High Educ (2011) 61:501512

DOI 10.1007/s10734-010-9344-4

Faculties of education and institutional strategies

for knowledge mobilization: an exploratory study

Creso M. Sa Sharon X. Li Brenton Faubert

Published online: 6 June 2010

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract The goal to enhance the impacts of academic research in the real world
resonates with progressive visions of the role of universities in society, and finds support
among policy makers who have sought to enhance the transfer, translation, uptake, or
valorization of research knowledge in several areas of public services. This paper reports
on an exploratory study of the strategies used by selected Canadian and international
faculties of education to mobilize research knowledge. Drawing on data from semi-
structured interviews with senior administrators of 13 faculties of education, the analysis
reveals several themes. Academic leaders recognize knowledge mobilization as a desirable
institutional mission, but they identify a number of barriers to greater efforts in this area.
Although a number of strategies are employed, changes across multiple organizational
dimensions to encourage and support knowledge mobilization were reported at only two
institutions. These results are relevant to faculty administrators, scholars, and policy-
makers interested in understanding the role of academic institutions in the mobilization of
research knowledge to the broader education community.

Keywords Universities
Faculties of education
Knowledge mobilization

Organizational strategies
Research use
Knowledge transfer

The aim to disseminate research more broadly and have positive impacts on policy and
practice is generally embraced as desirable by academic institutions. It resonates with
progressive visions of the role of universities in society, and echoes the international trend
around technology transfer in the natural sciences and engineering disciplines. It also finds
support among policy makers who have sought to enhance the transfer, translation,
uptake, or valorization of research knowledge in several areas of public services
(Willinsky 2000; Lavis et al. 2003; Hemsley-Brown 2004; Nutley et al. 2007; Benneworth
and Jongbloed 2009; Ouimet et al. 2009). The notion that universities should take delib-
erate steps in this area is also subject to criticism. Some construe these efforts as an

C. M. Sa (&)
S. X. Li
B. Faubert
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
e-mail: c.sa@utoronto.ca

123
502 High Educ (2011) 61:501512

encroachment of utilitarian and instrumental views of the role of universities in society;

others believe that emphasizing the external impact and uptake of research threatens forms
of inquiry that do not lend themselves to immediate applications (Cooper et al. 2009;
Nutley et al. 2007).
This paper acknowledges these normative debates but does not enter them. Our interest
lies in the potential implications of the ideas and mandates around enhancing the impact of
research on the organization of universities. Universities in Canada as in other countries
have been increasingly expected to serve more purposes and audiences, extending their
core missions to new areas and clienteles, even as they face resource constraints (Fallis
2007). The implications of these multiplying demands have been obvious in the sprawling
of peripheral units dedicated to community outreach, economic development, and
continuing education, among other engagements with the outside world. They are also
visible in the institutionalization of technology transfer activities on campuses, through
new routines and organizations (Geiger and Sa 2008).
This paper reports on an empirical study on the institutional strategies of faculties of
education in Canada and internationally to promote the wider dissemination of research.
The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) has promoted knowledge
mobilization, as have other important sponsors of education research (SSHRC 2009; Levin
2008). While researchers, research sponsors, and professionals providing public services
are all increasingly concerned about the use of research in the field of education (Levin
2004), there is little evidence on the steps taken or not taken within the walls of academia
to facilitate such use. We explored whether the favorable views and policy inducements to
promote the broader dissemination of research have translated into substantive efforts from
the senior administration in selected faculties to encourage, facilitate, and support such
work.

