Developing Identities as Researchers in Research-Practice Partnerships: A Case Study of an Innovative Postdoctoral Program

• In Event: Are There Stages to This? The Case For (and Against) Research-Practice Partnership Developmental Trajectories

Abstract

Objectives: RPPs challenge normative expectations about roles and responsibilities in research (Coburn & Penuel, 2016; Farrell et al., 2019) and require skillsets and dispositions that graduate programs typically do not cultivate (Penuel et al., 2020; Sjölund et al., 2023; The Collaborative Education Research Collective, 2023). Yet, little empirical research has explored how RPP researchers develop collaborative capabilities. This study seeks to understand how early career researchers develop professional identities conducive for collaborative partnering.

Theoretical framework: While roles are externally defined expectations (Biddle, 1986), professional identities are internally defined as people make sense of experiences and accept or reject external expectations as part of "who one is" (Colbeck, 2008). According to theories of researcher identity development (Castelló et al., 2021) and role identity (Stryker & Burke, 2000), professional identity forms through interaction within communities of practice through socialization mechanisms. While graduate programs typically socialize graduates into academic research roles prioritizing individual achievements, RPP literature posits that researchers should jointly negotiate research agendas with practitioners to ensure mutual benefit (Penuel et al., 2020; Tseng et al., 2017). Thus, developing RPP researcher identities may depend upon new socialization experiences that reshape professional expectations (Collaborative Education Research Collective, 2023; Sjölund et al., 2022).

Method: The study uses a multi-year developmental evaluation (Peurach et al., 2016) of a joint postdoctoral program with two Midwest research universities designed to prepare postdoctoral scholars to support several RPPs with multiple school districts serving high-needs communities. The program features "breadth" initially, involving rotating placements at multiple practice sites and RPPs, followed by "depth" involving longer-term jointly negotiated projects. Participants include four postdoctoral fellows and six program mentors. Data includes 24 semi-structured interviews, over 100 weekly work diaries, over 20 hours of participant observation, and over 20 program documents. Analysis proceeds through iterative cycles by the authors (external researchers) who use coding and triangulation for thematic analysis, and then refine emergent themes through reflective sessions with participants.

Substantiated conclusions: Initially, participants defined RPP researchers' roles to emphasize responsiveness to practitioners, building trusting relationships, promoting research use, and advancing educational equity. Experiences of successes and challenges refined participants’ understanding through five key insights. First, the RPP researcher role varies significantly across contexts, ranging from informal interactions to formal research tasks. Second, while responsiveness is important, it must be balanced with feasibility and fit. Fellows thrived most when they negotiated research foci relevant to practice partners that leveraged their specialized expertise. Third, having been socialized into gauging productivity in research products, it proved difficult to recognize relationship-building as legitimate work. Fourth, interactions with a cohort and mentors proved essential supports for navigating role ambiguities. Finally, these learnings resulted in dynamic role understandings that recognized enduring tensions that must be navigated differently depending on context.

Significance: The findings reveal how becoming an RPP researcher requires enactment experiences and social interaction with knowledgeable others to navigate shifting, ambiguous expectations. The findings suggest that research organizations and funders interested in advancing RPPs should organize preparation experiences combining curriculum with apprenticeship and field experiences in cohort models.

Authors

• Elizabeth Zumpe, University of Oklahoma

• Rachel Ruggirello, Washington University in St. Louis

• Andrew C. Butler, Washington University in St. Louis

• Katherine Ashton, University of Oklahoma