The Case With the Theory-Practice Divide: Evaluation of Research-Practice Partnerships From a German Perspective

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

Abstract

Objectives and perspectives
In Germany, collaborative formats between schools and universities, partly integrating also other partners with varied roles and functions, are preferably examined in the context of the debate on overcoming the theory-practice divide by improving the knowledge transfer between theory and practice (e.g. Villiger, 2015; Author et al., 2022; Author et al, 2024). Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) are one of these collaborative formats that promise improvements in the theory-practice transfer (Penuel et al., 2021). The aim of the evaluation of the RPP at University [BLINDED] is therefore to examine a) the developed products (e.g. seminar concepts, school materials) for their added value to improve theory-practice transfer; and b) the effects beyond the particular products produced, especially effects on the participating stakeholder groups, their collaboration and possible competence enhancements. The RPP at University [BLINDED] exists since 2017, comprising up to nine so-called Development Teams (DTs) that collaborate co-constructively and consist of representatives from the following groups: school, research, teacher students and extracurricular partners. Up to 250 participants have been involved in this RPP so far (on average 3 years of active participation; Author(s), 2023).

Methods and data sources
We chose a mixed methods approach: Three questionnaire surveys have taken place so far to evaluate collaboration in the DTs (participants in 2017: n=62; 2021: n=78; 2023: n=72), involving actors from all four groups mentioned above. Response rates were 81% (2017), 74% (2021) and 71% (2023). The surveys were mainly designed as cross-sectional studies, but with some scales for longitudinal research. The questionnaires contained both closed and open-ended questions. 16 characteristics were investigated with most of the scales being adapted by the authors for the use in this evaluation, e.g. motivation to participate (Kao et al., 2011), trust in working methods and competencies of team members and appreciation within the team (Galle & Kreis, 2020), modes of co-construction (van Schaik et al., 2019), self-reported competence enhancement in teaching, assessing and innovation (Gröschner, 2016) and satisfaction with team work (van den Bossche et al., 2011). In addition, the data retrieved from the open-ended questions on the conditions for successful RPPs and the perceived knowledge transfer was analyzed based on structured qualitative content analysis.

Substantial conclusions and significance
Although the five dimensions framework by Henrick et al. (2023; 2017) is not the leading framework for the evaluation of this RPP in Germany, there are obvious similarities, especially with regard to dimensions one and five (cultivating trust and foster ongoing learning). Dimensions two to four (inquiry to address local needs, support practice and engage with the broader field) were partly addressed, e.g. by the open-ended question on knowledge transfer, although with less intensity. This demonstrates that the evaluation of RPPs seem to focus on similar criteria internationally. Regarding a possible development trajectory for RPPs, we agree on the existence of different phases in RPP work, although our evaluation practice has so far focused on implementation and outcome, not directly involving the planning phase.

Authors

• Sandra Fischer-Schöneborn, IU International University of Applied Sciences

• Timo Ehmke, Leuphana University - Lueneburg