INTRODUCTION

Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) are often described as mechanisms that invite disruption or that result in transformation in the education landscape (e.g., Farrell et al., 2021; Penuel & Hill, 2019). In theory, RPPs might be well-situated to meet both of these aims, given their reimagining and repositioning of education researchers, leaders, and community members in the production and use of research. The orientation of many RPPs to co-generate and make sense of knowledge, research, and evidence across individual and organizational boundaries in service of supporting action magnifies this potential. As anyone involved in partnership work knows, however, this potential is challenging to realize. It often requires disruption of long-held roles, relationships, and methods within research processes. 

In this article, we build on this idea of “requiring disruption” and extend it to writing and researching about RPPs. In particular, we invite readers to reflect with us on some norms that might need to be revisited as we engage in the written documentation and study of RPPs. We are motivated to start this conversation in a moment of growing awareness of partnership work, which we see reflected in the increasing number of published articles about RPPs. Because building a literature base is so important to the continued growth and understanding of RPPs, we think it equally important to ensure that our writing habits are responsive to the kinds of disruptive thinking we see as critical to impactful partnership work. 

In an effort to start this reflective conversation, we consider some of the core tasks that are involved in writing a research manuscript: (1) framing the focal intervention, approach, or challenge, (2) summarizing and drawing on current literature, (3) being specific about the context of a study, and (4) designing inquiry questions. For each, we examine a norm or trend in research articles more broadly that could be – unintentionally – brought forward into writing about RPPs and consider why this might be problematic. We then imagine what we might do differently. 

We see these as considerations not just for those writing, but also those reviewing papers or articles on RPPs. (In fact, reviewers have a special role to play in building the field of RPPs, given their gatekeeper role in what ultimately gets published.) We propose the ideas below as first steps toward future learning as an RPP community and the beginning of a tool for writing, reviewing, and editing articles about the work of RPPs. Let’s dive in!

1. Framing the focal intervention, approach, or challenge.

Writing a research article involves choosing how to frame a focal intervention, approach, or challenge. One way in which this is often done in education research more broadly is to justify the focus on a particular intervention or approach using “magic bullet” framing. Such framing can be seen in articles about, for instance, curriculum, professional development approaches, assessment systems, or styles of leadership practice. In all of these cases, magic bullets are put forth as approaches that will “work” no matter the context, are rather simple to implement, and are self-contained in that other layers of an educational system are not implicated. Magic bullet framing also tends to encourage true “believers” of the thing, which can lead to forgetting the possibility that it can fail. Implicit within this framing is a “one-way” benefit to practitioners, often with “savior” undertones to it. Those peddling a new curriculum, for instance, may frame it as benefiting teachers (and students) but typically do not see a reciprocal benefit for their own learning or design of curriculum. We are certainly not the first to articulate these ideas; other approaches to collaborative education research have also grappled with a tendency for researchers to frame the research itself as “saving the day” for the partner group or organization. The underlying logic of this framing is that the tool or approach being suggested is obviously great and will thus fix all the problems if those on the ground simply use it. 

Such framing is baked into educational systems, decision-making, and writing and can easily be applied to RPPs. As an illustrative thinking tool, here’s a stylized example of “magic bullet” framing of RPPs from ChatGPT: 

“Research-practice partnerships are the key to unlocking the full potential of our educational system. By bringing together researchers and practitioners, we can ensure that our policies and practices are based on the best available evidence. RPPs will help us address longstanding educational challenges like achievement gaps, teacher retention, and student engagement. With RPPs, we can finally achieve the kind of results we’ve been striving for and give every student the education they deserve.”

In this stylized example, RPPs are framed as the answer to the complexity of educational problems of practice, which in this case, is the absence of research use, as illustrated in language such as “are the key” and “will help” and “we can finally achieve.” Such certainty is inherently at odds with the reality that RPPs are deeply contextual as they work to engage unique partners and organizations in local challenges. The failure to put forth an intentional logic or reasoning that could help readers understand why that magic bullet might have the potential to result in educational improvement reinforces the “magical” aspect of these types of framing. 

