Fighting misinformation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what we still need to learn


Maithreyi Gopalan and Francesca Lopez

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Countermeasures to misinformation: lessons from the social sciences and applications to education in the United States‘, part of the Evidence & Policy Special Issue: Research (Mis)use and Mis/Disinformation in and around Education.

In today’s polarised political climate, misinformation about education has fueled book bans, educational gag orders and teacher self-censorship – developments that threaten the integrity of our public education system. From debates about critical race theory to evidence-based teaching practices, false or misleading claims spread rapidly, shaping policy decisions at school, district, state and federal levels.

Despite the urgency of this problem, there is remarkably little research on how misinformation spreads in education or how to effectively counter it. In a new study published in Evidence & Policy, we comprehensively review and synthesise evidence from about 400 studies published broadly in the social sciences between 2010 and 2024 to identify what we know (and don’t know) about fighting misinformation in the uniquely decentralised world of US public education.

Research shows that false information spreads faster and more broadly than true information online, making this work especially urgent. While scholars continue to debate how best to define and study misinformation, we adopt a broad, inclusive definition of misinformation encompassing both intentional and unintentional false or misleading information consistent with prevailing expert guidance. We use the term misinformation throughout the review to describe the full spectrum of inaccurate or distorted information, regardless of intent and are particularly focused on uncovering remedies to mitigate ‘systemic misinformation’ that operates through mis-, dis- and mal-information channels.

Continue reading

Far-right mother organisations and their crusade against public education


Danfeng Soto-Vigil Koon, Huriya Jabbar, Kiah Combs, Mira McDavitt, Tamra J. Malone and Teresa Leyva

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Mama bears in the belly of the beast: Moms for Liberty disinformation campaigns in California’, part of the Evidence & Policy Special Issue: Research (Mis)use and Mis/Disinformation in and around Education.

Far-right extremism – often characterised by nativism, religious fundamentalism, White supremacy and misogyny – is on the rise worldwide. And education has become a key battleground. The thought of far-right extremism often conjures images of angry young men, but the attack on public education in the United States and associated democratic institutions (such as local and regional elected school boards) has actually been spearheaded by a highly coordinated mothers’ organisation, Moms for Liberty.

Showing up at state houses and school board meetings to oppose sex education, challenge accurate and inclusive teaching of history, ban books, accuse teachers of sexually grooming children and oust educational leaders, Moms for Liberty projects a loud voice intent on reshaping education. Research on their tactics and consequences is growing, but far less attention has been paid to how they build support through disinformation in progressive states like California, where Moms for Liberty leaders describe themselves as vanguards ‘in the belly of the beast’.

Our study situates Moms for Liberty within a longer history of far-right women’s movements in the United States and internationally. We examine their organisational structure, activities, core messages and long-term strategies.

Continue reading

How can we tell if citizen participation actually works? A new framework for measuring impact


Franziska Sörgel, Nora Weinberger, Julia Hahn, Christine Milchram and Maria Maia

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Assessing the effectiveness of citizen participation: the development of an impact scheme’.

Citizen participation has become central to research policy, yet we rarely ask the crucial follow-up question: what difference does it actually make? In our recent Evidence & Policy article, we propose an impact scheme that helps to move participation from a well-intentioned ritual to a practice with measurable, meaningful effects.   

The last decade has seen an explosion of participatory formats designed to gather citizen and stakeholder feedback on science and innovation policy. From citizens’ assemblies to co-creation workshops, public dialogue has become the new punctuation mark in research agendas and beyond. Nevertheless, a fundamental problem persists: we lack systematic ways to measure whether these processes genuinely influence research priorities or merely provide a democratic façade with little real impact. This gap matters enormously for both research institutions that invest resources in participation and for citizens who provide their time and expertise. 

Continue reading

Youth research as real school improvement


Adam M. Voight, Rosalinda Godinez, Xiaona Jin, Amirhassan Javadi, Marissa J. Panzarella and Katelyne J. Griffin-Todd

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, The effects of youth participatory action research on education policy: a mixed methods study of three dozen high school projects‘, part of the Evidence & Policy Special Issue: The Role of Youth-Led Research in Policy Change.

Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) has long been celebrated for how deeply it engages young people in understanding – and acting on – the issues that shape their educational lives. But increasingly, practitioners and policymakers are recognising something larger: YPAR is not simply a youth development strategy or an engagement initiative. It is an emerging two-in-one approach that strengthens both young people and the institutions that serve them. When students conduct rigorous, locally grounded research and bring their findings to decision-makers, they simultaneously build the very ‘future-ready’ skills that educators value while generating evidence that can help schools improve.

Our study published in Evidence & Policy presents the strongest empirical demonstration of this school-level impact to date. Drawing on data from 36 discrete YPAR projects in high schools across the U.S. Midwest, it is – based on our review of the literature – the largest analysis ever conducted on the setting-level effects of YPAR. This scale matters. Much of what we previously knew about YPAR’s institutional influence came from one-off case studies or anecdotes about a particularly successful project. Those accounts are important, but they leave open a crucial question: under what conditions does youth-led research catalyse real change in schools?

By looking across dozens of projects rather than a handful, our study offers the first systematic evidence of the patterns, strategies and contexts that predict whether students’ research leads to changes in school policy, practice or culture.

Continue reading

Evidence & Policy 2025 Carol Weiss Award

We are thrilled to announce the prize for the 2025 Carol Weiss Award winning paper published in Evidence & Policy. The Carol Weiss Prize is in honour of Dr Carol Weiss, the first North American Editor of Evidence & Policy, and a pivotal contributor and thinker to our field. The award is given every two years to early career contributors to the journal.

