British Educational Research Journal

Vol. 36, No. 2, April 2010, pp. 299–316

The gap between educational research

and practice: views of teachers, school
leaders, intermediaries and researchers
Ruben Vanderlinde* and Johan van Braak
Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
British
10.1080/01411920902919257
CBER_A_392097.sgm
0141-1926
Original
Taylor
02009
00
Mr
Ruben.Vanderlinde@UGent.be
000002009
RubenVanderlinde
and
&
Education
Article
Francis
(print)/1469-3518
FrancisResearch Journal
(online)

The relation between educational research and practice is a growing point of interest and has produced
numerous lively debates. Although many reports and position papers have been published on this
topic, little empirical data are available. The aim of this study is to explore the gap between educational
research and practice and to assess the views of different key actors. After reviewing the literature,
focus group interviews were organised with teachers, school leaders, researchers, and intermediaries.
Questionnaire data were obtained from educational research professors in Flanders. Results indicate
that the gap between educational research and practice should be approached as a complex and
differentiated phenomenon. All participants agreed that more cooperation between researchers and
practitioners is necessary. This could be achieved by establishing ‘professional learning communities’
or by promoting a ‘design-based research’ model.

Introduction
Every approach to educational research has an epistemological foundation, influenc-
ing the research questions being asked and the methods being used (Furlong, 2004).
It is therefore not surprising that educational research as a research discipline is
difficult to define in unequivocal terms. In this context, Levin (2004) talks about
educational research as a contested concept. There are disagreements between
researchers concerning the understanding, nature, aims, and methods of educational
research. Some authors stress its potential to guide practice and to foster school
improvement (Mortimore, 2000; Hemsley-Brown & Sharp, 2003; Clark, 2005;
Nisbet, 2005; Munn, 2008). In this sense, educational research is understood as
research on education and research for education (Biesta, 2007). Mortimore (2000)

*Corresponding author. Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan

2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. Email: ruben.vanderlinde@ugent.be

ISSN 0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online)/10/020299-18

© 2010 British Educational Research Association
DOI: 10.1080/01411920902919257
300 R. Vanderlinde and J. van Braak

believes that the following four tasks are central to educational research: to observe
and record systematically, to analyse and draw out implications, to publish findings,
and to improve educational processes and outcomes. The author further stipulates
that the improvement of educational processes and outcomes should be the main
purpose of educational research. In this context, educational research has a twofold
goal: the production of knowledge and the improvement of the educational practice
(Mortimore, 2000; Bauer & Fisher, 2007). Other authors are concerned that this may
be a naive understanding of educational research, one that is based on a simplistic
assumption that there is a linear relation between research and practice (Ball, 2001)
or between research and policy (Bridges et al., 2008). Such an assumption implies
that there is a direct line between research, on the one hand, and policy and practice
on the other, and that findings can indicate unambiguously what governments,
educators and learners should do (Levin, 2004). Finally, other authors suggest that
educational research cannot be ‘educative’, but only ‘informative’. In this sense, the
primary concern of research is the validity and relevance of the knowledge imparted,
and not whether learning of the intended kind is taking place (see Hammersley,
2003).
Questions regarding the nature of educational research have gained public interest
since the publication of position papers by governments or government-funded bodies
about the future of educational research (see Levin, 2004; Munn, 2008). Examples
of these position papers can be found worldwide. For example, following a lecture for
the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) in the UK, Hargreaves (1996) prompted discus-
sion within both the research community and the mass media (see Oancea, 2005). A
similar effect took place in France following the publication of Prost’s (2001) report,
Pour un programme stratégique de recherche en éducation. Likewise, in the Netherlands
the official educational advisory body has published a report concerning the limited
use of educational research results (Onderwijsraad, 2003). In the USA, Levin (2004)
refers to the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy (2002), suggesting that educational
research is of poor quality with little impact on policy or practice (see Lather, 2004).
In this context, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (OECD-CERI) Country Reviews on
Educational Research and Development proved to be important incentives for public
discussions about the future of educational research. Finally, the Commission of the
European Communities (2007) has also shown interest in the relation between educa-
tional research, policy and practice and suggests evidence-based policy and practice
should drive reform in education and training systems.
In Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, no report has been published on
the relation between educational research and practice. The lack of empirical data
leaves it unclear as to how different stakeholders experience this relation. By contrast,
the relation between educational research and policy is more prominently present on
the educational agenda. This is arguably because the Flemish Parliament has its own
Educational Policy Preparatory Research Fund. However, policy preparatory
research is only one kind of educational research in Flanders, next to practitioner
research and basic research (Flemish Educational Council, 2007).
 The gap between educational research and practice 301

Moreover, in Flanders educational research is mostly conducted in the universities.

Researchers organise themselves into the Flemish Educational Research Association
(VFO—Vlaams Forum voor Onderwijsonderzoek). One of the objectives of VFO is
to encourage the pursuit of educational research for the improvement of education.
While until now the VFO has not published a position paper concerning the relation
between research and practice, the Flemish Educational Council (2007), which
represents all partners in education in Flanders (i.e. teachers, parents, pupils, social
partners, etc.), recently published an advisory report on this relation. This is the first
official document to be published on the research–practice gap in Flanders and will
be discussed more extensively below.
The aim of this study is to explore the gap between educational research and
practice in Flanders. We specifically aim to assess the views of teachers, school lead-
ers, intermediaries and researchers. In this study educational research is broadly
defined as the ‘structures, processes, products and persons that are part of the
systematic development of knowledge of education’; educational practice is defined
as the ‘structures, processes, products and persons that are directly involved in
educational institutions’ (Broekkamp & Van Hout-Wolters, 2007, p. 205). Our defi-
nition of educational research therefore includes basic research, practitioner
research, and policy preparatory research (Flemish Educational Council, 2007).

