Coaching as a Knowledge Mobilization Strategy: Coaches' Centrality in a Provincial Research Brokering Network

Ontario’s Child and Youth Mental Health (CYMH) program is a provinciallysponsored  initiative that aims to build school district capacity for developing research-informed school mental health policies. This article reports findings from a mixed-methods study that employs social network theory and analysis tools to explore the centrality of CYMH coaches within this research brokering network. Overall, CYMH coaches are central within these social networks, although the patterns of interaction differ from the program’s original design, with some coaches being more central than others. While formal CYMH professional development events appear to be the most direct approach to connecting research, policy, and practice, informal social networks provide the support necessary to make sense of research-based materials for use in local policymaking

Education Research in the Canadian Context

This special issue of the International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership (IJEPL), Research in the Canadian Context, marks a significant milestone for the journal. Throughout our twelve-year history, we have sought to publish the best research in leadership, policy, and research use, allowing authors to decide the topics by dint of their research. While this model still serves as the foundation for IJEPL content, we decided to give researchers a chance to engage in deeper conversations by introducing special issues. In our first special issue, researchers discuss their work within the scope of education policy, leadership, and research use within the Canadian context. While many aspects of leadership, teaching, and learning can be seen as similar across contexts, there are also issues of particular concern within national, regional, provincial, or local spheres, particularly when looking at policy and system changes. The researchers featured in this issue provide an important look into education in Canada.PolicyIn the policy realm, Sue Winton and Lauren Jervis examine a 22-year campaign to change special education assessment policy in Ontario, examining how discourses dominant in the province enabled the government to leave the issue unresolved for decades. Issues of access and equity play out within a neoliberal context focused on individualism, meritocracy, and the reduced funding of public services. While Winton and Jervis highlight the tension between policy goals and ideological contexts, Jean-Vianney Auclair considers the place of policy dialogues within governmental frames, and the challenge of engaging in broadly applicable work within vertically structured governmental agencies. One often-touted way to move beyondResearch useWithin the scope of research use, Sarah L. Patten examines how socioeconomic status (SES) is defined and measured in Canada, the challenges in defining SES, and potential solutions specific to the Canadian context. In looking at knowledge mobilization, Joelle Rodway considers how formal coaches and informal social networks nserve to connect research, policy, and practice in Ontario’s Child and Youth Mental Health program.LeadershipTurning to leadership, contributing researchers explored the challenges involved in staff development, administrator preparation, and student outcomes. Keith Walker and Benjamin Kutsyuruba explore how educational administrators can support early career teachers to increase retention, and the somewhat haphazard policies and supports in place across Canada to bring administrators and new teachers together. Gregory Rodney MacKinnon, David Young, Sophie Paish, and Sue LeBel look at how one program in Nova Scotia conceptualizes professional growth, instructional leadership, and administrative effectiveness and the emerging needs of administrators to respond to issues of poverty, socioemotional health, and mental health, while also building community. This complex environment may mean expanding leadership preparation to include a broader consideration of well-being and community. Finally, Victoria Handford and Kenneth Leithwood look at the role school leaders play in improving student achievement in British Columbia, and the school district characteristics associated with improving student achievement.Taken together, the research in this special issue touches on many of the challenges in policy development, application, and leadership practice, and the myriad ways that research can be used to address these challenges. We hope you enjoy this first special issue of IJEPL

