The paper addresses the critical need to improve the connection between educational research and practice globally, aiming to promote evidence-informed practice (EIP). It acknowledges the complexity of this issue, requiring attention to various levels of education systems and their contexts. The study employs a comparative analysis across four diverse regions: Catalonia (Spain), England, Massachusetts (USA), and Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany). This comparative approach, using a novel dual analytical frame (a cohesion/regulation matrix and institutional theory), allows for a nuanced understanding of EIP within and across different systems. The cohesion/regulation matrix categorizes systems based on social cohesion and regulation levels, while institutional theory examines meso- and micro-level factors influencing evidence use. The study aims to both refine the methodology for analyzing EIP and generate insights into fostering more effective EIP, potentially applicable beyond the education sector. While acknowledging limitations in the data available, the study aims to contribute valuable insights into the complex interplay of factors shaping evidence use in education.

The paper reviews existing literature on evidence-informed practice in education, noting the scarcity of comparative analyses using systems approaches. While some studies, like Darling-Hammond et al. (2017), examine high-performing systems, they lack a comprehensive theoretical framework for cross-case comparison. Other studies, such as the OECD's work on evidence-informed policy, focus primarily on policy levels rather than practical applications. The authors highlight the need for a systems approach, emphasizing the interconnectedness of various actors and structures within education systems, and the influence of context on evidence use. The paper then introduces the cohesion/regulation matrix and institutional theory as the chosen analytical frameworks to address this gap.

The study utilizes a dual analytical framework: a cohesion/regulation matrix and institutional theory. The cohesion/regulation matrix (adapted from Hood, 1998 and Chapman, 2019) categorizes educational systems based on two dimensions: social cohesion (the strength of institutions and networks binding society) and social regulation (the extent of institutional control and accountability). This matrix yields four system types: fatalist, hierarchist, individualist, and egalitarian. Institutional theory (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991) provides a lens for understanding the micro- and meso-level factors influencing evidence use within each system, considering formal and informal rules, norms, and the power dynamics among actors. The four case studies—Catalonia, England, Massachusetts, and Rheinland-Pfalz—were selected strategically to represent diverse system types, aiming to capture variability along the dimensions studied. Data analysis involved a review of extant data and literature for each case, acknowledging limitations in data comparability across contexts. The analysis examines the extent of teachers' EIP engagement, the enabling and hindering factors in each system, and the relative strength of these factors. Institutional theory helps explain why certain types of evidence are prioritized and how powerful actors influence evidence use. The study carefully considers the limitations of using existing data, acknowledging potential biases and the inability to control for all variables.

The study reveals significant variations in evidence use across the four contexts. **Catalonia:** The Catalan system, categorized as 'hierarchist,' shows a growing interest in EIP but limited widespread adoption. While official policies promote evidence use, teachers often prioritize experience and peer knowledge over formal research due to factors such as time constraints, lack of resources, and inadequate initial research training. Institutional analysis reveals epistemological, organizational, and systemic barriers. **England:** England's 'fatalist' system, characterized by high accountability and autonomy, demonstrates a limited influence of research on teacher decision-making. High-stakes accountability measures like Ofsted inspections and league tables drive a focus on specific, measurable outcomes, often overshadowing broader research evidence. While initiatives exist to promote EIP (e.g., EEF), the high-stakes environment and time pressures hinder widespread adoption. **Massachusetts:** Massachusetts, also categorized as 'fatalist,' displays high levels of data use, particularly state test data (MCAS), driven by accountability pressures and policies like Race to the Top. However, the use of external research evidence is less prominent. Institutional analysis points to top-down emphasis on certain data sources, alongside efforts to encourage bottom-up initiatives and learning networks. **Rheinland-Pfalz:** Rheinland-Pfalz's 'egalitarian' system, with low-stakes accountability, reveals relatively low use of external evidence, such as state-wide assessments, but higher use of internal, process-related evidence. Teachers have considerable autonomy and exhibit less reliance on external evaluations, prioritizing locally relevant data. The absence of strong accountability mechanisms affects both the volume and nature of data use.

The findings highlight the complex interplay of factors influencing EIP across diverse educational systems. Strong accountability pressures, while potentially driving data use, can also lead to a narrow focus on specific measures, neglecting broader research evidence. Cultural factors and institutional arrangements play a significant role in shaping evidence use patterns. The study suggests that promoting EIP requires a multi-level approach, addressing epistemological, organizational, and systemic barriers. The findings emphasize the need for context-specific strategies, recognizing that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is unlikely to be effective. Building organizational learning cultures, providing adequate resources and training, and fostering collaborations are crucial elements for successful EIP implementation. The study's dual analytical framework proves beneficial in understanding the interplay of macro-level system characteristics and micro-level factors.

This comparative study offers a valuable framework for understanding the complex factors shaping evidence-informed practice in education. The dual analytical approach, combining a cohesion/regulation matrix and institutional theory, proves effective in identifying key enablers and barriers to EIP across different systems. The findings suggest that fostering EIP requires a nuanced approach, accounting for context-specific factors and aiming to create learning organizations. Future research should focus on collecting standardized data across contexts to strengthen cross-case comparisons and explore the impact of specific interventions aimed at promoting EIP.

The study's reliance on existing data and literature presents some limitations. Data comparability across the four cases is not uniform, limiting the strength of cross-case comparisons. The selected cases, while diverse, do not represent the full spectrum of international education systems. Further, the focus primarily on teachers’ perspective might limit the overall picture of EIP implementation within the studied systems. Future research employing a more standardized data collection methodology could enhance the study's generalizability.