Literature review
The gap between research and practice
Questions concerning the gap between educational research and practice have been
raised for many years (Biesta, 2007). This gap has been well documented and has
given rise to lively debates among researchers, practitioners, and policy makers
(Gather-Thurler, 1993; Huberman, 1993; Wagner, 1997; Mortimore, 2000;
Depaepe, 2002; Gore & Gitlin, 2004; Levin, 2004; McIntyre, 2005; Whitty, 2006;
Chafouleas & Riley-Tillman, 2005; Bauer & Fisher, 2007; Broekkamp & Van
Hout-Wolters, 2007). These debates have a long history in many western countries
(Lagemann, 2000; Levin 2004; Oancea, 2005; Stark & Mandl, 2007) and are
dominated by monocausal analyses (Broekkamp & Van Hout-Wolters, 2007).
One argument suggests that this gap reflects two sharply contrasting types of knowl-
edge. On the one hand, we have research-based knowledge that is published in scientific
journals. On the other hand, we have pedagogical knowledge which is used by classroom
teachers in their day-to-day teaching (McIntyre, 2005). Bates (2002) argues that tension
exists between researchers and practitioners, as the practitioner asks for new solutions
to operational problems while the researcher seeks new knowledge. In this context, de
Vries and Pieters (2007) differentiate between a fundamental gap and a practical gap.
The fundamental gap refers to differences in opinion about the nature of ‘knowledge’
and ‘theory’, differences in vocabulary, and different reward systems. The practical
gap refers to differences in the allocation of time and resources for research projects,
authority issues, and the lack of collaboration across organisational boundaries.
302 R. Vanderlinde and J. van Braak

Based on a literature review, Broekkamp and Van Hout-Wolters (2007) identify four
interrelated problems that mark the gap between educational research and practice:
1. Educational research yields few conclusive results; or educational research does
not provide valid and reliable results that are confirmed through unambiguous
and powerful evidence.
2. Educational research yields few practical results; or educational research is limited
in practical use.
3. Practitioners believe that educational research is not conclusive or practical; or
educational research is not meaningful for teachers.
4. Practitioners make little (appropriate) use of educational research; or practitioners
do not have the skills to use educational research results.
While the first two problems refer to the production of research, the last two refer to
its practical use and value.
Broekkamp and Van Hout-Wouters (2007) state that educational research is
criticised for being difficult, partial, limited in use, fragmented, and unapproach-
able. Pessimistic views can be found throughout the literature. Kaestle (1993), for
example, describes educational research as having an ‘awful reputation’. Berliner
(2002) defines it as ‘the hardest-to-do-science’, which lacks credibility (Burkhardt
& Schoenfeld, 2003). Badley (2003) concludes that educational research is in a
crisis, while Kennedy (1997) states that ‘the main thing we have learned from
educational research is that we have not learned much from educational research’
(Kennedy, 1997, p. 4). Englert and Tarrant (1993) conclude that innovations
proposed by educational researchers remain in journals rather than in the hands of
teachers and students in the classroom. Others argue that researchers do research
for themselves: for example, Stevens (2004) argues that once research has been
published in a prestigious academic journal, its authors move on to the next study
rather than attempting to relate their findings to the lives of teachers. Stevens
(2004) further states that this is because publications in ‘practitioner’ journals are
devalued as less scholarly, and often disparaged in promotion and tenure decisions.
He concludes that important findings are consequently not translated for
consumption by teachers and administrators.
These remarks essentially point towards the dissemination of research findings.
This refers to the translation and distribution of research findings to practitioners.
Kaestle (1993) states that educational researchers lack the skills to disseminate their
results to practitioners. Chafouleas and Riley-Tillman (2005) complain that there are
no effective mechanisms for disseminating empirical information and evaluating its
impact. The dissemination question is central in the literature on scientific knowledge
use: the question includes both knowledge transfer and the communication of needs
from practitioners to researchers (Huberman, 1993).
While the gap between educational research and practice is deemed by numerous
researchers as problematic, other authors express a more positive perspective (e.g.
National Research Council, 2002; Levin, 2004; Whitty, 2006). Levin (2004) states
that research has played an important role in shaping policy and practice. Furthermore,
 The gap between educational research and practice 303

Landry et al. (2001) argue that research findings in social science are used more exten-
sively than commonly assumed. Bates (2002) argues that the impact of research on
practice is often complex and indirect rather than straightforward, while Chafouleas
and Riley-Tillman (2005) note that we must view the gap between research and prac-
tice as a challenge to build bridges that can connect researchers and practitioners.
Indeed, numerous researchers have attempted to formulate proposals on how to
bridge this gap between research and practice. Some authors centralise the need to
build better lines of communication between researchers and practitioners, and
encourage practitioners to get more involved in the research process (Gather-
Thurler, 1993; Mortimore, 2000; Hemsley-Brown & Sharp, 2003; Levin, 2004;
Edwards et al., 2007). De Vries and Pieters (2007) argue that more opportunities
should be made available to practitioners and researchers to collaborate, dissemi-
nate findings, co-construct ideas, and set research agendas. Kaestle (1993) argues
that researchers could link research and practice by involving practitioners in the
design and implementation of research. The author further suggests incorporating
research training into the initial preparation of teachers and administrators (Kaestle,
1993). However, building bridges between researchers and practitioners requires re-
examining the dissemination process. Traditionally, dissemination is defined as ‘the
process requiring a careful match among: a) the creation of products and knowl-
edge, and the context of that creation, b) the target audiences, and c) the content,
media, formats, and languages used in getting the outcomes into the hands (and
minds) of those target audiences‘ (NCDDR, 2001, p. 4), or as ‘the process by
which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among
the members of a social system’ (Rogers, 1995, p. 35). In this respect, dissemina-
tion is seen as a linear process. The Research Development Diffusion model (RDD
model), which lies behind this concept, states that researchers are experts who
should transfer their knowledge to educational practice. Johnston (1996) argues
that this type of dissemination comes from a research tradition in which innovations
are developed by researchers and then transferred to others in oral or written form.
It is expected that through the development and diffusion of knowledge, practitio-
ners can make use of research findings and thus improve educational practice
(Broekkamp & Van Hout-Wolters, 2007).
We believe that more cooperation between researchers and practitioners is inex-
tricably linked with rethinking how the dissemination of research knowledge occurs.
This is also the case for practitioner research which produces context-specific
knowledge, which is located in the individuals themselves and their practice
(Furlong & Salisbury, 2005). The traditional top-down model of the development
and dissemination of educational innovations should be replaced by a model where
teachers share a primary role with educational researchers in the development of
innovative practices (Englert & Tarrant, 1993). Pieters and Jochems (2003) argue
that the linear dissemination model should be replaced by a circular model. Such a
model emphasises a two-way flow of information between researchers and practitio-
ners and encourages practitioners to adapt and negotiate research findings within
the contexts of their use (Nutley et al., 2007).
304 R. Vanderlinde and J. van Braak

