The Challenges of Bridging the Research–Practice Gap through Insider–Outsider Partnerships in Education

Abstract

Background Partnerships between schools and universities are increasingly advocated as a way to bridge the research–practice gap in education. Empirical research has revealed a wide variety of benefits that these partnerships can bring to merging research and practice. Yet, empirical studies also demonstrate that merging research and practice through partnerships at local sites is neither straightforward nor a guaranteed process. Rather, it is a fragile process fraught with tension that often stems from the relationship between the school and university partners. Purpose Kornfeld and Leyden reflected that if schools and universities are to successfully partner, they “should be ever mindful of … the infinite complexities and potential pitfalls in the relationship.” The purpose of this literature review is to document these complexities and pitfalls more fully so that schools and universities involved in partnerships can have more realistic expectations of the demanding work entailed in maintaining healthy relationships. Realistic expectations can help school and university partners to more successfully navigate the fragility of their work. Furthermore, the research literature suggests that when partners work collaboratively to address these challenges, they will strengthen their relationships. Research Design A literature review was conducted using an intellectual social network analysis and an extensive database search. A total of 56 studies were selected for analysis using relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria. Findings The 56 studies reveal that challenges to maintaining partnerships emerge from the differences in schools and universities along three high-level categories: organizational structures, discourse practices, and power relations. Yet, schools and universities can mitigate these challenges by working together to collaboratively build organizational infrastructure, shared meaning, and trusting relationships. Recommendations Schools and universities that partner to close the gap between research and practice at local sites should be mindful of the ways that their differences in organizational structures, discourse practices, and power relations can complicate their work together. At the same time, schools and universities can strengthen their relationships by intentionally working to collaboratively build organizational infrastructure, shared meaning, and trusting relationships. By working to reconcile the differences between themselves, schools and universities can better learn how to navigate the fragility inherent in their partnership.

How a university and a school district made change together

“…Schools entering partnerships are, like East, typically in low-performing districts, populated by historically marginalized groups, and face limited options for improvement and numerous barriers (Valant & Lincove, 2018). This vulnerability, along with the history of failed partnerships, helps explain why communities often regard a university's motivations warily (Phelps, 2019).…”

Leading with data: Using an impact-driven research consortium model for the advancement of social emotional learning in schools.

“…As noted by Phelps (in press) in his recent review of literature on research-practice partnerships, work in these spaces is usually very complicated and, in his words, “fragile and often fraught with tension.” This tension, he explains, emerges from differences between universities and partnering schools and agencies in organizational frameworks, discourse practices, and the power they hold (statuses) to make decisions and contribute to knowledge building. He further notes that university-school partnerships are particularly impacted by differences in norms and expectations for meaningful work as well as by more general and mundane issues, such as scheduling challenges and competing priorities.…”

“…The development and activities of the consortium faced a number of significant challenges, not unlike those mentioned by Phelps (in press) in his review of research-practice partnerships. First, the process of bringing people together was not without its difficulties.…”

Counternarratives as DisCrit Praxis: Disrupting Classroom Master Narratives Through Imagined Composite Stories

“…The demands on classroom teachers to innovate daily due to the global pandemic depleted the teacher-activists’ bandwidth to participate in the review of relevant scholarship and article drafting; as a result, the practitioner-scholars did more preliminary drafting than planned. Because our collective commitment to our goals and research process did not waiver, our roles required continual flexibility to mitigate issues that often render partners “voiceless and powerless” (Phelps, 2019, p. 13). We endeavored to recognize the different needs of all authors, identified in Phelps’s (2019) literature review as a recurrent challenge to building shared meaning and trusting relationships in practitioner-scholar collaborations.…”

“…Because our collective commitment to our goals and research process did not waiver, our roles required continual flexibility to mitigate issues that often render partners “voiceless and powerless” (Phelps, 2019, p. 13). We endeavored to recognize the different needs of all authors, identified in Phelps’s (2019) literature review as a recurrent challenge to building shared meaning and trusting relationships in practitioner-scholar collaborations. In response, we renegotiated responsibilities multiple times and revisions occurred organically to honor individual timelines, personal needs, and external demands.…”