將研究與政策和實踐聯系起來education-WN8

JULY2024

WORKINGPAPER#187.3

SPARKSWORKINGPAPERIII

LINKINGRESEARCHTO

POLICYTOPRACTICE

COLLABORATIVERESEARCHFOREVIDENCE-

INFORMEDPOLICYMAKINGINEDUCATION

GHULAMOMARQARGHA

RACHELDYL

LinkingResearchtoPolicytoPractice:

Collaborativeresearchforevidence-informedpolicymakingin

education

GhulamOmarQarghaandRachelDyl

July2024

WorkingPaper#187.3SPARKSWorkingPaperIII

AbouttheCenterforUniversalEducation

Foundedin2002,theCenterforUniversalEducation(CUE)isaleadingpolicycenterfocusedon

universalqualityeducationandskillsdevelopmentaroundtheworld.CUEcollaboratescloselywith

networksofinternationalpartnerstoaccelerateeducationalprogressandsystemschangesothatall

learners–especiallythemostmarginalized–candevelopabreadthofskillstothriveinarapidlychanging

world.

Acknowledgements

WewouldliketoexpressourgratitudetoStevenKlees,BrentEdwards,andMoOlateju,whoreviewed

draftreports,andBradOlsenfromtheCenterforUniversalEducationattheBrookingsInstitutionforhis

editorialreview.WealsothankRachaelGrahamTinforherinvaluablefeedbackduringthewriting

process.

1

TableofContents

Summary.......................................................................................................................................................3

A.Acollaborativeresearchapproachembracesthecomplexityofeducationdecision-makingand

thevarietyofresearchmethodologies......................................................................................................4

1.Multipleactorsinthelocaleducationecosystemareinvolvedinformulatingpolicies..................4

2.Privilegingonetypeofevidencefordecision-makingignoresthecomplexityofeducation

ecosystems................................................................................................................................................5

3.Policymakersusemultiplesourcesofinformationinavarietyofwaystomakedecisions.............6

4.Theterms“evidence-informed”or“evidence-inspired”bettercapturethecomplexityof

decision-makingineducationecosystems...............................................................................................8

B.Collaborativeresearchrequireseffectivecommunicationanddisseminationtobridgethegapsbetweenresearch,policy,andpractice.......................................................................................................8

1.Creativepathwaysfordisseminatingresearchcanhelpbridgethegapbetweenpolicyand

practice.....................................................................................................................................................9

2.Clearcommunicationisessentialtoensurethatresearchbenefitsandisrelevantforall

educationactors.....................................................................................................................................10

3.Technologycancreatepathwaysformoreeffectiveandefficientdisseminationofevidence.....10

C.Collaborativeresearchapproachescanpromotelocallyrelevantresearchthatrespondstothe

needsoflocaleducationecosystems........................................................................................................11

1.Collaborativeresearchbringseducationactorstogethertodecideonlocalresearchpriorities..11

2.Collaborativeresearchbuildsonmanyexistingresearchmethodologies.....................................12

3.Collaborativeresearchfosterstrust,jointownership,andacomplementaryrelationshipamongst

educationactors.....................................................................................................................................13

LookingForward.........................................................................................................................................14

AppendixI:WorkingDefinitionsofKeyConcepts....................................................................................15

AppendixII:Howisevidenceutilized?......................................................................................................17

References..................................................................................................................................................19

2

Summary

Sincethe1990s,therehasbeenagrowingdemandforevidence-basededucationpolicyandpractice

(Connollyetal.,2018).Thisdemandstemsfromconcernsthateducationsystemsarenotmeetingthe

needsofachangingworldandthateducationresearchlacksrigor(Hargreaves,1996;St.Pierre,2001).

Whilethisdemandaimstoimprovethequalityofeducation,silosbetweendifferentactorsoftenhinder

howevidenceinformspolicymaking.Weencourageresearcherstouseacollaborativeresearchapproach

byinvolvingmultipleeducationactorsintheresearchprocesstoclosethegapsbetweenresearch,policy,

andpractice.Collaborativeresearchapproachespromotelocalownership,focusonproblemsimportant

topolicymakersandeducators,andcapturethecomplexitiesandpurposesuniquetoeacheducation

ecosystem.