Conclusion of the literature review

There is a large body of literature concerning the origin and consequences of the gap
between educational research and practice. However, with the exception of Everton
et al. (2000) and Gore and Gitlin (2004), few studies empirically investigate how the
different people involved perceive and value educational research. Levin (2004) notes
that although educational research has been criticised as lacking value, little empirical
data has been gathered on this topic and the debate has been mostly conducted on
the basis of assumptions. The same conclusion was formulated at a recent American
Educational Research Association discussion on the relationships between research,
policy and practice (Levin et al., 2008). Given the lack of empirical data, the aim of
the present study is to explore the gap between educational research and practice, and
to assess the views of teachers, school leaders, researchers, and intermediaries on this
topic. Research concerning knowledge creation, application, and mediation in educa-
tion is encouraged by the European Commission, and is important for further debate
among the member states (Commission of the European Communities, 2007).

Method
The present study used focus group interviews to explore the relation between educa-
tional research and practice in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium.
Focus group interviews are frequently used in qualitative educational research
(Vaughn et al., 1996). They are used to gather information about the opinions and
experiences of individuals or groups on a specific topic (Puchta & Potter, 2004). An
important feature of this method is the creation of a candid and normal conversation
that addresses the selected topic in depth through interaction between members of
the group (Vaughn et al., 1996). Four homogeneous focus group interviews (each
with 12 participants) were organised with different key figures involved in the dissem-
ination process of educational research results: teachers, school leaders, researchers,
and intermediaries. The intermediaries were defined as people or organisations
responsible for distributing and translating research findings to practitioners (see also
Levin, 2004; Broekkamp & Van Hout-Wolters, 2007). They act as a ‘mediator’
between researchers and practitioners and can be defined as ‘third parties’ who
support the innovation process (Howells, 2006). In this study, teacher trainers, in-
service teacher trainers, and editors of ‘practitioner journals’ were invited to act as
intermediaries at the focus group interviews. Intermediaries with no specific respon-
sibility in distributing and translating research findings in Flanders, like pressure
groups, teacher unions, or think tanks were not involved in this study.
Furthermore, methodological decisions were made to ensure the quality of the
interpretative data; a professional focus group facilitator moderated the discussions
during the interviews so that we as researchers could focus on our role as observer and
reporter. Moreover, after each focus group interview, a written report with prelimi-
nary research findings was sent to the focus group participants for review (see Miles
& Huberman, 1994).
 The gap between educational research and practice 305

To collect valid and reliable data, an additional questionnaire was sent to all the
educational research professors in Flanders (n = 68) to determine the dissemination
strategies used at their research centres and to determine their views on their own role
in the dissemination process.
The exploration of the gap between research and practice is built up around three
research questions:
1. How do different key actors in the educational field in Flanders experience the
relation between educational research and educational practice? Do they perceive
a gap between research and practice? What are the main factors (barriers and
facilitators) influencing the use of research by practitioners?
2. How is the process of dissemination of research results shaped? Which dissemina-
tion strategies are used by educational researchers and what are their main goals
when disseminating research results?
3. How can the gap between educational research and educational practice be
bridged? What are the perceptions of the role of educational research in the future?
This study did not assess the impact or use of research, but examined how different
key actors perceive the research–practice relation (see also Nutley et al., 2007).
Furthermore, this study only takes into account research in compulsory education.
Research on higher education was not included, as its curriculum and practice is not
the responsibility of the Department of Education. In Flanders, higher education
institutes decide independently how educational practice should be organised.

Results
The (perceived) gap between educational research and practice
Interpretative data analysis revealed that the gap between educational research and
practice is a more complex and differentiated phenomenon than commonly assumed
in the literature (Gather-Thurler, 1993; Mortimore, 2000; Depaepe, 2002; Gore &
Gitlin, 2004; Chafouleas & Riley-Tillman, 2005; McIntyre, 2005; Broekkamp & Van
Hout-Wolters, 2007). The different actors involved in the dissemination process
expressed different opinions about the nature and extent of this gap. For example,
teachers perceived the gap as being larger compared to school leaders and intermedi-
aries. In this context Edwards et al. (2007) argue that educational research has a
different meaning for different stakeholders.
We found that teachers reported feeling sceptical about the value of educational
research. They argued that educational researchers handle too few questions of
practical relevance. This is in line with previous research which found that teachers
ask for research that is relevant to the classroom (Gore & Gitlin, 2004), and valued
research when it focused on classroom interaction, tackled specific aspects of teach-
ing, or demonstrated effective learning (Everton et al., 2000). On the other hand,
school leaders seemed to have a more moderate opinion about the gap between
research and practice. They stated that they read educational research reports and try
306 R. Vanderlinde and J. van Braak

