How Different Types of Research-Practice Partnerships Engage in Dignity-Affirming Research Practices (Poster 4)

• In Event: What Is the Value-Add of Research-Practice Partnerships?

Abstract

Research Practice Partnerships (RPPs) have continued to gain popularity in educational research (Farrell et al., 2020) but as they gather momentum, it is important to assess how this approach to inquiry impacts the people who are involved in the work. History is rife with examples of research that exploits and dehumanizes people (Diamond, 2021), however, scholars argue that collaborative research can play an important role in improving the treatment of participants in research (Allen et al., 2017; Bang & Vossoughi, 2016; Doucet, 2021; Ovretveit et al., 2014).

RPPs have the potential to organize research in ways that reduce the possibility of dehumanizing interactions, but without proper care, an RPP can be a site of indignity. Espinoza and Vossoughi (2014) argue that since dignity is relational, it is contingent on dignity conferring interactions.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate how the four forms of dignity-affirming care (Riedy, 2021) are evident in RPPs, and to investigate what might account for variations in caring practices across different types of RPPs. As a part of a larger study on measuring RPP effectiveness, the RPP types that were included in the study were Networked Improvement Communities (NICs), Design Based (DBs), Research Alliances (RAs), Community Based (CBs) and hybrid projects; each type of RPP is defined by particular design principles that are typically adhered to. To address the research questions: What dignity-affirming caring practices are evident in RPPs? and What might account for variations in dignity-affirming caring practices? I analyze interview (n=29) and survey data (n=282) from a study of 64 education RPP teams in the United States which vary by size, geographic location, and duration. The motivating question for these interviews was, what does evidence of the Henrick and colleagues (Henrick et al., 2017) framework look like in different RPPs?

Relevant for this study is how dignity can be affirmed through caring practices while working towards these outcomes. Additionally, this analysis uses a subset of 45 items from the Effectiveness Survey, as well as a 6-item Dignity-Affirming Care scale to measure dignity, defined as the practice of the four types of dignity affirming care. The internal consistency of the dignity-affirming care scale was α = 0.75.

Findings indicate that while all forms of dignity-affirming care are present across the different types of RPPs in the study, differences in design features help to determine the degree and the nature of how dignity-affirming care is expressed. For instance, NICs characteristic focus on iterative testing provided many opportunities for all participants to learn, which helped them attend particularly well to dignity-affirming care in the form of growth. Analogously, CB partnerships tended to emphasize relationships resembling a chosen family between researchers and practitioners, which supported nurturing dignity-affirming care through kind and respectful treatment. Continuing analysis will help illuminate the extent to which dignity-affirming care is present in RPPs and will reveal further areas of divergence and convergence in the expression of dignity-affirming care among different RPP types.

Authors

• Robbin Riedy, University of Colorado - Boulder
  Presenting Author

• William R. Penuel, University of Colorado - Boulder
  Presenting Author