Crossing boundaries between research and practitioner communities: The role of research use and cross‐community journal authorship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.224 | 0.591 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".