to incorporate research findings into their practice, especially findings with a possible
impact on the school as an organisation. However, these participants indicated that
they do experience a gap when they encounter the use of complex or technical
language in research reports. They argued that many researchers speak and write in
a language that is unintelligible to practitioners. Intermediaries did not experience the
gap between research and practice as problematic; these participants stated that they
generally place themselves between researchers on the one hand, and teachers and
school leaders on the other hand. Intermediaries stated that they act as go-between
and attempt to accomplish two main functions, namely the function of gathering
information and the function of communication (see Howells, 2006). Although they
did not report their experience of the research–practice gap as being as large as that
expressed by school leaders and teachers, they did complain about the lack of avail-
ability of research results. Indeed, in Flanders there is no communication platform for
researchers and intermediaries; intermediaries are therefore often left to their own
devices for gathering information and maintaining contact with researchers. Overall,
while all participants acknowledged the existence of a gap between research and
practice, researchers and practitioners experienced it most profoundly. The interme-
diaries saw it rather as a challenge for all actors involved in the translation, dissemi-
nation, and implementation of research findings.
While exploring the gap between research and practice, we isolated factors that
influence the use of research by practitioners. In this context, four barriers and five
facilitators were identified (see Table 1).
The most important barrier described by participants was the lack of applicability
and ambiguity of educational research. Practitioners stated that they judge research
on the basis of whether the findings can be translated into practices that work in the
classroom. In this context, Bartels (2003) argues that the primary purpose of teachers
is to expand their context-specific knowledge about teaching and students’ learning.
In our study, the teachers argued that educational research findings are often ambig-
uous or even contradictory.
Another important barrier reported was the use of technical and complex language
in research reports. Practitioners argued that researchers write in a language that is
unintelligible to them. In this context, Mortimore (2000) speaks about the ‘convo-
luted style’ of research reports. Indeed, similar to the study of Bartels (2003), practi-
tioners in our study asked for clear and succinct articles to be provided by the research

Table 1. Factors influencing the use of research by practitioners

Barriers Facilitators

Lack of applicability and ambiguity Research with practical applications

Ambiguity of research material Providing evidence of the benefits
Technical and complex language usage Time to read and use research
Descriptive research Intermediary at the school level
Pressure from the government to use specific research
 The gap between educational research and practice 307

community. Moreover, intermediaries proposed that the research community should

write ‘teasers’ about their articles and research reports. Such texts give a clear over-
view of the purpose, main findings, and implications of the study without presenting
technical details. The researchers recognised this problem and argued that writing in
technical language is easier than producing simplistic texts that are accessible to the
general public. Moreover, they stated that their work is largely assessed in terms of
publication output in international scientific journals and their impact factor. This
‘publish or perish culture’ (Jochems, 2005) means that researchers do not have time
to translate their findings into material with high relevance for practitioners. This
situation is becoming more significant in Flanders since the Flemish Government
passed a decree regarding the financing of universities. This decree, passed in 2007,
stipulates that 45% of government financing depends on the number of publications
in journals listed in the Science Citation Index. Moreover, researchers argued that
intermediaries are more competent in disseminating research findings to practitio-
ners. In this context, they made a plea for the establishment of dissemination centres
at the university (see below). Such centres have good contacts with practitioners and
are specialised in translating and distributing research findings (see also Stevens,
2004).
The last barrier is concerned with the nature of educational research. We found
that teachers and school leaders were not convinced that descriptive research can
improve educational practice, since it is not oriented toward practice. The practitio-
ners stated that they mainly appreciate (and adopt) findings with practical relevance
or findings that provide evidence on what works in practice. In this context,
researchers stated that Flanders mainly has a tradition in basic research and policy
preparatory research. On the other hand, practice-based and practitioner research in
Flanders is limited and funding for this kind of research is absent.
Teachers also expressed a need for the time and opportunity to read and use
research, as well as the opportunity to link their understanding of research to their
knowledge of teaching. In this context, teachers emphasised the importance of having
an intermediary at the school level: such a person receives a mandate from the school
to follow educational research developments, and to translate research results to their
colleagues. This method of facilitation illustrates a way in which research can become
embedded in collective school processes, practices, and cultures (Nutley et al., 2007).
Another point of facilitation we found is the governmental pressure that teachers and
school leaders should gain experience in using specific research results. Research
projects that are promoted by the government have a greater chance of being imple-
mented into practice because these projects carry a hallmark. Schools also expect that
adopting these findings will be valued by the inspectorate.
The barriers and facilitators discussed above influence or inhibit the use of research
findings by practitioners. In this context, the use of research was not seen by practi-
tioners in an instrumental or technical way. The researchers who participated in the
focus group interviews argued that research can also be used for conceptual purposes
(see Huberman, 1993; Nutley et al., 2007). In other words, research findings can
influence teachers’ way of thinking about their own professionalism and offer them a
308 R. Vanderlinde and J. van Braak

conceptual framework, rather than changing their behaviours and practices. This is
in line with Ball (2001), who argues that educational research may have long-term
effects, theoretical outcomes, or indirect effects on teachers’ thinking and intellectual
development. However, the author cautions against making a simplistic assumption
about the relation between educational research and classroom practice. Biesta
(2007) suggests making a distinction between the technical and cultural role of
educational research. The technical role refers to research that produces ‘technical’
or ‘instrumental’ knowledge concerning what teachers should do to achieve a partic-
ular result or outcome. The cultural role refers to research that informs and improves
practice through the provision of different interpretations of educational practice.
This type of research enables practitioners to acquire a different understanding of
their practice (Biesta, 2007).

