We are firm believers that modern universities must transform themselves into a fundamental element of 21^st century society for “…dealing with and transferring established, legitimate social values, for developing the next generation of citizens, and for political socialization” (García et al., 2008, p. 83). Within our socio-political contexts, universities establish their own institutional ways of interacting with the surrounding society. In theory, social councils (Consejos Sociales) are one means of achieving this. As collegiate bodies they act as a meeting point between civil society and academia, facilitating communication and collaboration between the two sectors in order to contribute to technological, occupational, cultural, economic, social, and educational development. These bodies arose in legislation, the Universities Act 6/2001, 21 December, (BOE 24/12/2001), as amended by Organic Law 4/2007, 12 April 2007 (BOE 13/04/2007), and are defined as “… the body for society’s participation in the university”.

From another perspective, the 2016 public report entitled “Social Responsibility in Universities: from knowledge to action. Guidelines for implementation” indicates that USR is also driven by membership of compacts and networks. At that time, 26 Spanish universities were part of the United Nations Global Compact, while 7 were signatories to the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME), 7 were part of the GUNI Network, 5 were part of the Talloires Network. This same report, coordinated by the University of Burgos, indicated that the third mission also covered offices and bodies created purposely to deal with areas such as equality, volunteering, disability, the environment, sustainable development, culture, and sports which were active—with varying levels of impact—in all Spanish universities (González-Alcántara et al., 2016).

At this point, it seems appropriate to reflect on the suitability of current channels of interaction between universities and society, and what the possibilities are for improving and extending these connections. The development of university practice means that there is a particular need to review teaching and the relationship between theory and praxis. There has been recent reconsideration of the traditional distinction in universities between learning and students’ participation in civic, social, political or environmental activity inside and outside of the university—a distinction which had traditionally viewed the students’ role as predominantly passive receivers of knowledge (De las Heras, 2014; González-Rabanal, 2022). This has been alongside growing awareness of the importance of the university community being socially involved, underscoring the need to optimize and raise the visibility of learning processes. The pace of this change increased at the end of the 1990s with the restructuring of European universities in the context of the European Higher Education Area. In Spain, the Volunteering Act (Law 6/1996, 15 January) played a significant role, leading Spanish universities to incorporate university services and extension programs that encouraged student participation in community projects. Similarly, the University Student Statute, approved by Royal Decree 1791/210, established mechanisms to increase student participation in university life and their contribution to management of university services. It recognized the value of student participation in university management as a complex task. Nowadays, the University System Act (Organic Law 2/2023, LOSU), highlights the need for universities to strengthen their links with their surrounding reality, emphasizing that students play a central role in this process (Art. 18, Art. 33, Art. 48).

As we argued above, student participation in various aspects of the university is a relatively recent phenomenon. This participation was initially limited to mostly non-academic activities, and focused principally on cultural or sporting events associated with the university (Aznar et al., 2023). However, in recent years, public universities have begun to more consistently incorporate services and programs aimed at encouraging the university community’s participation in the activities of entities engaged in social action close to campus. These services, which have variously been called volunteering, university extension, and participation, among other labels (Arias & Simón, 2004; Gaete, 2011), seek to promote young people’s active interaction with the society around them.

This process was not undertaken by chance, instead, the international context seemed to lay out a path to deal with people’s overall education, at all educational levels, which of course includes the university environment. Kymlicka (2003) defined this phenomenon as the “rise of civility”. According to Bowen (1984), by considering social responsibility, university departments and colleges gain two fundamental commitments: one technical and the other ethical or moral. Their technical responsibility is related to the provision of technically competent professionals for society, well-trained, self-disciplined people with a clear, ongoing interest in continuing to extend their learning. The moral responsibility is around educating people with broad knowledge and culture who are able to take on leading roles in society, and who can constructively influence the community and civic life (Agrafojo et al., 2018). This means that higher education should prepare its students so that they become thoughtful, critical citizens who can think for themselves (Ugarte & Naval, 2010). In other words, educational institutions will prepare students for involvement and participation in society, and this is also transfer (Sotelino et al., 2016). In the 1970s, Otero (1974, p. 110) advocated for an educational approach that would encourage student participation, arguing that “making decisions involves problems of motivation and attitude, as well as problems of knowledge”. The ability to choose between different alternatives and understand the implications of those decisions requires a deeper understanding of the variables involved, and therefore the need to access relevant information. Hence the convergence of research, teaching, and transfer seems both inevitable and desirable. The challenge will be to seek new ways of connecting community and academia that are not solely via official bodies and institutes, but rather which also involve those who share the university, from teachers and students to administrative and service personnel.

