Testing Hypothetical Developmental Trajectories for Research-Practice Partnerships

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

Abstract

Objectives:
As research practice partnerships (RPPs) grow in number and importance, so too does the demand for tools that can assess their effectiveness and support their development. However, questions remain about what constitutes a “strong” or “effective” RPP, and how such qualities can be measured or fostered. To this end, this study critically examines the potential of a set of RPP developmental trajectories. Our objective was to investigate whether such trajectories can meaningfully capture RPP development across a range of RPP types and ages, how they are interpreted and used, and what design challenges arise in the process.

Theoretical Framework:
Developmental models have a long-standing history in education, where they are used to conceptualize learning and progress (e.g., Duncan et al., 2013; Jin et al., 2015). These stage-based models provide a structured way to support and monitor growth, while also helping to normalize the non-linear and evolving nature of development in complex systems. Drawing on this tradition, and informed by general implementation frameworks (Fixsen et al., 2005; Durlak & DuPre, 2008) as well as RPP-specific scholarship (Penuel & Gallagher, 2017), we developed a set of hypothetical developmental trajectories. These trajectories aligned with the five dimensions of RPP effectiveness identified by Henrick et al. (2017), including building trust, supporting practice-side goals, producing useful research knowledge, and more.

Method:
Our study followed an evidence-centered design approach (Authors, 2022, 2023) and was carried out in three phases. In Phase 1, we developed initial draft trajectories through interviews with 29 leaders from diverse RPPs, a systematic literature review, and a convening of 27 experts from across the RPP field. In Phase 2, we field-tested the trajectories via a survey of 285 individuals affiliated with 65 RPPs, as well as in-depth interviews with 132 members from a subset of 32 partnerships. Finally, in Phase 3, we conducted mixed-methods analyses that combined survey data, interview findings, and input from RPP evaluators.

Findings:
As we tested and refined the trajectories, several critical tensions emerged. One tension was balancing the desire for a tool that could be broadly applicable with the need for specificity and clarity. In attempting to accommodate a wide range of RPP types and ages, some trajectory statements became overly vague, limiting their usefulness. Furthermore, despite being designed to describe development over time, many users interpreted the trajectories as normative scales—labeling stages as “bad,” “medium,” or “good.” These interpretations reflected pre-existing beliefs about evaluation and improvement, complicated our efforts to present developmental progression as contextual and non-linear, and shaped how RPP members made sense of their partnerships.

Significance:
This study is among the first to explore the use of developmental trajectories across a large and diverse set of RPPs. Our findings point to the need for developmental tools to create space for dialogue, encourage local sensemaking, and serve as flexible guides—rather than standardized checklists. We argue that RPP maturity should be understood not as a fixed endpoint, but as a partnership’s ability to engage in ongoing reflection, navigate tensions, and adapt to dynamic local contexts.

Authors

• Alison Fox Resnick, University of Colorado - Boulder

• Corinne Singleton, Menlo Education Research

• Caitlin Farrell, University of Colorado - Boulder

• Kristina M. Stamatis, University of Nebraska Omaha

• William R. Penuel, University of Colorado - Boulder