For RPPs, just because they have the potential to disrupt traditional boundaries between research and practice and/or traditional “research on” approaches or “research for the sake of research” approaches does not mean that research about/on/from/within RPPs inherently does this. A more nuanced example that reflects this aspect of magic bullet thinking: “Because they are designed with power and equity in mind, RPPs are…” To be clear, RPPs in theory can be designed with power and equity in mind. Whether this happens in practice and to what degree is an entirely separate question, however, and should be taken up directly when framing RPPs in written documentation.

Magic bullet framing also tends to imply a “one-way” benefit to those engaging in policy and practice. With RPPs, this might show up as failing to consider how those participating in RPPs from the research-side –and their work– might also be transformed. Writers taking up this call might thus reframe this underlying logic to say “we aim to explore the various ways our RPP influenced different aspects of the research production and use processes, including how the research itself was transformed, which new relationships emerged and why, and systemic barriers that continue to restrict how and whether research is used.”

We see two initial implications for our framing of RPPs in articles: 

(1) Notice and avoid “magic bullet” framing by emphasizing that engaging in partnership work is challenging, contextually-specific, and will not necessarily achieve its potential. In addition, it is important to acknowledge that the theoretical conception of RPPs might fall short of its practical realization. 

(2) Notice and avoid “one-way” benefit framing by acknowledging the important potential for partnerships to transform all partners (research, practice, community, and others), as well as all aspects of the work (research, practice, and policy).

2. Summarizing and drawing on current literature.

Another writing task involved in any article involves drawing on and summarizing current literature. This task can range from using current literature to frame a study to full, systematic literature reviews. The norms and standards for peer-reviewed work call on authors to prioritize (and in many cases, limit their references to) other peer-reviewed journal articles coming from high quality journals. This approach to saying “what is known” based on published literature privileges research-based knowledge. While research can absolutely build important knowledge, relying solely on the peer-reviewed literature to establish what is known and not known about a topic can end up conveying assumptions that research is all knowing, neutral, and fully representative of what is happening in educational contexts. Whatever gets said in the literature then continues to get amplified in other literature, acting as an echo chamber of what may or may not be true in reality. 

We see this norm as a particularly important one to reconsider as we explore what disruption entails in writing and research about RPPs. Below, we share some initial thinking about how this norm may be harmful when writing about RPPs.  

First, privileging research-based knowledge can be inherently contradictory to the “heart” of RPPs. If one of the underlying goals of many RPPs is to value different forms of experiences, wisdom, and knowledge, then relying on peer-reviewed literature to establish what is “known” about RPPs is problematic. Relying on such a narrow slice of RPP-related knowledge means we are relying on the messages of people in RPPs for whom it is both possible and a priority to write peer-reviewed articles. From a systemic perspective, practice-side and community-side members may have limited time to engage in journal article writing given that these types of activities are not typically part of their paid hours. They may also prefer to remain anonymous, which also likely limits their participation in writing. From a partnership perspective, studying and/or writing about one’s own partnership activities might not be a priority for the partnership itself, given limited time to work together, which necessitates focusing on pressing action items that have real implications. Adding to this omission is the lack of stories around RPPs that have sunsetted or perhaps “failed” in some way, leading the literature to reflect an overly positive bias to reporting on RPPs. We should be aware, then, that what ultimately makes it into the peer-reviewed literature is markedly under representative of RPPs everywhere. And note that this observation is true for any research literature that has not been co-produced with a multiplicity and diversity of perspectives.

