Who Is Writing? Author Affiliation across Peer-Reviewed Journals of Emotional or Behavioral Disorders, 2000-2011.

The importance of teacher engagement in research has been a topic of interest in the field of education for more than 30 years (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Huberman, 1996; Nisbet, 2005). Emerging from the idea that teachers are active agents of change within their classrooms and schools rather than technicians who implement the findings of others (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999), such teacher engagement was viewed as having the potential to transform what had been predominantly university-based research into a process that would lead to a more vibrant body of knowledge regarding teaching pedagogy and practice (Florio-Ruane & Walsh, 1980; Huberman 1996). In more recent years, researchers in the areas of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) and methods of differentiated instruction have also noted the importance of teachers' adapting practices within their own schools and participating actively in the cycle of data collection, analysis, and the development of appropriate interventions (Carr et al., 2002; Hoover, 2011). As stated by Stenhouse (1981),The basic argument for placing teachers at the heart of the educational research process may be simply stated. Teachers are in charge of classrooms. From the point of view of experimentalists, classrooms are the ideal laboratory for the testing of educational theory. From the point of view of the researcher whose interest lies in naturalistic observation, the teacher is a potential participant observer in classrooms and schools. From whatever standpoint we view research, we must find it difficult to deny that the teacher is surrounded by rich research opportunities. (p. 109)More recently, Lang and colleagues (2010) echoed Stenhope's opinion when they emphasized "the importance of teacher-related variables in the successful adoption, implementation and maintenance of" (p. 269) evidence-based practices. Today, the importance of practitioner participation in identifying and maintaining use of best practice in education is well established, including such benefits as increased levels of teacher self-efficacy (Furlong & Salisbury, 2005), pedagogical and content knowledge and skills (Furlong & Salisbury, 2005; Kirkwood & Christie, 2006), and practitioner engagement in leadership roles (Hahs-Vaughn & Yanowitz, 2009). Fac- ulty in higher education who engage in such collaborative research also experience benefits, reporting higher satisfaction in their own research and scholarship (Gewirtz, Shapiro, Maguire, Mahony, & Cribb, 2009).Within educational research, the divide that exists between what is considered to be evidence-based practice and day-to-day classroom implementation is often referred to as the "research-to-practice gap" (Greenwood & Abbott, 2001), a term that is itself suggestive of the one-directional flow of knowledge that Stenhouse and his peers opposed. Although writers in the field of emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) have voiced repeated concerns regarding this gap in the educational services provided to students with behavioral needs (Cook, Landrum, Tankersley, & Kauffman, 2003; Maggin, Robertson, Oliver, Hollo, & Moore Partin, 2010), the role of practitioners in EBD research has remained ambiguous. On one hand, descriptions of best practice in EBD often represent a unidirectional research-to-practice model, focused on enacting policies that provide better instruction for classroom practitioners (e.g., Burton, Bartlett, & Anderson de Cuevas, 2009; Friedman, 2003; Rosenblatt & Woodbridge, 2003), ensuring that teachers adhere to intervention procedures (e.g., )effrey, McCurdy, Ewing, & Polis, 2009; O'Dell et al., 2011) and overcoming teacher resistance to implementing what they have been told is best practice (e.g., Gonzalez, Nelson, Gutkin, & Shwery, 2004; Knight, 2009). On the other hand, proponents of PBIS, arguably one of the most significant behavioral initiatives of recent years, emphasize the importance of teachers' adapting practices to their own schools and participating actively in the cycle of data collection, analysis, and intervention development (Carr et al. …