Dissemination process
The second research question of this study concerns the process of knowledge
dissemination. Our questionnaire findings indicate that researchers mainly dissemi-
nate their results either through publications in practitioner journals or through
contributions at practitioner conferences. Researchers stressed that their premised
dissemination goal is the spreading of knowledge. However, they rarely seem to use
interactive dissemination activities, such as in-service training or coaching teachers.
They also stated that dissemination is frequently used as a research strategy for new
data collection (i.e. interviewing teachers during in-service teacher trainings, or
gathering data during school performance feedback). In this manner, research
becomes a cyclical process.
Our findings suggest that in Flanders the dissemination of educational research
results fits the ‘Research Development Diffusion (RDD) model’. In other words,
dissemination is seen as a linear process of knowledge distribution through publica-
tions in practitioner journals. However, during the focus group interviews, we found
that these journals are not well known by school leaders, and even unknown by
teachers. Teachers reported that they consult other sources for information, such as
websites or teacher forums on the Internet. This information prompted the research-
ers to examine the nature of the dissemination process and to reflect on the effective-
ness of their dissemination activities. In this context, both researchers and
practitioners supported the proposition to develop a new dissemination model. They
referred to a ‘collaborative model’ on dissemination, which would be complemen-
tary to the ‘Research Development Diffusion model’. In a collaborative model,
researchers and practitioners would work together and recognise each others’ exper-
tise and professionalism. Researchers argued that within such a model teachers are
seen as professionals with a knowledge base and a conceptual framework, instead of
technical executors. They also emphasised that educational research should stimu-
late reflection and professionalism among teachers, instead of prescribing what they
should do (Bates, 2002; Nisbet, 2005). Teachers, school leaders, and intermediaries
argued that they are more interested in having a direct dialogue with the research
 The gap between educational research and practice 309

community than reading their scholarly papers. These comments are illustrative of
the ‘boundary zones’ described by Edwards and colleagues (2007) which stress the
importance of mutual learning. In this context, de Vries and Pieters (2007) found
that such a dialogue is a difficult task and that practice-oriented and research-
oriented conferences often result in intradisciplinary instead of interdisciplinary
meetings. The exchange of materials, the co-creation of knowledge, and the setting
of research agendas are less frequent outcomes.
During the focus group interviews the researchers described five levers that would
contribute to the establishment of a ‘collaborative model on dissemination’:
1. Long-term research projects with adequate funding. The researchers argued that a
collaborative model on dissemination can only be established within long-term
research projects (i.e. five years) and that intensive collaboration with practitioners
is impossible within short-term projects.
2. Continuing professional development (CPD) of practitioners and intermediaries. The
researchers suggested that professional development programmes should enable
practitioners to become aware of the potential benefits of educational research
results. They argued that these programmes should stimulate reflection and
professionalism. Researchers also indicated that the intermediaries have a crucial
role in mediating the practitioner and the research community and should thus be
given the opportunity to develop the skills required to do so.
3. Developing the skills of researchers. As researchers have multiple roles within this
‘collaborative model on dissemination’ they indicated that they need to develop
competences beyond analysing statistical data. For example, they need to develop
communication skills specifically designed for collaboration with practitioners on
research projects.
4. Developing skills for presenting educational research results. Researchers reported that
they find it difficult to explain complex research findings to the media (i.e. televi-
sion, newspapers, practitioner journals, etc.) in a clear and unambiguous manner.
These media sources are often the first time teachers become acquainted with
educational research findings. Researchers argued that they need to develop the
skills to communicate their findings more concisely and convincingly.
5. Defining and protecting the research agenda. Researchers noted that they are
occasionally prohibited from disseminating their findings when these findings are
contrary to the expectations of authorities involved in the research project (e.g.
financiers or promoters). They emphasised the importance of having intellectual
ownership of their findings, regardless of the intentions of other parties.
The last lever is in line with Goodson’s description of the researcher as ‘a public
intellectual, not a servant of the state’ (Goodson, 1999). Mortimore (2000) states that
communicating with the media on complex research findings has always been a diffi-
cult task for researchers, especially when findings are contrary to government policy.
The author recommends educational researchers to fiercely guard their independence
and not become ‘an arm of government or cosy companions of its representatives’
(p. 21). In this context, it is worth repeating that the Flemish Educational Research
310 R. Vanderlinde and J. van Braak

Association has no official position paper on the gap between educational research and
practice. Nevertheless, researchers are concerned about the research–practice gap and
it is a recurring topic in the annual Dutch-speaking Educational Research Conference.
This conference is jointly organised by the Flemish Educational Research Association
and the Netherlands Educational Research Association.
We find the request for the establishment of dissemination centres interesting in
this context. Such centres connect educational research departments and teacher
training departments of the university. As they fit within the RDD model, researchers
can rely on them to translate and disseminate their research findings to practitioners.
Surprisingly, not all universities in Flanders have such centres, even though they fit
within the traditional RDD model. Dissemination centres can play an important role
in improving educational practice, and in-service training courses organised by these
centres are important sources of information on research for teachers (see Everton
et al., 2000).
Finally, when exploring the dissemination process during the focus group interviews,
school leaders said that they are excessively surveyed: schools are increasingly asked
to participate in research projects, some receiving weekly requests (i.e. for masters
theses, PhD projects, student-teacher assignments, international research projects,
government funded projects, etc.) In this sense, the participation in research projects
seems to be dependent on what schools will receive in return: projects that result in
practical and individual school feedback are valued by school leaders.

