Identifying Phases of Partnership Work: Commonalities and Differences Across Eight Computer Science Research-Practice Partnerships

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

Abstract

Objectives
The authors have served as external evaluators on eight Research Practice Partnerships (RPPs) funded as part of the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) CSForAll initiative. These RPPs all share a focus of improving computer science (CS) education opportunities to students, but vary in their educational contexts, programmatic approaches, research methods, and partnership longevity. Each evaluation was designed to meet the unique needs of the RPP, with evaluation approaches, instruments, and foci shifting over time to meet the evolving priorities of each partnership. We draw upon eight years of experience evaluating these RPPs to identify potential phases of partnership work and address the question of an existence of a developmental trajectory that may be applied to RPPs across different contexts.

Theoretical framework
Evaluations were centered around measuring the health and effectiveness of the partnerships using both the original Five Dimensions Framework (Henrick, et al 2017) and the updated Five Dimensions Framework (Henrick, et al 2023). We use the updated Five Dimensions Framework as an analytical lens to categorize the priorities of RPPs over time to determine if common phases of RPP work exist.

Methods & Data
This study employs a retrospective review of documented external evaluation plans, facilitated evaluation activities and artifacts, annual reports, published research articles, and notes from eight CSForAll RPPs between 2017 and 2025. Documentation from evaluation efforts were reviewed by the authors and deductively coded (Creswell & Creswell, 2017) around the updated Five Dimensions. The results from the coding process were further synthesized using thematic analysis (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019) to identify commonalities and differences across the eight RPPs at different points in their lifecycles.

Substantiated conclusions
We categorize RPP work into three phases: 1) Building strong foundations; 2) Maintaining and expanding efforts; and 3) Sustaining the work. Although RPPs of a similar focus (Computer Science education) may engage in similar activities throughout their project lifecycles, these phases of work do not fit neatly into a developmental trajectory that can be applied either descriptively or prescriptively to RPPs seeking to evaluate their effectiveness or progression. Nor do these phases constitute a strict linear progression as RPPs often face numerous challenges that require revisiting earlier phases.

Significance
Effective partnership work, and the ensuing evaluation of it, is a dynamic endeavor that adapts to meet the changing needs and priorities of the varied partners (Farrell et al, 2021). Changes in school district and research personnel may result in a renewed focus on building relationships and aligning to new practitioner goals. Policies limiting access to student level data may result in redesigning research and dissemination efforts. These events do not diminish the ongoing work of the researchers and practitioners engaged in the work, nor do they suggest a backslide down a developmental trajectory; they instead point to the resiliency and sustainability of well-organized RPPs to weather a tumultuous funding and political landscape while continuing to meet the needs of all partners involved. As RPPs navigate different phases of work, their priorities and personnel change; the evaluation efforts must remain responsive to these changes.

Authors

• Daniel Schmidt, Partner to Improve

• Erin C. Henrick, Vanderbilt University