I. INTRODUCTION

One of the defining characteristics of research-practice partnerships (RPPs) is the mutualistic collaboration that occurs between researchers (“R”s) and practitioners (“P”s) as they embark on partnership efforts. In RPPs, the research that is produced is typically a direct reflection of a jointly defined problem of practice across R and P, with a “two-way street” of communication enabling expertise from both research and practice to inform the work. And yet, in reality, the specifics of what that collaboration looks like, especially in terms of the roles Rs and Ps play within the partnership, is not as straightforward as it may initially appear. At NNERPP, we often field questions around the “working together” aspect of RPP work, including the following:

How can researchers maintain their independence in RPPs when partnership work often means working closely with practice-side (“P-side”) partners all along the research process?

This is an important and much-asked question, with no easy answer. On the one hand, researcher independence is important to uphold in instances where the p-side partners may be interested in examining the effects of a district-led policy, for example. In this case, researchers would prefer to provide an unbiased account (as much as possible) of the policy effects, and be careful so as not to serve as a mere “rubber stamp” on district policies. On the other hand, authentic partnership collaboration requires many iterations of joint work, where Rs and Ps regularly negotiate the aims of the partnership, the questions investigated, and the milestones of success. In this sense, attempting to maintain researcher independence is misguided at best and impossible at worst.

In this Deep Dive, we take a look at how we might think about this topic, drawing on relevant pieces from the research realm as well as reflections from NNERPP members and friends. In particular, we invited correspondents from our community to share their thoughts on the following prompts:

Q1: How important is it to maintain independence between “R” and “P” partners? Why?

Q2: How close is “too close”? When do you know you’ve crossed the line and can no longer consider the research an “independent” perspective?

Q3: How have you navigated this tricky balance between maintaining research independence and building trust / being useful to your P-side partners?

The synthesis of ideas we present below is by no means the final word on this – in fact, as you’ll see, there are many different takes on this question just coming from our handful of NNERPP members and friends. Instead, our goal is to gather an initial set of viewpoints on this important topic as a starting point for further deliberation. To that end, we invite you to join the conversation as well, by sharing your own thoughts to the above questions via this link.

II. FROM THE RESEARCH

We first turn to the research on RPPs to help inform our thinking on the question of researcher independence. Penuel, Allen, Coburn, and Farrell’s “Conceptualizing Research-Practice Partnerships as Joint Work at Boundaries” (2015) is especially relevant and informative to this conversation given its reimagining of partnership work as more than just a complicated mechanism to enable the translation of research to practice. The authors introduce a conceptual framework that characterizes the collaborative work of RPPs as one requiring “boundary crossing” of Rs and Ps – that is, to fulfill the aim of joint work, RPPs must allow for R-side and P-side participants to regularly move beyond the pre-existing norms and routines that define their workspaces and roles in the absence of an RPP.

Three key ideas emerge from this paper related to our deep dive topic here: First, if we let go of the notion that one of the main functions of RPPs is to merely translate research to practice, the question of researcher independence becomes less important. Second, by embracing and planning for boundary crossing to occur across R and P, we can reframe questions about researcher independence as questions about where the boundaries of the researcher role lie. Third, if partnerships do not thoughtfully plan for boundary crossing through the development of boundary practices, joint work will be stalled. We elaborate further on these ideas in what follows.

>>Translation is Not Enough

The Penuel, et al. (2015) study seeks to explain how Rs and Ps (Ps are district leaders, in their case) engage with each other in the context of an RPP, especially when one considers that joint work is a key goal–and critical component–of partnerships. The authors first describe an enduring framework that has been applied to partnership work previously, what they call the “translation metaphor”: In this conceptualization, the bulk of the work that occurs in RPPs is reduced to simple translation, where the main role of Rs is to translate findings so that Ps can understand the evidence before them (and therefore, use it). 

The authors argue that this metaphor vastly misrepresents what really goes on in partnership work and raise a number of shortcomings with the application of this framework to RPPs. Here, we focus on two of the criticisms that are relevant to our understanding of researcher independence:

1. The translation metaphor is insufficient to characterize the joint work occurring in RPPs because it assumes that the “directionality of learning is one-way, and [that] the goal is for knowledge to travel unchanged” (p. 185).

2. The translation metaphor is also inappropriate as a framework for RPPs because it suggests a very narrow view of research use by Ps by assuming that “what decision makers should prize most about research is that it can generate trustworthy evidence that they can use instrumentally to make decisions” (p. 186).

