummer, 2013; Marsh & Farrell, 2015; Ostinelli, 2016). Practitioners will be motivated to conduct and use research if they see doing so as a way to meet a goal, and they know how to put research into practice (Ostinelli, 2016). When previous experiences with external sources of knowledge are not positive, motivation to use these sources decreases (Farrell & Coburn, 2017).
Regarding power relationships, Asen et al. (2011) found that policymakers valued research as a means to increase the credibility of an argument but only by saying in general that research supports the argument without giving specific examples or explaining why or how. In other words, research knowledge was used as a source of power (Coburn et al., 2009; Penuel et al., 2017). School practitioners may value research knowledge, but much of the power to use this knowledge source lies in the hands of those external to their organizations (Coburn & Turner, 2011). Currently, practitioners have little influence over what is researched and how topics are researched. Knowledge obtained from research conducted about them is disseminated first and foremost to external audiences and in a manner that is not easily translated or used by practitioners (Snow, 2015). Their preparation to use research knowledge is controlled by universities, and their access to professional development is limited by available resources. Nevertheless, schools are expected by many stakeholder groups to improve and meet challenges. Federal legislation (e.g., No Child Left Behind, Education Sciences Reform Act, Every Student Succeeds Act) has increased requirements for schools and districts using research to make decisions (e.g., instructional, programmatic; Farley-Ripple et al., 2018).
Schools are complex social organizations. Collaboration among school leadership, faculty, and staff is crucial for their success (Anwaruddin, 2015; Dimmock, 2016). Hence, they form structures to work together to accomplish goals and objectives. Data teams and professional learning communities are structures that allow these practitioners to work together to combine strengths and overcome weaknesses with regard to research capacity (Mandinach & Gummer, 2013; Ostinelli, 2016). Collaborative structures in schools are social integration mechanisms.
Researcher Community
For members of the research community, the pursuit of a research agenda is an important part of job responsibilities and requirements for tenure/promotion (Zuiker et al., 2019). This is their primary activation trigger; however, professional curiosity and addressing the common good are factors as well. As part of their jobs, researchers have more time to conduct intensive research. These are contributing reasons why there is such an abundance of literature.
Researchers have the freedom to choose their research agendas and have obvious motivation to pursue research, but power relationships affect the expectations of their research. External funding sources show preference for rigorous quantitative methods that can be artificial (Farley-Ripple et al., 2018; Reyna, 2002), as previously discussed. Tenure/promotion policies have an impact on a researcher’s choices and options with regard to the types of dissemination formats that are required (Penuel et al., 2017). Consequently, research is primarily reported in formats that meet the expectations of scholarly journals and not necessarily those of practitioners.
When conducting research, members of the research community often take on an outsider role as external to the organizations they study (Hays & Singh, 2012; Snow, 2015). Researchers naturally collaborate with other researchers on studies and scholarly publications. These social integration mechanisms enable researchers to produce research that is often higher both in quantity and quality (Aldieri et al., 2018; Huang, 2014). Including practitioners in collaborative efforts would be a natural next step. Research practice partnerships are one of the ways researchers and practitioners collaborate (Penuel et al., 2020).
Disconnects and Absorptive Capacity
One disconnect that is affected by power relationships is the type of research products produced versus the kind of products practitioners need. Power relationships influence activation triggers. Traditionally, the expectation has been to report research in scholarly publications. How can emphasis also be placed on disseminating research in formats practitioners can readily use? One way is to ensure researchers are trained early on regarding how to deliver one’s research in a manner appropriate for practitioners. For example, graduate programs in education could encourage students to more explicitly discuss and give emphasis to research-to-practice connections in theses and dissertations, as well as give practical discussion more emphasis (Bartunek & Rynes, 2010; Newman et al., 2016). This focus on practical application as an end goal will also affect how research is conducted and even how findings are interpreted when considering that there can be multiple meanings from the same findings depending on use (Cukurova et al., 2018; Mills et al., 2020). Researchers also need to explore and learn how to create deliverables that can be used by practitioners (e.g., professional development, instructional materials, implementation guides; Farley-Ripple et al., 2018).
Given the priority practitioners place on whether results generalize to their settings, the balancing of internal validity and external validity is crucial. A researcher has to find the best way to make the study findings credible while limiting the number of artificial conditions that make the study findings obsolete in the real world. Some changes in the expectations for researchers would improve their abilities to better meet the needs of practitioners. Disseminating research to practitioners in formats they can use should get more recognition in tenure and promotion policies. Colleges of education making improving practitioner use of research a priority will also influence individual faculty research agendas (Zuiker et al., 2019).
Power relationships also affect activation triggers regarding the disconnect between how much research knowledge is valued by practitioners versus researchers. How can state and district policymakers and administrators increase the use of research knowledge? Should state and local policymakers make research required? Mandating is not enough for research use to be maximized, and it may be counterintuitive (Coburn et al., 2009). Additionally, local administrators have an outsized role in determining what research is utilized in accordance with their vision. District/state leaders and policymakers can leverage their power to motivate universities to better prepare teachers and leaders to utilize research knowledge effectively (Coburn & Turner, 2011; Mandinach & Gummer, 2016).
