Disseminating early years research: an illustrative case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to outline a knowledge translation (KT) case study undertaken as part of a multi-component research programme aimed at evaluating new parenting supports in the earliest years. The study aimed to: explore the influencing factors relating to research use in an early years context; and to use the findings, at least in part, to execute an integrated KT plan – to promote stakeholder engagement, greater research visibility and to enhance the understanding of findings emerging from the research programme. Design/methodology/approach A mixed-methods study was embedded within a large-scale, longitudinal research programme. In the present study, a national survey ( n = 162) was administered to stakeholders working with children and families throughout Ireland. A series of one-to-one interviews were also undertaken ( n = 37) to amplify the survey findings. Also, one focus group was carried out with parents ( n = 8) and one with members of the research team ( n = 3). Several dissemination strategies were concurrently developed, executed and evaluated, based partly on survey and interview findings and guided by the knowledge translation planning template (Barwick, 2008; 2013; 2019). Findings The main factors influencing the dissemination of evidence, as identified by the stakeholders – were: a lack of resources; an under-developed understanding of research use and dissemination; insufficient collaboration and communication; and conflicting stakeholder priorities. Despite these challenges, the research programme was found to benefit from a multi-component KT plan to achieve the outlined dissemination goals. Practical implications The KT planning process allowed the research team to be more accountable, introspective and to work more efficiently. This helped increase the likelihood of more targeted and successful dissemination of the research findings, delivering a better return on research investment. Originality/value This is the first study of its kind (to our knowledge) to provide important insights for stakeholders in Ireland and elsewhere about how to improve the dissemination process. Effective KT planning can ultimately help to bridge the research-policy-practice gap and enable the effective translation of high-quality evidence in the early years’ sector to enhance outcomes for families in the shorter and longer-term.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".