Examining boundaries in a large-scale educational research-practice partnership

IF 2.5 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Simon Sjölund, Jannika Lindvall
{"title":"Examining boundaries in a large-scale educational research-practice partnership","authors":"Simon Sjölund, Jannika Lindvall","doi":"10.1007/s10833-023-09498-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) are emerging as a promising approach for educational change by closing the gap between educational research and practice. However, these partnerships face several challenges, such as addressing cultural differences as well as relationship-building in a historically unbalanced relationship between researchers and practitioners. Scholars have argued that these cultural differences, also called boundaries, have learning potential if approached constructively, but that we need to know more about what characterizes them in an educational context. The aim of this study is to contribute to our understanding of frameworks for RPPs. By analysing 45 hours of video recordings from meetings in an RPP between four researchers and 300 practitioners, the study offers a characterization of seven different boundaries organized into three different boundary themes: a) prerequisites for collaboration, b) collaborative practices, and c) collaborative content. Moreover, the different boundaries affect the positioning of different actors in the RPP. For example, depending on the boundary expressed, teachers are positioned as either flawed implementers or co-inquirers. We argue that the boundaries and different participant positions within the RPPs they reinforce may affect their learning potentials.</p>","PeriodicalId":47376,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Change","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Change","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-023-09498-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) are emerging as a promising approach for educational change by closing the gap between educational research and practice. However, these partnerships face several challenges, such as addressing cultural differences as well as relationship-building in a historically unbalanced relationship between researchers and practitioners. Scholars have argued that these cultural differences, also called boundaries, have learning potential if approached constructively, but that we need to know more about what characterizes them in an educational context. The aim of this study is to contribute to our understanding of frameworks for RPPs. By analysing 45 hours of video recordings from meetings in an RPP between four researchers and 300 practitioners, the study offers a characterization of seven different boundaries organized into three different boundary themes: a) prerequisites for collaboration, b) collaborative practices, and c) collaborative content. Moreover, the different boundaries affect the positioning of different actors in the RPP. For example, depending on the boundary expressed, teachers are positioned as either flawed implementers or co-inquirers. We argue that the boundaries and different participant positions within the RPPs they reinforce may affect their learning potentials.

Abstract Image

审查大规模教育研究与实践伙伴关系的界限
研究与实践合作伙伴关系(RPPs)通过缩小教育研究与实践之间的差距,正在成为一种有前途的教育变革方法。然而,这些合作关系面临着一些挑战,如解决文化差异问题,以及在研究者与实践者之间历来不平衡的关系中建立关系。学者们认为,这些文化差异(也称为界限)如果以建设性的方式加以处理,则具有学习潜力,但我们需要更多地了解在教育背景下这些文化差异的特点。本研究的目的是促进我们对 RPP 框架的理解。通过分析四名研究人员和 300 名实践者在 RPP 中 45 小时的会议录像,本研究提供了七个不同边界的特征,分为三个不同的边界主题:a) 合作的先决条件;b) 合作实践;c) 合作内容。此外,不同的边界会影响不同参与者在 RPP 中的定位。例如,根据所表达的边界,教师要么被定位为有缺陷的实施者,要么被定位为共同探究者。我们认为,这些边界和不同参与者在他们所强化的 RPP 中的定位可能会影响他们的学习潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Educational Change
Journal of Educational Change EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Journal of Educational Change is an international, professionally refereed, state-of-the-art scholarly journal, reflecting the most important ideas and evidence of educational change. The journal brings together some of the most influential thinkers and writers as well as emerging scholars on educational change. It deals with issues like educational innovation, reform and restructuring, school improvement and effectiveness, culture-building, inspection, school-review, and change management. It examines why some people resist change and what their resistance means. It looks at how men and women, older teachers and younger teachers, students, parents and others experience change differently. It looks at the positive aspects of change but does not hesitate to raise uncomfortable questions about many aspects of educational change either. It looks critically and controversially at the social, economic, cultural and political forces that are driving educational change. The Journal of Educational Change welcomes and supports contributions from a range of disciplines, including history, psychology, political science, sociology, anthropology, philosophy and administrative and organizational theory, and from a broad spectrum of methodologies including quantitative and qualitative approaches, documentary study, action research and conceptual development. School leaders, system administrators, teacher leaders, consultants, facilitators, educational researchers, staff developers and change agents of all kinds will find this journal an indispensable resource for guiding them to both classic and cutting-edge understandings of educational change. No other journal provides such comprehensive coverage of the field of educational change.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信