Mapping roles in research-practice partnerships – a systematic literature review

Figures & data

Table 1. Description of tasks as a basis for role categories.

Main process	Researcher roles (R)	Practitioner roles (P)	Number of articles
Inquiry	Expert inquirers Collect, analyse, and synthesise data. Inform practice.	Inquiry translators Keep inquiry relevant to practice, as well as translating knowledge into action.	3
	Co-inquirers Collaborate with practitioners at all stages, such as defining research questions; collecting, analysing, and synthesising data; and translating into practice.	Co-inquirers Collaborate with researchers at all stages, such as defining research questions; collecting, analysing, and synthesising data; and translating into practice.	7
	Inquiry facilitators Support practitioners’ inquiry by supplying knowledge on research methodology.	Inquirers Conduct most of the inquiry work, such as collecting and analysing data.	15
Design	Designer leaders Lead initial co-design. Collect data, analyse and redesign.	Designer pilots Support initial co-design. Provide input from practice on redesign. Adapt design to local context.	9
	Design advisors Initial co-design. Collect and analyse data, and recommend actions.	Design validators Initial co-design. Interpret initial design, give feedback on implementation, and translate recommendations into local context.	8
Dissemination	Disseminators Provide PD to practitioners. Facilitate discussion among practitioners.	Translators Translate and test theory in practice.	8
	Content disseminators Provide content knowledge to practitioners in collaboration.	Teaching disseminators Provide practical knowledge of teaching to researchers in collaboration.	4
	Facilitators Facilitate sharing of practical knowledge among practitioners in a local group. Also share knowledge from one local group of practitioners to another.	Knowledge sharers Discuss and share knowledge from practice.	6

Note: Details of the references in each category are given in Appendix C.

Table

Main process	Researcher roles (R)	Practitioner roles (P)	Number of articles	Articles
Inquiry	Expert inquirers Collect, analyse, and synthesise data. Inform practice.	Inquiry translators Keep inquiry relevant to practice, as well as translating knowledge into action.	3	(Biag, 2017) (Raia-Hawrylak et al., 2019) (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2018)
	Co-inquirers Collaborate with practitioners at all stages, such as defining research questions; collecting, analysing, and synthesising data; and translating into practice.	Co-inquirers Collaborate with researchers at all stages, such as defining research questions; collecting, analysing, and synthesising data; and translating into practice.	7	(Campbell et al., 2019) (Cicchelli & Baecher, 1993) (Dennis et al., 2015) (Gettinger et al., 1999) (Goldstein et al., 2019) (Kirschner et al., 1996) (Nur, 1986)
	Inquiry facilitators Support practitioners’ inquiry by supplying knowledge on research methodology.	Inquirers Conduct most of the inquiry work, such as collecting and analysing data.	15	(Ancess et al., 2007) (Arhar et al., 2013) (Baharav & Newman, 2019) (Beckett, 2014) (Betlem et al., 2019) (Cooney et al., 1997) (Crawford et al., 2008) (Garin et al., 2015) (McLaughlin, 2007) (Patrizio, 2013) (Schlessinger & Oyler, 2015) (Steel et al., 2012) (Stoddard et al., 1996) (Warren & Peel, 2005) (Wilcox et al., 2017)
Design	Designer leaders Lead initial co-design. Collect data, analyse and redesign.	Designer pilots Support initial co-design. Provide input from practice on redesign. Adapt design to local context.	9	(Benenson et al., 2012) (Farrell et al., 2019) (Hudson et al., 2012) (Jesson & Spratt, 2017) (Johnson et al., 2016) (Klar et al., 2018) (Penuel & Watkins, 2019) (Russell et al., 2017) (Singh & Glasswell, 2013)
	Design advisors Initial co-design. Collect and analyse data, and recommend actions.	Design validators Initial co-design. Interpret initial design, give feedback on implementation, and translate recommendations into local context.	8	(Blazar & Kraft, 2019) (Blue & Collins, 1998) (Cannata et al., 2017) (Falk et al., 2016) (Harrison et al., 2019) (Hindman et al., 2015) (Neville, 2010) (Rosenquist et al., 2015)
Dissemination	Disseminators Provide PD to practitioners. Facilitate discussion among practitioners.	Translators Translate and test theory in practice.	8	(Borda et al., 2018) (Erskine-Cullen, 1995) (Evans et al., 2012) (Hirsch et al., 2018) (Israel et al., 2017) (Leslie, 2011) (Osler et al., 2012) (Siers et al., 2015)
	Content disseminators Provide content knowledge to practitioners in collaboration.	Teaching disseminators Provide practical knowledge of teaching to researchers in collaboration.	4	(Beaty-O’Ferrall & Johnson, 2010) (Kamler et al., 2009) (Nelson, 2005) (O’Sullivan et al., 1999)
	Facilitators Facilitate sharing of practical knowledge among practitioners in a local group. Also share knowledge from one local group of practitioners to another.	Knowledge sharers Discuss and share knowledge from practice.	6	(Dichele, 2016) (Johnson & Rakestraw, 2013) (Le Cornu & Peters, 2009) (Muchmore et al., 2004) (Post & Lubeck, 2000) (Thompson et al., 2019)

Biag, M. (2017). Building a village through data: A research-practice partnership to improve youth outcomes. School Community Journal, 27(1), 9–27.