Thispaperisthethirdinaseriesofthreeworkingpapersmeanttoserveasreferencesandconversation

startersforpolicymakersandresearchersastheynavigatepedagogicalreformforeducationsystem

transformationintheirlocalcontexts.Together,thethreeworkingpapersemphasizetheneedformore

locallydrivencollaborativeresearchonhowtheinteractionofculture,localeducationecosystems,and

learningtheories—collectivelycalledInvisiblePedagogicalMindsets—influencesteachers’pedagogical

choicesintheclassroom.

1.WorkingPaperIexploreswhatdifferentdefinitionsof“pedagogy”promote,emphasizesthe

importanceofInvisiblePedagogicalMindsetsforpedagogicalreforms,andsetsthestagefor

WorkingPapersIIandIII.

2.WorkingPaperIIexplainswhyitisimportanttoexamineInvisiblePedagogicalMindsetstoinform

localpedagogicalreformagendas.Specifically,itoutlinesthechallengesofa“bestpractices”

approach,asseenwiththegeneralizedimplementationofstudent-centeredpedagogies.

3.WorkingPaperIIIdetailshowcollaborativeresearchmethodologiescanhelpensureeducation

researchconsidersInvisiblePedagogicalMindsetsandrespondstolocalcontexts.

Primarilyintendedforeducationresearchers,WorkingPaperIIIadvocatestheuseofcollaborative

researchapproachestoactivelyincludemultipleeducationactorsintheresearchprocess,foster

complementaryrelationshipsbetweenactorswithdifferentexpertise,andmakeresearchfindingsmore

relevantandresponsivetothelocaleducationecosystem.Thepaperhasthreepartsthatdiscusstheneed

forflexibleresearchapproachestoinformpolicygiventhecomplexitiesofeducationdecision-making,the

importanceofcommunicationanddissemination,andhowcollaborativeresearchcanbridgethegaps

betweenresearch,policy,andpractice.ThepaperconcludesbylookingattheongoingworkoftheSPARKS

projectattheCenterforUniversalEducationandhowcollaborativeresearchcancontributetoeducation

systemstransformation.AppendixIprovidesworkingdefinitionsofkeyconceptsfromthethreeWorking

Papers.

3

A.Acollaborativeresearchapproachembracesthecomplexityofeducation

decision-makingandthevarietyofresearchmethodologies.

Overthelastseveraldecades,therehasbeenanincreasinginternationalcalltoimproveeducation

outcomesbybasingdecisionsaboutpolicies,strategies,interventions,andprogrammingonthemost

reliableevidencegeneratedfromrigorousempiricalresearchmethods(Steiner-Khamsi,2013).Using

rigorousempiricalresearchastheprimarydriverfordecision-makingisreferredtoasevidence-based

decision-makingorevidence-basedpractice(Connollyetal,2018;Pring&Thomas,2004).Manyeducation

organizationsprioritizeevidencefromstatisticalandexperimentalresearch,suchasregressionanalysis

andrandomizedcontrolledtrials(RCTs),asthe“goldstandard”ofrigorousresearchtoinformpolicy

decisions,overevidencefromothertypesofresearchmethodologies(Deaton&.Cartwright,2018;Gorard

etal.,2020;Parra&Edwards,2024).

However,educationpolicymakingisapolitical,ethical,moral,social,andvalue-basedprocessthat

involvesmultipleactors,eachwiththeirowngoalsandcompetinginterests(Cairney,2016;Nussbaum,

2010).Withmultiplegoalsandinterestsinvolved,policymakersbasetheirdecisionsonmultiplesources

ofinformation.Evidencefromresearchisoneofthemanyfactorsthatinfluencespolicymakers’decisions.

Theextenttowhichevidencecaninfluencepolicydependsontheabilityofresearchersandother

educationactorstocurateandpresenttheevidenceattherighttimetotherightpeople(Kingdon,1995;

Zahariadis,2007).

Inthissection,weexploretheroleofevidenceininfluencingeducationpolicydecisions.Wediscusswhy

itisimpracticalandundesirableforeducationresearcherstoprivilegeonetypeofresearchasa“gold

standard,”outlinethevariouswayspolicymakersuseevidencefromresearchandarguethatbasingpolicy

decisionsonevidencefromonetypeofresearchisunrealistic.

1.Multipleactorsinthelocaleducationecosystemareinvolvedinformulatingpolicies.