Knowledge Mobilization Practices of Educational Researchers Across Canada

Researchers are under increasing pressure to disseminate research more widely with non-academic audiences (efforts we call knowledge mobilization, KMb) and to articulate the value of their research beyond academia to broader society. This study surveyed SSHRC-funded education researchers to explore how universities are supporting researchers with these new demands. Overall, the study found that there are few supports available to researchers to assist them in KMb efforts. Even where supports do exist, they are not heavily accessed by researchers. Researchers spend less than 10% of their time on non-academic outreach. Researchers who do the highest levels of academic publishing also report the highest levels of non-academic dissemination. These findings suggest many opportunities to make improvements at individual and institutional levels. We recommend (a) leveraging intermediaries to improve KMb, (b) creating institutionally embedded KMb capacity, and (c) having funders take a leadership role in training and capacity-building.  Les chercheurs sont de plus en plus pressés de diffuser la recherche plus largement auprès de publics non universitaires (des efforts que nous appelons mobilisation de connaissance, KMb) et d’exprimer la valeur de leur recherche au-delà du milieu universitaire vers une société élargie. Cette étude a enquêté sur les chercheurs financés par le CRSH afin d’explorer comment les universités soutiennent les chercheurs avec ces nouvelles demandes. Dans l’ensemble, l’étude a révélé qu’il y a peu de soutien offert aux chercheurs pour les aider avec les efforts KMb. Même lorsque le soutien existe, il n’est pas grandement utilisé par les chercheurs. Les chercheurs dépensent moins de 10 % de leur temps à des activités non universitaires. Les chercheurs qui accomplissent le plus haut degré de publication universitaire rapportent aussi les plus hauts niveaux de diffusions non universitaires. Ces résultats suggèrent de nombreuses occasions d’amélioration à des niveaux tant individuels et institutionnels. Nous recommandons (a) de mobiliser les intermédiaires pour améliorer le KMb, (b) de créer une capacité KMb institutionnellement intégrée, et (c) de faire les bailleurs de fonds jouer un rôle de leadership dans la formation et le renforcement des capacités

Knowledge Mobilization Practices of Educational Researchers Across Canada

Researchers are under increasing pressure to disseminate research more widely with non-academic audiences (efforts we call knowledge mobilization, KMb) and to articulate the value of their research beyond academia to broader society. This study surveyed SSHRC-funded education researchers to explore how universities are supporting researchers with these new demands. Overall, the study found that there are few supports available to researchers to assist them in KMb efforts. Even where supports do exist, they are not heavily accessed by researchers. Researchers spend less than 10% of their time on non-academic outreach. Researchers who do the highest levels of academic publishing also report the highest levels of non-academic dissemination. These findings suggest many opportunities to make improvements at individual and institutional levels. We recommend (a) leveraging intermediaries to improve KMb, (b) creating institutionally embedded KMb capacity, and (c) having funders take a leadership role in training and capacity-building.  Les chercheurs sont de plus en plus pressés de diffuser la recherche plus largement auprès de publics non universitaires (des efforts que nous appelons mobilisation de connaissance, KMb) et d’exprimer la valeur de leur recherche au-delà du milieu universitaire vers une société élargie. Cette étude a enquêté sur les chercheurs financés par le CRSH afin d’explorer comment les universités soutiennent les chercheurs avec ces nouvelles demandes. Dans l’ensemble, l’étude a révélé qu’il y a peu de soutien offert aux chercheurs pour les aider avec les efforts KMb. Même lorsque le soutien existe, il n’est pas grandement utilisé par les chercheurs. Les chercheurs dépensent moins de 10 % de leur temps à des activités non universitaires. Les chercheurs qui accomplissent le plus haut degré de publication universitaire rapportent aussi les plus hauts niveaux de diffusions non universitaires. Ces résultats suggèrent de nombreuses occasions d’amélioration à des niveaux tant individuels et institutionnels. Nous recommandons (a) de mobiliser les intermédiaires pour améliorer le KMb, (b) de créer une capacité KMb institutionnellement intégrée, et (c) de faire les bailleurs de fonds jouer un rôle de leadership dans la formation et le renforcement des capacités

Mobilizing Research Knowledge through Social Networks

Networks have been deemed an important knowledge mobilization (KMb) activity; however, much KMb network research fails to acknowledge the ways that relational linkages among members mediate its work. The purpose of this study is to investigate the ways in which patterns of interaction among members of an implementation support program mediate KMb activities in support of evidence-informed policy-making. This was a bounded sample where coaches (N=6) and Mental Health Leaders (MHLs; N=31) from the first two cohorts of the program were invited to participate. This descriptive case study used a sequential, explanatory mixed methods design. Phase one of the study included a survey, administered online (response rate = 97%), that included social network and attribute-based questions. Network data were analysed at multiple levels using UCINet, and SPSS was used to conduct appropriate descriptive and inferential analyses. Phase two consisted of interviews with all five coaches, and six MHLs selected based on phase one degree centrality findings. The constant comparative method was applied to the analysis of the interviews. Each network exhibited low levels of activity and reciprocal ties, and the patterns of interaction in each focused on a subset of people. Certain individuals stood out as dominant sources of research/advice/influence. Overall, coaches received significantly more relations than MHLs; however, there were two MHLs who were often sought out more than other coaches. Attributes positively associated with indegree centrality included relational capital, level of research use, and research experience. People very rarely facilitated relationships among their otherwise unconnected colleagues, and the brokering of research knowledge appeared to focus on direct connections typically maintained through the formal program. An online forum, program coaches and resources, capacity-building activities, research literacy and community were considered facilitators of KMb, whereas organizational structure, tension among system priorities, and external groups were perceived as constraints. This study describes an innovative KMb model where formal events mattered most and the key players were not always coaches. The broader context of the program mediated KMb activities, where it was not only the people within the network, but also the resources and opportunities available within it that connected research and practice.Ph.D

