Connecting education evidence with country priorities

How can collaboration among education funders and research partners better support the evidence that countries need?

On 14 September, 2026, Building Evidence in Education (BE²) brought members and Special Interest Group participants together in person in Oxford, UK and online to explore this question.

The working session considered how country-based and regional research is changing, what support will matter over the next three to five years, and which functions remain underserved. It also asked where BE² could contribute in a landscape with many existing networks and initiatives.

A changing but unequal research landscape

In her opening presentation, Pauline Essah, CEO of Education Sub Saharan Africa (ESSA), described greater African leadership in education research and growing interest in evidence that addresses government decisions and implementation. Yet visibility, resources and influence remain uneven. Research does not travel easily across language communities . In addition, some countries, institutions, education levels and population groups receive much less attention than others. Furthermore, participation by African researchers does not necessarily mean control over research questions, funding or interpretation.

Her examples illustrated what it means to work through systems that governments already own. In Kenya, ministry quality assurance data supported reporting across all 47 counties. In Malawi, government-requested support focused on strengthening existing learner data systems. These examples placed the emphasis on making information usable within institutions, with continuing support alongside training where needed.

Pauline also described several pathways through which evidence can influence decisions: national policy, institutional routines, professional learning, and classroom practice. Her slides included teacher motivation research in Ghana contributing to work on a grievance mechanism, and school leadership evidence informing course and curriculum reviews in Tanzania. She distinguished these signs of institutional uptake from proof of improved services or learning outcomes.

Country ownership reaches beyond a research project

The subsequent discussion explored what changes when countries set their own research and learning agendas. Participants described the importance of responding to those priorities and involving national and regional institutions as agenda setters and knowledge leaders. Country ownership also extends beyond ministries to universities, practitioners, communities and learners.

This raised questions about how support is organised. Short projects can leave evidence use dependent on temporary teams and relationships. Participants discussed investment in the people, institutions and routines that allow education systems to learn over time. Regional collaboration was seen as valuable when it strengthens national capability and brings learning back into country decisions.

Using evidence depends on relationships and practical experience

A recurring theme was that producing and circulating research is only part of the work. Participants described peer exchanges, sustained advice and support, and opportunities to learn from the experience of implementing reforms. These approaches allow decision-makers to ask practical questions, discuss obstacles and consider how evidence applies in their own settings.

The discussion also broadened the picture of who helps connect evidence with action. Teacher educators, policy advisers, government staff and other intermediaries can all play this role. Questions arose about how these people learn from one another, how their capabilities are developed, and how the initiatives supporting them could share experience more effectively. Relationships, incentives and political priorities were central to this conversation.

More evidence, or better use of what already exists?

Participants explored a tension between making better use of existing research and continuing to generate new knowledge. Global findings can offer a useful starting point, but can leave important questions about local costs, language, context and delivery at scale unanswered. Implementation can itself expose questions that require further research.

The conversation therefore considered how country, regional and global evidence could inform one another. Participants discussed learning during delivery, adapting approaches as problems emerge, and understanding why results differ between settings. They also raised the mismatch between research timelines, funding cycles and the pace at which policymakers need answers.

Collaboration has to address funding and fragmentation

Longer-term, more flexible support featured prominently, alongside recognition that funders face pressure to demonstrate results and align spending with institutional priorities. Participants raised domestic and regional financing as possible parts of a more sustainable approach to supporting research and evidence use.

For BE², the discussion generated ideas about connecting existing initiatives, bringing a wider range of countries and funders into conversations, and operating as a “network of networks”. Mapping research and funding activity was one possible way to identify gaps and overlap. Participants also discussed making better use of existing evidence resources, including connections to efforts that keep evidence syntheses up to date. The question was how to improve access and reuse while ensuring that research in less visible languages and settings is included.

The discussion kept returning to how collaboration connects with decisions in education systems: whose questions shape research, who has the resources and influence to pursue them, and how people learn from evidence and one another. Together, these themes brought the conversation back to the purpose of collaboration itself: supporting the people and institutions that generate, interpret and use evidence to improve education. For BE², they provide a starting point for considering how its network can better connect funders and evidence partners around country priorities.