½¿É«µ¼º½

All researchers are motivated by the desire to create new knowledge, to reframe the terms in which a particular topic is understood or suggest new insights that could be acted on in the real world. Many of the traditional ways in which we train researchers and fund their work end with the findings. Yet in the real world, the findings are never the end of the story. Funders and the wider academic community all look for indicators of influence and impact after a project is over.

While the desire for impact is clear, it is much less certain how to make this happen, particularly in education where policy increasingly acts as the gatekeeper to practice, and practice works to an agenda that policymakers set. In fact, across the fields of health and social policy there is a general consensus that linear strategies for disseminating findings rarely bring about change (Oliver & Cairney, 2019). Decision-making in the policy world is shaped at least as much by policymakers’ values, beliefs and political interests as the strength of the evidence (Parkhurst, 2017). When knowledge generated in the academy is mobilised in other contexts, it seldom achieves the replication of results that evidence-based practice predicts (Lortie-Forgues & Inglis, 2019). Context matters, independently of the strength and quality of the research (Pawson & Tilley, 2004). This has fuelled interest in other forms of knowledge exchange.

‘Decision-making in the policy world is shaped at least as much by policymakers’ values, beliefs and political interests as the strength of the evidence.’

Putting knowledge exchange into practice

The UK has been investigating knowledge exchange in education using a systems approach (Best & Holmes, 2010). This assumes that researchers benefit from understanding the complex web of relationships and structures that impact on how research, policy and practice interact. Projects in the programme were asked to consider the different dimensions to education policy in the four nations of the UK, and to embed partnership approaches into their designs. These two elements enable researchers to build stronger connections between their research and potential users over the length of the project. The programme finds that:

1. Knowledge exchange requires a different skill set from knowledge generation. Creating opportunities for knowledge exchange at different points in a project’s lifetime can help refine research questions and enable findings to translate into actionable insights (OECD, 2025). These activities need planning into the research design.
2. Knowledge exchange cannot be taught as decontextualised skills. Each case will be different, precisely because so much depends upon how a given system circulates relevant knowledge between parties. Structures embed power relationships and shape opportunities to engage on different terms.
3. Understanding the policy context matters. Policy contexts and priorities are dynamic and subject to change, making relationships with policymakers hard to maintain. Policy disperses responsibilities across a whole system. Recognising how and where they land can help reframe policy questions.
4. Stakeholder mapping and horizon-scanning activities can show who else is voicing public concern. Co-partnerships offer opportunities to work alongside others in ways that enrich the research. This requires realistic calculations about the time others can commit to joint endeavours.
5. Those setting out to build knowledge exchange activities into a research project will find themselves learning as they go. Writing up which activities have been tried, and with what success, will give this ‘craft knowledge’ the critical scrutiny it deserves.

Universities are increasingly recognising the value of preparing researchers to engage with other stakeholders. Considering how to engage, whether to engage, with whom and why, is a crucial way of rebalancing in whose interests researchers work.

References

Best, A., & Holmes, B. (2010). Systems thinking, knowledge and action: Towards better models and methods. Evidence & Policy, 6(2), 145–159.

Lortie-Forgues, H., & Inglis, M. (2019). Rigorous large-scale educational RCTs are often uninformative: Should we be concerned? Educational Researcher, 48(3), 158–166.

Parkhurst, J. (2017). The politics of evidence: From evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence. Taylor & Francis.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2025). Everybody cares about using education research sometimes: Perspectives of knowledge intermediaries. OECD Publishing.

Oliver, K., & Cairney, P. (2019). The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: A systematic review of advice to academics. Palgrave Communications,Ìý5(1), 1–11. ÌýÌý

Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (2004) Realist evaluation.