Conceptual background

The idea of using research to inform policy or practice is not new (e.g. Caplan et al. 1975;
Weiss 1979). Its history is marked by shifts in popularity in both academic and policy
circles, with the pendulum now swinging towards a renewed interest in research evidence
to inform policy decisions in many countries. In academia, research activity occurred in
waves since the 1970s in fields such as education, healthcare, welfare, transport, criminal
justice, and social services (Davies et al. 2000; Ouimet et al. 2009; Cooper and Levin
forthcoming). In the policy realm, the idea of using research to determine or achieve policy
objectives occurred in waves. The idea initially became popular in the 1970s, with the now
old-fashioned notion of social engineering as a purpose for social science research
(Davies et al. 2000; Nutley et al. 2007). Initial enthusiasm around social engineering
quickly turned into disillusionment during the late 1970s and 1980s, as the ability of social
science research to provide straightforward answers to social problems came into question.
However, the popularity of using evidence to support policy would rise again in the 1990s
and into the present.
The terminology used to refer to work in this area has also evolved overtime, since early
influential studies on the topic framed the issue as research utilization (Weiss 1979) and
research dissemination (Knott and Wildavsky 1980). Some of the terms currently in use
include: knowledge brokering, knowledge exchange, knowledge management, knowledge
transfer, knowledge translation, knowledge utilization and knowledge to action (Levin
2008). This diversity leads to some confusion and fragmentation in the research based on

123
High Educ (2011) 61:501512 503

the topic, which is scattered around many disciplines. This paper uses the term knowledge
mobilization, recently promoted by Canadas SSHRC, to describe the range of strategies
and relationships that link research with policy and practice. Mobilization emphasizes
the multi-dimensional, longer-term, purposeful, and interactive nature of the work in
comparison to earlier terms that seem to imply a one-directional or linear move from
research to practice (Levin 2008; Cooper and Levin forthcoming).
There is a wide range of knowledge mobilization strategies proposed in the literature.
Lavis et al. (2003) propose a heuristic for formulating knowledge mobilization strategies,
taking into consideration: what to be mobilized, to whom, by whom, in what way, and with
what effect. Nutley et al. (2007) lists five prominent mechanisms underpinning effective
knowledge mobilization: dissemination (presenting research results to potential users),
interaction (establishing links between the knowledge producer and the user), social
influence (using influential experts to persuade users of the value of a study), facilitation
(offering necessary support, technical, financial, organization and emotional, to improve
the use of research), and incentives and reinforcement (rewarding and regulating knowl-
edge mobilization efforts). These five mechanisms are not seen as mutually excusive;
rather, they complement one another and interact in complex ways.
In more practical terms, Jacobson et al. (2004) suggest that knowledge mobilization can
be facilitated in academic institutions through changes in five areas: revising promotion
and tenure guidelines to encourage and reward knowledge mobilization; proving funding
and organizational resources such as opportunities for networking, skills training and
administrative support; developing facilitating internal structures such as establishing
dedicated offices; enhancing organizational orientation towards knowledge mobilization;
and standardizing knowledge mobilization practices within the institution.
Although many strategies have been proposed in the literature to facilitate knowledge
mobilization, there is little evidence on their use in different settings and on their effec-
tiveness (Hemsley-Brown 2004; Lavis 2006; Levin 2004, 2006). Though approaching the
issue from different perspectives, these studies highlight the importance of organizational
contexts that are conducive to knowledge mobilization. Policy trends around the use of
evidence to impact policy and practice have arguably elevated the perceived importance of
these activities for university faculty and administrators, as well as stakeholders with whom
they interact (Lavis et al. 2003; Hemsley-Brown 2004; Nutley et al. 2007; Benneworth and
Jongbloed 2009; Cooper et al. 2009). Currently, however, there is little empirical evidence
on the administrative and organizational efforts of universities to increase the profile and
potential use of their research, the challenges in doing so, or the merits of different
strategies.
Previous studies suggest that promoting knowledge dissemination in education is still
an uphill battle in academia (Hargreaves 1999; Lavis 2006; Willinsky 2000; Lagemann
2000; Sebba 2004). The challenges are multiple and variegated. First of all, the uptake
of knowledge mobilization, especially with regard to creating research-practice-policy
linkages, is complicated by the diversified ways in which practices can be formed and
policies can be made. Factors, other than research results, are sometimes more influ-
ential in formulating and shaping policies and practices. In the messy process of policy
making, questions revolving around whose and which evidence is chosen and by
whom (Clarence 2002, p. 9) do not have clear-cut answers. Regarding the linkage
between research and practice, Hammersley (1997) points out that in both medicine and
education the use of research evidence to inform practice is not without controversy. For
example, research evidence is not the only or primary source to inform clinical prac-
tices; evidence such as medical histories or physical examination is often used for