So, what do these two criticisms have to do with our question of researcher independence?

If we think partnerships should “aim for greater mutualism and reciprocity” (p. 185) in their work, which happen to be the very ingredients that lead to joint work, then the translation metaphor is a very “impoverished” way (the authors’ description, which seems apt) of describing how Rs and Ps work together. That is, the assumption that Rs (alone) must produce a translated version of knowledge in order for Ps to receive it (unchanged) and use it does not accurately describe how Rs and Ps work together in RPPs. Indeed, the authors share that “[t]he partnerships we have studied teach us that researchers and practitioners working in partnership are engaged in processes of collaboration and exchange that are both messier and potentially more transformative than the one-way translation of knowledge of research into practice” (p. 183; bolding ours). Moreover, we also know that use of research happens a number of different ways beyond this simple linear characterization, nevermind that what “research” Ps find valuable is typically much broader than the results of one study (e.g., Penuel, et al., 2016).

In our case, these ideas help us see how a translational view of RPP work might lead to questions regarding researcher independence, and more importantly, result in tension when preservation of this role is challenged. But as the paper points out, the simplified translational metaphor describing RPP work is not appropriate given the “messy” and multi-directional nature of the work. Based on the above reasoning, we instead might ask ourselves: if partnership work does not seem messy or complicated or requires bi-directional knowledge flows, are you actually in an RPP? Put another way, if you are actively trying to preserve the lines of your role as a researcher (and hence, in some ways, upholding translation as the main outcome of your efforts), can you ever really be engaged in joint work? These questions suggest that inquiry into researcher independence may really be more about questioning where the boundary lies in terms of an Rs role in the RPP, with the question itself really just serving as a symptom of an underlying (and unnamed) tension. We turn to this tension next.

>>Boundary Crossing: It’s a Must

So, if the translation metaphor is not accurate nor appropriate for describing partnership work, what is? Penuel, et al. (2015) introduce a new conceptual framework that moves us away from translation and closer to describing the “messy” reality that is partnership work. The framework itself integrates “cultural-historical perspectives [that] offer a view of diversity and difference not as obstacles to [be] overcome, but as a value inherent to social and professional activity” (p. 187; bolding ours). The concept of “boundary crossing” is introduced and defined as “an individual’s transitions and interactions across different sites of practice” (p. 188). Indeed, the “notion of boundary crossing…provides a way to identify when and how particular cultural and institutional boundaries become relevant” in RPPs (p. 190). Boundary crossing occurs when Rs and Ps move into spaces where they might feel “unqualified” (p. 188) to act, such as when researchers are asked for advice on a topic outside of their expertise or when P-side folks are asked to present at an academic conference, for example. Perhaps most importantly, boundary crossing is identified as being required to fulfill the aim of joint work in RPPs. 

When viewed this way, the preservation of researcher independence may actually not be a problem needing to be solved at all. Instead, the question of how to support co-construction of research requiring boundary crossing that leads to joint work might be more appropriate. Moreover, if we explore this second question further, we might also ask: What dimensions of partnership work define (i) where boundaries lie and (ii) how far these can be pushed or need to be pushed? 

On the first question of where boundaries lie, we hypothesize that partnership type (i.e., research alliance, design-based, or networked improvement community) strongly influences the degree to which boundary crossing exists. For example, in partnerships that are structured as “research alliances,” there is a greater chance that Rs and Ps stay in their lanes, preserving – to some extent – the pre-existing boundaries that define their roles. In many research alliances, building theory may very well be an activity that is done across R and P, while building evidence to inform decision making may or may not be. In other types of RPPs, such as design-based partnerships, the roles of R and P tend to be more blurred given the large emphasis on the co-construction or co-design of research and knowledge. There are likely other partnership dimensions that impact whether or not boundaries are more or less defined, but the key takeaway here is that tension regarding researcher independence may have a lot to do with how the RPP is organized. 

In terms of the second question raised above (i.e., how far can boundaries be pushed or need to be pushed), the answer is likely to differ based on partnership approach, individual preferences, organizational incentives, and so on. Given that there is not necessarily a clear answer here, we turn to our correspondents’ thoughts shared in section III, who provide valuable insight based on their experiences. Before we visit those, however, there is one final idea from the Penuel, et al. (2015) paper to ponder together related to the concept of boundary practices.

>>Do You Boundary Practice?

As we discussed in the last subsection, the authors argue that boundary crossing is a necessary condition for joint work to occur in RPPs. To meet this condition, the authors suggest RPPs should (i) establish the existence of boundary crossing (i.e., by recognizing moments that may require Rs and Ps to blur their traditional roles) and (ii) purposely plan for these through boundary practices. Boundary practices are defined as “new routines that bridge the practices of researchers and those of practitioners as they engage in joint work” (p. 190). Moreover, ”[p]roductive boundary practices make surfacing cultural differences and conflict a routine part of practice and frame these as resources for joint work” (p. 190, bolding ours). A hallmark of these activities is their hybridity, resulting in practices that are unfamiliar to both Rs and Ps prior to entering into partnership work. In short, boundary practices are instances where R truly informs P and vice versa (i.e., a bi-directional flow of knowledge), leading to opportunities that help surface and make productive use of the different perspectives and skills partners bring to the work (p. 192). Taking this into consideration, we can see how the concerns about researcher independence may actually be the result of partnerships not actively pursuing boundary practices, and leaving boundary crossing an unexplored domain. 

In case we needed further evidence of the importance of exploring and defining boundaries, we call upon another related paper here as well, which offers ideas on the importance of negotiating roles in RPPs, especially with respect to partnership productivity. In their investigation of collaborative work in RPPs, Farrell, Harrison, and Coburn (2019) suggest that ambiguity in roles or differences in people’s expectations of roles can create confusion and conflict. Moreover, uncertainty about roles might be an even greater challenge in RPPs than other organizations, since partnerships require members to work together in new ways “that are unfamiliar or go against established organizational and institutional norms” (p. 2). 

Drawing on observations of partnership leadership meetings and interviews with school district leaders and R-side partners, Farrell et al. (2019) find that negotiation of roles and organizational identity was an important feature of the RPP’s work, with partners defining and redefining “what was within or out of bounds for the RPP” (p. 5). Time spent talking about roles during meetings took time away from other more substantive work efforts; however, these discussions also led to reorganizations of roles that contributed to new ways of working together. The authors find that two factors contributed to the need for role negotiation: (i) The R-side partner’s multifaceted identity and (ii) shifts in personnel and leadership at the district (p. 9). Overall, this study suggests that confusion about roles may stall collaborative work, while effective renegotiation can then lead to new ways of working together. Consequently, even long-standing partnerships may want to explicitly “revisit or reestablish shared understandings about roles” (p. 11, bolding ours) on a regular basis. 

And this leads us back to the question we first posed: How can researchers maintain their independence in RPPs when partnership work often means working closely with practice-side partners all along the research process? After reading through both the Penuel, et al. (2015) and Farrell, et al. (2019) studies, we might recommend:

(1) Inviting partnership members to talk through the assumptions behind this question, carefully considering whether the question might stem from a translational view of RPP work and whether this view is appropriate;

(2) Holding partnership discussions that explore examples of boundary crossing that occur at both the partnership and project levels to consider where boundaries need to be identified, negotiated, and encouraged; and

(3) Negotiating roles across R and P, specifically as they relate to the research process, as a first step towards identifying boundary practices that the partnership may meaningfully engage in.

III. FROM THE FIELD

Next, we turn to reflections from the field. In total, we had 14 respondents weigh in, some of whom answered the questions in small groups of two (see all respondents in Table 1 below). We synthesize their thoughtful reflections for each of our three sub-questions below. 

Table 1. Contributing respondents and their roles and partnerships.

>>Q1: How important is it to maintain independence between “R” and “P” partners? Why?

Interestingly, maintaining independence between research- and practice-side partners is not a major concern for the majority of our respondents: some note that they have not encountered this as an issue in their RPP (Callie, Emily, Guillermo), while others say it is not necessarily a goal, either. As Stacey succinctly puts it, independence between R and P is “neither possible nor desirable.” Beth elaborates further that the idea of independence is even “a bit misleading” in an RPP context, since R-side and P-side partners need to (i) commit to the same end goals, (ii) agree on how the work is conducted, and (iii) be open and honest with each other. Similarly, Emily describes the purpose of RPP research to “support the practice-side partners in reaching their goals,” which necessitates close, joint work. 

