Evidence-Informed Policy and Practice in the Field of Education: The Dilemmas Related to Organizational Design

References

• Adelle, C. (2015). Contexualising the tool development process through a knowledge brokering approach: The case of climate change adaptation and agriculture. Environmental Science & Policy, 51, 316–324. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.08.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornbaum, C. C., Kornas, K., Peirson, L., & Rosella, L. C. (2015). Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis. Implementation Science, 10(1), 162.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brofoss, K. E. (2013). Kunnskapssenteret. Seksjon for velferdstjenester. En underveisvurdering. Arbeidsnotat 11/2013. Oslo: NIFU.
   Google Scholar
• Bugge, M.M., Solberg, E., Fridholm, F., & Sivertsen, G. (2013). En kartlegging av kunnskapsfunksjonen på det arbeids- og velferdspolitiske området i Sverige, Danmark og Canada. [A mapping of the knowledge brokering function on the field of work and welfare-policy. NIFU-Rapport 47/2013. Oslo: NIFU.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, T., & Schuller, T. (2007). The evidence agenda. In OECD staff (Ed.), Evidence in education: Linking research and policy (pp. 15–32). Paris: OECD Centre for Research and Innovation (CERI).
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2006). Autonomy and regulation: Coping with agencies in the modern state. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. doi:10.2307/2393553
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, A., Levin, B., & Campbell, C. (2009). The growing (but still limited) importance of evidence in education policy and practice. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2-3), 159–171. doi:10.1007/s10833-009-9107-0
   Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE). (2014). Research Excellence Framework 2014: The results. Bristol: HEFCE.
   Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1), 127–144. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00347.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howells, J. (2012). The geography of knowledge: Never so close but never so far apart. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(5), 1003–1020. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbs027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (1990). American exceptionalism and the political acknowledgment of risk. Daedalus, 119, 61–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kattel, R., & Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 787–801. doi:10.1093/icc/dty032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kislov, R., Wilson, P., & Boaden, R. (2017). The ‘dark side’of knowledge brokering. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 22(2), 107–112. doi:10.1177/1355819616653981
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhlmann, S., & Rip, A. (2014). The challenge of addressing Grand Challenges – A think piece on how innovation can be driven towards the “Grand Challenges” as defined under the European Union Framework Programme Horizon 2020. Brussels: European Research and Innovation Area Board (ERIAB).
   Google Scholar
• Lather, P. (2004). Scientific research in education: A critical perspective1. British Educational Research Journal, 30(6), 759–772. doi:10.1080/0141192042000279486
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenihan, A. (2013). Lessons from abroad. International approaches to promoting evidence-based social policy. London, Alliance for useful evidence. Retrieved from
   Google Scholar
• Maasen, P., & Stensaker, B. (2011). The knowledge triangle, European higher education policy logics and policy implications. Higher Education, 61(6), 757–769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacLure, M. (2005). ‘Clarity bordering on stupidity’: where’s the quality in systematic review? Journal of Education Policy, 20(4), 393–416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, B. R. (2011). The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation, 20(3), 247–254. doi:10.3152/095820211X13118583635693
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803–815. doi:10.1093/icc/dty034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, M. (2010). The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication, 32(1), 118–127. doi:10.1177/1075547009359797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, M., & Kearnes, M. (2013). Introduction to special section: Intermediaries between science, policy and the market. Science and Public Policy, 40(4), 423–429. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaels, S. (2009). Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 994–1011. doi: doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, G., Redman, S., D’Este, C., Makkar, S., & Turner, T. (2017). Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 23.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., & Martin, B. R. (2010). Technology policy and global warming: Why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won’t work). Research Policy, 39(8), 1011–1023. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, J., & Campbell, C. (2017). Evidence-informed practice in education: meanings and applications. Educational Research, 59 (2), 127–135.
   Google Scholar
• Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: “Mode 2” revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noyes, J., Popay, J., Pearson, A., & Hannes, K. (2008). 20 Qualitative research and cochrane reviews. In J. P. T. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (pp. 571–592). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• OECD (2002). The Frascati Manual: The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer, M. A. (2012). Socioenvironmental sustainability and actionable science. BioScience, 62(1), 5–6. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rambøll Management Consulting (2007). Norsk utdanningsforskning - en systemutredning. Oslo: Rambøll Management Consulting.
   Google Scholar
• Reinecke, S. (2015). Knowledge brokerage designs and practices in four european climate services: A role model for biodiversity policies? Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 513–521. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rider, S., & Peters, M. A. (2018). Post-truth, fake news: Viral modernity and higher education. In M. A. Peters, S. Rider, M. Hyvönen, & T. Besley (Eds.), Post-truth, fake news (pp. 3–12). Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (Vol. 2). Oxford: Blackwell
   Google Scholar
• Saini, M., & Shlonsky, A. (2012). Systematic synthesis of qualitative research. Oxford: OUP USA.
   Google Scholar
• Sarewitz, D. (2016). Saving science. The New Atlantis, 49, 4–40.
   Google Scholar
• Schlierf, K., & Meyer, M. (2013). Situating knowledge intermediation: Insights from science shops and knowledge brokers. Science and Public Policy, 40(4), 430–441. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Economist. (2013, October 19). How Science goes wrong. The Economist.
   Google Scholar
• Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.
   Google Scholar
• Tripney, J., Kenny, C., & Gough, D. (2014). Enabling the use of research evidence within educational policymaking in Europe: Lessons from the EIPEE Project. European Education, 46(1), 55–74. doi:10.2753/EUE1056-4934460103
   Google Scholar
• Turnhout, E., Stuiver, M., Klostermann, J., Harms, B., & Leeuwis, C. (2013). New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Science and Public Policy, 40(3), 354–365. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802–821. doi:10.5465/amr.2006.22527385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, V. L., House, A. O., & Hamer, S. (2009). Knowledge brokering: Exploring the process of transferring knowledge into action. BMC Health Services Research, 9(1), 12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar