Using research to inform practice through research‐practice partnerships: A systematic literature review

Abstract

Research‐practice partnerships (RPPs) have drawn a great deal of attention as promising structures for bringing educational research and practice closer together. However, promising as RPPs may be, challenges still exist and there have been calls for studies investigating how research can be used within RPPs, and how to include practitioners more in the generation of research evidence. We address these calls by conducting a systematic review of the research literature on RPPs. Our review of 57 articles shows that research is used in various ways to inform both the methods and content for facilitating school improvement in RPPs. For instance, research on effective PD can be directly applied to a Professional Development (PD) programme to inform the methods of the intervention, or research findings can be used as the content of an intervention to facilitate teacher learning. Moreover, the results suggest that the type of research used to inform RPPs affects the kinds of opportunities for research use that are presented to practitioners; ranging from applying research directly to practice (instrumental use), to using research to extend understanding (conceptual use), or using research methods and methodologies in order to increase practitioners’ capacity for improving education (process use). Based on the results, we argue that the presented opportunities for research use in interventions strongly affect teachers’ opportunities to participate in the generation of research evidence and thereby achieve a more democratised evidence system.

Special issue: Evidence into policy and practice

“…Sjölund et al (2022) present the findings from a systematic review of 57 studies investigating the nature and purposes of research practice partnerships in the promotion and use of evidence. These summarise both the promise and the challenges of such partnerships.…”

“…Teachers also demanded information on the feasibility of implementation, which needs to be included in the package, and it appears that presenters went beyond the evidence base when addressing user questions. Sjölund et al (2022) present the findings from a systematic review of 57 studies investigating the nature and purposes of research practice partnerships in the promotion and use of evidence. These summarise both the promise and the challenges of such partnerships.…”

You pick my brain and I'll pick yours: a pilot case study of research-practice partnership in an informal physics space

“…While educational policy increasingly emphasizes evidence-based practice [7], teaching is in fact often not guided by research evidence [8,9], and some researchers remain skeptical of the way research is used in formulating policy [10]. Researchers, practitioners, funders, and policymakers recognize RPP as a valuable tool for bridging this gap by involving educators in research and the implementation of research findings [5,11,12]. Questions remain, however, about how to conduct research useful to practitioners, to involve practitioners in performing research, and how to best apply RPP findings to educational practice [11][12][13].…”

“…Researchers, practitioners, funders, and policymakers recognize RPP as a valuable tool for bridging this gap by involving educators in research and the implementation of research findings [5,11,12]. Questions remain, however, about how to conduct research useful to practitioners, to involve practitioners in performing research, and how to best apply RPP findings to educational practice [11][12][13]. Despite their wide recognition in educational fields [11,14], RPPs are under-studied in physics education research (PER) (see [15,16] for curriculum-centered partnerships).…”

“…Questions remain, however, about how to conduct research useful to practitioners, to involve practitioners in performing research, and how to best apply RPP findings to educational practice [11][12][13]. Despite their wide recognition in educational fields [11,14], RPPs are under-studied in physics education research (PER) (see [15,16] for curriculum-centered partnerships). While several have investigated RPPs in informal science spaces [1,[17][18][19][20], few have taken place in informal physics environments [21], where learning goals are situated in the discipline's distinct content, practices, and culture and in the particular difficulties students may experience in that discipline [10].…”