Panel Discussion: Collective work and collective learning in a multi-institution partnership: Exploring first principles and grounded practices

• In Event: Toward Just Education Renewal and Neighborhood Reclamation: An Urban P-20 Partnership

Abstract

Objectives

For this final presentation of our symposium, we propose to engage in a panel conversation among partners about what this work has required from us, how we have built formal structures, and how we have developed informal routines that are based on our trust in commitments, not just to each other but also, and most importantly, to the children, youth, and families we serve.

Perspectives

Research on collaborative research-practice partnerships is clear on the challenges of building collaborative work across large institutions. Adding to the complexity of this project is the multi-institutional nature of our collective. Achieving our collaboration goals has demanded that each partner attest to our shared commitments, set aside preconceived notions about the others, and openly share our needs, perspectives, and concerns about the best paths forward for the school, the partner institutions, and our stakeholders.

Despite best intentions and commitments, cultural and discursive barriers have challenged us. Barriers include our individual and collective histories as institutions, which may produce distrust; our everyday practices, born out of different institutional structures; and our respective understandings of the relationship between research and practice. Moreover, as Dynarski (2015) argues, structural barriers such as lack of capacity, conflicting priorities, lack of stable funding, and limited time to do the work have been ever present.

As a result, our primary collaboration work has been to (a) build greater trust among participants of both institutions, (b) develop common language and work protocols, (c) align priorities around the conduct and use of research and data, (e) build both human and financial capacity to do the work, and (f) find efficient ways to work that reduce time burdens for all.

Methods & Materials

For this panel discussion, we will share how we have built and maintained this partnership, focusing on building trust, communication practices, and institutional agreements that promise to sustain the partnership beyond a given set of actors/founders. Our findings are based on documentation of the partnership over time, with attention to key institutional agreements, including 10-year joint-operating and data sharing agreements. Materials upon which we draw include meeting notes, partnership documents, our collaboratively constructed research plan, and participant reflections. Our conversation will be grounded in a conceptual framework for infrastructures that support collaborative and cyclical work (Friedman et al., 2017).

Conclusions & Significance
Building our partnership infrastructure is an ongoing and deliberative effort that requires significant attention to people, policies, processes, and technologies. For example, we have grappled with questions of how to ensure adequate teacher service, who can teach classes in the school, how we provide a safe environment for the children while remaining open to the community; what technologies to use to gather, store, analyze, and share data; and how to disseminate findings. Our work is far from complete, and we use this moment to highlight what we have learned and where we are headed in supporting our collective place-based, community-centered model of neighborhood investment, reclamation, and revitalization that supports just education renewal.

Authors

• Jonathan Hui, The Kresge Foundation

• Wendy Lewis Jackson, The Kresge Foundation

• Alycia Meriweather, Detroit Public Schools Community District

• Elizabeth Birr Moje, University of Michigan