Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence based guidance to researchers and practice personnel about forming and carrying out effective research partnerships.

A review of the literature, interviews and discussions with colleagues in both research and practice roles, and a review of the authors' personal experiences as researchers in partnership research.

Partnership research is, in some respects, a distinct “approach” to research, but there are many different versions. An analysis of research publications and of their research experience led the authors to develop a framework for planning and assessing the partnership research process, which includes defining expected outcomes for the partners, their roles, and steps in the research process.

This review and analysis provides guidance that may reduce commonly-reported misunderstandings and help to plan more successful partnerships and projects. It also identifies future research which is needed to define more precisely the questions and purposes for which partnership research is most appropriate, and methods and designs for specific types of partnership research.

As more research moves towards increased participation of practitioners and patients in the research process, more precise and differentiated understanding of the different partnership approaches is required, and when each is most suitable. This article describes research approaches that have the potential to reduce “the research-practice gap”. It gives evidence- and experience-based guidance for choosing and establishing a partnership research process, so as to improve partnership relationship-building and more actionable research.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a corrections–academic partnership that works, the essential factors that influence its success and productivity, and how this partnership builds the capacity to conduct research on corrections issues.

A case study design was used. The corrections–academic partnership has been in existence for five years.

Over the five years, the partnership has yielded over a dozen peer‐reviewed publications and another half dozen under review, five policy reports, and over $3 million in external funding by the academic partner and over $6 million by the corrections partner. By working together, partners develop parallel procedures for conducting and facilitating research, strategic networks and resources that foster research, and the ability to write competitive applications for external funding.

Findings are based on a single partnership but they are consistent with the broader literature on practice–academic collaborations. Practice–academic partnerships have the potential to build and strengthen the infrastructure that supports research, as well as the capacity to conduct it independently within practice and research settings.

Collaborative partnership between practice and academic units can work; they can work in ways that develop and diffuses evidence while building infrastructure and capacity. When collaborations work, they are synergistic.

Provides clarity about the benefits of collaboration.

This article examines what has been learnt about practice‐academic partnership from two Research in Practice projects aimed at supporting the development of evidence‐based practice in social care. Tangible support from organisations is needed to support both the partnership approach and the development of evidence‐based practice.

This scoping review utilizes findings from 80 articles to build a research model to study research-practice-policy networks in K-12 education systems. The purpose of this study was to generate a broad understanding of the variation in conceptualizations of research-practice-policy partnerships, rather than dominant conceptualizations.

Arskey and O'Malley's (2005) five stage scoping review process was utilized including: (1) a consultative process with partners to identify research questions, (2) identify relevant studies, (3) study selection based on double-blind peer review, (4) charting the data and (5) collating, summarizing and reporting the results in a research model identifying key dimensions and components of research-practice partnerships (RPPs).

Coburn et al. (2013) definition of RPPs arose as an anchoring definition within the emerging field. This article proposes a model for understanding the organization and work of RPPs arising from the review. At the core lies shared goals, coproduction and multistakeholder collaboration organized around three dimensions: (1) Systems and structures: funding, governance, strategic roles, policy environment, system alignment; (2) Collaborative processes: improvement planning and data use, communication, trusting relationships, brokering activities, capacity building; (3) Continuous Learning Cycles: social innovation, implementation, evaluation and adaptation.

By using a common framework, data across RPPs and from different studies can be compared. Research foci might test links between elements such as capacity building and impacts, or test links between systems and structures and how those elements influence collaborative processes and the impact of the RPPs. Research could test the generalizability of the framework across contexts. Through the application and use of the research model, various elements might be refuted, confirmed or refined. More work is needed to use this framework to study RPPs, and to develop accompanying data collection methods and instruments for each dimension and element.

The practical applications of the framework are to be used by RPPs as a learning framework for strategic planning, iterative learning cycles and evaluation. Many of the elements of the framework could be used to check-in with partners on how things are going – such as exploring how communication is working and whether these structures move beyond merely updates and reporting toward joint problem-solving. The framework could also be used prior to setting up an RPP as an organizing approach to making decisions about how that RPP might best operate.