Knowledge Mobilization Practices of Educational Researchers Across Canada

Researchers are under increasing pressure to disseminate research more widely with non-academic audiences (efforts we call knowledge mobilization, KMb) and to articulate the value of their research beyond academia to broader society. This study surveyed SSHRC-funded education researchers to explore how universities are supporting researchers with these new demands. Overall, the study found that there are few supports available to researchers to assist them in KMb efforts. Even where supports do exist, they are not heavily accessed by researchers. Researchers spend less than 10% of their time on non-academic outreach. Researchers who do the highest levels of academic publishing also report the highest levels of non-academic dissemination. These findings suggest many opportunities to make improvements at individual and institutional levels. We recommend (a) leveraging intermediaries to improve KMb, (b) creating institutionally embedded KMb capacity, and (c) having funders take a leadership role in training and capacity-building.Les chercheurs sont de plus en plus pressés de diffuser la recherche plus largement auprès de publics non universitaires (des efforts que nous appelons mobilisation de connaissance, KMb) et d’exprimer la valeur de leur recherche au-delà du milieu universitaire vers une société élargie. Cette étude a enquêté sur les chercheurs financés par le CRSH afin d’explorer comment les universités soutiennent les chercheurs avec ces nouvelles demandes. Dans l’ensemble, l’étude a révélé qu’il y a peu de soutien offert aux chercheurs pour les aider avec les efforts KMb. Même lorsque le soutien existe, il n’est pas grandement utilisé par les chercheurs. Les chercheurs dépensent moins de 10 % de leur temps à des activités non universitaires. Les chercheurs qui accomplissent le plus haut degré de publication universitaire rapportent aussi les plus hauts niveaux de diffusions non universitaires. Ces résultats suggèrent de nombreuses occasions d’amélioration à des niveaux tant individuels et institutionnels. Nous recommandons (a) de mobiliser les intermédiaires pour améliorer le KMb, (b) de créer une capacité KMb institutionnellement intégrée, et (c) de faire les bailleurs de fonds jouer un rôle de leadership dans la formation et le renforcement des capacités

The Power of School Conditions: Individual, Relational, and Organizational Influences on Educator Wellbeing.

Wellbeing in schools is often focused at the individual level, exploring students' or teachers' individual traits, habits, or actions that influence wellbeing. However, studies rarely take a whole-school approach that includes staff wellbeing, and frequently ignore relational and organizational level variables. We take a systems informed positive psychology approach and argue that it is essential to build greater understanding about organizational and relational influences on wellbeing in order for schools to support educator wellbeing. Our study evaluated the relative contributions of individual, relational, and organizational factors to educator wellbeing. Our measure of wellbeing focused on the life satisfaction and flourishing of 559 educators in 12 New Zealand schools. We used a social network analysis approach to capture educators' relational ties, and demographic data and psychometric scales to capture individual and organizational level variables. Results of hierarchical blockwise regressions showed that individual, relational, and organizational factors were all significantly associated with educator wellbeing; however, it was educators' perceptions of trusting and collaborative school conditions that were most strongly associated with their wellbeing. The number of relational ties educators had explained the least amount of variance in wellbeing. Educators were more likely to experience high levels of support when their close contacts also experienced high levels of support. However, for many educators, there was a negative association between their most frequent relational ties and their reported levels of support. Our results suggest that attending to the organizational factors that influence wellbeing, through creating trusting and collaborative school conditions, may be one of the most influential approaches to enhancing educator wellbeing. We call for whole-school approaches to wellbeing that not only consider how to support and enhance the wellbeing of school staff as well as students, but also view the conditions created within a school as a key driver of wellbeing within schools