Can Research-Practice Partnerships Make Districts Better Users of Research Knowledge? A Two-Case Comparison

• In Event: Navigating Boundaries at the Nexus of Research and Practice

Abstract

Purpose
Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) operate at the nexus of complex and malleable boundaries: the normative and epistemological boundaries between research and practice, institutional boundaries between universities and districts; and those within districts’ own organizations. The capacity of RPP members—researchers and district leaders—to negotiate these boundaries is critical to their efforts to generate and use knowledge to inform policy and practice. The purpose of this paper is to compare how two research alliances established, framed, and negotiated critical boundaries, with implications for district capacity-building.

Framework
The construct “absorptive capacity” explains the capacity of organizations to integrate and use new knowledge as an iterative and complex organizational process (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Applied to urban school systems, absorptive capacity illuminates how the structure and culture of districts mediate their capacity to integrate and use knowledge. Examples include opportunities for collective sense-making, the role of social networks, and the ways in which layers of reform shape cognition and understanding (Honig and Coburn, 2008; Spillane, 1998). This framework informs three questions:
(1) How does the design of an RPP shape the process by which researchers and practitioners negotiate boundaries?
(2) How does the internal organization of districts influence the spread and use of RPP-generated knowledge?
(3) In what ways can RPPs strengthen districts’ capacities to interpret and use research knowledge?

Data Sources and Methods
This paper reports findings from two years of data collection encompassing 50 interviews with researchers, district leaders, community members, funders, and civic leaders involved in two RPPs operating in two urban districts. Additional data include field notes from a dozen meetings between researchers and district leaders, RPP reports, and RPP-related materials.

For each RPP, we tracked multiple lines of research to identify the factors that shaped topic selection, interpretation of findings, and organizational learning. Our initial coding scheme adhered to our conceptual frame and then expanded to include new topics that arose. We identified comparative themes across RPPs by juxtaposing key findings and then constructing hypotheses that explained divergences. This process led to new questions and further data collection.

Results
Three themes emerged. One regards the importance of the number and type of partners an RPP engages. RPPs that are constructed to service a single client (i.e., the district) can focus exclusively on the joint construction of topics and collaborative learning. Conversely, a more diverse clientele—e.g., civic groups, other agencies—forces the RPP to manage multiple relations and limits collaborative processes with the district. Second, district organization and capacity mediate RPP ability to negotiate external and internal boundaries. In particular, district structures that coordinate knowledge use facilitate co-construction of research topics and collaborative learning. The third finding regards the interaction between artifacts and organizational structure. Specifically, the strategic use of interim research products supports the co-construction of knowledge and joint learning across RPP-district boundaries.

Significance
This research shows that navigating boundaries between RPPs and districts is influenced by RPP design and district internal organization and capacity.

Authors

• Marian A. Robinson, The George Washington University

• Joshua L. Glazer, The George Washington University

• Dryw Freed, Arlington Public Schools

• Sara Gopalkrishna, The George Washington University