123
504 High Educ (2011) 61:501512

diagnosis purposes. In education, due to the diverse context and multiple variables
involved, the power of research evidence to offer applicable practices is limited. Hence,
skepticism about research use in policy and practice tends to discourage knowledge
mobilization efforts.
In addition, competing research culture in universities constitutes another challenge to
enhancing knowledge mobilization. Very often researchers are caught in the tension
between the traditional scholarly orientations and an emphasis on mobilizing research
results (Jacobson et al. 2004; Mitton et al. 2007). Incentives and rewards for university
researchers are mainly shaped around publication in reputable outlets aimed at disciplinary
audiences. Focusing on promoting the use of research results may be seen as a distraction
from that, and faculty members seeking tenure and promotion may be discouraged to
pursue such work. These challenges are manifest in the reported barriers to the dissemi-
nation of research in several fields (Landry et al. 2001; Stone 2002; Court and Young 2003;
Lavis et al. 2003; Hemsley-Brown 2004; Sebba 2004; Maynard 2006; Walter et al. 2005;
Nutley et al. 2007).

The study

Building upon the literature reviewed above, this study views knowledge mobilization as
shaped by the organizations engaged in the production, brokerage, dissemination, and
uptake of research knowledge. These organizations, in turn, are embedded in broader social
contexts that influence priorities, opportunities, and demands for research knowledge
(Nutley et al. 2007; Hemsley-Brown 2004; Lavis et al. 2003). This research focuses on
faculties of education in research universities, which are critical knowledge producers in
the field of education in North America and beyond (Levin 2004, 2006).
As summarized in the previous section, there are several organizational factors that
might facilitate or hinder efforts from academic researchers to engage in knowledge
mobilization. Those factors indicate some avenues for academic leaders to advance
changes to nurture, support, and facilitate related activities (Jacobson et al. 2004),
including:
1. Institutional priority and supports (e.g. seed funding, administrative support staff,
dedicated offices);
2. Organizational norms about academic work (e.g. through leadership, recognition
events);
3. Fostering systematic connections between researchers and potential partners (e.g.
through events, research centers, among others);
4. Incentives and rewards for faculty members (e.g. shifts in tenure and promotion
criteria, career advancement options, awards for knowledge transfer activities);
5. Programmatic changes (e.g. new courses or programs, changes in content, co-op and
joint programs).
This project explored whether and how the administration of faculties of education in
Canada and internationally have promoted changes in the five areas outlined above, and
possibly beyond. We focused on research-oriented institutions that are the main producers
of research in education (Levin 2004, 2006), and where the tensions described above
between traditional scholarly orientations and knowledge mobilization work are more
salient. Our aim was neither to catalogue all knowledge mobilization efforts at each
institution, which may occur at various organizational levels and be loosely coupled to

123
High Educ (2011) 61:501512 505

Table 1 Participating institutions

Institution Abbreviation Country

University of Melbourne School of Education Melbourne Australia

University of London Institute of Education London England
University of Alberta Faculty of Education Alberta Canada
Memorial University of Newfoundland Faculty of Education Memorial Canada
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto OISE-UT Canada
University of Saskatchewan College of Education Saskatchewan Canada
York University Faculty of Education York Canada
Nanyang Technological University National Institute of Education NIE Singapore
Harvard University Graduate School of Education Harvard USA
University of Michigan School of Education Michigan USA
Pennsylvania State University College of Education Penn State USA
Stanford University School of Education Stanford USA
University of Washington College of Education Washington USA