Carrying forward this norm in our writing about RPPs could also end up conveying that we know something about “all RPPs.” This is problematic both practically and conceptually. The boundaries to defining RPPs are still quite fuzzy. Although there is a definition to draw from (e.g., Farrell et al., 2021) as well as frameworks suggesting what may be common dimensions of RPP effectiveness (e.g., Henrick et al., 2017), how and to what extent any of these dimensions apply to a single RPP varies, as it depends on context, goals, organizations involved, and so on. We can see examples of this within NNERPP’s network of just over 60 RPPs. Some share a few characteristics, but none are exactly the same – and this is exactly what you would expect, given that RPPs are meant to be customized to and reflective of the local contexts in which they sit. Thus, we don’t know how many RPPs there are to be included in generalized statements and the very thought that there might be something that is true for “all RPPs” ignores the immense, unique complexity of partnerships. 

Similarly, citing published frameworks related to RPPs can also unintentionally convey that these frameworks speak for “all RPPs.” For example, the phrases “the foundational assumptions of RPPs” or “RPPs by design are…” reflect two such instances where it is easy to rely on the theoretical underpinnings of RPPs to make claims about how they all “are” in practice. Frameworks introduced in the literature may indeed capture some of these “foundational assumptions,” but only if they were derived from a large enough sample of RPPs to truly be somewhat representative. And even in those cases, it is still questionable to what extent the frameworks accurately reflect “the entire community of RPPs.” Given the challenges described earlier to identifying “who” is in the RPP community, there is the chance that despite the authors’ best intentions, these conceptual illustrations could still be quite off. 

We see three initial implications regarding our use of existing literature in articles:

(1) Reconsider norms about what kinds of sources are worthy of citing in peer-reviewed literature, especially knowing that not everyone can or wants to publish about their RPP. 

(2) Notice and avoid language that casts the existing literature as conveying knowledge about “all RPPs.” 

(3) Notice and avoid language that cites theoretical frameworks as “facts about all RPPs.” 

3. Being specific about the context of the study.

A third task involved in writing an article involves describing the study context and viewing the study as deeply context-specific. Depending on research approaches or traditions, there are varying norms for the kinds of information and depth of detail that should be included. This is an area that other collaborative research approaches have also needed to work to define for themselves (e.g., Community-Based Research). In many cases, descriptions of contexts lack the details that actually support readers to make sense of where a study took place. This ends up downplaying the deeply contextual nature of all educational practice, in addition to ignoring how the dynamics of a setting may have played a role in shaping what transpired.  

The question for us to grapple with as an RPP community is: What details about an RPP should be included to bring readers into an understanding of how that particular RPP brings various features of RPPs to life, as is possible? [1]

An initial (and incomplete) list of details might include the answers to: Who is involved? What are the RPP’s goals? How do partners work together? For how long? On what? How does the RPP negotiate roles? How does the RPP navigate and disrupt power dynamics? How has the collaboration evolved over time? What organizational structures and systems does the RPP work inside of? How is the work supported (financially or otherwise)? Given RPPs’ high and necessary variability, these kinds of details should never be assumed to be obvious to anyone outside of the RPP. Such details will support readers to understand the unique partnership in which the study being reported on takes place. Understanding the various dimensions of the context is essential if readers are to make sense of what, if anything, from a particular study is relevant to their own work. Providing more detailed descriptions of RPPs will also add to our collective knowledge of what an RPP “is”, what it looks like, what it feels like, how it interacts with its unique context, and how it can evolve over time.

An additional layer of being specific about the context is also being explicit about the limitations of the findings of a study. Neglecting to be clear about such limitations in a given article impedes broader understanding of how the particular dynamics of an RPP’s context interacted with what ended up unfolding. Rather than viewing such limitations as weaknesses of a study, we suggest viewing them as useful layers of insight.

We see two initial implications for providing contextual details of the RPP in our writing:

(1) To the extent possible, consider providing an in-depth look at the underlying components of the RPP, how its mission and values are operationalized, a description of the various partners involved and what they do, and key aspects of the context that influence how the partnership came to be. 

(2) Examine and explicitly unpack the potential limitations of the study context.