5. HOW TO TRANSFER KNOWLEDGE: A SUMMARY OF MODELS

In the literature on the subject, beyond the pioneering role attributed to Bozeman’s (2000) model, there is a common sense that transfer—via an informative route or a more effective or utilitarian route for society—will generally be according to four models (Becheikh et al., 2010; Hidalgo et al., 2002; Santos-Rego, 2020; Touriñán, 2020) (Table 1).

In our opinion, the social interaction model has more advantages due to its dynamic focus which reinforces the links between researchers and end-users, increasing the chances of developing mutual areas of interest between the two. In any case, the risk of this type of model is that it may significantly simplify the transfer process in certain sectors of society.

To be more specific, it is worth remembering what Davenport and Prusak (1998) hinted at over twenty years ago. They indicated that effective knowledge transfer involved not only the simple transmission of information, but also effective absorption and use of that information by those on the receiving end. In an instant, we see that transfer and transmission are not the same concept, but this should not lead us to conclude that transmission will never be valuable as transfer. Many dissemination activities might lead to this possible erroneous assessment, as they can be both things at the same time.

Let us look at this difference between transmission and transfer according to criteria laid out by Touriñán (2020). Transmission can be identified by the activity and the medium used (radio, without being too exotic) rather than the goal, which is exactly what knowledge transfer would prioritize. And this is besides the use that we might hope to make of the transferred knowledge via—for example—an advisory service for an association of immigrant families, or by putting a new co-operative learning strategy into practice in teaching mathematics in the bachillerato (17-18 years-old).

6. CONSTRUCTING AN APPROACH FOR LINKING EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

At this point, our position on this issue should be clear. The time has passed in which social and education sciences were passive participants in poorly addressing the relationship between university and society by not discussing scant contextualization and remote semantic references brought about through the acritical translation of predominant patterns in hegemonic disciplines in the scientific canon (physics, biology, chemistry…), copying ideas and models from other fields that were clearly insufficient (García del Dujo et al., 2020).

Of course, education is as specific and distinct an area as any other, and the National Commission for Assessment of Research Activity (CNEAI) has recognized this in the current six-year evaluations in Spain. What is interesting is to identify rigorous scientific activity in the study of educational processes, and look at how powerful it may be as knowledge that could be suitable for transfer, given how it might be used to innovatively change or moderate activity in the real world.

We believe that the perspective which brings together knowledge and research should be communicated more broadly, extending it beyond simple products and services. This should not, however, mean losing the critical perspective that we must apply unambiguously for sound, reliable transfer of knowledge in education.

There often seems to be a certain forgetfulness on our part, as experts in pedagogy, that innovation in teaching is a consequence—or should be a consequence—of high-quality research activity that has been proven in relation to learning methodologies or competencies to develop and evaluate. It is well known that having useful studies does not automatically guarantee that teachers and professionals in the field will find them effective. However, by paying attention to the formats used to communicate these studies, it is possible to move forward. We agree with Szulanski (2000) in emphasizing that the reliability of research results is not a minor obstacle in knowledge transfer. Which means that our research must combine clear conditions of interest, importance, and usefulness for someone.

And clearly in that desire for perspective, bidirectionality is missing. This can be addressed by encouraging partnerships between research and practice, so that small collaborative groups can produce action strategies aimed at improving processes and results both in and out of the classroom.