institutional priorities and strategies; nor to formally evaluate the effectiveness of indi-
vidual projects from the faculties, which would of course be a major research undertaking
in and of itself. Rather, this study sought to expand our understanding on how faculties of
education are or are not taking steps to induce, nurture, and support knowledge
mobilization.
Initially, we created a purposeful sample of 22 faculties of education in Canada and
internationally. In Canada we sought to include faculties rooted in different provincial
contexts. We thus selected the largest faculties from six provinces, including two insti-
tutions from Ontario, which is the most populous province and has the largest economy.
The other institutions were from Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and
Newfoundland. We also included faculties from other jurisdictions to get a glimpse of
strategies that might be used internationally. From the neighboring United States, we
randomly selected 12 research-intensive schools of education, including seven public and
five private institutions, coming from different regions.1 We also sampled the flagship
schools in Australia, Britain, and Singapore. This sample was obviously not intended to be
representative of any of the national settings involved, but to allow for an exploration of
institutional strategies of faculties embedded in different jurisdictions.
We identified appropriate informants at each institution through contact with deans
offices and examination of public information, primarily on institutional websites. In
December 2008, we sent out email invitations for participation to the deans of the 22
faculties of education. We received altogether responses from 13 faculties willing to
participate in our study (Table 1): five were from Canada, five from the U.S., and one each
from the UK, Australia, and Singapore (two Canadian and seven American institu-
tions opted not to participate in the study). From January to April 2009, we conducted

1
These were drawn from the most prestigious schools and research-intensive schools. A crude indicator of
these attributes is that they are in the top 25 of the US News and World Report ranking of colleges of
education. Northeast: Harvard University (3), Columbia University (2), Penn State University (22), and
University of Pittsburgh (23); Midwest: University of Wisconsin (9), University of Michigan (14), and
University of Minnesota (23); West: University of Southern California (27), Stanford (3), UCLA (6),
and University of Washington (10); South: University of Maryland (25).

123
506 High Educ (2011) 61:501512

semi-structured telephone interviews with senior administrators. They were asked ques-
tions about strategies used in each institution, with probing questions on the five areas
outlined above; they were also asked to discuss their views as to how effective those
strategies have been, as well as to indicate any evidence available of effectiveness.
Interviews were recorded and detailed summaries were produced for analysis. Results from
the analysis are reported below, building upon the categories described in the conceptual
background that were most congruent with the interview data, and an additional category
that emerged from the analysis (on barriers to knowledge mobilization).

Findings

Institutional priorities and supports

Each informant reported that their faculty sees knowledge mobilization as part of the work
of their institution. However, when it comes to how much they value knowledge mobili-
zation as an institutional priority, the answers varied across the faculties. Most faculties
were in a middle ground, acknowledging knowledge mobilization as a desirable activity,
but providing little support for it at the faculty-wide level. Nine out of the thirteen faculties
considered knowledge mobilization as a very central institutional concern and/or one
of their core missions, or at least as an important activity that adds to their core
mission. Among them, deans of six faculties have expressed that knowledge mobilization
efforts will be a greater institutional priory in the near future.2
Few faculties had dedicated institutional supports and infrastructure for such activity.
London and Melbourne created administrative supports to stimulate and support work in
this area. Melbourne was the only school to have an upper administrative office and
associate dean specifically for knowledge mobilization activities. At London, a senior
faculty member in each academic department is charged with a half time responsibility to
manage knowledge mobilization and consulting and to support colleagues in conducting
such activities. Some of the other faculties have a few staff whose responsibilities include
supporting activities that bear upon knowledge mobilization (Alberta, Harvard, Michigan,
Penn State, Washington, NIE), such as offering writing support to help faculty commu-
nicate research findings to lay audiences. Interviewees from London and Melbourne
suggest that institutional priority to knowledge mobilization was as a response to the
influence and financial support of government agencies. Such support has been translated
into specific grants provided for faculties of education to establish an infrastructure, and
has also created an environment in which value is attributed to such activities.
There was generally a positive response from our informants about enhancing knowl-
edge mobilization efforts in their faculties in the future. Their future initiatives include
cultivating a more favorable attitude towards this work among faculty members, nurturing
research topics that are relevant to potential users, and providing more institutional sup-
ports. Promoting a change of attitude among faculty members was highlighted by
administrators from seven schools as a priority for the future. Likewise, interviewees from
four schools expressed the hope to see, as captured in the words of interviewee, more and
more faculty members become aware and put more efforts to disseminating their research
and share their research interests with the local community, school board, and even within
the universities.