Withinanyeducationecosystem,manyactors,bothinsideandoutsidetheformalsystem,havevarying

levelsofaccessandinfluenceinthedecision-makingprocess.Thismultiplicityofactorsallowsthe

educationecosystemtoentertainseveralpolicyoptionssimultaneously,someofwhichmightbe

competingorcontradictory(Cairney,2016).Forexample,whilesomeeducationactorsmaychampiona

newstructuredpedagogicalapproach,othersmaypromotemoreplayfullearningapproacheswithinthe

samesystem.

Decision-makingforeducationpoliciesisnotanentirelyrationalprocess.Bureaucracy,timeconstraints,

andthediversityofactorsmakeeducationpolicymakinganon-linearandcomplexactivitythatismoreof

abalancingactthanarational,linearprocess.Keydecision-makers,includingpolicymakersandteachers,

usuallydonothavethetimeandluxurytoidentifyalltheproblems,lookatallpossiblesolutions,and

thenchoosetheonebestpolicysolutionbasedonevidencefromresearch(Qargha,2022;Zahariadis,

2007).Theirlocalecosystems’variouspressingissuespulltheirattentioninmanydirections.Becauseof

timeconstraints,policymakerscanfocusononlyafewproblemsatonce(Rochefortetal.,1994).Inthis

situation,withmultipleproblemsandmultiplepolicysolutions,thetimingofpresentingevidencetothe

rightpeopleisoneofthemostcriticalfactorsindeterminingitsinfluenceonpolicymaking(Qargha,2022;

Zahariadis,2017).

4

Ultimately,policymakersbalancethepolitical,ideological,andpragmaticimplicationsoftheirdecisions

withtheevidencefromresearch,tomakethebestdecisiongiventheirtimeandbureaucraticconstraints

(Cohenetal.,1972;Qargha&Morris,2023).Often,thisbalancingactmeanscompromisingbetween

competingpolicyoptionstoaddressthemultipledemandsratherthanseekingcomprehensiveevidence

tochooseonetechnically“optimal”solution(Barbalet,2009;Olsen,2023;Simon,1997).

2.Privilegingonetypeofevidencefordecision-makingignoresthecomplexityofeducation

ecosystems.

Thedesiretobaseeducationpoliciesonthebestavailableevidenceoftenresultedinprivileging

quantitativestatisticalresearchandprogramevaluationstudiesthatusestatisticalmethodsand

randomizedcontrolledtrialsasthe“goldstandard.”Asdiscussedpreviously,educationpolicymaking

takesplaceinaninterconnectedandmultifacetedenvironmentwithincreasinglycomplexpolicy

problemsforwhichthereisnosinglepolicysolution.Complexityisinherenttoahealthyeducation

system.Thenatureofeducationdecision-makingisinnatelytiedtomultiplegoals,actors,andpurposes

ofeducationinsociety(Ingold&Monaghan,2016;Nussbaum,2010;Wu,2014).

Muchofthewritingaboutevidence-basededucationpolicyandpractice,especiallyineducation

developmentspaces,eitherignoresoreliminatesthiscomplexity,particularlythepoliticsandmultiplicity

ofgoalsinpublicpolicydecision-making.Forexample,Davies(1999)writesthattheeducation“agendais

oftendrivenbypoliticalideology,conventionalwisdom,folklore,andwishfulthinkingasitstrivestomeet

theneedsandinterestsoftheeconomy,business,employers,lawandorder,civilsociety,parentalchoice,

and,atleastrhetorically,thechildren,youngpeople,andadultswhomakeupthelearningcommunity”

(p.108).Hearguesthatthismultiplicityofdesiresisa“triumphofhopeoverreason,sentimentover

demonstratedeffectiveness,intuitionoverevidence.”However,policymakersmustbalancetheirgoals

andinterestswithevidencefromresearchtomakedecisions.

Toeliminatecomplexityfromeducationdecision-making,certainmembersoftheinternationaleducation

developmentcommunityhavepushedtomakeeducationpolicymakingmimicmedicalresearch,evenif

itmeans“kickingandscreaming”(Slavin,2002,p.16).Thisisoftendonebyusingresearchapproaches

fromthehardsciences,suchasexperimentationandcausationalstudies,forthesocialsciences(Klees,

2021,2017;Pirrie,2001).Theendgoalisoftentousethisevidencetoidentifybestpractices,“what

works,”and“bestbuy”modelsthatcanthenbereplicated,transferred,andscaled(Ingold&Monaghan,

2016;Parra&Edwards,2024).