Despite increased attention on multistakeholder networks in education, the conceptual understanding is still limited. This article analyzed theoretical and empirical work to build a systematic model to study RPPs in education. This research model can be used to: identify RPP configurations, analyze the impact of RPPs, and to compare similarities and differences across configurations.

Many youth-serving organizations refer to social and emotional learning (SEL) as a process through which adults and young people develop the critical knowledge and skills one needs to be successful in school, work, and personal life (e.g., Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning – CASEL, 2020). SEL is a learning process and – as evidence from the science of learning and development would suggest – one that happens everywhere, both in and out of school. The science also suggests that young people and adults learn best in safe and supportive environments that are identity-safe and filled with developmentally rich relationships (Science of Learning and Development Alliance, n.d.). These finds highlight the importance of meaningful, intentional, and inclusive SEL practice that is grounded in equity and cultural competence. This has historically been the approach out-of-school time (OST) educators have taken to expanding learning opportunities for young people and these practices continue to evolve as the OST field moves toward more intentional SEL practice. OST practitioners are looking to the evidence, many of whom are doing so by partnering with researchers to reexamine and bolster their SEL practices. In this chapter, we explore why and how researcher–practitioner partnerships can foster equitable SEL in OST.

Across the United States, school leaders are realizing the potential for social and emotional learning (SEL) to be used as a critical lever for students' equitable access to full participation in social and civic life. Researchers and practitioners seek to understand how teachers can elevate student voice, increase students' sense of agency, and promote civic engagement through SEL instruction. The School and Community Pathways for Engagement (SCoPE) Project brought together teams from a large, urban school district in the Midwestern United States, the University of Michigan, and the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) in a research-practice partnership (RPP) to examine these pertinent challenges. This chapter demonstrates how the purposeful establishing of and fostering collaborative relationships between researchers and practitioners in the SCoPE Project motivated deeper investment and equity of voice for all stakeholders involved. This chapter specifically discusses the motivational affordances of the RPP approach during participant recruitment, data collection, and data sharing for the SCoPE Project.

Academic researchers are increasingly required, and rightly so, to demonstrate the impact of their work beyond the gates of the university. This has led to an increasing focus, especially in response to funded calls, on developing research partnerships that cross disciplines, sectors and borders to help address our grand societal challenges. The purpose of this paper is to set out learning from the work of the organisation the Centre for Ageing Research and Development in Ireland (CARDI) and reflections on how to bring forward effective research partnerships involving users.

This paper is based on reflections and learning from the organisation CARDI which delivered a highly successful programme of interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral and cross-country research partnerships in both rural and urban areas between 2007 and 2015, across the island of Ireland.

Research partnerships that wish to involve users require time, commitment, support, understanding and a willingness to change and be challenged. This paper highlights that there are methodological, philosophical, moral, economic and of course, practical aspects to be considered.

This reflective paper is based on a case study from the island of Ireland during the period 2007–2015 working in the area of ageing and older people.

The author emphasises that for research partnerships involving users to be successful, they need to not only consider the most effective research methods but also focus on the overarching purpose of the work and adopt an ethos and practice that maximises each partner’s knowledge and expertise to their full potential.

This reflective paper focused on the characteristics associated with partnership success, i.e. communication style, values, philosophy and practice and argues that establishing effective and inclusive partnerships requires time, the appropriate framework and reviewing the process on an ongoing basis.

The issue of user involvement in research partnerships requires much more consideration. Researchers, government, funders, businesses and service providers are increasingly recognising the benefits of “user” involvement to help design programmes and services that are most effective. Nowhere is this more important than in planning and delivering services, policy and programmes for our ageing population.

This paper is second of seven in this volume elaborating different approaches to quality improvement in education. It delineates a methodology called design-based implementation research (DBIR). The approach used in this paper is aimed at iteratively improving the quality of classroom teaching and learning practices in defined problem areas through collaborations among researchers, practitioners and other education stakeholders.

