Research should be relevant, accessible and authoritative; however, the education system does not have what it takes to respond coherently to research findings. Thus, research attempts will hit hard rock bottoms for the lack of adequate persuasiveness, that is, their ability to convince the practitioner with enough facts to deal with the subject is very low or ambiguous. Secondly, research at times goes around the subject and ends up lacking objectivity making it irrelevant for practice. Another reason for failing research is if the findings are not accessible to the relevant group of implementers and lastly if the institutions to which the research is supposed to improve is not flexible enough for change implementation. All these characteristics of research make it a prerequisite for researchers to keenly put into consideration the aspects of supply and demand of research to make it objective and effective. However, the article stipulates that most people are concerned only with the research they have put their minds to supply the market absolutely disregarding the fact that supply should meet demand. Thus, as many researchers go to the field, they have only asked questions like, what kinds of research have an influence? Is there enough research? Is it on the right issues? Is the research of high enough quality? This questions only seek to answer the quality of the product they offer the market while they entirely forget that the product must be viable in this case, relevant, accessible and persuasive. For these qualities to be met, then research must meet a certain want in the society which requires that the researcher ask questions like, is the world of practice looking for research-based solutions? Do they see Education research as a legitimate and important source of input?
In their effort to explain that research is biased to demand, Porter and McMaken make an illustration comparing practice and research by asking the questions, how does pre-service teacher education prepare teachers to be thoughtful users of education research? How does professional development do the same? Does the training of education leaders appropriately address the role that education should play in the improvement of Education? In the attempt to answer the questions, the authors justify the importance of research uptake and demand, and they come up with six hypotheses:
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
For education research at the instruction level to find its way into practice level, major development efforts are typically necessary.
Charismatic people have an enormous influence on the extent to which education research finds its way into education practice.
A well-educated and hungry field of practitioners will put relevant research knowledge into practice in a hurry.
Reforms that look easy to do from a distance, and that have many advocates for reasons that may not include effects on student achievement, can have a big and widespread impact on education practice when research validates the reformer’s beliefs.
Potential education reforms such as technology use do not take off when they require practicing educators at the ground level to invent fundamental new ways of doing their work because there is no sufficient motivation for them to invest in the change.
Formal and informal networks exist among leaders in education practice. Largely through word of mouth, reform ideas pass quickly from one leader to another in these networks and on into implementation
Hypothesis 1
Adapting change in whatever field requires a lot of persuasions and this cannot happen unless there is adequate knowledge supplied to the practitioner to convince them that the change they are to adopt is for their good. Thus, major investments in the development of a good adjustment phase goes a long way to ensure that the change brought about by research findings lasts for the anticipated time otherwise it is not in vain. This development requires testing the elements of research on a relevant population to prove feasibility. According to Handal and Herrington (2003), feasibility, workability and effectiveness are requisite practice.
Hypothesis 2
The passion and commitment individuals in positions of authority have over a research is an influencing factor that catalyzes the implementation of research findings even though they are capable of being effective on their own credit. Influential persons who hold the research highly are the extra push that research needs to hit the ground running. A good example is the systemic standards-based reform that took off sluggishly even after several rallies to boost its take off until Smith, a driver of the vision, took a position of authority in the institution.
Hypothesis 3
New insights and innovations in psychometrics are often put quickly into practice most likely because individuals in this field are highly trained and are always anticipating for better and new solutions. Identifying the demand for solutions and meeting them at the required time is necessary for the taking off innovation. A good example is the Hierarchical linear modeling used in social science research. Training and teacher preparation is critical for the increase in educator’s demand and use of relevant research. This is because they are primary implementers of educational innovation and what they find not persuasive enough for their uptake, they will be reluctant to implement.
Hypothesis 4
A lot of advocating for research influences its effect and how institutions will put it into practice. It is when practitioners badly need a solution that they choose to advocate for an investigation to be carried out on the same. The Tennessee star study class Mosteller (1995) and Lee, Bryk, and Smith’s work on school size (1993) are an excellent example of research pushed by practitioners. They advocated for smaller class sizes for better achievement and school climate. It is, however, important to note that a relative scale and quality of research is important as Stetcher, Mccaffrey, and Bugliari (2003) failed though they pursued the same subject but at a limited scale.
Hypothesis 5
Technology is an innovation that hit a hard rock over its influence in education because it has not been persuasive enough for teachers to take up in terms of the change of the basic teaching techniques a teacher will require. According to Cuban (2001), technology has had a meager influence on learning in the classroom while it has completely turned around other sectors of the economy.
Hypothesis 6
Networks amongst leaders are a great influence on the uptake of innovative ideas. It is the joining of power by two charismatic, influential personalities to create an almost unstoppable movement that sweeps over institutions within no time. However, for hypothesis six and two to be effective, it is essential always to consider hypothesis one for feasibility and effectiveness.
