BackHome
Refresh: Off
Paper Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Beneath the Surface: Co-Interpretation Processes in a Research-Practice Partnership

Sun, April 14, 9:35 to 11:05am, Philadelphia Marriott Downtown, Floor: Level 4, Franklin 11

Abstract

Background & Objectives
Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs) are long-term collaborations between researchers and practitioners (organized to investigate relevant and pressing social problems (Coburn et al., 2013). RPPs often use participatory research approaches as part of their “toolkit” to generate knowledge for change. RPPs may also engage in participatory processes with the partnership. This includes co-constructing research questions (Harrison & Graham, 2012), collaborative decision making (i.e. creating a group to make decisions about research processes; Kloos et al., 2021), co-designing solutions (Roschelle et al., 2006), and, less often, co-analysis of findings (e.g., Loblay et al., 2021). While the results generated from RPP studies are often circulated, less is shared about the “how” of collaborative research production. Thus, this conceptual paper draws on RPP theories and qualitative methodologies to explore one such process: collaborative data analysis and interpretation (henceforth: co-interpretation). First, we describe the RPP itself– a partnership between a university and a County Office of Education. Then, we go “beneath the surface” to illustrate co-interpretation as a RPP research process, and to identify the necessary conditions that facilitated its use.

Techniques & Materials of Co-Interpretation
University-based researchers and practice partners engaged in an ongoing process of co-interpretation, convening bi-weekly to discuss candidate themes (Braun & Clarke, 2021) and illustrative, de-identified excerpts from transcripts. Exhibiting artifacts and examples from our collaborative process, we will show how we engaged in a structured discussion guided by the following questions: (1) What resonates? (2) What questions come up? (3) What are we learning? A member of the university-based research team took notes in real time on a shared screen to ensure that ideas were accurately and transparently captured for improving the themes. After meetings, the university team engaged in an iterative process of debriefing, making adjustments to reflect the meeting’s conversation, and refining themes to bring the updated findings back to the next RPP meeting.

Substantiated Conclusions
We have found that the conditions that allow for the co-interpretation process are both relational and technical (Ochocka & Janzen, 2014): they include authentic participation from all members of the RPP, and must also grapple, in some form, with issues of power, positionality, and priorities (Tanksley & Estrada, 2022). However, there are also technical elements needed for successful co-interpretation, such as the pre-processing of data (Spiel et al., 2017), creation of the discussion protocol, plans for participatory “looping” to continue to return to themes and sticking points, and considerations for writing up findings. Expanding upon prior conceptualizations of necessary conditions, we also add that structural components (e.g., long-term funding for the RPP) are critical for collaborative processes to occur.

Significance
Many of the processes that facilitate RPP success remain “unseen” in existing literature. Through an interactive format that will include materials from co-interpretation meetings, session attendees will be invited to explore and exchange strategies for collaborative analysis. We will consider how each method lends to the trustworthiness of findings (Dhillon & Thomas, 2019), promotes equity and inclusion (Johnson, 2016), fosters trust between researchers and practitioners, and enhances the application and actionability of findings.

Authors