Quality use of research evidence: practitioner perspectives

Author:

Gleeson Joanne1,Rickinson Mark1,Walsh Lucas1,Cutler Blake1,Salisbury Mandy1,Hall Genevieve1,Khong Hang1

Affiliation:

1. Monash University, Clayton, Australia

Abstract

Background: This article comes in response to two gaps within the research use literature: a lack of work on quality of use as distinct from quality of evidence, and a lack of research use models based on practitioner, as opposed to researcher, perspectives. Aims and objectives: The study probes into the views of education practitioners about ‘using research well’, and explores: (1) the extent to which those views align with or differ from a conceptual framework of quality research use; and (2) whether and how practitioner views can provide deeper insights into quality use of research in practice. Methods: The article draws on open-text survey (n=492) and interview (n=27) responses from Australian teachers and school leaders, which were analysed in relation to components of the Quality Use of Research Evidence (QURE) Framework. Findings: There was considerable alignment between the practitioners’ views and the QURE Framework, but greater recognition for certain enablers such as ‘skillsets’ and ‘leadership’, as compared with others, such as ‘relationships’ and ‘infrastructure’. The practitioners’ accounts provided nuanced descriptions and elaborations of different aspects of using research well. Discussion and conclusions: The findings suggest that: the QURE Framework has empirical validity as a way of conceptualising quality research use; practitioners’ views on using research well can inform future capacity building efforts; and research use as a field needs far more work that is focused on the quality of use and the perspectives of users.

Publisher

Bristol University Press

Subject

Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Reference25 articles.

1. Using evidence;Boaz, A.,2019

2. What Works Now? Evidence-informed Policy and Practice,2019

3. Using thematic analysis in psychology;Braun, V.,2006

4. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis;Braun, V.,2019

5. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?;Braun, V.,2020

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3