This article presents a conceptual framework for analyzing how researchers and district leaders perceive and navigate differences they encounter in the context of research-practice partnerships. Our framework contrasts with images of partnership work as facilitating the translation of research into practice. Instead, we argue that partnership activity is best viewed as a form of joint work requiring mutual engagement across multiple boundaries. Drawing on a cultural-historical account of learning across boundaries (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011) and evidence from a study of two longterm partnerships, we highlight the value of the concepts of boundary practices in organizing joint work and boundary crossing as a way to understand how differences are recognized and navigated. The framework has implications for how partnerships can surface and make productive use of difference in organizing joint work and for how funders can better support the work of researchpractice partnerships.Many policymakers, researchers, and practitioners agree that there is a wide gap between the worlds of educational research and practice. Researchers often imagine that the best way to bridge that gap is to translate basic research on learning into interventions that are feasible for teachers to implement, effective for a wide range of students, and accessible to any student who might benefit from them. It is hard to imagine a more worthy goal for education-to build knowledge of and access to effective interventions-but accomplishing that goal has proven elusive for education. There are many practical obstacles to achieving this aim, but there are also less visible obstacles that have to do with how one conceptualizes the relation between research and practice. In this article, we argue that thinking about how researchers can support improvements to educational practice as a process of translation is one of those obstacles.We have chosen to focus on the problems associated with what we are calling the translation metaphor, because policymakers have, for decades, focused significant attention on addressing

This study investigated what research district leaders find useful. It draws on evidence from interviews and surveys of central office leaders in three large urban districts in the United States. We find that although leaders did report using research as federal policies intend—to select among curricula, programs, and interventions to adopt—the kinds of research district leaders find useful are not primarily peer-reviewed impact studies. Instead, research they find useful present frameworks and practical guidance in the form of books. Leaders also report using research to support their own professional learning, guide their instructional leadership activities, and monitor and support implementation of district-adopted programs and practices. These findings make the case that we need a broader understanding of the research that may be relevant for the multifaceted work of district leaders.

No abstract

No abstract