The paper describes the origins of the approach in US education, along with its foundations, core principles and a case application of DBIR in practice. The case focuses on the specific problem of teaching science and genetics in primary and secondary schools in a district.

The guiding principles of DBIR are: a focus on persistent problems of classroom educational practice; iterative and collaborative design and testing of innovations through partnerships between researchers and practitioners, involving multiple stakeholders’ perspectives; a concern with developing theory related to both implementation processes and classroom learning outcomes, using systematic inquiry; and development of the capacity of both researchers and practitioners to sustain changes in educational systems.

Few theoretical treatments and demonstration cases are currently available in US education that examine common models of quality improvement, particularly DBIR. By engaging practitioners with researchers in designing, testing and implementing reforms meaningfully, DBIR shows promise in offering significant on-the-ground benefits. This paper adds value by allowing readers to compare the DBIR method with the other improvement approaches explicated in this volume.

This special issue reveals how lesson study in China continues to serve as a powerful platform to support change in teaching. The papers included in this issue explore how university faculty members and researchers support teachers to cross boundaries resulting from the introduction of key competencies-based (hexin suyang 核心素养) curriculum reform (KCR).

The theme of continuity and change is examined against the backdrop of Chinese lesson study's (CLS's) consistent supporting role in enabling curriculum reform. These analyses make use of concepts involved in understanding boundary crossing, such as using boundary objects and their roles, to help make sense of the new theories, tools, and resources as well as relationships engendered in responding to the reform's demand. While recognizing the continuity at play in Chinese LS, the authors use the lens of learning at the boundary of research-practice partnerships (RPPs) (Farrell et al., 2022) to contemplate the future of CLS.

The papers touch on three major themes: (1) the role of university-school partnerships in meeting the new demands of key competencies reform; (2) resourceful tools, strategies and structures to support boundary crossing for teachers; and (3) roles and relationships for mutual learning in university-school partnerships. Together these three themes, considered across the papers in this issue, point to the need to redefine CLS to engender versatility and hybridity and to enlist mutual learning relationships in future university-school partnerships. Such redefinition positions lesson study to both continue and change.

The papers in this issue are expected to promote mutualist learning in future CLS research-practice partnerships. To do so, research needs to move from focusing on change of a single case teacher to clarifying what experts and teachers each learn from the LS and from each other. Attention also needs to focus on the collaborative discourse and ways such discourse is able to promote mutual learning, emotional support in facing change as well as critical and constructive problem solving.

Practically, to better support boundary crossing, this special issue encourages academics and teachers to identify and work around boundary objects and their enabling features to enhance knowledge and identity of both university and teacher participants for more effective research-practice partnerships.

This special issue offers a pioneering set of studies that contributes to an in-depth understanding of how CLS is supporting the current competencies-based reform in China. It also provides concrete future directions for research and practice to enhance university-school partnerships' response to reform.

The purpose of this paper is to explore factors influencing early implementation and intermediate outcomes of a healthcare-academia partnership in a primary healthcare setting.

The Academic Primary Healthcare Network (APHN) initiative was launched in 2011 in Stockholm County, Sweden and included 201 primary healthcare centres. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2013-2014 with all coordinating managers (n=8) and coordinators (n=4). A strategic change model framework was used to collect and analyse data.

Several factors were identified to aid early implementation: assignment and guidelines that allowed flexibility; supportive management; dedicated staff; facilities that enabled APHN actions to be integrated into healthcare practice; and positive experiences from research and educational activities. Implementation was hindered by: discrepancies between objectives and resources; underspecified guidelines that trigger passivity; limited research and educational activities; a conflicting non-supportive reimbursement system; limited planning; and organisational fragmentation. Intermediate outcomes revealed that various actions, informed by the APHN assignment, were launched in all APHNs.

The findings can be rendered applicable by preparing stakeholders in healthcare services to optimise early implementation of healthcare-academia partnerships.

This study increases understanding of interactions between factors that influence early stage partnerships between healthcare services and academia in primary healthcare settings.