Phases, Stages, or Something Else? What Other Non-RPP Evaluation Frameworks Reveal About RPP Evolution

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

Abstract

Objectives
The Henrick et al. (2023) framework for RPP health and effectiveness offers a lens on what makes partnerships thrive. However, little is known about how these dimensions unfold over phases of RPP work. By “phases,” we mean a sequence of evolving activities as partnerships grow, as opposed to rigid stages of the work. To explore whether Henrick’s dimensions cluster differently across an RPP’s lifecycle, we propose two complementary heuristics. First, Chen’s (2005) practical program evaluation framework offers a stepwise model (planning, implementation, outcomes) that helps identify shifting evaluative needs. Second, a “DevOps” model divides RPP work into two iterative cycles, development and operations, reflecting the complexity and adaptive nature of mature RPPs (e.g. Yamashiro & Wentworth, 2023). We treat these as tools for discussion, hypothesizing that newer RPPers benefit from Chen’s detailed approach, while experienced RPP-ers might prefer DevOps’ flexible “what’s next?” orientation.

Theory and method
We conceptually map Henrick et al.’s (2023) RPP dimensions onto two complementary frameworks: Chen’s (2005) practical program evaluation taxonomy and the DevOps model. Chen’s stepwise approach clarifies evaluation needs in different phases, while DevOps, with its iterative development/operations cycle, offers a simplified, agile heuristic.

Substantiated Conclusions
An exploration of how Henrick et al. (2023) indicators align with Chen’s (2005) phases—planning, initial implementation, maturity, and outcomes—alongside his evaluation strategies (development, partnership, merit assessment, and enlightenment) highlights how evaluative needs cluster over time (see Table 1). In planning, indicators emphasize trust-building, co-design, and early infrastructure, aligning with development and partnership strategies. Initial implementation continues these early activities while refining processes and fostering collaborative learning. Mature phases shift toward sustained action, monitoring, and accountability, reflecting merit assessment strategies. Outcomes emphasize long-term impact, external engagement, and system-level learning, aligning with merit assessment and enlightenment strategies. Chen’s framework thus serves as a detailed heuristic, offering scaffolding for less experienced RPPs.
While Chen’s framework helps differentiate how indicators emerge and evolve sequentially, the DevOps model reframes them into two broader cycles: development and operations (see Figure 1). This shift emphasizes function over sequence, reflecting how experienced RPPs can better navigate complexity through more open processes of ongoing adaptation rather than working with predefined stages.

Significance
This comparison shows how Chen’s framework and the DevOps model offer complementary heuristics for understanding RPP evolution and evaluation, and represents a novel application of two non-RPP focused frameworks to extend the Henrick et al (2017; 2023) effectiveness framework for practical use. Each mapping suggests there may indeed be benefit to grouping certain types of activities taken up by the RPP together in a “phase”. Future work should invite practical assessment of these frameworks to explore their utility across RPP types and ages.

Authors

• Simon Sjölund, Mälardalen University

• Paula Arce-Trigatti, National Network of Education Research-Practice Partnerships