Research–Practice Partnerships Across Global Educational Contexts: Comparative Insights for Peace, Justice and Social Cohesion Through Collaboration

• In Event: Collaboration, Trust, and Knowledge Production in Global Higher Education

Proposal

Introduction
The 70th Annual Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) conference theme, “Re-examining Education and Peace in a Divided World” (CIES, 2026), calls for renewed reflection on how education can serve as an infrastructure for peace, justice, and social cohesion. In a time of political polarization, widening inequality, and cultural fragmentation, divisions across societies demand fresh approaches to collaboration in education.

This presentation, co-authored with colleagues from California, situates Research–Practice Partnerships (RPPs) as a promising model for fostering collaboration and peace-oriented educational change across diverse contexts. Defined as long-term, mutualistic collaborations between practitioners and researchers (Coburn, Penuel & Geil, 2013), RPPs offer structures for trust-building, shared problem-solving, and collective capacity development. While often associated with localized reform, their principles—relational trust, mutualism, iterative design, and shared leadership—hold significant implications for international collaboration, enabling educators and researchers to work across contexts of division.

Drawing on cases from California (United States), South Africa, and Scotland, this paper explores how RPPs, when conceptualized as Networked Learning Systems (NLSs) (Madrid Miranda & Chapman, 2024), can foster collaborative professionalism, mobilize knowledge, and strengthen system learning.

Background and Theoretical Framework
RPPs are increasingly recognized as infrastructures for bridging research and practice, generating solutions to persistent problems while supporting equity-oriented change (Coburn et al., 2013; Penuel et al., 2011). Central to their success is relational trust (Bryk & Schneider, 2002), built incrementally through shared experience and reliability. Trust enables joint problem-solving and alignment around shared goals.

Our conceptual framing draws on:
• Design-Based Implementation Research (DBIR) (Penuel et al., 2011; Fishman et al., 2013), which emphasizes iterative co-design, systematic inquiry, and capacity building.
• Hargrave’s Collaborative Professionalism (Hargreaves and O’Connor, 2018) which describes how professionals effectively approach collaboration to increase coherence and social cohesion.
• Networked Learning Systems (NLSs) (Madrid Miranda & Chapman, 2024), which highlight decentralized decision-making, collective inquiry, and distributed leadership.
• Socio-cultural theories of organizational learning (Douglas, 1982; Hood, 1998).
• Benjamin’s (2022) notion of viral justice, which conceptualizes collaboration as a pathway to equity and systemic transformation.

Taken together, these frameworks suggest that RPPs can be understood not simply as technical solutions but as relational and political infrastructures that cultivate equity, justice, and peace.

Methods and Cases
This study draws on comparative evidence from three RPPs:
1. California, United States (Early-stage): A new university–district partnership emphasizing shared agenda setting, trust-building, and identification of improvement goals.
2. South Africa (Maturing): A four-year collaboration between the University of the Witwatersrand and the Amajuba District in KwaZulu-Natal, focusing on building district capacity to support principals as instructional leaders.
Data across these cases were analyzed thematically, focusing on trust dynamics, leadership practices, and organizational learning.

Findings
1. Relational Trust
Trust was foundational across contexts but developed differently. In California, early trust was anchored in responsiveness to district priorities. In South Africa, hierarchical governance and compliance-driven accountability made trust fragile, requiring deliberate cultivation.
2. Mutualism and Co-Design
Both RPPs emphasized valuing diverse expertise and engaging in joint problem identification. Sustaining mutualism, however, required navigating power imbalances. In South Africa, this meant shifting roles from compliance oversight to developmental support. In California, it involved ensuring formal leaders and practitioners shared authority.
3. Contextualized Leadership and Capacity
Leadership practices shaped how RPP principles were embedded. In California, leaders’ alignment with district visions facilitated buy-in. In South Africa, officials needed to reorient practices toward learning-focused engagement.

Discussion: RPPs as Infrastructures for Peace
Authentic RPPs require negotiation, humility, and adaptability. More than technical models of improvement, they create the relational and structural conditions for collaborative learning. We argue that RPPs contribute to peacebuilding by:
1. Bridging divides through shared spaces for dialogue and problem-solving.
2. Cultivating equity by valuing practitioner, community, and research expertise.
3. Sustaining collaboration through iterative cycles and long-term commitment.
By situating RPPs within the global agenda of peace, we highlight their potential to move beyond symbolic exchange toward genuine collaboration that challenges inequities, fosters inclusion, and builds system resilience.

Conclusion
This paper responds to the CIES 2026 theme by re-examining how education can foster peace in a divided world through the lens of international RPPs. The comparative cases highlight both the promise and fragility of collaborative infrastructures, underscoring the importance of relational trust, shared leadership, and context-sensitive adaptation.
Peace is not achieved through rhetoric but through deliberate practices of trust-building, collaboration, and shared learning. RPPs provide a model for authentic, equity-focused partnerships that challenge traditional hierarchies and foster inclusive, sustainable educational improvement. In doing so, they contribute not only to stronger educational systems but also to the broader project of building peace and justice.

Authors

• Christina Mills, UC Davis

• Pinkie Euginia Mthembu, University of Witwatersrand