Researchers have the freedom to select research topics of interest (Zuiker et al., 2019), which is a source of power in determining what research is produced (Snow, 2015). What can the research community do to leverage this power to benefit practice? Researchers can develop more meaningful implications from their research findings if they take into account the complexity of organizational structures of schools and districts and factors that have an impact on implementation (Ostinelli, 2016; Roegman & Woulfin, 2019; Snow, 2015). Practitioners have to negotiate the needs of all stakeholders when making decisions (Brown et al., 2017; Mandinach & Gummer, 2016; Tseng, 2012). Likewise, when stakeholder perspectives are obtained in research through multiple data sources, the practical implications of implementing research findings can be better realized because diverse groups are represented and a more holistic understanding is achieved (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017).
Social integration mechanisms can bridge disconnects between research and practice. Examples include establishing and supporting structures such as data teams and professional learning communities in schools (Marsh & Farrell, 2015). These structures promote shared values, increase prior knowledge and capacity, and maximize absorptive capacity (Brown et al., 2017). Also, structures can be put in place across school districts where knowledge can be exchanged (Daly & Finnigan, 2010). Partnering with external organizations through RPPs becomes a powerful way to influence organizations (Penuel et al., 2020). Denser connections among individuals lead to increased absorptive capacity (Farrell & Coburn, 2017).
Future Research
In order to change the way each community approaches the disconnects, it is important to understand how they currently produce or use research. Regarding practitioners, researchers have examined the purposes for practitioner research use (e.g., Coburn et al., 2009; Penuel et al., 2017). Future study is needed to better understand how districts and schools use research in practice, including searching for research and putting findings into use (Farley-Ripple et al., 2018). The role of research use within the DDDM process should be examined to determine how to customize the process to individual needs and specific contexts. With regard to researchers, what processes do they use to disseminate results for practitioner audiences? Understanding current processes for both communities will facilitate improving these processes. In what ways do these strategies improve the production and use of research? In what ways do strategies need to be customized to differing contexts? Another avenue of future research is to examine power relationships that influence practitioner use of research to better understand the power dynamics within and between the communities.
Discussion
Analyzing the disconnects that emerged from the literature through the lens of the absorptive capacity framework illuminated a new perspective for thinking about the research-to-practice gap. We previously identified the breakdowns that occur in the various stages of absorptive capacity that limit the potential for applying research to practice. To summarize, the research and practitioner communities have different activation triggers and different definitions of what constitutes valuable research. Researchers tend to initiate inquiry based on gaps in the research and value rigorous contributions to the body of literature on a topic, while practitioners are compelled to pursue new knowledge that can address problems of practice. This limits the ways practitioners recognize the value of new knowledge, which is the first element of absorptive capacity. When research is not relevant to problems of practice or is not timely, practitioners are unlikely to see value in it. A breakdown in absorptive capacity at this foundational stage has deleterious effects for the subsequent stages.
Since research is produced almost exclusively by the research community, the power dynamics of academia overwhelmingly determine absorptive capacity for practitioners. For example, the traditional avenues researchers use to disseminate their research (e.g., scholarly journals, academic conferences) are not the avenues practitioners commonly access or feel comfortable navigating when seeking out information (e.g., practitioner journals, professional organizations). These types of discrepancies result in a breakdown in the acquisition stage of the framework. Relatedly, the literature shows that practitioners desire knowledge that they can assimilate to address their specific problem in their specific context, but researchers tend to produce knowledge that practitioners first have to transform in order for it to be applicable to their settings. Absorptive capacity is severely limited without the prior knowledge necessary to be able to successfully navigate the acquisition, assimilation, and transformation processes. The framework allowed for a collective examination of the disconnects, which resulted in a more authentic examination of the breakdowns. Taken together, this highlights a need for strategies that will bring about definitional alignment within the various components of the framework between the two communities, as well as collaborative social integration mechanisms that facilitate the absorption of research into practice.
Within the practice community, practitioners at all levels should have the capacity to effectively and efficiently search for and synthesize relevant, quality literature. Practitioners should maximize the information they obtain from the research literature to include more than just what evidence-based practices to utilize. They should have DDDM processes established that are part of how they regularly do their jobs. Research evidence should be embedded within this process and integrated with other sources of knowledge when making decisions. School and district leaders should ensure that those they supervise are utilizing research appropriately, realizing that practitioners are more likely to use research if they are self-motivated because they value doing so.
