scholarly journals International Comparison of Education Research Policies

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1&2) ◽  
pp. 62-70
Author(s):  
Yung Ming Shu
Keyword(s):  
Education Research ◽  
Educational Policy ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Research Result ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
Main Concern ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Four Dimensions

This is a comparative study of the education research policies in several countries and international organizations. The purpose of the comparison is to discover the trends in this field. Four dimensions are used for education research policy: the aims of education research, the promoted research methods, the priority areas in education research, and databases for education research. These dimensions need direction and support from government. The findings are that public interest is pursued by education research institutes. However, any research result that runs counter to current policies will be suppressed. Stakeholders, such as sponsors, researchers and journals, do not take public interest as their main concern. The most promoted method in education research is evidence-based research because it is thought to be more useful and reproducible. The priority area for education research, however, is not so evident. But basic research and new areas, like neuroscience and popular culture, are more common. There are databases for education research in many countries. PISA of OECD is the most conspicuous one in recent years. Education research and educational policy is interwoven together. Education research can contribute to educational policy, while educational policy many direct the orientation of education research. Each should have the other in mind.

scholarly journals Editors' Introduction

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander W. Wiseman ◽  
C. C. Wolhuter
Keyword(s):  
Education Research ◽  
International Education ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Educational Systems ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Comparative And International Education ◽  
Community Of Researchers ◽  
Research In Education ◽  
Interdisciplinary Scholarship

The inaugural issue of FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education begins a new chapter in the scholarly and professional discussion of comparative and international education research, policy, and practice. Comparative and international education research has become increasingly isolated from educational policymaking as well as school- and classroom-level decisionmaking as the amount and diversity of research in the field has grown. FIRE is an international, peer-reviewed publication, which seeks to bridge this gap by promoting interdisciplinary scholarship on the use of internationally comparative data for evidence-based and innovative change in educational systems, schools, and classrooms worldwide. FIRE provides an open source and widely accessible platform for disseminating research on education from multiple cultural, organizational and national perspectives. To introduce FIRE to the community of researchers, policymakers, and educators this introduction provides an overview of the journal

scholarly journals Preferences for Updates on General Research Results: A Survey of Participants in Genomic Research from Two Institutions

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 399
Author(s):  
Casey Overby Taylor ◽  
Natalie Flaks Manov ◽  
Katherine D. Crew ◽  
Chunhua Weng ◽  
John J. Connolly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Result ◽  
Hierarchical Cluster ◽  
Genomic Research ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Four Dimensions ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Set Up

There is a need for multimodal strategies to keep research participants informed about study results. Our aim was to characterize preferences of genomic research participants from two institutions along four dimensions of general research result updates: content, timing, mechanism, and frequency. Methods: We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey that was administered from 25 June 2018 to 5 December 2018. Results: 397 participants completed the survey, most of whom (96%) expressed a desire to receive research updates. Preferences with high endorsement included: update content (brief descriptions of major findings, descriptions of purpose and goals, and educational material); update timing (when the research is completed, when findings are reviewed, when findings are published, and when the study status changes); update mechanism (email with updates, and email newsletter); and update frequency (every three months). Hierarchical cluster analyses based on the four update preferences identified four profiles of participants with similar preference patterns. Very few participants in the largest profile were comfortable with budgeting less money for research activities so that researchers have money to set up services to send research result updates to study participants. Conclusion: Future studies may benefit from exploring preferences for research result updates, as we have in our study. In addition, this work provides evidence of a need for funders to incentivize researchers to communicate results to participants.

scholarly journals Theorizing or Negotiating the Law?: A Response to Devika Hovell

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 3-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonios Tzanakopoulos
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Cholera Outbreak ◽  
A Value ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The United Nations

Devika Hovell’s article is a very welcome and useful contribution to the debate regarding the “accountability” (whatever the term may mean) of international organizations, and the United Nations in particular. The author argues that scholarship has tended to focus on (descriptive) state practice to the detriment of (normative) theoretical appeal, and so the relevant discussion “has received inadequate theoretical attention.” In response, she sets out to tell the story of the United Nations being held to account through a highly theorized (and, if I may venture even at the outset, perhaps a bit stylized) scheme of contrasting “instrumentalist,” “dignitarian,” and “public interest” approaches to due process. This she applies to two case studies, one regarding targeted sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, mainly in the context of antiterrorism; and one regarding the cholera outbreak in Haiti, where the United Nations has been implicated. Hovell critiques both the instrumentalist and dignitarian approaches, which correspond in broad terms to legal action at the international, and the domestic/regional level, respectively, and argues in favor of a “public interest” approach as better reflecting a “value-based” due process.

Is it only ‘What works’ that ‘Counts’ in New Knowledge Economies? Evidence-based Practice, Educational Research and Teacher Education in Australia

2002 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Blackmore
Keyword(s):  
Education Policy ◽  
Educational Research ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Nation States ◽  
New Knowledge ◽  
Knowledge Economies ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Research In Education

Recent texts on globalisation and education policy refer to the rapid flow of education policy texts producing or responding to common trends across nation states with the emergence of new knowledge economies. These educational policies are shaping what counts as research and the dynamics between research, policy, and practice in schools, creating new types of relationships between universities, the public, the professions, government, and industry. The trend to evidence-based policy and practice in Australian schools is used to identify key issues within wider debates about the ‘usefulness’ of educational research and the role of universities and university-based research in education in new knowledge economies.