Not too long ago, Farley-Ripple and colleagues (2018) presented a model that redefined the ways in which educational research was carried out, disseminated, and ultimately applied. We are aware that it is not easy to address, or even produce good channels of communication between the practitioner and research communities in a field as singular as the one we work in. Even so, we have to try to speed up our progress, and this needs the help of administrations, professional groups, and corporations, as well as the help of the university, understood as a driving agent of innovation in the education system it is part of.

Both communities (researchers and practitioners) basically trust different types of knowledge (Snow, 2015), however much they influence or complement each other, from internal and external sources used to produce them. It is a fact that the research community prizes the theoretical and methodological rigor informing its activity, whereas the professional community values research which is relevant to the problems and difficulties they face in practice. What might serve professionals in their activities is exactly what interests educational research. To put it another way: this is the framework of transfer that captures their attention most.

With due caution, what professionals request in day-to-day practice are flexible, functional ways to be able to get the right information to deal with issues and manage problems in and around the classroom. One reasonably successful US Department of Education initiative is called the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), which systematically reviews products, programs, and practices, evaluating and reporting on their potential impact in intervention (Taylor et al., 2021).

Being able to access sound knowledge resulting from research, disseminated through simple formats, will help translate it into practice (Crain-Dorough & Elder, 2021). As researchers, we need to improve our ability to produce products which professionals can use in their work, considering formats that are appealing, so that these professionals do not view research as not coming close to their needs.

The perhaps unfair misunderstandings, more due to ignorance than for any other reason, that affect our field of scientific and professional endeavour must be faced head on and in the open. A communication strategy in the public arena about the excellent studies done in faculties of education would help debunk some of the ideas floating around that social sciences and education research produce little of benefit to society.

In this regard, the evidence that we place in legitimate systems of “accountability” that public bodies have to periodically activate will help to block perceptions that no doubt affect education research funding, with consequences, sooner or later, for the transfer of knowledge to education.

7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

It seems somewhat obvious to state that education science cannot be done apart from the substantive problems that occur in its area of impact (learning, education, training…). However, perhaps it may not be so obvious if, paraphrasing Gibbons et al. (1997, p. 4), we realize that education science is shaped from practice, and not solely by theory. We can see this in the range of problems identified in formal, non-formal, and even informal contexts in countries and societies that do not always share similar cultural backgrounds. Despite that, their requirements often agree in calling for educational research that centres on real problems and provides benefits from application within and outside the system. This means that it is important to recognize that in some cases, understanding educational phenomena cannot simply be reduced to a strict scientific argument (Bernal, 2020; Santos Rego et al., 2022) as there are approaches which are limited to interpretive or deconstructionist analysis.

In any case, there will be not good knowledge transfer without relevant educational research for improving intervention that enhances opportunities for people, groups, and organizations. This is especially so if the knowledge achieved is transferred as processes, products, and even services which have a measurable impact in the areas of application.

This is why, despite the objective difficulties we face, we must continue to make an effort to offer useful services and even products to people and the community. This will surely benefit our profession’s reputation and social influence.

Dissemination of consistent reports and studies about problems with a high social impact may be one vector of strategic action. This relates to periodic production of good summaries of educational research (Santos Rego, 2016a) through newsletters that, without being too expensive, could be made available to schools, organizations, and communities, ensuring a minimum level of explanatory support and training in the field.

We know from experience that knowledge transfer in education does not follow a single, exclusive path. Often it goes in both directions, both towards and away from the university. Such evidence encourages us to restate the possibility of having “linking agents” in the form of specialists in managing or facilitating communication and the exchange between researchers and educational practitioners. This figure is similar to what Bernal (2020) and Touriñan (2020) called “transfer mediators” from offices created for that purpose in universities, and from the centres of knowledge production. So much so that it is almost worth requesting posts for ‘mediation personnel’ with certain criteria who can invigorate transfer and perform technical functions.

