#KMb Job Posting: Postdoctoral Fellow in Knowledge Mobilization in Education (OISE/UT)
Postdoctoral Fellow in Knowledge Mobilization in Education
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at the University of Toronto invites applications for a postdoctoral position in Knowledge Mobilization in Education. The candidate selected will work under the direction of Dr. Karen Mundy, Professor and Associate Dean, Research, International and Innovation and Dr. Carol Campbell, Associate Professor and Director of the Knowledge Mobilization Lab.
Term of Appointment
The term of appointment is one year, full time starting March 31, 2014 or soon after.
Applicants are expected to be in residence for the duration of the appointment.
Stipend: The annual stipend is $40,000.00
Application Procedure
Please submit applications including a cover letter, C.V. and the name and contact information of three references by March 6, 2014 to oise.research@utoronto.ca
Innovation Hype in Education – Some Considerations for Caution #KMb
In this post, guest blogger and PhD candidate Nathalie Carrier challenges the current hype of innovation in education. What has “innovation” come to mean? Why do we find it so compelling? And why should we ultimately be cautious of this growing trend?
—-
Innovation Hype in Education – Some Considerations for Caution
Recently there has been a building hype and enthusiasm in education for ideas around entrepreneurship and innovation- how individual initiative, energy and creative problem- solving can help develop those innovative solutions needed to nudge hampered and inert institutions.
The dialogue often uses charged language; entrepreneurs or ‘enterprisers’ are ‘bold,’ ‘persistent’ and ‘transformative’ (e.g. see some recent work on education and social entrepreneurship: Childress, 2010; Hess, 2006; Sandler, 2010). They are the ‘disruptive pioneers’ that rely on the supply-side. By introducing new ideas in the education marketplace, the belief is that the innovators are perhaps less restricted by the larger education system and therefore have greater possibility for filling market needs and solving problems than that which could take place within and through the system alone.
The education industry is soaked in the language of ‘innovation’ and ‘innovativeness’ as well. For instance, take a look at some of the major education philanthropic organizations in education (e.g. Walton, Kauffman, etc.) and you will see several that highlight entrepreneurship and/or innovation as a central approach. Professional associations of all sorts commonly tout support of an ‘innovative’ approach of one form or another, or offer various ‘innovations’ for educators to use. Peer reviewed journals use the term ‘innovation’ in their title names. Education incubators and venture capital organizations such as Imagine K12 Inc, Kauffman Education Ventures, and New Schools Venture Fund are actively promoting and drawing attention to the approach of bringing new ideas to the market…
But why does the idea of novelty and innovative solutions hold so much appeal?
Behind the idea of innovation is a set of assumptions about how the education system operates. Education systems are considered to be change-averse and bureaucratic, restricted by many obstacles (e.g. collective bargaining agreements, competing stakeholder interests, resistant institutional cultures, etc) preventing the movement of real change. Regardless the intentions of reformers, it is believed that system-wide reform efforts are unlikely to succeed due to this asphyxiating bureaucracy. The merits of a ‘one size fits all’ approach are questioned over the possibilities of those more nontraditional reforms operating “at the edges of the system.”
Perhaps innovation as a concept holds a certain binary kind of appeal as well. If what has been tried in the past has not worked, there must be a new method or practice or device that can work better. The innovation should either work or it doesn’t. The idea of ‘novelty’ in itself has an inherent appeal. When something feels stale, burdensome or difficult, it’s tempting to want to place it all to the side as one recreates or creates space for something ‘different’ and new.
And perhaps it is simply consistent with a westernized and American way of thinking, an entrepreneurial spirit and of individual initiative. Though they are rare in comparison to the amount of small scale, ineffective or costly efforts, successful and widely used innovations such as google, facebook, twitter and others may increase one’s belief in the ability of new things to create rapid, positive and dramatic change. Quick advancements in technology may lead one to believe that there is continued possibility and potential in their application.
However, regardless the reasons behind its appeal, there are several important considerations I wanted to bring forth that I think tend to get overlooked in all the hype—
First is around the meaning of innovation.