2
Names of the institutions are omitted in several segments in this section for reasons of confidentiality.

123
High Educ (2011) 61:501512 507

Barriers to knowledge mobilization

Conditioning their present and future commitments are a range of issues perceived by
senior administrators as important obstacles. Multiple and variegated barriers were high-
lighted, as summarized in Table 2. Some of the most salient were money and time con-
straints, divided views among the faculty on research and knowledge mobilization, and
lack of consensus on how to evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to enhance the impact of
research.
Unsurprisingly, most faculties indicate that resource limitations, including financial and
time constraints, are a major barrier to carrying out and expanding knowledge mobilization
activities. Such activities require time and effort that, absent strong interest and/or priority,
are an additional burden on faculty members and administrators. For faculty, activities
related to the broader mobilization of research findings may compete with core commit-
ments to research and teachingapparently a pressing issue for the smaller institutions that
are attempting to enhance their research profile, but acknowledged by others as well. The
dean of one of the American faculties noted that media inquiries go unanswered as faculty
are too busy to respond to them. Consistently with the literature reviewed above, concerns
were reported at these institutions that knowledge mobilization can be a risky activity for
faculty members, especially junior scholars seeking tenure and promotion, since it may
take time and effort away from research. At another US institution, budgetary constraints
prevented further investments in the facultys press office, whose activities might have a
strong bearing upon knowledge mobilization efforts.
Other noticeable barriers to knowledge mobilization include the lack of measurable
targets and outcomes. Despite the fact that a variety of strategies have been employed by
these institutions to disseminate research, none of the faculties in our study reported having
any systematic process for evaluating existing strategies. The most cited reasons for having
no formal evaluation were financial barriers and the lack of agreed upon criteria and
indicators.
Beyond the concerns noted above, faculty views and attitudes were considered an
important factor in shaping institutional ability to expand knowledge mobilization efforts.
Interviewees from seven institutions viewed either divided faculty attitudes towards
knowledge transfer or different research approaches as a significant barrier. Not all faculty
consider the dissemination of research to lay audiences a worthwhile endeavor, and

Table 2 Most salient barriers to knowledge mobilization indicated by interviewees

Most salient barriers # Institutions

Money constraints 8
Divided attitudes and research approaches among faculty members 7
Time constraints 5
Difficulty in setting up measurable targets and outcomes for knowledge mobilization 5
Difficulty in communicating scholarly research to the wider public 4
Too many information sources competing for attention 3
Difficulty in coordinating knowledge mobilization at institutional level 3
Tenure/promotion criteria 2
Little history of knowledge transfer in social sciences 1
Lack of sustained leadership committed to knowledge mobilization 1

123
508 High Educ (2011) 61:501512

traditional academic incentives and rewards are skewed towards academic publications.
This reflects previous observations made on the potential tensions between the disciplinary
orientation of faculty members, and more substantive engagements in knowledge mobi-
lization (e.g. Jacobson et al. 2004; Mitton et al. 2007). Also, a dean of one of the smaller
Canadian schools notes resistance from faculty to engage in knowledge mobilization if
they are not being compensated specifically for that effort.
Moreover, there is variability among faculty in the likelihood that the research they
conduct might be relevant for policy and practice. Two associate deans from large faculties
in Canada and the United States referred to the notion that faculty have different research
foci and adopt different approaches to impact, making it difficult to standardize any
practice at the institutional level. Divided attitudes and practices among faculty members
could make it difficult for institutional leaders to coordinate knowledge mobilization
efforts. Different people are doing different things, depending on how close they might be
connected with a particular organization, government, or policy makers, noted the dean of
a Canadian faculty.