Allow us one general observation to finish. Perhaps this structural articulation at an institutional level between research and knowledge transfer is the link that needs to be assembled and developed in the chain of social value. And it is fair to expect such an articulation in the coming years from the innovative potential of educational research programs and projects with a clear goal of exploring significant change in the forms and procedures available for improving education for the newest students along with society’s wellbeing.

At the end of the day, it is a question of perspective. The question needs to be asked, with a certain democratic firmness, who is responsible for making decisions in the university and in other agencies that matter in the education system?

REFERENCES

Agrafojo, J., Sotelino, A., Ruiz-Corbella, M., & García-Pérez, A. (2018). La Responsabilidad Social de la Universidad: aportaciones desde el Aprendizaje-Servicio. En A. Villa (Ed.), Tendencias actuales de las transformaciones de las Universidades en una nueva Sociedad Digital (pp. 409-410). Editorial Alvarellos.

Álvarez, J. M. (1986). Investigación cuantitativa/investigación cualitativa: ¿una falsa disyuntiva? En T. D. Cook & Ch. Reichard, Métodos cualitativos y cuantitativos en investigación evaluativa (pp. 9-23). Morata.

Arias, S., & Simón, A. (2004). Las Estructuras Solidarias de las Universidades Españolas: Organización y Funcionamiento. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid – Fundación Telefónica.

Aznar, I., Rodríguez-García, A. M., Cruz, J. C., & Martínez-Domingo, J. A. (2023). Propuestas de innovación y transferencia al sector educativo. Dykinson.

Baker, J. L. (2000). Evaluación del Impacto de los Proyectos de Desarrollo en la Pobreza. Banco Mundial.

Becheikh, N., Ziam, S., Idrissi, O., Castonguay, Y., & Landry R. (2010). How to improve knowledge transfer strategies and practices in education? Answers from a systematic literature review. Research in Higher Education Journal, 7, 1–21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284489891_How_to_improve_knowledge_transfer_strategies_and_practices_in_education_Answers_from_a_systematic_literature_review

Bericat, E. (1998). La Integración de los métodos cuantitativo y cualitativo en la investigación social. Significado y medida. Ariel.

Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: the hardest science of all., Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18-20. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008018

Bernal, A. (2020). Complejidad y dinámica de la transferencia de conocimiento en educación. En M. A. Santos-Rego (Ed.), La transferencia de conocimiento en educación. Un desafío estratégico (pp. 45-61). Narcea.

Bowen, H. (1984). Graduate education and social responsibility. New Directions for Higher Education, 46, 113-119. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.36919844619

Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology Transfer and Public Policy: A Review of Research and Theory. Research Policy, 29, 627-655. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00093-1

Bredo, E. (2009). Getting over the methodology wars., Educational Researcher, 38(6), 441-448. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25592133

Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative Research, 6, 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877

Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201-234. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374

Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). Mode 3 Knowledge Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems. 21st-Century Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Development. Springer Briefs in Business.

Caride, J. A. (2006). Las fronteras de la pedagogía social: Perspectivas científica e histórica. Gedisa.

Crain-Dorough, M., & Elder, A. C. (2021). Absorptive capacity as a means of understaning and addressing the disconnects between research and practice. En T. D. Pigott, Ch. Tocci, A. M. Ryan, & A. Galliher (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (Quality of Research Evidence in Education: How we do Know? (pp. 67-100). AERA.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press.

De la Cruz, C. (2010). La responsabilidad de la universidad en la sociedad que la acoge: ¿Complementariedad o antagonismo? En M. De la Cuesta, C. De la Cruz & J. M. Rodríguez (Coords.), Responsabilidad social universitaria (pp. 25-45). Editorial Netbiblo.

De las Heras, M. A. (2014). Investigación y transferencia para una educación en ciencias un reto emocionante. Universidad de Huelva.