The value and future of educational research

In this study we found that teachers evaluated educational research as rather unclear
and unconvincing. In general, teachers indicated that they have more appreciation for
practical and applicable research. These findings support Hemsley-Brown and
Sharp’s (2003) argument that teachers judge the merits of a study on the basis of
whether the findings can be translated into procedures that work in classrooms.
During the focus group interviews, suggestions were made regarding how to bridge
the gap between research and practice. In line with Bauer and Fisher (2007), the
suggestions made were intrinsically linked to how our participants understood this gap
within the context of their own experience. The general recommendation made by all
participants was to increase cooperation between practitioners and researchers. A
request was also made for more evidence-based research, defined as research that
provides evidence on ‘what works’ in practice. In that context, evidence-based
research is thus not understood as research proof through experimental methods or
randomised trials, as in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; participants see it
rather as a kind of research that informs practitioners about what they should do in
practice (see also Nutley et al., 2007). During the focus group interviews, researchers
and intermediaries cautioned against having an overly optimistic view of evidence-
based research. Similar to Edwards (2000), researchers argued that the usefulness of
educational research cannot be evaluated by its findings with regard to ‘what works’
in practice. A similar argument is made by Bridges et al. (2008) concerning the relation
 The gap between educational research and practice 311

between educational research and policy. In contrast, the researchers emphasised that
a ‘collaborative model on dissemination’ is of a different nature compared to the
evidence-based movement. The main rationale behind this model is to acknowledge
teachers’ professionalism, practical knowledge, and responsibility.
Another request was made for design-based research. This refers to the study of
situated learning or learning in context through systematic design: it aims to create
and extend knowledge about developing, enacting, and sustaining innovative learning
environments (Baumgartner et al., 2003). In the design-based research approach,
learning and teaching processes are investigated while the researcher acts as an educa-
tor (Kelly, 2003). It aims to be both scientific and educational (Kelly, 2003) and as
such bridges theoretical research and educational practice (Baumgartner et al., 2003).
In this context, Van den Akker and colleagues (2006) argue that design-based
research would make research more relevant to policy and practice. In other words,
the relation between research and innovation is seen by these authors as a crucial
factor for school improvement. During our interviews, researchers supported the
request for more design-based research but remarked that this kind of research is
often devalued as less scholarly. They also remarked that design-based research
requires the researcher to have multiple skills. In this context, Postholm (2008) shows
that such research projects challenge the researcher’s communicative, social, and
knowledge competencies. Burkhardt (2006) argues that this type of research is not
only more useful for practice, but also more influential on educational policy. Indeed,
the author argues that government funding will only flow into this type of research
when the research community can articulate the practical benefits to the system.
Finally, the overall recommendation made by all participants of this study was for
more cooperation. Teachers, school leaders, and intermediaries concluded that: (i)
they were willing to participate in research projects, and (ii) they are willing to partic-
ipate in the formulation of research questions for researchers to examine. The type of
cooperation between researchers and practitioners proposed in this study is similar to
Wagner’s (1997) notion of co-learning agreements. In Wagner’s (1997) view of co-
learning agreements the research process is reflexive, and systematic inquiry is
stimulated by ongoing communication between researchers and practitioners.
Furthermore, the participating teachers, school leaders, and intermediaries of our
study agreed that this form of cooperation can be made possible within a context of a
‘professional learning community’; that is, a group of teachers and administrators
who are united in their commitment to student learning: they share a vision, work and
learn collaboratively, visit and review other classrooms, and participate in decision
making (Hord, 1997). Interestingly, Seashore-Louis et al. (1999) suggest that the
organisational conditions in professional learning communities may facilitate the
realisation of significant and lasting school change.

Conclusion
This study revealed that the gap between educational research and practice is a more
complex and differentiated phenomenon than commonly assumed in the international
312 R. Vanderlinde and J. van Braak

literature. The gap between research and practice was acknowledged by all partici-
pants, but was perceived more strongly by teachers compared to school leaders and
intermediaries. Overall, teachers were sceptical about the value of educational
research and argued that educational researchers do not ask questions of practical
relevance. The main factor facilitating the use of research by practitioners is the nature
of the research question. Descriptive research was not deemed useful by practitioners.
On the other hand, practitioners expressed an appreciation for design-based research
or research that leads to practical applications. In this context, the main barrier was
thought to be the technical and complex language used by researchers.
Researchers stated that they mainly disseminate their results through publications
in practitioner journals. However, we found that these journals are not well known by
school leaders and even unknown by teachers. This compelled researchers to discuss
the effectiveness of their dissemination activities and to rethink the nature of their
dissemination activities. Researchers remarked that as their work is primarily assessed
in terms of output in scientific journals and their impact factor, a supportive context
in which to disseminate their results to practitioners is absent.
During the focus group interviews, suggestions were made concerning how to
bridge the gap between research and practice. The overall recommendation made by
all participants was the need for more cooperation. A plea for more evidence-based
research and design-based research was also made during the interviews. Evidence-
based research involves gathering empirical evidence about which teaching methods
are effective and should inform practitioners about what they should do in practice.
Design-based research involves the study of situated learning or learning in context
through systematic design. It functions to create and extend knowledge about the
development, enactment and sustenance of innovative learning environments. Inter-
nationally, these research approaches are also a topic of discussion (e.g. Lather, 2004;
Oancea, 2005; Broekkamp & Van Hout-Wolters, 2007).
The results of this study indicate that by building bridges between researchers
and practitioners, new incentives for school improvement can be established. Our
findings indicate that more cooperation between researchers and practitioners can
be realised by promoting ‘design-based research’ and by establishing ‘professional
learning communities’.
Given the limitations of using qualitative research methods, we believe that the
current study adds to the literature in four respects. First, the results of the study put
the interplay between the research and practice community more prominently on the
educational agenda in Flanders. Second, the action-based nature of the study can
contribute to narrowing the gap between the researcher and practitioner community.
Third, by building bridges between researchers and practitioners new incentives for
school improvement can be established. Fourth, our findings should appeal to
national and local research bodies to support design-based research. To choose such
a research paradigm would imply making new political decisions with regard to the
assignment of budgets, research planning and funding. Walcker (2006) is optimistic
about gaining governmental support for design-based research and argues that policy
makers recently became interested in this type of research. Furthermore, researchers
 The gap between educational research and practice 313