Others echoed these thoughts and even regarded too much independence as problematic, embracing interdependence or co-dependence instead: RPPs are “dependent by design” and characterized by and strengthened through their joint work rather than independent, “siloed” work (Laura). Callie further notes that “collaboration and equal partnership are essential to the RPP model.” Cheri agrees that by nature, the R- and P-sides “cannot and should not be” completely independent of each other, as this would work against the “underlying premise of an RPP.” Katie adds that R-side and P-side partners “miss important and valuable information on both sides,” such as different perspectives, questions, and data points, when operating too independently. Eric also sees “co-dependence” rather than independence as characteristic of the RPP model and points out that such co-dependence is possible without compromising the integrity of the research when a high level of mutual trust, respect, and “even admiration” for each other is there.

Our respondents do agree that, in Cheri’s words, “there is a balance” – research findings must be credible and reliable, and maintaining a level of independence that ensures this is important. The key, Cheri adds, is unbiased data collection and unbiased analytic methods, tools, and choices. Similarly, Julie and Clare say it’s important to maintain enough independence as to not bias the research questions, design, and interpretation of findings; however, researchers must at the same time maintain enough proximity to P-side partners to understand the context, aspects of which include “legislative initiatives and policy agendas; decision making authority within the partner organization; familiarity with the data; [and an] understanding of organizations that work with the partner organization to be able to forward map change based on research findings.”

Our respondents additionally have different definitions of what “independence between R and P partners” means, or offer different considerations for a number of aspects of independence. For example, independence can be interpreted as Rs and Ps acknowledging the boundaries of their roles and the work that happens independently based on these roles, says Laura. Yet, she adds, dependence on each other outweighs the independent elements of the work and is in fact necessary in order to build trust, which is hugely important for successful RPP work. Similarly, researchers should be “critical friends” (Callie) and free to “[express] and [advocate] for [their] ideas” (Eric) and “professional needs” (Emily), but that should never stand in the way of joint, collaborative work. Katie adds that likewise, practice-side partners should be critical friends, too, and free to question the research design, methods, and findings based on their own expertise. Beth says that independence might mean that R-side partners are not as wrapped up in the political context as P-side partners, and Emily offers an interpretation of independence as meaning that researchers do not get pressured by P-side partners to bury unflattering results. This is important, she says, but less likely to happen if mutual trust is built and clear procedures are negotiated from the outset through joint work.

Similar to Emily’s interpretation, others also interpret independence in terms of objectivity, which includes methodological validity of the research (Stacey). Eric clarifies that independence should never mean “disregarding the constraints and obligations of your practice partner,” but does mean that it must be clear that university researchers do not work “for” the district but are objective partners. Lyzz and Matt add that if defined as objectivity, researchers in an RPP must be objective the same as any other researcher – this objectivity is not bound to or changed by their connection to any agency, nor is independence from the practice organization necessary for the research to remain objective. In a similar line of thought, Stacey cautions not to “assume that the presence of practitioners as partners taints the research process in any real way.” In terms of researchers’ objectivity, Stacey also points out that everyone inadvertently brings their own “baggage, preconceptions, [and] value judgements” – complete objectivity is perhaps impossible. Steven adds that researchers do have a responsibility to question and acknowledge their own assumptions, and that any vested interests in research outcomes can and must be kept out of the data by researchers actively seeking to falsify any hypotheses they hold about the outcomes of their investigations.

>>Q2: How close is “too close”? When do you know you’ve crossed the line and can no longer consider the research an “independent” perspective?

In line with observations and comments regarding the importance of researchers’ objectivity in response to the previous question, many of our respondents point to any situations that jeopardize this objectivity as being “too close” and crossing the line. For example, when the R-side feels pressured by the P-side not to publish certain findings that might make the P-side organization look bad or challenge the status quo, the research is no longer objective or independent (Julie and Clare). More generally, “if researchers lose the ability to conduct ethical and rigorous research, that is a sign that independence has been lost” (Emily). A “willingness to sacrifice objectivity” for any reason might indicate a need for researchers to step away from RPP work and self-reflect on their role and position, add Lyzz and Matt. Callie and Laura advise that R- and P-side partners should stay within their role and be clear about what that role does and does not entail. 

Similarly, “distorting … findings to fit with a particular narrative” (Beth), which could happen on both the R and the P side, is crossing the line. Cheri adds that this entails making decisions about the research design and methods driven by a desire to advocate for a particular position even if it is not supported by the evidence, or making decisions about the research that take it off course from the actual problem of practice you are trying to address driven by any personal preferences on either the R or P side. Steven points out that in addition to distorting findings, making claims that go beyond what the data actually supports also compromises researchers’ independence. Stacey adds that the R-side should conduct research that also contributes to the larger body of knowledge and not only stick to the question asked by the P-side. On the flip side, if the P-side feels coerced into going along with the R-side research agenda, that is equally problematic (Stacey).