What does it mean to be innovative? To experiment with and test new ideas? Share practices and seek to improve oneself? A relentless drive for better performance? Not settling for the norm, the average, the expected, but seeking more? Does it mean to have the capacity to learn from one’s mistakes and from others? Implement a new product precisely as specified?
The use of the term ‘innovation’ in a loose way in education is interesting in that several kinds of ideas, practices, products and things talked about as ‘new’ or ‘innovative’ may have been tried and experimented with in the past. In that sense, what is ‘innovative’ in one setting may not be innovative in another.
It may be a practice, idea or approach that had been experimented several times, while nevertheless perceived as novel in that particular time and place.
The innovation may be a re-packaging of an existing idea; it could be a new product, but it also could simply be a general idea for how a particular product should work or be implemented. The innovation as an idea may take the form of an educational practice, approach, modality, etc.
In addition, the outcome of the ‘innovation’ may be more difficult to measure, for instance, what is effective and innovative in one context may be counter-effective and faddish in another; that the innovation could have different effects depending on the time, place, and population of the setting; that it may be difficult in fact to see whether or not the innovation itself has caused a certain outcome.
Therefore, there is a complexity around considering what ‘counts’ as an innovation in education- If one considers innovation to be something that creates a change and ‘new’ in a sense to that time and place, an innovation can count as almost any kind of change one can observe or think of. In a classroom setting it could be as complex as implementing a new prescribed curriculum or as simple as a change in the physical set up or space of the classroom.
The second point I wanted to bring forth is that innovation is not unusual; innovation is abundant.
The education industry is flooded with ideas that are promoted as new and innovative. One way to observe this is by searching the Internet. A simple online search for the terms ‘product,’ ‘research’ and ‘education’ and a particular subject area (e.g. literacy, mathematics, physical education, arts) generates millions of hits for each, hundreds and thousands of which could be innovations that are of potential relevance to educators and that may market themselves or claim to draw from evidence in one form or another (we have a publication in press on this- contact Shasta for a draft).
The trendiness of the education industry is also of particular concern. Several scholars will point out that the history of education is a chronicle of many many failed innovations that are often cyclical in nature, e.g. repeating the mistakes of the past or promoting ideas or things that look quite similar to ones already tried. Particularly problematic are the faddish kinds of innovations that get adopted without much supporting evidence (e.g. see Cuban, 2004; Ravitch, 2004; Sarason, 1990; Slavin, 1999). From historic innovations such as the open concept classroom, core knowledge, comprehensive schools, and whole language instruction, and the current attractiveness around ideas like school choice and markets, accountability and testing, global education, multiple intelligences, multiculturalism, creative thinking, distance learning, student-centered learning and character education, one only need look at popular education periodicals of the time to find those reforms that are most popular.
Third, it is important to consider the costs of ineffective innovations. Experimentation can be enormously wasteful.
It is common knowledge that the failure rate for start-ups is high; ventures capital investments often don’t pan out. It is important also to remember that to create an innovation does not necessarily guarantee that that something will have the kind of impact one anticipates or hopes for. Not is there a guarantee that it will sustain, scale up or have any lasting or meaningful impact. For instance, there is a lot of belief in the ability of technology to transform learning practice. However, technology requires costs- network set up, teacher and student training, trouble shooting, etc that may supersede its potential benefits. If not considered carefully, the potential costs of innovations can be enormous- and it would be particularly troubling if the innovations are not consistent with what is known in the related research literature on effective practice or even more-so if the innovation has already been tried in several forms in different times and places.
As a final thought, I want to suggest that perhaps we reconsider what it means to be entrepreneurial and take caution in getting lost in all the hype of novelty and innovativeness. Perhaps what we really need is a more robust system for collecting and distributing knowledge about practices we know work well—and to be especially careful about claims about newly promoted innovations. Newness may not really be new on the surface; innovations may not really be innovative if they’re not based on reasonable evidence; and the potential costs of experimenting blindly can greatly exceed the benefits. Disruptive pioneering aside, perhaps what it means to be truly entrepreneurial is combining and implementing those practices that we know work well.