Fostering systematic connections

Fostering systematic connections and relationships between researchers and potential

partners was a recurring theme in the interviews. Such partners might include eventual
users of research knowledge, sponsors with an interest in promoting use of research evi-
dence, the media, among other third parties. These activities are viewed as part of the
mission of the deans offices, often performed alongside their institutional efforts in
communications, public relations, and in providing services to other organizations (e.g.
consulting).
Initiatives that build up connections between the faculties of education and the com-
munity include engaging in community-based research (OISE-UT, Memorial, Melbourne),
having faculty members on school boards (Alberta, Memorial, Penn State, Washington,
Harvard, NIE), offering professional development/training programs (Melbourne, Penn
State, Washington), and conducting field research in faculties (Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Harvard, Stanford, Michigan, NIE). Research grants involving community partnerships are
an important enabler of potentially useful relationships.3
The administrations of the London and Melbourne faculties seem to emphasize
expanding efforts to disseminate research and forge external partnerships. For London,
broadening the impact of the research it produces is part of its corporate strategy, which
emphasizes making a difference and effecting change in the world. London has delib-
erately supported consulting activities, both to extend the impact of researcha stated
priorityand to capture additional revenues. At Melbourne, an emphasis on knowledge
mobilization has reportedly induced most faculty members to engage with external part-
ners, which generates a stream of contract, consulting, and collaborative work. Both fac-
ulties have expressed the intention to sustain these efforts in the future.

3
One of the Canadian interviewees, for example, highlights a community-university research alliance grant
from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Interviewees in two international jurisdictions
similarly mentioned grant programs that induce and support collaborations with external organizations. It is
worth noting that these activities are those known and/or supported by the interviewees within their fac-
ultieswe did not aim to catalogue each and every initiative occurring at every organizational level of the
faculties studied.

123
High Educ (2011) 61:501512 509

Deans offices typically play a brokering role with the media, connecting inquiries from
reporters to relevant faculty members. They also provide some coaching for faculty on how
to deal with journalists. Like other faculties, OISE-UT has developed sustained relation-
ships with media outlets. For example, an arrangement with TV Ontario facilitates the
participation of faculty members in relevant broadcasting programs. Penn State also keeps
track of media contacts that faculty members have and share such information within the
institution to highlight opportunities to connect with the media. The dean of another
American school would like to see more faculty members become more comfortable with
interacting with the media and would be more willing to step out into those public arenas
and see greater responsibility on their part to [speak on] pressing public policy questions.
Although these relations are considered important tools for disseminating research, much
of the work with the media also aims at raising the profile of the institution, rather than
directly affecting policy and practice.
Moreover, interviewees commonly alluded to the promotion of scholarly publications
(e.g. journals, books) and other dissemination documents and activities (e.g. newsletters,
annual reports, and events) as ways to communicate research knowledge to a broader
audience. Eleven faculties (OISE, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Memorial, York, Harvard,
Stanford, Penn State, Washington, Michigan, NIE) referred to their institutional websites
as an important gateway for the wider community to know about the schools research, get
information about faculty members, and access publications. Nine of those faculties are
currently working on upgrading their institutional website to make research information
more widely accessible. But notwithstanding the greater potential reach of the Internet,
there are difficulties with such tools as well. For example, one education school in the US
spent years building an online research database. By the time it was implemented, the
institution felt the website presented an unbalanced view of the schools research as some
faculty members opted not to post their information (i.e., personal bio, CV, publications).
The online research database was perceived as critical at the outset, but they are now
ready to disable it.4 As with the work with the media, these efforts fall under the com-
munications and public relations activities of the faculties.

Incentives and rewards for faculty members

Beyond developing administrative supports, two faculties (London and Melbourne) have
moved to adjust the promotion and tenure process to provide incentives for faculty
members to engage in knowledge mobilization activities. At London, the criteria for
professorship were changed a few years ago from being almost solely based on research
achievements to include activities related to the dissemination of research. Melbourne was
at the time of this study reforming the evaluation and tenure process to assess and reward
knowledge mobilization activities, among other external engagements. Faculty candidates
achievements in this area are reportedly considered as an asset in seven other schools
(Alberta, OISE, Saskatchewan, Penn State, Harvard, Michigan, NIE), two of which rec-
ognize faculty members who do such work through specific awards (Michigan and NIE).