>>Q3: How have you navigated this tricky balance between maintaining research independence and building trust / being useful to your P-side partners?

Our respondents share plenty of practical advice for maintaining a good balance. Callie, Julie, and Clare point to the importance of being transparent about everyone’s role and responsibilities and the nature of the shared work from the very beginning of the partnership and the beginning of all partnership relationships. Katie and Cheri add that having both the R-side and the P-side represented at all stages of the research process helps in hearing and considering the needs of both sides throughout. Talking through the rationale and justification behind research methods for any given project with P-side partners builds trust, Cheri explains. More generally, building relationships first, before commencing RPP work, is crucial, says Beth.

One practical approach recommended by Beth, Emily, and Cheri is having a “no surprises” policy, wherein no findings are published without being shared with the P-side partners first. Importantly, “sharing” means leaving the space and time for responses and discussions around findings, particularly difficult ones. Including P-side partners in the sense-making of data is always important, says Cheri. Peer review is another mechanism for ensuring research objectivity, Steven points out, outlining his partnership’s peer review process whereby the research is subjected to peer review from researchers and practitioners who are not involved in the core partnership through the partnership’s advisory boards, through publishing at conferences and in academic journals, and more informally through debates with those who disagree with the policy recommendations put forth in the research. Lyzz and Matt share additional strategies for maintaining objectivity, including ensuring that researchers are not involved in the development of a program they are evaluating and avoiding any financial stake in the organizations in your partnership, such as paid contracts separate from partnership agreements.

To give a practical example of navigating the balance between research independence and mutual trust among partners, Laura recalls a tricky incident where both the P-side and the R-side partner in her partnership had conducted their own similar analyses and ended up with different results, leading to some tension. In addition to both parties working to compare their data sets, methods, and analyses to see why they were coming up with different findings, resolving this situation also required the P-side to trust the researchers’ sample, data management, and design of the analysis in order to ultimately trust the findings.

IV. CONCLUSION

In this Deep Dive we took a reflective look at the question and role of researcher independence in RPPs, consulting both the research literature on RPPs and inviting members and friends from the NNERPP space to weigh in as well. 

From the research perspective, we landed on three potential next steps for partnerships that are grappling with this question, including exploring whether team members are thinking of their work solely in a translational manner, fostering team discussions that encourage the identification and negotiation of boundaries (and roles) across R and P, and developing and implementing boundary practices that lead to new ways of working together. 

From our community, our respondents suggest that researcher independence is not necessarily contradictory to the very much interdependent nature of RPP work, especially if interpreted as objectivity. Three key themes emerged for their responses, including the need for researchers to make objective choices around the research design and interpretation of findings (which can be done in close collaboration with the P-side, where P-side partners also have a say in the research design and participate in sense making of the data); all partners are responsible for maintaining ethical standards; and an emphasis on the need for collaboration rather than independence for effective RPP work. 

Ultimately, the exact boundary for where R and P roles begin, end, and overlap in collaborative work will likely differ by partnership or project, but as we learned in this effort, it should be a topic for active consideration in RPPs. In future work, we might think further about the potential influences affecting how Ps are able to participate in RPPs. For example, what forces prohibit or encourage P-side partners from fully engaging in partnership work? How might the partnership navigate those? As we continue to ponder these and related questions, we invite you to think with us as well – please remember to share your own thoughts in this survey if you’d like!

Paula Arce-Trigatti is Director and Nina Spitzley is Marketing Specialist of the National Network of Education Research-Practice Partnerships (NNERPP).

REFERENCES

Farrell, C. C., Harrison, C., & Coburn, C. E. (2019). “What the Hell Is This, and Who the Hell Are You?” Role and Identity Negotiation in Research-Practice Partnerships. AERA Open, 5(2), 1-13.

Penuel, W. R., Allen, A-R., Coburn, C. E., & Farrell, C. (2015). Conceptualizing Research–Practice Partnerships as Joint Work at Boundaries. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 20(1-2), 182-197.

Suggested citation: Arce-Trigatti, P., & Spitzley, N. (2021). How Can Researchers Maintain Independence in RPPs? Should They? Reflections From the Field. NNERPP Extra, 3(1), 10-18.