—-
Nathalie Carrier is a PhD Candidate, Educational Administration in the Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education at OISE/University of Toronto.
For more information about Nathalie and her research, please visit >>http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/rspe/OISE_KM_Team/Nathalie_Carrier2.html
Questioning the hype: Is innovation in education a worthwhile pursuit? #KMb
In education, as in other fields, the terms “innovation” and “innovative” have become buzz words commonly used to promote all sorts of products, events, policies, partnerships and lines of research. The general consensus seems to be that “innovation” is a worthy pursuit and that “innovative” things (education resources, events, policies, and programs, etc.) are, of course, better than those that are not innovative.
A quick search of Ontario education websites on December 31, 2013 points to how frequently these terms are used: the Ontario College of Teachers’ website returns 203 hits for “innovation” (http://www.oct.ca/common/search-results?searchStr=innovation), the York Region District School Board returns 750 hits for “innovative,” (http://www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/) and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario website returns 768 hits for the same word (http://www.etfo.ca/Search/Results.aspx?k=innovative&s=ETFO%20Web). Meanwhile, the homepage of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) includes a link at the top of its webpage for “innovation”, which directs readers to a description of the TDSB’s commitment and efforts towards innovation in the school board (http://www.tdsb.on.ca/AboutUs/Innovation.aspx).
Additionally, in 2013 the Ontario Ministry of Education brought together practitioners and researchers at its annual Ontario Education Research Symposium (OERS), which focused on “Innovation for Education Improvement.” And the American Educational Research Association (AERA) is gearing up to host its annual conference in 2014, which will focus on “The Power of Education Research for Innovation in Practice and Policy.”
With all of this excitement, it is easy to become swept-up on the innovation bandwagon. But are we foolish to get caught up in this frenzy?
In the first KnowledgeMobilization post of 2014, guest blogger and PhD candidate Nathalie Carrier will challenge the current hype of innovation in education. What has “innovation” come to mean? Why do we find it so compelling? And why should we ultimately be cautious of this growing trend?
In her upcoming post on January 1, 2014 Nathalie will answer these questions and more!
For information on Nathalie Carrier and her research, please visit >> http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/rspe/OISE_KM_Team/Nathalie_Carrier2.html
$15K Challenge to Enhance Women’s Health Research in Ontario #KMb
Received this announcement via the KTECoP listserv:
To join the KTECoP community and the KTECoP listserv, click here >> http://www.ktecop.ca/membership/mailing-list/
….The $15K Challenge is an initiative of Women’s Xchange aimed at enhancing women’s health research in the community [Ontario]. The main purpose of the $15K Challenge is to provide individuals in community-based organizations working alone or in collaboration with other community or academic organizations with an opportunity to identify important issues that affect ideas that could improve women’s health in their communities. I have embedded the formal funding announcement below.
Latest #KMb article review from David Phipps: Amo, C. (2007) Conceptualizing research impact
Latest KMb journal article review from David Phipps now available: Amo, C. (2007). Conceptualizing research impact: The case of education research
“Every month, David Phipps (RIR-York) reviews a different academic journal article related to knowledge mobilization and posts his review, along with questions, on the ResearchImpact – Réseau Impact Recherche Journal Club page of our O3 space. Here is a summary of this month’s Journal Club entry….
Article abstract
This qualitative study aims at conceptualizing research impact generally by studying the specific case of research impact in the field of education. An analysis process akin to grounded theory was applied to the analysis of sections of reports provided by educational researchers. Literature on the subject of research impact was used to substantiate and complete the portrait of educational research impact that emerged from the data. The resulting conceptual framework proposes five interdependent stages, each one characteristic of certain categories of research impact that are typically interrelated in time and in terms of researcher control. “
Read more >> https://researchimpact.othree.ca/forums/journalclub/conceptualizing_research_impact_the_case_of_education_research
#KMb Podcast: Interview with Robert Slavin on current role of evidence in education & vision for greater use
The following is via Best Evidence in Brief, a bi-weekly e-newsletter from the Johns Hopkins School of Education’s Center for Research and Reform in Education and University of York’s Institute for Effective Education. [sign-up for newsletter here]
“The field of education has seen a growing emphasis on the use on evidence for decision making about programs and practices. Even so, much more progress is needed. To learn more, we’re joined by Robert Slavin (@RobertSlavin), a leader in the area of evidence policy in education.