4
Building research directories for external audiences is not a new idea with the rise of Internet. Institutions
produced hardcopy directories of faculty members profiling their research in the past (e.g. OISE-UT alluded
to the discontinuation of such a directory in the past because it was time consuming to produce and had
questionable public impact). With the popularization of the Internet, faculties of education are creating
online directories of faculty members, databases of research projects, among other tools.

123
510 High Educ (2011) 61:501512

Conclusions

This study explored whether and how selected faculties of education have advanced
institutional strategies to facilitate knowledge mobilization. Building upon previous sug-
gestions in the literature (e.g. Jacobson et al. 2004), we examined the existence and nature
of strategies in multiple areas of academic organization. In general, positive views and
expectations around knowledge mobilization were reported, which were balanced against
an array of perceived barriers to expanding institutional commitments to this work. In only
two cases administrators reported that changes were being made in multiple areas, such as
providing dedicated institutional supports, fostering systematic connections with potential
research users, and embedding such work explicitly in faculty incentive and reward sys-
tems. The leaders from most schools reported that knowledge mobilization occurs at their
institutions, and that some support is provided for it, but not in any comprehensive and
systematic way. Direct or indirect relationships with school districts and schools, where
faculty develop individual or collaborative research projects, were commonly reported.
Although many administrators indicated they would like to see a greater emphasis among
their faculty members on informing policy and practice in the future, they were not clear
about how to make that happen.
Of course, initiatives at the institutional level are just one component in a much broader
landscape influencing the propensity of researchers to engage with potential research users
and other external actors (Nutley et al. 2007; Levin 2008). It is neither assumed that actions
to influence knowledge mobilization in schools of education must necessarily stem from
senior academic administrators, nor must they be validated by central mandates and
strategies. Nonetheless, the organizational dimension of education schools is an important
source of obstacles for knowledge mobilization (e.g. lack of incentives, supports, rewards
etc.) within academia. That is not to say that addressing those would immediately solve all
problems either, since knowledge producers are just one set of actors among many that
influence how research evidence gets used in policy and practice.
The academic leaders interviewed highlighted multiple barriers that are seen as
impediments to greater institutional efforts. While some are obvious (e.g. financial con-
straints), others are quite illuminating. A number of the issues raised highlight the varie-
gated and decentralized nature of knowledge mobilization activity, such as divided faculty
attitudes and research approaches, abundance of information sources, and difficulties in
coordinating multiple and diverse initiatives. Moreover, the complex nature of the
underlying processes is captured by the recurring observation of the difficulty in defining
measurable targets for and outcomes of knowledge mobilization. An argument might be
made that because of all these factors, there are limits to strategies at the institutional
(faculty-wide) level. Still, providing administrative and professional supports, changing
incentive and reward systems, and fostering external ties are tasks that call for institutional
action, as reportedly done by two of the faculties studied.
Although we do not aim to generalize broadly from our findings, our interviews suggest
that greater attention to lower organizational levels (e.g. departments, research centers,
programs) within faculties/schools in future research might be fruitful. The decentralized
nature of faculties, especially large ones with multiple departments, and the disciplinary
diversity they encompass would suggest myriad ways of linking researchers, potential
users, and other relevant actors. As institutional strategies operate at a fairly general level,
the tactics employed within more circumscribed contexts to support and enable knowl-
edge mobilization might be revealing.

123
High Educ (2011) 61:501512 511

By focusing on the organizational aspects of academic institutions that relate to the

behavior of knowledge producers, this study makes a specific contribution to the much
larger literature examining the broader ecology and processes of knowledge mobilization
(Hemsley-Brown 2004; Levin 2004, 2008; Nutley et al. 2007; OECD 2007). In spite of the
growing body of knowledge in this area, much remains to be done to clarify the dynamics
of change and continuity in universities that results from evolving expectations around the
relevance of academic research in fields of social sciences related to public services.