Privilegingonetypeofresearchasthe“goldstandard”istechnicallyproblematicaswellasdisconnected

fromtherealityofhowresearchevidenceisusedintheeducationpolicyenvironment.Althoughthereis

analluretofind“bestpractices”thatpolicymakerscansimplymandatefortheirlocalcontext,both

determiningandalsomeasuringthequalityofeducationarecontextdependent(Steiner-Khamsi,2013).

PleaserefertoWorkingPaperIIforadetaileddiscussionofwhypromoting“bestpractices”ineducation

isproblematic.Furthermore,forafulldiscussionaboutthelimitationsofstatisticalcorrelationalresearch

foreducationpolicymaking,refertoWu(2014),andforadiscussionofthepitfallsofusingrandomized

controlledtrialsasthegoldstandard,refertoParraandEdwards(2024).

5

3.Policymakersusemultiplesourcesofinformationinavarietyofwaystomakedecisions.

Evidencefromresearchcomesinmanyshapesandforms.Therefore,acrucialpartofpolicymakers'

decision-makingprocessisdecidingwhattypesofevidencetoconsiderfortheirpolicydecisions.

Theliteratureidentifiesatleastthreewaysthatpolicymakersuseevidencetoinformtheirpolicymaking

decisions:

1.Themostdirectuseofevidenceinthepolicyenvironment—usuallytermedinstrumental,procedural,

orproblem-focuseduseofevidence—istosolveaspecificproblemorshapespecificpolicydecisions.

Mostofthediscussiononevidence-baseddecision-makingassumesalinearanddirectlinkbetween

evidenceproductionandpolicymaking.Althoughpolicymakerscananddouseevidencefrom

researchinthisway,thisisnotalwaysthecase.

2.Policymakersalsouseevidencetounderstandthegeneralissuesaroundapolicyoption,oftentermed

conceptual,intellectual,orgeneralknowledge-drivenuseofevidence.Unliketheinstrumentaluse,

thisuseofevidencedoesnotdirectlyimpactaspecificpolicyproblem.However,theaccumulationof

multipleformsofevidencehelpsshapethepolicymaker’sworldview.

3.Withthesymbolicorpoliticaluseofevidence,policymakerstacticallyuseevidencetovalidateand

promotetheirexistingpositions,ideologicalpreferences,orpreviouslymadedecisionsandtodelay

actionorcounterpolicypositionstheydonotfavor.

Formoredetailedinformationaboutthedifferentwayspolicymakersuseevidencefromresearch,refertoAppendixII(Henig2008,2009;Luke&Hogan,2006;Ness,2010;Weiss,1979).

Inadditiontothedifferentwaysthatpolicymakersuseevidenceasdetailedabove,Ingold&Monaghan

(2016)describefivedimensionsthatinfluencetheselectiveuseofevidenceinpolicymaking.These

dimensionsincludehowthepolicyissueisunderstoodandframedbypolicymakers(policyproblem),the

processbywhichissuesareprioritizedandselectedforattentionwithinthepolicymakingarena(agenda

setting),mechanismsthroughwhichevidenceissiftedandselectedbasedonorganizationalstructures

andpreferencesforspecificmethodologies(filtrationprocesses),thetoolsandmechanismsusedfor

policydesignandimplementation,suchaslegislation(policyapparatus),andtheindividuals,groups,or

organizationsthatinterpret,adapt,andapplyevidencewithinthepolicymakingprocess(evidence

translators).Together,thesedimensionshighlightadynamicprocesswhereevidenceundergoes

interpretation,adaptation,andnegotiationamongvariousactorsinthepolicyenvironment(SeeFigure

1).

6

FigureI:Policymakers’UseofEvidence

Thereisnosuchthingascontext-freeresearchorevidence(Pirrie,2001).Often,findingsareinconclusive,

researchersdisagreeonhowtomeasureprogrameffectiveness,anditisunclearwhetheraneducation

programwillhavethesameresultsacrosscontexts.Policymakersoftenchoosebetweencompeting

evidencetoinformtheirdecision-making(Klees,2017;Lubienskietal.,2009).Weadviseeducationactors

toviewevidencefromresearchasatooltoskillfullycurateandusebasedoneacheducationecosystem's

uniqueenvironment,challenges,andgoals.

“Whodecides‘whatworks,’whattomeasure,how

tomeasureit,andinthecaseofconflicting

evidence—whomtobelieve?”

(Lubienskietal.,2009).

7

4.Theterms“evidence-informed”or“evidence-inspired”bettercapturethecomplexityof

decision-makingineducationecosystems.