4. Designing inquiry questions.

A fourth, and core task of developing research articles is the design of inquiry questions. In any study context, there are a multitude of questions that can be asked and investigated. As we have all experienced, not all inquiry questions are equal in terms of their value to building research knowledge or supporting others’ learning. In terms of RPPs, just because it’s a question we can ask, or an article we can write, does not mean it is necessarily useful for building knowledge and theory about the complex work of partnerships. Given the urgency of learning how to fundamentally transform our educational systems towards more equitable and just practices, we see this as a call to reconsider the types of inquiry that are most promising in supporting these aims. 

In Table 1, we explore possible revisions to inquiry questions that might otherwise be adopted to motivate research on RPPs. Our revisions aim to take simplified versions of questions that often drive inquiry and reimagine them in ways that have the potential to be more useful towards our collective understanding of RPPs.

Table 1. Re-considering powerful inquiry questions.

Reframed inquiry questions that have the potential to be more useful for our collective understanding of RPPs

The questions shared in the right hand column have the potential to be more useful because they lift up a level to analyze not just what, but how, why, where, and when in a way that takes into account the necessarily relational, political, and context-specific work of partnerships. This requires a translation of trends, reflections, or lessons from a particular context to an articulation of theory or knowledge that could potentially travel to another context. In this vein, we hope to invite thinking on the kinds of knowledge and theory we seek to develop and how we frame the contribution of such knowledge and theory.

We acknowledge here that this is a significant area of necessary learning for the RPP community. Most of us are only involved in one RPP and are so deep in the work we can’t always see what might be useful about our context to others. We are curious about the kinds of learning experiences, collaboration between RPPs, and tools that could build our ability as an RPP community to design powerful and useful inquiry questions. We see the examples offered in Table 1 as just a starting point and would welcome further exploration with others.

We see two initial implications for rethinking the types of inquiry questions shaping RPP writing:

(1) Notice and reconsider inquiry questions that aim to shed light on a surface-level or very context-specific aspect of partnership work. Instead, invite deeper inquiry by acknowledging that potential readers are likely situated in a very different kind of RPP context, and as a result, will likely appreciate efforts to support the transferability of learning. 

(2) In choosing inquiry questions, reflect on what the most potentially useful implications are for the broader community of RPPs. In findings and discussion sections, support readers in considering what they might take from the study that could be useful in their unique RPP context.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

In this article, we invite the RPP community to intentionally reflect with us on how we research and write about RPPs. Engaging in RPPs typically requires more than just adapting research methods to honor and center collaboration across local practitioners, communities, and researchers. To truly be impactful, a necessary disruption of the status quo is needed. A similar commitment to disruption of habitual ways of writing and researching about RPPs must also apply if we are to engage in systems-level change. On that note, we acknowledge that writers of peer-reviewed literature are typically situated in an academic system in which certain forms of publication are important forms of currency. As such, we recognize that taking action on any of these questions may present challenges that other approaches to collaborative research (e.g., Participatory Action Research) have also encountered. Nonetheless, we think this is necessary work to take on. As we continue to strengthen the work of RPPs, we invite readers to reflect on these initial ideas with us in service of ensuring that literature on RPPs has the potential to support further complex, unique, localized RPP work in other contexts and that it acknowledges the complexity and ever-evolving nature of RPP work.

Paula Arce-Trigatti is Director of the National Network of Education Research-Practice Partnerships (NNERPP) and Alison Fox Resnick is Research Associate at the National Center for Research in Policy and Practice at the University of Colorado Boulder.

NOTES

[1] We include “as is possible” to acknowledge examples in which a partnering organization prefers to remain anonymous. The invitation to be specific about a context does not mean “name all organizations involved.” Rather, it is an invitation to share (again, as is possible) the details of how the RPP is structured, what its goals are, what challenges it may face, and so forth.

Suggested citation: Arce-Trigatti, P., & Resnick, A. F. (2023). Writing and Researching About RPPs: An Invitation to Reflect. NNERPP Extra, 5(1), 17-27.