Shifting the Goalposts: Evolving Conceptualizations of Failure and Success in Research Practice Partnerships

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

Abstract

Purposes

This paper analyzes how two long-operating, prolific research alliances (RAs) in large urban districts navigated and, in many ways, fell short of evolving conceptualizations of RPP effectiveness. It does this by interrogating the misalignment between RA design and increasingly ambitious expectations for partnership outcomes.

Theoretical Framework

We leverage institutional theory, with a particular focus on institutional logics (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2013; Woulfin & Allen, 2023), and principal agent theory (Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Miller, 2005; Sobol, 2016) to analyze the interplay between environmental and inter-organizational dynamics that influenced evolving conceptualizations of RPP success and failure.

Methods and Data Sources

Data collection for this comparative case study included over 100 semi-structured interviews and over a dozen observations across two research alliances over four years. We collected evolving perspectives and experiences of multiple stakeholder groups in each partnership, including research partners, practice partners, and supporters (i.e., funders, board members, etc.).

Results

Both RAs in our study identified several advantages in their partnerships, from providing researchers and practice partners with complementary skills and knowledge to contributing valuable evidence about district policies. Despite these advantages, district staff and funders increasingly expressed frustration that the partnerships were failing to serve local needs. Our results suggest perceptions of partnership failure stemmed from three inter-related challenges:
RAs were designed to attend to three expectations: 1) the expectation that they contribute knowledge through the generation of research; 2) the expectation that they engage in more direct work with their district partners to change educational practice; and 3) the expectation that they align their work with the values, beliefs, and interests of their local communities. While these core expectations have consistently pressed on RAs, the RPP field has increasingly prioritized work that engages more directly with practice and that aligns with community values over locally-relevant, rigorous research. We found that both alliances struggled to respond to these changing goals, raising concerns about their legitimacy.
As the goals of researchers, practitioners, and funders have diverged, the complex relationship between these groups complicated RAs’ abilities to establish and satisfy mutually-beneficial goals. District officials and funders increasingly prioritized direct impact on district policies and outcomes; however, the research organizations we studied were neither staffed, resourced, nor professionally incentivized to meet these new goals.
Ultimately, RAs’ struggles to manage and respond to these misaligned goals hindered the kind of transformational district learning RAs were increasingly expected, but not designed, to support.

Significance

As RPPs become more prevalent and mature, the field will likely continue to push researchers and practitioners toward increasingly ambitious goals. Although ambitious goals are laudable, our research suggests that RAs may find it difficult to live up to increasingly lofty expectations. It is important to ensure that expectations for RPPs are commensurate with the capacity, resources, and designs of the organization we task with meeting those demands.

Authors

• Megan Duff, UNC Chapel Hill

• Joshua L. Glazer, The George Washington University

• Matthew Shirrell, The George Washington University