Samantha Shewchuk

This paper explores how redesigned Education Doctorate (EdD) programs in educational leadership can serve as a lever for strengthening the use of research evidence (URE) in schools and districts. Drawing on the COM-B framework, we conceptualize a theory of action that links EdD program design to leaders’ capabilities, motivations, and behaviors in applying research to educational improvement. We identify key dimensions of leadership preparation that align with well-documented URE practices. Finally, we discuss how these insights can inform doctoral programs as well as in-service professional learning and suggest the need for additional empirical work on these relationships and a deeper understanding of how local contexts shape the effectiveness of leadership preparation in supporting research-informed decision-making.

This paper examines how frequently K* training programs have been evaluated, synthesizes information on the methods and outcome indicators used, and identifies potential future approaches for evaluation. We conducted a systematic scoping review of publications evaluating K* training programs, including formal and informal training programs targeted toward knowledge brokers, researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and community members. Using broad inclusion criteria, eight electronic databases and Google Scholar were systematically searched using Boolean queries. After independent screening, scientometric and content analysis was conducted to map the literature and provide in-depth insights related to the methodological characteristics, outcomes assessed, and future evaluation approaches proposed by the authors of the included studies. The Kirkpatrick four-level training evaluation model was used to categorize training outcomes. Of the 824 unique resources identified, 47 were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. The number of published articles increased after 2014, with most conducted in the United States and Canada. Many training evaluations were designed to capture process and outcome variables. We found that surveys and interviews of trainees were the most used data collection techniques. Downstream organizational impacts that occurred because of the training were evaluated less frequently. Authors of the included studies cited limitations such as the use of simple evaluative designs, small cohorts/sample sizes, lack of long-term follow-up, and an absence of curriculum evaluation activities. This study found that many evaluations of K* training programs were weak, even though the number of training programs (and the evaluations thereof) have increased steadily since 2014. We found a limited number of studies on K* training outside of the field of health and few studies that assessed the long-term impacts of training. More evidence from well-designed K* training evaluations are needed and we encourage future evaluators and program staff to carefully consider their evaluation design and outcomes to pursue.

To illustrate the framework, we weave together a description of the different parts of the RPP Brokers Framework with a series of cases drawn primarily from the Stanford–SFUSD Partnership. We kick off this chapter with a story from this RPP, and then subsequently explain each part of the framework – brokering to strengthen partners, brokering to strengthen partnerships, and the sociocultural, historical, and political contexts of RPP brokering. We accompany each part of the framework with one or two cases from the Stanford–SFUSD Partnership to see the parts of the framework put into practice. It is important to note we do not want to position the Stanford–SFUSD Partnership as an exemplar. Instead, our intention is to use the cases from the RPP to demonstrate what brokering might look like in action. To balance using one RPP to explain the framework in action and address the key motivation for engaging in RPPs as “shift[ing] power relations in the research endeavor”, we include some reflections at the end of the chapter about the inequitable power dynamics that may emerge and opportunities to address them.

This chapter explains why brokering matters in education research-practice partnerships. It explains how partnerships in education can help research and practice intersect, and brokering supports and sustains these partnerships. The chapter introduces readers to the framework about brokering in research-practice partnerships, which focuses on brokering to strengthen partners and brokering to strengthen partnerships. It also explains how brokering in partnerships is influenced by sociocultural, historical, and political contexts. Finally, the chapter gives an overview of the subsequent chapters in the book. Chapter 2 explains the methods for developing the framework; Chapter 3 explains the parts of the framework as explained through brokering in one partnership. Chapter 4 outlines brokering across different contexts. Chapters 5 and 6 explain the different parts of the framework. Chapter 7 discusses how to use the cases in this book to help people learn about brokering in partnerships. Chapter 8 is an essay on the future of brokering in education research-practice partnerships.

This chapter explains the evidence and process we used to develop the research-practice partnership brokers framework. We explain how we collected ideas from practitioners about brokering through NNERPP. The ideas about brokering were developed over a number of years. To test the ideas from practice, we conducted a literature review about brokering in education research-practice partnerships. The chapter explains the method we use for conducting the review and the results of the review. It also describes the literature review we conducted to better understand the sociocultural, historical, and political context influencing brokering in education research-practice partnerships. The chapter includes figures and tables outlining the literature we reviewed and the evolution of the ideas about brokering.

In this chapter, we explore how variations in a partnership’s context may lead to differences in which activities RPP brokers choose to emphasize. In particular, we take a deeper dive into how a partnership’s setting may vary across a number of RPP features, including its partnering organizations and the local context, and connect how these differences may alter the work of a broker. We think this additional perspective can help further describe how to more holistically approach RPP brokering activities, rather than viewing them as individual dimensions of a “to do” list. The examples and discussion provided in this chapter are aimed at sharing the large variation in brokering activities that may occur across partnership contexts, which is to be expected, given the large variation in RPPs.

In this chapter, we describe how the cases in this book are being used in various ways. To provide a deeper understanding of how these cases can be used in different ways, we present three scenarios in which the first iteration of the RPP Brokers Handbook has been used by various actors. We also present other ways that brokers have adapted and used the tools in their own practice. Ideally, the handbook should be used to help focus thoughts, increase overall understanding, promote professional development, and act as a catalyst for further action. The handbook is intended for a wide and diverse audience, from those who are only beginning to consider brokering as a career path to practitioners who have already accumulated considerable theoretical and/or practical experience.