Meeting in the Middle: Navigating RPP Growth, Institutional Complexity, and Sustained Collaboration

• In Event: What Was, What’s Now, What’s Next: University-Based RPP Brokering in Shifting Institutional Contexts

Abstract

Objectives. This project explored how ongoing, education research-practice partnerships (RPPs) navigated mid-level years (5-8 years). Unlike early stages, which typically focus on awareness and collaboration development, mid-level RPPs consider sustainability and longevity to maintain authentic partnerships, as well as institutional positioning, funding mechanisms, and strategic planning. This paper examines the experiences of three mid-stage RPPs in California, Vermont, and Virginia, as they continue to introduce new concepts, navigate problems of practice, refine or expand solutions, and develop frameworks of action (Farrell & Coburn, 2016). We analyzed lived experience, contexts, and dimensions (Farrell et al., 2021) to consider elements that contribute to the sustainability and continued growth of RPPs.

Methods. Using a comparative case study design (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017) to reflect on social and historical contexts, RPPs in a middle stage (approximately 5-8 years) were chosen to examine the unique tensions, negotiations, and challenges faced after the planning and early stages, and building on sustainable, long-term relationships. Our analysis focused on similarities and differences between RPPs to analyze structures, processes, and dimensions that influence how they sustain trust, build authentic partnerships, and maintain mutual benefit between partners.

Data. Study data included year-end semi-structured interviews with RPP leaders and structural documents, including handbooks, contracts, MOUs, proposals, and evaluations, which helped to contextualize the various experiences and evolving nature of three mid-level RPPs.

Findings. We found that RPPs are located in different locations within their institutions (e.g., departments, schools/colleges, stand-alone centers). While internal structures differ, they share similar goals for partnership and collaboration with schools around problems of practice and ways to leverage research to support the needs of their communities. Further, internal challenges or barriers were context-specific and reflected distinct regional/community goals and needs. One RPP noted that navigating changing demographics in the context of the RPP proved challenging. Shifting wealth in its region has greatly impacted students, families, and school funding structures, which has impacted the focus of the RPP research. Another RPP noted that the mid-level stage has brought increased attention and awareness to this collaborative partnership model and the ways it conducts community-based, participatory action research (CBPR). Concurrently, it is now navigating internal university structures as it further grows into a ‘hub and spoke’ model of school-university partnership, with varying parameters and requirements from other colleges, departments, and disciplines across campus. The third mid-level RPP is facing challenges of internal consistency as the partners have, as desired, expanded to include additional institutions and personnel.

Significance. The universities involved in these RPPs are contributing to research focused on community needs. Working together, the involved organizations operate under theories of action aimed at directly influencing policy, program, and practice in local schools and using the expertise of those involved in the project to “map backwards” (Tseng, 2017) and answer the questions relevant to the community. RPPs are important for the future of education research, as they work towards changing institutional practices and push back on traditional policies in opposition to community-engaged scholarship.

Authors

• Nina R. Schoonover, University of Virginia

• Peter N. Knox, University of Vermont

• Jennifer Goldstein, California State University - Fullerton