Farley-Repple, E., May, H., Karpyn, A., Tilley, K., & McDonough, K. (2018). Rethinking Connections Between Research and Practice in Education: A Conceptual Framework. Educational Researcher, 47(4), 235-245. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18761042

Feinberg, W. (2012). The idea of a public education. En K. M. Borman, A. B. Danzig, & D. R. García (Eds.) Review of Research in Education (pp. 1-22). AERA.

Ferraces, M.J., Godas, A., & García-Álvarez, J. (2019). Cómo realizar un estudio científico en ciencias sociales, de la educación y de la salud. Dykinson.

Filstead, W. J. (1986). Métodos cualitativos. Una experiencia necesaria en la investigación evaluativa. En T. D. Cook & Ch. Reichard, Métodos cualitativos y cuantitativos en investigación evaluativa (pp. 59-79). Morata.

Fox, D. J. (1981). El proceso de investigación en educación. Ediciones de la Universidad de Navarra.

Gaete, R. (2011). La responsabilidad social universitaria como desafío para la gestión estratégica de la Educación Superior: el caso de España. Revista de Educación, 355, 109-133. https://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/dam/jcr:696aef5a-2b2b-4cc1-bc8d-3756532710c2/re35505-pdf.pdf

García del Dujo, A., Muñoz, J. M., & Martin, J. (2020). Identificación de marcadores de transferencia en la gestión del conocimiento en educación. En M. A. Santos-Rego (Ed.), La transferencia de conocimiento en educación. Un desafío estratégico (pp. 89-101). Narcea.

García, R., Escámez, J., Martínez, M., & Martínez, M. J. (2008). Aprendizaje de ciudadanía y educación superior. En S. Valdivieso & A. Almeida (Eds.), Educación y ciudadanía, Actas del XXVII Seminario Interuniversitario de Teoría de la Educación (pp. 81-120). SITE.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1997). La nueva producción del conocimiento. La dinámica de la ciencia y la investigación en las sociedades contemporáneas. Ediciones Pomares-Corredor.

González-Alcántara, O., Fontaneda, I., Camino, M., & Revilla, A. (Coords) (2016). Informe Responsabilidad Social en las Universidades: Del conocimiento a la acción. Pautas para su implantación. Forética.

González-Rabanal, M. A. (2022). La transferencia en el ámbito de las Ciencias Sociales: un reto posible. Thomson Reuters Aranzadi.

Hidalgo, A., León, G., & Pavón, J. (2002). La gestión de la innovación y la tecnología en las organizaciones. Ediciones Pirámide.

Knapp, M. S. (2003). Professional development as a policy pathway. Review of Research in Education, 27, 109–157. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3568129

Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1975). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

Kymlicka, W. (2003). La política vernácula. Nacionalismo, multiculturalismo y ciudadanía. Paidós.

Ley Orgánica 6/2001, de 21 de diciembre, de Universidades. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 307, de 24 diciembre de 2001. https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2001/BOE-A-2001-24515-consolidado.pdf

Ley Orgánica 4/2007, de 12 de abril, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 6/2001, de 21 de diciembre, de Universidades. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 89, de 13 de abril de 2007. https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2007/04/13/pdfs/A16241-16260.pdf

Ley Orgánica 2/2023, de 22 de marzo, del Sistema Universitario. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 70 de 23 de marzo de 2023. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2023/03/22/2/dof/spa/pdf

Mato, S. (2020). Universidad y transferencia de conocimiento en España. Un nuevo modelo para una nueva realidad. En M. A. Santos-Rego (Ed.), La transferencia de conocimiento en educación. Un desafío estratégico (pp. 15-33). Narcea.

Otero, O. F. (1974). La participación en los centros educativos. Eunsa.

