Between Transaction and Collaboration: Struggles in the Boundary Zone of a Fizzled-Out Research-Practice Partnership

• In Event: Learning from “failure”: Exploring challenges in unsuccessful research-practice partnerships

Abstract

Purpose
Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) are defined as long-term collaborations between researchers and practitioners pursuing mutually beneficial joint work (Coburn et al., 2013; Farrell et al., 2021; Tseng et al., 2017), yet establishing sustained collaborative relationships may be more challenging than assumed. RPPs challenge traditional norms and roles in research and may depend upon organizational capacities for partnering (Coburn & Penuel, 2016; Farrell et al., 2019). While existing research identifies potential partnering challenges (Denner et al., 2019; Nelson et al., 2015; Vakil et al., 2016), few empirical studies examine aspiring RPPs that fail to sustain. This paper explores dynamics of a university-district partnership between a diverse, high-poverty urban district in New England and a research university that dissolved after one year despite initially favorable conditions.

Conceptual Framework
We examine RPP interactions situated within the boundary zone of an interorganizational partnership (Farrell et al., 2022; Penuel et al., 2015)—a liminal space between partnering organizations consisting of norms and infrastructure (Yamashiro et al., 2023). Boundary zones may enable transactional interactions that center around exchange to complete short-term tasks, or collaborative capabilities to pursue joint work towards longer-term visions (Barnett et al., 2010; Gomez & Biag, 2023; Penuel et al., 2020; Penuel & Gallagher, 2017). Enabling collaboration calls for groups to navigate three core RPP boundary dynamics: establishing mutuality, forging trust, and fostering equity (Henrick et al., 2023; Oyewole et al., 2022; Penuel & Gallagher, 2017). The extent to which boundary dynamics invite collaborative interactions may depend on each partnering organization's ability to create enabling norms and structures (Coburn & Penuel, 2016; Farrell et al., 2019; Gamoran, 2023; Ozer et al., 2021).

Methods
Data includes interviews with 12 RPP participants, videos and transcripts of 18 co-design meetings, and partnership artifacts including the partnership agreement, meeting agendas, and feedback forms from school leaders in the district after co-designed professional development events. Interviews explored participants’ views of the RPP’s strengths and challenges, changes over time, and RPP dynamics from our conceptual framework. We triangulated emergent themes from interview data with co-design meeting episodes and partnership artifacts.

Results
Analysis revealed three core struggles that created path dependency toward transactional rather than collaborative partnering. Coherence struggles emerged when working across a siloed district invited fragmented goals. Responsiveness struggles occurred when reactive adaptations to emergent needs competed with maintaining a longer-term vision. Mutuality struggles arose when funding arrangements positioned university partners as service providers rather than collaborative researchers, undermining joint work. These struggles created a reinforcing cycle that the partnership could not overcome despite participants' genuine commitment to collaboration.

Scholarly Significance
The analysis suggests that prevailing structures and norms from partnering organizations fundamentally shaped how we entered, organized, and interacted within our boundary zone, pointing to implications for systemic organizational changes needed within both universities and districts when developing RPPs. Compatible goals and good intentions may be insufficient to launch successful RPPs, as deliberate restructuring of organizational norms and appropriate funding mechanisms are needed to support collaborative relationships.

Authors

• Elizabeth Zumpe, University of Oklahoma

• Peter Piazza, University of Massachusetts - Amherst

• Katherine Ashton, University of Oklahoma