and policy makers are convinced that design-based research has the potential to
produce the same effect that research makes in other disciplines, such as engineering
or medicine. Other policy implications of this study include the promotion of educa-
tional research, the introduction of research skills training in pre-service teacher
training (see also Munn, 2008), and the establishment of dissemination centres at
universities. Such centres have good contact with practitioners and are competent in
translating and distributing research findings to practice. They therefore play an
important role in establishing professional learning communities.
Recently, the Flemish Educational Council (2007) published an advisory report
addressed to the Flemish Minster of Education concerning the relation between
educational research and practice. The main recommendations of this report include:
(a) The establishment of a specific research fund to promote practitioner research;
(b) The establishment of a database that would store all educational research projects
in Flanders. This database is necessary to provide a good information flow about
educational research.
The first recommendation is in line with requests of the researchers and practitioners
in this study. In this context, Furlong and Salisbury’s (2005) evaluation of the British
‘Best Practice Research Scholarship’ would provide useful information for the estab-
lishment of a Flemish fund for practitioner research. We find the second recommen-
dation more surprising; such a database would fit within the RDD model and there
is no evidence to suggest that teachers and school leaders are asking for it. Instead,
practitioners were supportive of having direct dialogue with the research community.
For Flanders, this study and the advice of the Flemish Educational Council indicate
that the relation between educational research and practice has become a concern of
practitioners, researchers and policy makers.

Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the viWTA (Vlaams Instituut voor Wetenschappelijk en
Technologisch Aspectenonderzoek—Flemish Institute for Science and Technology
Assessment), an independent and autonomous institute associated with the Flemish
Parliament. This institute contributes to the public debate on the impact of research
on society and attempts to involve the voice of the general public. By combining
scientific research and public involvement, the viWTA wants to support the Members
of the Flemish Parliament in the often complex decisions about research policy. With
the study reported in this article, the viWTA intends to inform the Members of the
Flemish Parliament about the nature of the relation between educational research
and practice in Flanders and to advise Members of Parliament about future directions
of educational research in Flanders.

References
Badley, G. (2003) The crisis in educational research: a pragmatic approach, European Educational
Research Journal, 2, 296–308.
314 R. Vanderlinde and J. van Braak

Ball, S. J. (2001) You’ve been NERFed! Dumbing down the academy. National Education Forum’s
‘national strategy consultation paper’: a brief and bilious response, Journal of Education Policy,
16, 265–268.
Bartels, N. (2003) How teachers and researchers read academic articles, Teaching and Teacher
Education, 19, 737–753.
Bates, R. (2002) The impact of educational research: alternative methodologies and conclusions,
Research Papers in Education, 17, 403–408.
Bauer, K. & Fisher, F. (2007) The education research–practice interface revisited: a scripting
perspective, Educational Research and Evaluation, 13, 221–236.
Baumgartner, E., Bell, P., Bophy, S., et al. (2003) Design-based research: an emerging paradigm
for educational inquiry, Educational Researcher, 32, 5–8.
Berliner, D. C. (2002) Education research: the hardest science of all, Educational Researcher, 31,
18–20.
Biesta, G. (2007) Bridging the gap between educational research and educational practice: the
need for critical distance, Educational Research and Evaluation, 13, 295–301.
Bridges, D., Smeyers, P. & Smith, R. (2008) Educational research and the practical judgement of
policy makers, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42, 5–14.
Broekkamp, H. & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2007) The gap between educational research and prac-
tice: a literature review, symposium and questionnaire, Educational Research and Evaluation,
13, 203–220.
Burkhardt, H. (2006) From design research to large-scale impact: engineering research in education,
in: J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney & N. Nieveen (Eds) Educational design
research (London, Routledge).
Burkhardt, H. & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003) Improving educational research: toward a more useful,
more influential, and better-funded enterprise, Educational Researcher, 32, 3–14.
Chafouleas, S. M. & Riley-Tillman, T. C. (2005) Accepting the gap: an introduction to the special
issue on bridging research and practice, Psychology in the Schools, 42, 455–458.
Clark, C. (2005) The structure of educational research, British Educational Research Journal, 31,
289–308.
Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy (2002) Bringing evidence-driven progress to education. Report for
the US Department of Education (Washington, DC, Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy).
Commission of the European Communities (2007) Towards more knowledge-based policy and
practice in education and training. Commission staff working document SEC2007.1098
(Brussels, Commission of the European Communities). Available online at: http://
ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/sec1098_en.pdf (accessed 3 April 2007).
Depaepe, M. (2002) Gesplitst of gespleten? De kloof tussen wetenschappelijke en praktische kennis in
opvoeding en onderwijs [The gap between scientific and practical knowledge in education]
(Leuven, Acco).
De Vries, B. & Pieters, J. (2007) Knowledge sharing at conferences, Educational Research Evaluation,
13, 237–247.
Edwards, A., Sebba, J. & Rickinson, M. (2007) Working with users: some implications for
educational research, British Educational Research Journal, 33, 647–661.
Edwards, T. (2000) ‘All the evidence shows …’: reasonable expectations of educational research,
Oxford Review of Education, 26, 299–311.
Englert, C. S. & Tarrant, K. L. (1993) Educational innovations: achieving curricular change
through collaboration, Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 441–474.
Everton, T., Galton, M. & Pell, T. (2000) Teachers’ perspectives on educational research:
knowledge and context, Journal of Education for Teaching, 26, 167–182.
Flemish Educational Council (2007) Advies ten gronde over het onderwijsonderzoek [Thorough
advice about educational research]. Available online at: http://www.vlor.be/sub_Adviezen.asp?
recordID=329&page=20&cat=Adviezen&herhaal=&sublink=&terug= (accessed 1 February
2007).
 The gap between educational research and practice 315