Whilemuchoftheliteratureontheuseofevidenceineducationdecision-makingdiscussesevidence-

basedpolicy,weprefertermssuchas“evidence-informed”or“evidence-inspired”(Ingold&Monaghan,

2016).Thesetermsbetterreflecttheactualpolicymakingenvironmentandthemultiplefactorsthat

influencedecisions.

Discussionsaboutthetypeofevidencemostusefulforpolicyformulationhavebecomereductionist.

Oftentimes,the“evidence-based”rhetoricover-emphasizesthevalidityandsuperiorityoftheevidence

generatedfromexperimental,correlational,andcausalcomparativestudies,andundervalues—or

ignores—evidencefromresearchsuchasqualitative,historicalanalysis,orothertypesofknowing

(Kumahetal.,2019;McSherry,2007).Privilegingonetypeofresearchassuperiorinallcasesoftenstems

fromseeingonlyonepurposeofeducationandoneformofevidenceaslegitimate(Qargha&Morris,

2023;Parra&Edwards,2024).

Whileevidencefromresearchisacriticalfactorforimprovingeducationprogrammingandanintegral

partofeducationdecision-making,itisnotthesoledriverforpolicydecisions.Policymakersbasedecisions

onmultiplefactors,includingpolitical,ideological,andpragmaticpreferences,inadditiontoevidence

fromresearch.Policymakersandresearchersmustcollaborativelydeterminethetypeofevidencemost

usefultoinformpolicyintheirspecificcontexts.

InSectionB,wediscusstheimportanceofeffectivecommunicationbetweenactors,includinginthe

disseminationofresearchandevidence,tofosterbetterlinksbetweenresearchers,policymakers,and

practitioners.

B.Collaborativeresearchrequireseffectivecommunicationand

disseminationtobridgethegapsbetweenresearch,policy,andpractice.

Communicationdealswithhowthemessageofresearchisconveyedbetweenactors,whiledissemination

referstothemechanismsandchannelsfordistributingevidenceandresearch.Policymakersgenerally

preferresearchrelevanttotheirspecificcontexts(Hunter,2009;Jewel&Bero,2008).Unlikephysical

sciencesresearch,whichseeksuniversallawsincontrolledenvironments,educationresearchmust

considertheinteractionofculture,localeducationecosystems,andlearningtheories.Collaborative

researchensuresongoingcommunicationbetweendifferenteducationactors,whichcontributestothe

productionofmorerelevantevidenceforthelocalcontext.

Researchers,policymakers,andeducatorsoftenoperateindependentlywithintheircommunities,with

distinctlanguages,values,norms,andgoals(Snow,1961).Policymakersaremorelikelytouseevidence

intheirdecision-makingiftheyarepartoftheresearchprocessandunderstandthesourceandoriginof

theevidence(Nakajima,2021).Researchteamsmustconsiderwaystoimprovetheircommunicationand

disseminationstrategiestocreategreaterconnectionsbetweenresearchers,policymakers,andeducators

(Ionetal.,2019).Withouteffectivelinksforcommunicationanddissemination,itisunlikelythatresearch

findingswillbetranslatedintopolicyorpractice.

8

Inthefollowingsection,wehighlighttheimportanceofmovingbeyondtheconventionalpathwaysfor

communicatinganddisseminatingresearchandencourageeducationactorstoutilizeacollaborative

researchapproachandcreativepathways,includingemergingtechnology,tocommunicateandshare

researchfindings.

1.Creativepathwaysfordisseminatingresearchcanhelpbridgethegapbetweenpolicy

andpractice.

Thereisoftenadisconnectbetweenthetraditionalpathwaysfordisseminatingresearch,likeacademic

journals,andhowpolicymakersuseevidence.MostscholarlyjournalsareinEnglishandcomefrom

countriesliketheUnitedStatesandtheUnitedKingdom.Becausethesejournalsareprestigious,

researchersfeelpressuretoproduceresearchthatmeetsacademicexpectationsbyproducing

generalizableresearchthatfocusesonbroaderglobaltrendsacrosscontexts,evenifitmaynotbe

relevanttopolicymakers(Lariviere&Warren,2019).However,researchinspiredbyinternationalresearch

agendascancounteracttheneedforlocallybasedevidencerelevanttospecificcontextsandeducation

ecosystems.