This award cycle, we are delighted to announce that the winners of the 2025 Carol Weiss Prize are Lise Moawad and Dr Sebastian Ludwicki-Ziegler for their Evidence & Policy article, ‘Social studies, technology assessment and the pandemic: a comparative analysis of social studies-based policy advice in PTA institutions in France, Germany and the UK during the COVID-19 crisis’.

Continue reading

New Evidence & Policy issue – Volume 21: Issue 4

The editorial team of Evidence & Policy is pleased to see the publication of our fourth and final issue for 2025, Evidence & Policy Volume 21: Issue 4. This issue has a lot of work focused on how political elites use and are impacted by evidence in the policymaking process. A major thread through this work is that while evidence has an impact, there are important limitations.

The first piece examines programs designed to support scientists and engineers in engaging in public policy, specifically studying the state of Virginia. Through surveys and interviews of program leaders, the study finds evidence of perceived impact, though limits in the ability to implement evidence-based approaches.

The second article also finds impact and its limitation, but this time using policy documents. They find that policy think tanks draw from academic expertise more readily than governments.

Continue reading

Knowledge sharing in integrated care teams: why bringing people together isn’t enough


Vicky Ward

In this blog post Vicky Ward responds to questions from Co-Editor-in-Chief, Dan Mallinson about her recent publication, ‘Knowledge practices in integrated care: an examination of health and social care teams using collective knowledge creation theory’.

Integrated care is commonly seen as the means to bridge gaps between organisations, services and professions across the health and care landscape and improve care. The promise is compelling: bring health and social care practitioners together, and they’ll share their expertise to create holistic, joined-up care for people with complex needs. Simple, right?

Not quite. After spending over two years observing case management meetings across five integrated teams, I found that knowledge sharing was far messier than the policy rhetoric suggests. My research drew on organisational knowledge creation theory to reveal four patterns that help explain why this is the case.

Continue reading

How to lead an evidence centre


Steve Martin

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Leading research–policy engagement: an empirical analysis of the capabilities and characteristics of leaders of evidence intermediary organisations’.

In the last ten years, a range of countries have invested in organisations designed to bridge the gap between researchers and policymakers. In the United Kingdom alone, we now have 12 What Works Centres, 30 Health Determinants Research Collaborations, three Local Policy Innovations Partnerships, several regional evidence centres, and dozens of policy engagement teams working in universities, businesses and charities.

The leadership of these evidence intermediaries is key to their effectiveness. But we know very little about their leaders – where they come, what they do, and what skills they need for the job. To help fill this gap, I conducted in-depth interviews with leaders of some of the UK’s most high-profile evidence intermediary organisations. Their stories provide fascinating ‘warts and all’ accounts of what it takes to lead an organisation that can overcome the formidable institutional barriers that often stand in the way of evidence-informed policy and practice.

Continue reading

Evidence & Policy Call for Abstracts: Special Issue: Strengthening Research Practice Partnerships in Social Care: Evidence, Impact and Policy Learning

Special Issue Editors: Professor Annette Boaz and Professor Ann-Marie Towers

Abstract Submission Deadline: Monday 3 November 2025

Background to the Special Issue

Research practice partnerships (RPPs) offer transformative potential by embedding rigorous evidence into decision making and practice, yet there is limited synthesis of how such collaborations function and their influence on policy and practice.  Research practice partnerships have featured in previous editions of Evidence & Policy (for example, Hoekstra et al 2021; Gray et al 2024) and the importance of collaborative working and relationships is a core theme in journal submissions, including in a key paper by Best and Holmes (2010).

This Evidence & Policy special issue builds on empirical and conceptual learning from six RPPs in England funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.  It will also feature contributions from a wider group of partnerships emerging from the social care/ human services sectors internationally—to generate comparative insights on structures, mechanisms for co production, knowledge mobilisation strategies, and policy impact. 

Aims of the special issue:

  1. Evaluate the impact of RPP typologies in social care/ human services.
  2. Examine co-production and governance models that facilitate practitioner and public engagement.
  3. Evaluate how generated evidence contributes to organisational policy decisions and builds research capacity
  4. Identify transferable lessons for establishing and sustaining collaborative RPPs.

Invitation to Submit Proposals

Interested authors should send a 300-word abstract to Special Issue Editors Professor Annette Boaz (Annette.boaz@kcl.ac.uk) and Professor Ann-Marie Towers (ann-marie.towers@kcl.ac.uk) by Monday 3 November 2025.

Invitations for full paper submissions will be sent in mid-November, and full papers will be due by end of March 2026.

We welcome submissions on:

  • Research Articles employing mixed methods evaluations of RPP outcomes.
  • Perspectives discussing methodological and ethical challenges in partnership design.
  • Theory & Methods papers on frameworks for assessing embedded evidence impact.

Against unanimity: the perils of negotiating collective policy recommendations across a diverse third sector


Jane Cullingworth

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, Strengthening the role of third sector intermediary bodies in democratic governance: developing strategies with state and non-state actors’.

We can all agree that evidence needs to shape policy but how do we gather evidence, particularly from the frontlines? With the rise of participatory governance and an interest in the perspectives of communities, the third sector is uniquely placed to play a key role in facilitating and generating this evidence. But given the diversity of third sector stakeholders and multitude of perspectives, how is such evidence understood, interpreted and represented?

Animating knowledge requires intermediaries (known as knowledge brokers) to translate lived experience into action, addressing the know-do gap – that is, a gap between knowledge and policy. Across the third sector there are many intermediary bodies – organisations that support the sector and represent its interests. While these organisations are not typically thought of as knowledge brokers in the policy arena, they play an important role in ensuring that the voices of citizens and civil society groups are included in policy. Many are highly active in networks and partnerships with state actors.

Continue reading