Dr. Slavin is the Director of the Center for Research and Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University, Chairman of the Success for All Foundation, a part-time professor at the Institute for Effective Education at the University of York (England) and a columnist for the Huffington Post. He recently gave the keynote address to the American Psychological Association titled “Evidence-based reform in education.”
The interview discusses the current role of evidence in education, a vision for its greater use, and examples of efforts to use and grow the evidence base in education and encourage research-based reform, including the Investing in Innovation (i3) grant program at the U.S. Department of Education.”
Tips for implementing evidence-based programs via @RobertSlavin #KMb
In his recent blog post, Robert Slavin shares tips for implementing evidence-based programs, including:
Rethinking traditional research-practice relationships
Embeding within existing structures
Aligning with existing initiatives, tools, and processes
Finding the right communications channels and messengers
Read Slavin’s blog post here >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-e-slavin/lessons-from-innovators-c_b_3988028.html
These mobilization and implementation strategies are similar to those outlined in Nutley, Walter, and Davies’ 2007 review of evidence-use in public service sectors, called “Using Evidence: How research can inform public services. The strategies are also similar to lessons we are learning from 44 knowledge mobilization projects in Ontario, funded by the Knowledge Network for Applied Education Research (KNAER).
Building a knowledge mobilization plan and wondering what strategies to use? Browse #KMb strategies used by 44 Ontario projects
If you are considering the types of knowledge mobilization strategies to include in a KMb plan, then it’s worth checking out the Knowledge Network for Applied Education Research (KNAER) website, which includes info on 44 KMb projects (here in Ontario!) that have typically involved partnerships between researchers and practitioners in education.
These projects have been working to mobilize research knowledge in the Ontario education sector over the last 2 years and have learned a tremendous amount about KMb strategies, barriers to mobilization, and methods of overcoming these barriers!
Once on the KNAER website, you can scroll through the projects to find one that interests you… or, even better a project that is working on a similar topic as you… and then click on “READ MORE” to learn about the types of knowledge mobilization strategies they used.
If you are interested in learning even more about a project and the knowledge mobilization strategies used, you can also email the project lead(s) by clicking on their name(s).
If you are new to knowledge mobilization it can be useful to connect and learn from others who are working to mobilize research knowledge in your research area! ! So don’t delay, take a look >> http://www.knaer-recrae.ca/knaer-projects
Job Announcement at KTECOP: Want to be a Knowledge Broker with NCCMT? #KMb
Job posting on the KTECOP website:
“Want to be a Knowledge Broker with NCCMT?
by SCOTT MITCHELL AUGUST 28, 2013
This position is responsible for working with public health professionals to develop workshop content, online learning module content, webinar development and implementation, and relationship and network development with public health decision makers and practitioners… “
For more information, please visit the KTECOP website >> http://www.ktecop.ca/
Call for original content on knowledge mobilization issues: Institute for Knowledge Mobilization #KMb
From the Institute for Knowledge Mobilization website:
“Call for original content on knowledge mobilization issues.
by PETER LEVESQUE on 09/16/2013 · 0 COMMENTS
The Institute for Knowledge Mobilization is a non-profit organization focused on: education, learning and capacity development on issues of knowledge mobilization; collaboration and community engagement; applied research and policy support; and evaluation and monitoring.
If you are passionate about these areas of work – as a researcher, practitioner, administrator, student, community leader or any role that intersects with the application of evidence into practice, policy and programs – please consider becoming a writer for the multi-authored blog of the IKMb…. “
For more information, please see the Institute for Knowledge Mobilization’s website >> http://www.knowledgemobilization.net/archives/2870
knowledgemobilization 