Tomovebeyondtraditionalpathwaysfordissemination,researchersmustthinkaboutwaystopresent

researchthatarerelevantandeasyforpolicymakerstounderstand.Ashcraftetal.(2020)explainhowthe

source,message,audience,andchannelarecrucialforthesuccessfuldisseminationofresearch.This

model,asshowninTable1below,emphasizestheimportanceofnotonlytheevidencegeneratedbut

alsothechannelsusedtoreachthetargetaudienceandthemessagebeingconveyed.Weencourage

researcherstoconsiderhowthesource,message,audience,andchannelmayaffectthereceptionof

evidencebydifferentpolicymakers.

Table1:ModelofDisseminationofResearch(Ashcraftetal.,2020)

SourceResearcherswhogenerateevidence

MessageRelevantinformationsentbythesourceonapolicytopic

AudienceThosereceivingthemessage

ChannelHowthemessagegetsfromthesourcetotheaudience

Innovativemodesofresearchdisseminationhaveemergedtocommunicateevidencetovarious

audiences.Forexample,socialmediaandtechnologyhavechangedthelandscapeofhowinformationis

disseminated,whichwediscussbelow.Additionally,blogs,wikis,open-sourcewebsites,andbroadcasting

platformslikeTEDxcanbespacesforuserstointeractwithresearchfindingsinlesstraditionalways(Ross-

Hellaueretal.,2020).Regardlessofthechannel,researchersneedtoconsiderpotentialtargetaudiences

andtheirpreferencesforcommunication.Anotherimportantaspectofdisseminationisparticipationof

thetargetaudiences,toencourageengagement,feedback,andinvolvementfromthosewhoultimately

usethefindings(Ross-Hellaueretal.,2020).

9

2.Clearcommunicationisessentialtoensurethatresearchbenefitsandisrelevantforall

educationactors.

Policymakersandresearchersoftenhavedifferingexpectationsabouttheresearchproducedandits

intendeduse.Challengesthatcreateagapbetweenresearchandpolicyincludelackofcommunication,

untimelyorirrelevantresearch,mutualmistrust,poorqualityresearch,inconclusiveorconflicting

findings,andpoliticalinstabilityorturnover(Lee&Belohlav,2014).Researcherstendtofocusonbroader

theoreticalthemesandabstractideas,whilepolicymakersseekrelevant,concretesolutionstoimmediate

policyissuesintheirlocalcontexts(Henig,2008).

Numerousstudiesemphasizethatforpolicymakerstouseresearchevidencefortheirdecision-making,

theresearchhastoberelevanttotheirpressingproblems.Forexample,Nelsonetal.(2009)foundthat

policymakersprioritizeresearchrelatedtotheirlocalcontextforinformingpolicydecisions.Similarly,

Nakajima(2021)foundthatintheabsenceoflocalresearch,policymakerspreferstudiesconductedin

similarcontextsorsettingssimilartotheirjurisdictions.

Researchersmustalsoconsidertherelevanceandtimelinessoftheirwork.Theyshouldaccountfor

policymakers'timeconstraints,focusonspecificlocalissues,andestablishmechanismstoensurethat

researchprioritiesaremutuallyimportant.Additionally,itiscrucialthattheevidenceproducedisrelevant

andthatresearchfindingsarecommunicatedanddisseminatedeffectivelytoalleducationactors.

3.Technologycancreatepathwaysformoreeffectiveandefficientdisseminationof

evidence.

Theadvancementoftechnologyhasbroughtbothopportunitiesandchallengesincommunicatingand

disseminatingresearch(Klaretal.,2020).Forinstance,socialmediaprovideswideraccesstoinformation

butalsoallowsafloodofcompetinginformation,whichmakesitdifficulttodecipherthevalidityand

reliabilityofinformation(Lubienskietal.,2014;Steiner-Khamsi,2022).

Klaretal.(2020)foundthatpromotingresearchonTwittercorrelatedwithmorecitations,suggestingthat

socialmediaiseffectiveforactively“pushingout”researchratherthanrelyingonittobefoundby

searchingacademicjournals.Onsocialmedia,researcherscansharesnippetsoftheirwork,linktofull

papers,taginterestedindividuals,andusehashtagstojoinbroaderconversationsandreachwider

audiences(Irwinetal.,2022).AreportbytheInstituteofEducationSciencesfoundthatoverhalfof

practitionersconsumeresearchviasocialmedia(Sykesetal.,2022).Beyonddirectdissemination,social

mediacanalsoconnectresearcher