Pascualetto, G., Dosio, M.A., & Franco, J. (2023). Avatares de los vínculos transferenciales en la pandemia Covid-19 y en la pos pandemia. Praxis Educativa, 27(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.19137/praxiseducativa-2023-270113

Pernía, J. C., Palacios, L. G., Transfi, M. L., & Sanabria, M. E. (2022). Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible y Responsabilidad Social Universitaria. Revista de ciencias sociales, 28(1), 367-385. https://doi.org/10.31876/rcs.v28i1.37699

Phillips, D. C. (2014). Research in the Hard Ssciences, and in Very Hard ‘Softer’ Domains., Educational Researcher, 43(1), 9-11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13520293

Real Decreto 1791/2010, de 30 de diciembre, por el que se aprueba el Estatuto del Estudiante Universitario. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 318, de 31 de diciembre.

Reichardt, Ch. S., & Cook, D. (1986). Hacia una superación del enfrentamiento entre los métodos cualitativos y los cuantitativos. En T. D. Cook & Ch. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Métodos cualitativos y cuantitativos en investigación evaluativa (pp. 25-59). Morata.

Rodríguez, J. M. (2010). Responsabilidad social universitaria: Del discurso simbólico a los desafíos reales. En M. De la Cuesta, C. De la Cruz & J. M. Rodríguez,: Responsabilidad social universitaria (pp. 3-24). Editorial Netbiblo.

Santos-Rego, M. A. (Dir.). (2004). A investigación educativa en Galicia (1989-2001). Xunta de Galicia.

Santos-Rego, M. A. (2016a). Introducción. Enfocando el alcance educativo de la relación entre universidad y sociedad del conocimiento en el sigo XXI. En Autor (Ed.), Sociedad del conocimiento. Aprendizaje e innovación en la universidad (pp. 13-20). Biblioteca Nueva.

Santos-Rego, M. A. (Ed.). (2016b). A investigación educativa en Galicia, 2002-2014. Editorial Galaxia.

Santos-Rego, M. A. (Ed.). (2020). La transferencia de conocimiento en educación. Un desafío estratégico. Narcea.

Santos-Rego, M. A., Lorenzo, M., & Miguez, G. (2022). Fondos de conocimiento familiar e intervención educativa: Comprender las circunstancias sociohistóricas de los estudiantes. Narcea.

Santoveña, S. M., & Gil Quintana, J. (2022). Redes de cooperación internacional para la transferencia del conocimiento, la investigación y el aprendizaje digital (en tiempos inciertos). Dykinson.

Snow, C. E. (2015). Rigor and realism. Doing educational science in the real world. Educational Researcher, 44(9), 460-466. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15619166

Sotelino, A., Santos Rego, M. A., & Lorenzo, M.. (2016). Aprender y servir en la universidad: una vía cívica al desarrollo educativo. Teoría de la Educación. Revista Interuniversitaria, 28(2), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.14201/teoredu282225248

Suri, H., & Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in Research Synthesis Methods: From a Methodologically Inclusive Perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 395-430. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326349

Szulanski, G. (2000). The Process of Knowledge Transfer: A Diachronic Analysis of Stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 9-27. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2884

Taylor, J. A., Davis, E., & Michaelson, L. E. (2021). Considerations for evidence frameworks in education research., En T. D. Pigott, Ch. Tocci, A. M. Ryan, & A. Galliher (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (Quality of Research Evidence in Education: How we do Know? (pp. 101-128). AERA.

Torres, P., & Cobo-Beltrán, J. K. (2022). Educación superior e investigación el papel de la universidad en la transformación social. Revista de filosofía, 39(2), 494-505. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6792384

Touriñán, J. M. (Coord.).(2020). Pedagogía, competencia técnica y transferencia de conocimiento: la perspectiva mesoaxiológica. Editorial Andavira.

Ugarte, C., & Naval, C. (2010). Desarrollo de competencias profesionales en la educación superior. Un caso docente concreto. Revista electronica de Investigación Educativa, 12, 1-14. https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1607-40412010000300003

Weiman, C. E. (2014). The Similarities Between Research in Education and Research in the Hard Sciences. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 12-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13520294

Wellington, J. (2015). Educational Research Contemporary Issues and Practical Approaches. Bloomsbury.

Whitty, G. (2006). Education(al) research and education policy making: is conflict inevitable? British Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 159-176. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920600568919