Evidence-based policymaking and the public interest: lessons in legitimacy

2015 ◽  
Vol 86 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen McKay ◽  
Michael Murray ◽  
Sean MacIntyre ◽  
Anil Kashyap
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
The Public

scholarly journals The effect of knowledge management process on the employee commitment: Evidence from digital marketing industry

2021 ◽  
pp. 1557-1564
Author(s):  
Bui Thanh Khoa ◽  
Le Thi Kim Hoa
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Research Result ◽  
Employee Commitment ◽  
Digital Marketing ◽  
Management Process ◽  
Competitive Advantages ◽  
Knowledge Application ◽  
Four Dimensions ◽  
Managerial Implications ◽  
The Relationship

Knowledge management is a process of systematic and transparent creation, development and application of knowledge to maximize knowledge-related performance and business value from knowledge and available wisdom assets. Knowledge management is vitally important with business and one of the competitive advantages. The aim of the study is to find out the relationship between the knowledge management process and employees’ commitment in the digital marketing companies. Through the mix-method research, the research result pointed out that four dimensions of knowledge management process; i.e., Knowledge Acquisition, Knowledge Conversion, Knowledge Application, and Knowledge Protection, positively impact on the employee's commitment. Some managerial implications for the digital marketing businesses were proposed to improve the employee commitment based the knowledge management process.

scholarly journals Advocating for LGBTQ+ Students with Disabilities

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
June Gothberg ◽  
LaSonja Roberts ◽  
Mary Ebejer
Keyword(s):  
Education Research ◽  
Social Identity ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
The State ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Promising Practices ◽  
Educational Settings ◽  
Youth With Disabilities ◽  
Lgbtq Students ◽  
Adult Roles

Much of education research in recent years has focused on how the bullying and victimization of LGBTQ+ students and youth with disabilities (YWD) can lead to increased challenges and limited opportunities later in life. However, few studies have focused on how bullying and victimization affects students who both have disabilities and identify as LGBTQ+ or on how specific practices could improve both their experiences in school and their success later in life. YWD face the same challenges when it comes to puberty, social identity, and planning for adult roles as their non-disabled peers, but they are more likely to struggle with developing their identity and thinking about their future, particularly if they identify as LGBTQ+, which is why educators and parents must work together to advocate for changes that promote an inclusive, safe, and just environment for all students. In this article, we offer guidance using evidence-based promising practices (EBPPs) to improve educational settings for LGBTQ+ YWD that is informed by our work at the state, local, and classroom levels. Gran parte de las investigaciones en educación en los últimos años se han enfocado en como el acoso y la victimización de los estudiantes LGBTQ+ y estudiantes con discapacidades pueden llevarlos a un aumento de desafíos y menos oportunidades más tarde en sus vidas. Sin embargo, pocas investigaciones se han enfocado en como el acoso y la victimización afecta a los estudiantes con discapacidades o identificados como LGBTQ+ o en como prácticas específicas pueden mejorar sus experiencias escolares y a la vez su éxito en el futuro. Los estudiantes con discapacidades enfrentan los mismo retos que sus compañeros sin discapacidades cuando se trata de la pubertad, identidad social, y en planear para su rol como adultos, pero tienen más dificultad en luchar con el desarrollo de su identidad y en pensar en su futuro, especialmente si se identifican como LGBTQ+, por lo tanto es importante que los docentes y padres de familia trabajen juntos para abogar para cambios que promuevan un ambiente inclusivo, seguro, y justo para todos los estudiantes. En este artículo, ofrecemos consejos utilizando prácticas prometedoras basadas en evidencias para mejorar el ambiente educativo para estudiantes LGBTQ+ con discapacidades que están informadas en nuestro trabajo al nivel estatal, local y de aula.

Limits of change: cognitive constraints on “postmodernization” and the political redirection of science

2000 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 439-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jochen Gläser
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
The Political ◽  
Cognitive State ◽  
Cognitive Constraints ◽  
Societal Welfare ◽  
Micro Level ◽  
Science Information ◽  
Level Of Analysis

The debate about revitalization of the finalization theory was documented in 1997 in Social Science Information. It hinted at a worthwhile methodological idea that could be useful in current debates on science—society relationships. Finalization theory asked whether a field's cognitive state constrains research policy attempts to direct the field toward applications. Since the difficulties faced in answering this question are at least partly due to the level of analysis, this article proposes refocusing finalization theory on the micro-level of research processes and research trails. On the basis of an empirical analysis, the cognitive links between basic research and contexts of applications are explored. Five types of basic research can be distinguished by their various cognitive links to contexts of application. Scientists' opportunities to change the links between their basic research and applications are discussed. Analysis on the micro-level enables conclusions to be drawn about (1) the scope of hypotheses about changes in knowledge-production and (2) constraints on institutional pressure for basic research to contribute to societal welfare.

What does it Take to Scale up and Sustain Evidence-Based Practices?

2013 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janette K. Klingner ◽  
Alison G. Boardman ◽  
Kristen L. Mcmaster
Keyword(s):  
Research Policy ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Scaling Up ◽  
District Leadership ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
Strategic Reading ◽  
Collaborative Strategic Reading

This article discusses the strategic scaling up of evidence-based practices. The authors draw from the scholarly work of fellow special education researchers and from the field of learning sciences. The article defines scaling up as the process by which researchers or educators initially implement interventions on a small scale, validate them, and then implement them more widely in real-world conditions. Examples of scale-up research are included. The authors discuss challenges to scaling up and sustaining evidence-based practices, followed by factors that can potentially support scaling up, including professional development and district leadership. A case example describes how these issues can play out by highlighting experiences with a Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) scale-up research project in a large urban school district. The article concludes by offering recommendations for research, policy, and practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document