Despite the increased interest in research impact, there is very little empirical evidence that educational research can inform practice directly, and furthermore, a body of literature which suggests that this is, in principle, impossible. This paper reports on a study in which secondary school teachers were given research findings about teaching gifted and talented students, and were supported, over a 12‐month period, to incorporate findings into action research projects of their own devising. A theoretical framework from the research literature was used to investigate the process by which knowledge generated from research, was transformed into teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, thereby influencing the curriculum, pedagogy and provision for these students. Evidence suggests that teachers transformed propositional knowledge into practical knowledge by developing their conceptual understandings; they transformed abstract, impersonal knowledge into context‐specific, personal knowledge by using cases from their previous experiences, and they transformed narrowly focused knowledge into broadly focused knowledge by imaginatively diffusing it into areas beyond those in the original research. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Recent policy statements have urged greater use of research to guide teaching, with some commentators calling for a ‘revolution’ in evidence-based practice. Scholarly literature suggests that research can influence policy and practice in ‘instrumental’, ‘conceptual’ or ‘strategic’ ways. This paper analyses data from two studies in English comprehensive schools, in which teachers were given research reports about teaching gifted and talented students, and supported over a 12-month period, to incorporate findings into practitioner research projects of their own devising. Participant observation data, interviews and teachers’ written reports were analysed in three phases; analysis revealed that the teachers used research in instrumental and strategic ways, but only very occasionally. More frequently, their use of research was conceptual. Within this category, research influenced what teachers thought about, and how they thought. The process is theorised as a ‘long, focused discussion’, to which research contributed a ‘third voice’, in dialogue with individual teachers (the ‘first voice’) and their colleagues (the ‘second voice’). Given the dearth of empirical work on this topic, it is argued that this theory, whilst tentative, provides an appropriately nuanced framework for further investigations of teachers’ use of research evidence.

In this paper, I argue that the movement for research utilisation in education can be seen as part of an attempt to alter the foundations on which teachers base their decisions, replacing liberal values with which teaching has been associated, with the values of ‘what works’. I review the empirical literature around teachers’ use of research to ascertain why teachers access educational research; how they understand and evaluate research; the effect of teachers’ research use on their teaching and students; and some of the differences between teachers’ attitudes to research. At present, there is little evidence that teachers’ values are undermined by research utilisation but there is a need to keep this matter under review.

Internationally, efforts are being made for educational practice to be research-informed on the grounds that schoolteachers will implement what research shows will ‘work’. However, teachers do not necessarily accept research findings; sometimes they contest them. This article considers teachers’ contestation in two empirical studies, using the concepts of denial, opposition, rejection and dissent as a framework for understanding such contestation. It finds three reasons why teachers contest research evidence: within-research issues, issues around generalising from research to practice, and non-congruence with personal values. These are explored with reference to the power differentials that are said to exist between research and practice.

In a culture of performativity, action research offers teachers an opportunity to step back and reflect on their practice. This paper reports on a collaborative project carried out between a university and a secondary school in England, in which the university staff supported an action research project within the school. Five school teachers volunteered to engage in this project. They were given an introduction to action research and were assigned a university researcher to support them. Despite the common input and a common school culture, the teachers engaged in very different models of action research. This article reports on two teachers whose approaches were dissimilar. It examines these differences and suggests that they can be explained by considering the teachers’ different responses to a performativity culture.