This submission is built on 39 papers produced between 1987 and 1997. Some of these together with papers in the appendices were produced during research projects or for particular audiencesw hich, in somec asesm, eantt hey were for restrictedc irculationo nly. Both typeso f paper are included to show progression of ideas over time and to allow tracking of ideas to show how local innovations can have national impact and can become embedded in the education system. Both types of paper explore what were at the time, new or problematic dimensions of professional knowledge in the areas of educational evaluation, development planning, and latterly the application of information and communication technology in schools andc lassroomsW. hilst somei deasp resentedw ere new at the time other papersr efocused ideas to meet the professional development needs of particular sectors in education. This was done as a deliberate strategy to ensure wide dissemination of findings and to encourage debate of new ideas.F or this reason,t he necessityfo r academicsto write papersf or different audiences is central to the discussion about how new professional knowledge might become embedded in the professional knowledge base. The theoretical and philosophical framework for much of the work in this submission is derived from that proposed by those who espoused the notion of democratic evaluation (e. g. MacDonald, 1976; Simons, 1984,1987,1995) whose concern for linking evaluation with practice is well documented as part of the teacherresearcher movement stimulated by Stenhouse, (1975). The early papers (Papers 1,2,6 and Leask 1988c, d, e) were particularly influenced by this democratic, collaborative, pro-active approach to investigating practice. 2 The exposition of 35,000 words shows how the knowledge and experience gained on a range of projects led to the development of a view about the professional accountability of researchers in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and a model for embedding change in the education system. The exposition also provides a critique of these papers and the work on which they are basedb y examiningt he philosophicalf oundationss upportingi t andt he argumentsfo r opposingw hat is acknowledgedto be a rationalistm odel for change. All of the papers are built on the outcomes of a series of research and development projects in which the candidate participated or which the candidate led over the period 1985 to the present time: such as the Manpower Services Commission, Enfield TVEI evaluation 1983-1988 (Papers1 & 6); the Departmenot f Educationa nd Sciencef undedS choolD evelopmenPt lans Projectb aseda t Cambridge( 1989-1990)( AppendicesA , E&F; Papers7 ,8,9 & 13); Recruitment of Science Teachers from Ethnic Minorities (1995-1996) Leask, Turner & Turner (1995,1996); evaluation of Project Connect (1995-1996) (Appendix B); newlmages Projects 1996-1997; TeacherNet UK (1996 ongoing), (Papers 37,39 and Appendix C) and European School Net Project (1997 ongoing). I also have been fortunate to have had a number of travelling scholarshipsw hich havee nabledm e to study other educations ystemsa t first hand, e. g. Leask (1992), and the understanding gained from these comparative studies has also influenced the development of the model. In the exposition,t he moral andp rofessionarl esponsibilityo f researchertso engagein widespreadd isseminationo f findings and consequendt evelopmenat nd changei s debatedT. hi 3 submission identifies conditions which support the embedding in the professional knowledge base of new knowledge and practice resulting from research findings which have whole system application. The responsibility of HEI researchers in the process of change is discussed