In recent years, the idea of evidence-informed education has been increasingly discussed in discussions about teaching. Policymakers refer to it. Research groups promote it. In conversations about education, it has almost become a default reference point: schools and teachers who should use research.

From my own perspective, I am certainly not against this idea. Quite the opposite. At the same time, there is also considerable scepticism. Some fear that education could become overly technocratic. Others point out, correctly, that research can never directly prescribe what a teacher should do in a specific classroom.

Somewhere between those two positions lies a practical question that is asked less often: if we want research to play a role in education, how do we actually organise that?

The education system does not seem to be fully designed for it. A recent OECD report on the role of research institutions and initial teacher education in supporting the use of research clearly illustrates this.

Research institutions and teacher education programmes are often seen as the main actors responsible for bringing research into practice. That sounds logical. Universities produce research. Teacher education prepares future teachers. If there is a bridge between research and classroom practice, it should be there.

In practice, however, the connection appears less straightforward.

A majority of teacher education institutions themselves report that graduating teachers have not always developed sufficient skills to engage with research. Only about a third of institutions believe that new teachers will actively look for research when they encounter a problem in their practice. Even fewer think graduates feel confident assessing the quality of educational research.

This does not mean teachers lack interest in research. But teachers do not automatically develop the skills to find research, interpret it and translate it into classroom practice.

On the other side of the system, research institutions face their own challenges. Many universities still reward researchers mainly for publishing in academic journals. Activities such as collaborating with schools, communicating research to broader audiences or translating findings into practical insights often receive far less structural attention.

That is understandable. Science follows its own logic and its own quality criteria. But it also means that research does not simply travel from universities into classrooms.

The report uses a term that has become more common in recent years, and that is not unfamiliar to me either: knowledge mobilisation. The authors use it to describe all the work required to make research genuinely usable for policy and practice. Producing research is only one part of that work. Researchers also need to make findings accessible, build relationships with practitioners and strengthen people’s capacity to engage with research.

And that is exactly where difficulties often arise.

Many education systems still assume that the connection between research and practice will emerge on its own. Universities produce research. Teacher education programmes prepare teachers. Schools teach students. Somewhere in between, knowledge is supposed to flow.

In reality, that assumption often proves overly optimistic.

One of the more striking observations in the OECD report is actually quite simple: institutions that receive an explicit mandate to translate research into policy or practice become much more active in doing so. When knowledge sharing forms part of the job, with time and resources attached, it tends to happen. When people must do it “on top of everything else”, it usually remains limited.

That may sound almost trivial, but it points to an important insight. Evidence-informed education requires more than goodwill. It requires infrastructure: people, time, structures and organisations that actively maintain the connection between research and practice.

Research does not move into practice by itself. Systems have to organise that movement.

Teacher education programmes can develop stronger research engagement skills. Research institutions can invest more in communication and collaboration with schools. Policymakers can design structures that support the use of research. And some organisations can focus specifically on connecting research, policy and practice.

Exactly how this should look will differ from one education system to another. But one conclusion seems hard to avoid: if we want research to play a meaningful role in education, we cannot rely solely on the efforts of individual teachers or researchers.

The system itself has to support that ambition.