References

Benneworth, B., & Jongbloed, B. W. (2009). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on
humanities, arts and social sciences valorization. Higher Education. doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9265-2.
Caplan, N., Morrison, A., & Stambaugh, R. J. (1975). The use of social science knowledge in policy decision
at the national level: A report to respondents. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University
of Michigan.
Clarence, E. (2002). Technocracy reinvented: The new evidence-based policy movement. Public Policy and
Administration, 17(3), 111.
Cooper, A., & Levin, B. (forthcoming). Some Canadian contributions to understanding knowledge
mobilization.
Cooper, A., Levin, B., & Campbell, C. (2009). The growing (but still limited) importance of evidence in
education policy and practice. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 159171.
Court, J., & Young, J. (2003). Bridging research and policy: Insights from 50 case studies. Overseas
Development Institute. Retrieved 14 October 2009, from http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/
148.pdf.
Davies, H., Nutley, S., & Smith, P. (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public
services. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
Fallis, G. (2007). Multiversities, ideas, and democracy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Geiger, R. L., & Sa, C. (2008). Tapping the riches of science: Universities and the promise of economic
growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hammersley, M. (1997). Educational research and teaching: a response to David Hargreaves TTA lecture.
British Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 141161.
Hargreaves, D. (1999). Revitalizing educational research: lessons from the past and proposals for the future.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(2), 239249.
Hemsley-Brown, J. (2004). Facilitating research utilization: A cross-sector review of research evidence. The
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(6), 534552.
Jacobson, N., Butterill, D., & Goering, P. (2004). Organizational factors that influence university-based
researchers engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication, 25(3), 246259.
Knott, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1980). If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Knowledge:
Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1(4), 537578.
Lagemann, E. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamari, M. (2001). Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada.
Research Policy, 30(2), 333349.
Lavis, J. (2006). Research, public policymaking, and knowledge-translation processes: Canadian efforts to
build bridges. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 3745.
Lavis, J., Robertson, D., Woodside, J., McLeod, C., & Abelson, J. (2003). How can research organizations
more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision-makers? Millbank Quarterly, 81(2), 221248.
Levin, B. (2004). Making research matter more. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(56). Retrieved 14
October 2009, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n56/.
Levin, B. (2006). How can research in education contribute to policy? Review of Australia. Research in
Education, 6, 147157.
Levin, B. (2008). Thinking about knowledge mobilization. Paper presented at the Symposium of the
Canadian Council on Learning and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
1518 May 2008.
Maynard, R. A. (2006). Evidence-based decision making: What will it take for the decision makers to care?
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(2), 249265.

123
512 High Educ (2011) 61:501512

Mitton, C., Adair, C. E., McKenzie, E. Y., Patten, S. B., & Perry, B. W. (2007). Knowledge transfer and
exchange: Review and synthesis of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly, 85(4), 729768.
Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services.
Bristol: Policy Press.
OECD. (2007). Evidence in education: Linking research and policy. Paris: OECD.
Ouimet, M., Landry, R., Ziam, S., & Olivier-Bedard, P. (2009). The absorption of research knowledge
by public civil servants. Evidence and Policy, 5(4), 331350.
Sebba, J. (2004). Developing evidence-informed policy and practice in education. In G. Thomas & R. Pring
(Eds.), Evidence based practice in education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
SSHRCSocial Science, Humanities Research Council. (2009). Meeting of SSHRC leaders. Ottawa, Canada:
Author.
Stone, D. (2002). Using knowledge: The dilemmas of Bridging Research and Policy. Compare, 32(3),
285296.
Walter, I., Nutley, S., & Davies, H. (2005). What works to promote evidence-based practice? A cross-sector
review. Evidence and Policy, 1(3), 335363.
Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meaning of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5),
426431.
Willinsky, J. (2000). If only we knew: Increasing the public value of social science research. New York:
Routledge.

123