Joseph A. Taylor, G. Michael Bowen, Marcus Kubsch, Ryan Summers, Asli Sezen-Barrie, Patricia Patrick, Cathy Lachapelle, AbdiRizak Warfa, S. Selcen Guzey
{"title":"跨越研究界与实践界的界限:研究用途和跨社区期刊作者身份的作用","authors":"Joseph A. Taylor, G. Michael Bowen, Marcus Kubsch, Ryan Summers, Asli Sezen-Barrie, Patricia Patrick, Cathy Lachapelle, AbdiRizak Warfa, S. Selcen Guzey","doi":"10.1002/tea.21914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study pursued two major objectives. The first was to use bibliometric techniques to examine bidirectionality in the relationship between teachers and researchers, as indicated by collaborative authorship among these communities. The second was to explore more deeply knowledge mobilization to classrooms by documenting the extent to which research is cited in science education practitioner journals (SEPJ). Specifically, we examined: (a) the frequency of collaboration between researchers and practitioners in the writing of journal articles for both practitioner-focused and academic journals in science education, and (b) the extent to which authors of articles in practitioner-focused journals drew on academic research to support their advocacy for and/or description of science education programs, policies, or practices. Findings indicate that writing collaborations among academic researchers and practitioners are relatively infrequent, even on practitioner-focused articles. Also, articles in SEPJs more often cite books and other resources over academic journals, even those academic journals focused on informing science education teaching and learning. Recommendations include providing open access to published research, development of research summaries for lay audiences, and incentivizing practitioners to engage in research and writing. This study explores only one mechanism by which knowledge can be mobilized to classrooms and only one type of dissemination product (i.e., journal articles) upon which researchers and practitioners can collaborate. Additional limitations are noted including the applicability of the findings only to the specific journals and timeframes analyzed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":"61 7","pages":"1727-1754"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tea.21914","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Crossing boundaries between research and practitioner communities: The role of research use and cross-community journal authorship\",\"authors\":\"Joseph A. Taylor, G. Michael Bowen, Marcus Kubsch, Ryan Summers, Asli Sezen-Barrie, Patricia Patrick, Cathy Lachapelle, AbdiRizak Warfa, S. Selcen Guzey\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/tea.21914\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This study pursued two major objectives. The first was to use bibliometric techniques to examine bidirectionality in the relationship between teachers and researchers, as indicated by collaborative authorship among these communities. The second was to explore more deeply knowledge mobilization to classrooms by documenting the extent to which research is cited in science education practitioner journals (SEPJ). Specifically, we examined: (a) the frequency of collaboration between researchers and practitioners in the writing of journal articles for both practitioner-focused and academic journals in science education, and (b) the extent to which authors of articles in practitioner-focused journals drew on academic research to support their advocacy for and/or description of science education programs, policies, or practices. Findings indicate that writing collaborations among academic researchers and practitioners are relatively infrequent, even on practitioner-focused articles. Also, articles in SEPJs more often cite books and other resources over academic journals, even those academic journals focused on informing science education teaching and learning. Recommendations include providing open access to published research, development of research summaries for lay audiences, and incentivizing practitioners to engage in research and writing. This study explores only one mechanism by which knowledge can be mobilized to classrooms and only one type of dissemination product (i.e., journal articles) upon which researchers and practitioners can collaborate. Additional limitations are noted including the applicability of the findings only to the specific journals and timeframes analyzed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48369,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Research in Science Teaching\",\"volume\":\"61 7\",\"pages\":\"1727-1754\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tea.21914\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Research in Science Teaching\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21914\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21914","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Crossing boundaries between research and practitioner communities: The role of research use and cross-community journal authorship
This study pursued two major objectives. The first was to use bibliometric techniques to examine bidirectionality in the relationship between teachers and researchers, as indicated by collaborative authorship among these communities. The second was to explore more deeply knowledge mobilization to classrooms by documenting the extent to which research is cited in science education practitioner journals (SEPJ). Specifically, we examined: (a) the frequency of collaboration between researchers and practitioners in the writing of journal articles for both practitioner-focused and academic journals in science education, and (b) the extent to which authors of articles in practitioner-focused journals drew on academic research to support their advocacy for and/or description of science education programs, policies, or practices. Findings indicate that writing collaborations among academic researchers and practitioners are relatively infrequent, even on practitioner-focused articles. Also, articles in SEPJs more often cite books and other resources over academic journals, even those academic journals focused on informing science education teaching and learning. Recommendations include providing open access to published research, development of research summaries for lay audiences, and incentivizing practitioners to engage in research and writing. This study explores only one mechanism by which knowledge can be mobilized to classrooms and only one type of dissemination product (i.e., journal articles) upon which researchers and practitioners can collaborate. Additional limitations are noted including the applicability of the findings only to the specific journals and timeframes analyzed.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, the official journal of NARST: A Worldwide Organization for Improving Science Teaching and Learning Through Research, publishes reports for science education researchers and practitioners on issues of science teaching and learning and science education policy. Scholarly manuscripts within the domain of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching include, but are not limited to, investigations employing qualitative, ethnographic, historical, survey, philosophical, case study research, quantitative, experimental, quasi-experimental, data mining, and data analytics approaches; position papers; policy perspectives; critical reviews of the literature; and comments and criticism.