Research School Network: Supporting system leaders to engage meaningfully with research Staffordshire Research School shares some approaches for engaging and supporting educational leaders with research.

The new implementation guidance references the need for a secure evidence base and research informed approach when selecting a strategy and approach. Engaging leaders meaningfully in the evidence-base to enable them to explore solutions together is problematic due to the number of constraints which leaders operate within – most notably perhaps, time. There is, we know, an increasing amount of research out there and leaders simply do not always have the time to read lots of materials in order to select the most likely strategy to succeed. This inevitably leads to mismatched strategies being applied and potentially not being systematically evaluated.

When working with various trusts/​LAs and teams last academic year, we have found this to be a recurring issue. There are a lot of enthusiastic and skilled leaders working in the education system, but leaders, understandably, are not always able to engage with the research and reading at source.

To tackle this problem, there are a number of approaches which have been developed in partnership and two have been selected for the purposes of this blog. The two approaches selected here are worth considering when working with leaders or groups of leaders working on the same problem or issue, be that across a trust, LA or other team.

A literacy drop is effectively a repository of links to research and evidence-rich case studies which potentially address a core issue which has been identified. Once you have fine-tuned your problem and are able to articulate this as a team, one possible next step is to provide leaders with a ​‘literacy drop’ which will enable them to engage with the research in a more manageable and meaningful way.

The people leading the implementation exploration section of the strategic planning (Exploration Phase Leaders or EPLs) need to see themselves as the bridge between the research and leaders’ ability (more commonly known as ​‘time’) to access this research. These EPLs need to read and select the most pertinent evidence relating to the identified problem and present this in a palatable form to enable leaders to read it and come to the next part of the conversation (selection of strategy and approach) equipped to participate fully.

An example of a literacy drop is below and clearly signposts the identified issue (written here as a hypothesis) and the evidence which may possibly be most fitting to the context. It is worth noting that in this example, EPLs preparing the literacy drop have categorised the evidence into phases of education which enables colleagues to fine tune their reading and differentiate their approach according to phase, thus making it more relevant for each leader.

Another approach which works well to improve leader engagement with research is a focused discussion around the evidence-informed strategies and approaches being used within each setting. This is particularly effective when there is a range of expertise in the room and allows for EPLs to target interjections effectively as leaders independently (or in small groups) review the strategies that they have tried and used in their setting AND consider their effectiveness.

The EPLs, again, must curate the research and summarise the strategies which are most likely to be effective. Again, paying attention to the different phases within our system, it is helpful to group the strategies by schooling phase (though there is sometimes overlap).

If we consider the hypothesis from the literacy drop example (above) as the starting point, EPLs then select the most pertinent strategies from the evidence base. The EEF guidance reports are accessible, easy to digest and a great place to start.

The finished products might look like this:

Giving each leader, or team of leaders within a single establishment, time to consider these strategies, whether they have seen them, used them, embedded them, discarded them and so on, sparks some insightful conversation.

Using the above strategies as cards and a placement grid (such as the one below) allows for a rich dialogue and increased familiarisation with the strategies which the research suggests are effective.

This kind of activity allows the EPLs to identify commonality across all of the charts in the room.

EPLs may notice commonality such as:

- Leaders are placing a lot of approaches in the ​‘embedded and negative/​not yet evaluated’ quadrant. This suggests more needs to be done as a trust/​LA/ team to prioritise HOW to evaluate effectively and what it means to de-implement something effectively? 

- Are leaders able to define how they know something is effective? What evidence is there in schools that a strategy is/isn’t working and what do they need to find out?

- There are lots of approaches in the ​‘positive impact, but not yet embedded’ quadrant. How do they ensure that schools have time to embed these strategies in order to see the longer-term impact? Are there any barriers which they as a trust/​LA/ team can address? 

- There are lots of initiatives across our schools and these really vary from school to school: this doesn’t seem to be coordinated. Do they need to look at streamlining the approach?

Following these discussions, leaders can gain clarity over what they are currently doing to address the issue, which things they are doing which might not be based on research and whether they could join up with other schools to increase capacity or the sharing of best practice.

This blog was written by Staffordshire Research School. If you want to know more, or would like support utilising these strategies in your setting, do contact us via our website.

To find out more, do look at the following guidance reports from the EEF: 

Sharples, J., Eaton, J. and Boughelaf, J., 2024. A School’s Guide to Implementation. Guidance Report. Education Endowment Foundation.

EEF blog: Using Research Evidence — navigating the maze of​‘evidence’ claims