Furlong, J. (2004) BERA at 30. Have we come of age? British Educational Research Journal, 30,
343–358.
Furlong, J. & Salisbury, J. (2005) Best Practice Research Scholarships: an evaluation, Research
Papers in Education, 20, 45–83.
Gather-Thurler, M. (1993) Entre recherche et pratique, le fameux fosse existe-t-il toujours?
Educateur, 22, 27–30.
Goodson, I. (1999) The educational researcher as a public intellectual, British Educational Research
Journal, 25, 277–298.
Gore, J. M. & Gitlin, A. D. (2004) [Re]Visioning the academic–teacher divide: power and knowledge
in the educational community, Teachers and Teaching, 10, 35–58.
Hammersley, M. (2003) Can and should educational research be educative? Oxford Review of
Education, 29, 3–25.
Hargreaves, D. (1996) Teaching as a research-based profession: possibilities and prospect (London,
Teacher Training Agency).
Hemsley-Brown, J. & Sharp, C. (2003) The use of research to improve professional practice: a
systematic review of the literature, Oxford Review of Education, 29, 449–470.
Hord, S. (1997) Professional learning communities: what are they and why are they important?
Available online at: http://www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues61.html (accessed 11 December
2007).
Howells, J. (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation, Research Policy, 35,
715–728.
Huberman, M. (1993) Linking the practitioner and researcher communities for school improve-
ment, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4, 1–16.
Jochems, W. (2005) Educational research and educational research policy in the Netherlands,
European Educational Research Journal, 5, 61–63.
Johnston, S. (1996) Questioning the concept of ‘dissemination’ in the process of university teaching
innovation, Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 295–305.
Kaestle, C. F. (1993) The awful reputation of education research, Educational Researcher, 22, 23–31.
Kelly, A. E. (2003) The role of design in educational research, Educational Researcher, 32, 3–4.
Kennedy, M. M. (1997) The connection between research and practice, Educational Researcher,
26, 4–12.
Lagemann, E. C. (2000) An elusive science: the troubling history of education research (Chicago, IL,
University Press).
Landry, R., Amara, N. & Lamari, M. (2001) Utilization of social science research knowledge in
Canada, Research Policy, 30, 333–349.
Lather, P. (2004) Scientific research use in education: a critical perspective, British Educational
Research Journal, 30, 759–772.
Levin, B. (2004) Making research matter more, Education Policy Analysis Archives 12(56).
Available online at: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n56
Levin, B., Lieberman, A., Ungerleider, C. S. & Plank, D. N. (2008) What do we know about the
relationships between research, policy and practice? Discussion papers presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, 24–28 March 2008.
McIntyre, D. (2005) Bridging the gap between research and practice, Cambridge Journal of Education,
35, 357–382.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994) An expanded sourcebook. Qualitative data analysis (2nd
edn) (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).
Mortimore, P. (2000) Does educational research matter? British Educational Research Journal, 26,
5–24.
Munn, P. (2008) Building research capacity collaboratively: can we take ownership of our future?
British Educational Research Journal, 34, 413–430.
National Research Council (2002) Scientific research in education (Washington, DC, National
Academy Press).
316 R. Vanderlinde and J. van Braak

NCDDR (2001) Developing an effective dissemination plan (Austin, TX, NCDDR).

Nisbet, J. (2005) What is educational research? Changing perspectives through the 20th century,
Research Papers in Education, 20, 25–44.
Nutley, S. M., Walter, I. & Davies, H. T. O. (2007) Using evidence: how research can inform public
services (Bristol, Policy Press).
Oancea, A. (2005) Criticisms of educational research: key topics and level of analysis, British
Educational Research Journal, 3, 157–183.
Onderwijsraad (2003) Kennis van onderwijs: Ontwikkeling en benutting [Knowledge about education:
development and utilization] (The Hague, Onderwijsraad).
Pieters, J. M. & Jochems, W. M. G. (2003) Onderwijs en onderwijsonderzoek: and ever the twain
shall meet? [Education and educational research: and ever the twain shall meet?], Pedagogische
Studiën, 80, 407–413.
Postholm, B. (2008) The start-up phase in a research and development work project: a foundation
for development, Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 575–584.
Prost, A. (2001) Pour un programme stratégique de recherche en education (Paris, Ministère de
l’Education Nationale).
Puchta, C. & Potter, J. (2004) Focus group practice (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).
Rogers, E. M. (1995) Diffusion of innovations (4th edn) (New York, Free Press).
Seashore-Louis, K. S., Toole, J. & Hargreaves, A. (1999) Rethinking school improvement, in:
J. Murphy & K. Seashore-Louis (Eds) Handbook of research on educational administration
(San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).
Stark, R. & Mandl, H. (2007) Bridging the gap between basic and applied research by an integrative
research approach, Educational Research and Evaluation, 13, 249–261.
Stevens, R. J. (2004) Why educational innovations come and go? What do we know? What can we
do? Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 389–396.
Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKennedy, S. & Nieveen, N. (2006) Introduction to
educational design research, in: J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N.
Nieveen (Eds) Educational design research (London, Routledge).
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S. & Sinagub, J. (1996) Focus group interviews in education and psychology
(Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).
Wagner, J. (1997) The unavoidable intervention of educational research: a framework for
reconsidering researcher–practitioner cooperation, Educational Researcher, 26, 13–22.
Walcker, D. (2006) Towards productive design studies, in: J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer,
S. McKenney & N. Nieveen (Eds) Educational design research (London, Routledge).
Whitty, G. (2006) Education(al) research and education policy making: is conflict inevitable?
British Educational Research Journal, 32, 159–176.