Within the research community, there are implications for researchers, institutions of higher education, and producers of scholarly publications. Researchers should disseminate research to both scholarly and practitioner audiences. Practitioners need timely research and usable products (e.g., professional development materials, data team resources). Research published in scholarly sources could address both audiences if the provided implications are practical and meaningful. This will require a shift in the way the research community envisions the end products for research. Tenure and promotion policies would have to include dissemination to both audiences as the expectation. Scholarly publications would need to restructure what they expect from a manuscript to include ways to meet practitioner audiences (e.g., well-synthesized literature, explanation of confusing information, practical applications of findings).
Implications for each community were previously described, but joint examination is needed regarding their roles in perpetuating disconnects within the entire absorptive capacity framework. When one or more of the disconnects that we discussed are present, it will erode trust between the two communities and ultimately widen the disconnects between research and practice. Therefore, there must be a full institutional commitment from all involved entities, and each community needs to consider how the other side perceives the disconnects and understand each other’s perspective of the elements in the framework. Researchers and practitioners both need to be committed to implementing as many of the identified strategies as possible for each element in the framework.
The literature revealed a variety of social integration mechanisms that, when implemented with fidelity, can address the absorptive capacity framework and all of the disconnects concurrently by encompassing the vast majority of the identified strategies in an effective way, blurring the lines between research and practice. Detailing the specifics of any one strategy is beyond the scope of this chapter, but we illustrate here how one of the potential mechanisms that can be used, RPPs, incorporates multiple strategies for addressing disconnects within the larger context of the absorptive capacity framework.
RPPs are mutualistic, long-term collaborations between colleges and school districts that focus on problems of practice and prioritize original analyses (Coburn et al., 2013). The particular approach to an RPP can range from a research alliance structure in which researchers study issues determined by a particular school or district, to networked improvement communities in which researchers work with multiple districts to address a common problem and enhance the capacity of school districts to improve their outcomes over time. Both parties in an RPP often assume an atypical position. Practitioners become “active knowledge creators” and “expert identifiers of problems of practice,” while researchers recognize and embrace this reimagined role for educators beyond being “mere consumers of research” and seek to strengthen the partnership and close the gap between research and practice (Malin et al., 2018, p. 10). Research on RPPs shows positive outcomes in educational contexts and beyond (Coburn & Penuel, 2016). RPPs do not come without difficulties and disconnects; however, employing the use of brokers, intermediaries, or boundary spanners who can bridge any differences can be a productive enterprise (Farley-Ripple et al., 2018, Hopkins et al., 2019; Penuel et al., 2015). Both parties must overcome the complexity of organizational levels and structures to have a successful partnership that will increase connections between research and practice (Ostinelli, 2016).
Applied to the framework, RPPs afford practitioners and researchers the opportunity to work alongside one another to utilize and learn from each other’s source of knowledge, offsetting the weaknesses of each community as they relate to insider/outsider knowledge (Honig & Coburn, 2008; Runesson Kempe, 2019; Snow, 2015; Tseng, 2012). RPPs align the activation triggers for both communities because researchers draw from problems of practice to inform their research agendas, and practitioners expand their research interests by utilizing researchers’ interests and expertise (Tseng et al., 2017). Researchers can model how to conduct research and walk through the process with practitioners. This will increase the research self-efficacy of practitioners and enhance their appreciation of and value for rigorous research, which will ultimately increase their motivation to use research (Accardo & Finnegan, 2019; Chichekian & Shore 2016; Farley-Ripple et al., 2018). Since each community values the knowledge contributed by the other (Hopkins et al., 2019; Snow, 2015), research is better connected to practice through partnerships (Bartunek & Rynes, 2010). The inherent nature of an RPP mutually improves acquisition of quality research because practitioners and researchers partner together to navigate the literature, which also develops their own literature searching skills. While there is no clear, universal mechanism for translating research findings into evidence-based practices (Boone & Higgins, 2019), RPPs reduce barriers to research application because researchers and practitioners jointly work on interpretation of research findings and the implementation of research implications (i.e., assimilation and transformation; Penuel et al., 2015). Finally, RPPs directly address power relationships because shared expectations and commitments are the cornerstones of RPPs (Tseng et al., 2017), and shared decision-making at every step of the research process ensures a shared benefit for both researchers and practitioners (Wentworth et al., 2017). The absorptive capacity framework is not common in education research, and future research should explore its potential in understanding the processes of each individual community as well as the myriad types of partnerships that have been developed, utilized, and researched in an attempt to improve education outcomes.
In closing, if research evidence is significant but the information is of no practical use, is it truly quality evidence? Having other members of the research community deem work as worthy of publication is indeed one way to measure quality. It should not, however, be the only way. What about the perspective of the practice community? They are, after all, the audience that researchers seek to make an impact with their work. It is imperative that practitioners are able to engage with research so that it properly influences educational policy and practice. This means that the disconnects between research and practice must be bridged by ensuring research meets the definitions of high-quality for researchers and practitioners alike, and perhaps, these definitions could become blended. To this end, the strategies discussed in this chapter within the absorptive capacity framework provide a blueprint for members of both communities to jointly reconceptualize what quality research looks like in education.