 Google Scholar

*Raia-Hawrylak, A., Glover, T. A., & Guerriero, L. A. (2019). Supporting systems-level school climate improvement via a data-driven consultation framework: A K-12 school–university partnership. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2019.1629944

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Donnan, M. F., Garcia, D., Snead-Johnson, M., Kotulka, E., Sandilos, L. E. (2018). A partnered approach to school change in a rural community: Reflections and recommendations. Foundation Review, 10(4), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1446

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Campbell, T., McKenna, T. J., Fazio, X., Hetherington-Coy, A., & Pierce, P. (2019). Negotiating coherent science teacher professional learning experiences across a university and partner school settings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(2), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1547033

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Cicchelli, T., & Baecher, R. E. (1993). School restructuring: A school-university partnership. The School Community Journal, 3(2), 27–44.

 Google Scholar

*Dennis, D., Jacobs, J., West Burns, R., Davis, J., Van Ingen, S., Tricarico, K., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2015). Hillsborough County public schools and the University of South Florida: Better together. School-University Partnerships, 8(1), 7–12.

 Google Scholar

Gettinger, M., Stoiber, K. C., & Lange, J. (1999). Collaborative investigation of inclusive early education practices: A blueprint for teacher-researcher partnership. Journal of Early Intervention, 22(3), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/105381519902200308

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Goldstein, H., McKenna, M., Barker, R. M., & Brown, T. H. (2019). Research-practice partnership: Application to implementation of multi-tiered system of supports in early childhood education. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 4(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_PERS-ST-2018-0005

 Google Scholar

Kirschner, B. W., Dickinson, R., & Blosser, C. (1996). From cooperation to collaboration: The changing culture of a school/university partnership. Theory Into Practice, 35(3), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849609543724

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nur, M. M. (1986). The study of Stanford and the schools: Partners in educational reform. Teacher Education Quarterly, 13(2), 24–33.

 Google Scholar

*Ancess, J., Barnett, E., & Allen, D. (2007). Using research to inform the practice of teachers, schools, and school reform organizations. Theory Into Practice, 46(4), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840701593915

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Arhar, J., Niesz, T., Brossmann, J., Koebley, S., O’Brien, K., Loe, D., & Black, F. (2013). Creating a ‘third space’ in the context of a university-school partnership: Supporting teacher action research and the research preparation of doctoral students. Educational Action Research, 21(2), 218–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.789719

 Google Scholar

*Baharav, H., & Newman, E. (2019). Contextual research for educational improvement: A collaborative process in northern California. Improving Schools, 22(3), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480219853456

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Beckett, L. (2014). Raising teachers’ voice on achievement in urban schools in England: An introduction. The Urban Review, 46(5), 783–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-014-0301-x

 Google Scholar

*Betlem, E., Clary, D., & Jones, M. (2019). Mentoring the mentor: Professional development through a school-university partnership. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 47(4), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2018.1504280

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Cooney, M. H., Flor, R., & Galloway, D. (1997). Changing roles in the school/university partnership. National Association of Laboratory Schools Journal, 21(1), 11–14.

 Google Scholar

*Crawford, P. A., Roberts, S. K., & Hickman, R. (2008). All together now: Authentic university-school partnerships for professional development. Childhood Education, 85(2), 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2009.10523070

 Google Scholar

Garin, E., Taylor, T., Madden, M., Beiter, J., Davis, J., Farmer, C., & Nowlin, D. (2015). The Bowie State University professional development schools network partnership. School-University Partnerships, 8(2), 9–13.

 Google Scholar

McLaughlin, C. (2007). Cambridge SUPER networked learning community: A schools-university partnership for educational research. In C. McLaughlin, K. Black-Hawkins, D. McIntyre, & A. Townsend (Eds.), Networking practitioner research (pp. 138–146). Taylor & Francis.

 Google Scholar

*Patrizio, K. M. (2013). Learning from Lorreltag: An urban, community-school-university partnership. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 16(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458912475212

 Google Scholar

*Schlessinger, S., & Oyler, C. (2015). Commentary: Inquiry-based teacher learning for inclusivity: Professional development for action and change. Learning Landscapes, 8(2), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.36510/learnland.v8i2.694

 Google Scholar

*Steel, S., Shambaugh, N., Combs, J., Farley, R., Hayes, S., Morewood, A., … Yohe, S. (2012). The Benedum collaborative–features for simultaneous renewal. School-University Partnerships, 5(2), 13–18.

 Google Scholar

Stoddard, K., Hewitt, M., O’Connor, D., Beckner, J., Elder, M., Laporta, C., & Poth, J. (1996). Inclusive practices through teacher research. Remedial and Special Education, 17(4), 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259601700406

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Warren, L. L., & Peel, H. A. (2005). Collaborative model for school reform through a rural school/university partnership. Education, 126(2), 346–352.

 Google Scholar

*Wilcox, K. C., Lawson, H. A., & Angelis, J. I. (2017). COMPASS-AIM: A university/P–12 partnership innovation for continuous improvement. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(5), 649–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2017.1368654

 Google Scholar

*Benenson, G., Stewart-Dawkins, S., & White, G. (2012). Engineering design of cars and gadgets in K-5 as vehicle for integrating math, science and literacy. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(2), 1–25.

 Google Scholar

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419849595

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hudson, P., English, L. D., Dawes, L., & Macri, J. (2012). Contextualizing a university-school STEM education collaboration: Distributed and self-activated leadership for project outcomes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(6), 772–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143212456915

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jesson, R. N., & Spratt, R. (2017). An intervention in literacy in three pacific nations: Implications of a context specific approach to co-design. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 16(1), 36–49.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Johnson, R., Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., & Leary, H. (2016). Teachers, tasks, and tensions: Lessons from a research-practice partnership. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(2-3), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9338-3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Klar, H. W., Huggins, K. S., Buskey, F. C., Desmangles, J. K., & Phelps-Ward, R. J. (2018). Developing social capital for collaboration in a research-practice partnership. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 3(4), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-01-2018-0005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Penuel, W., & Watkins, D. A. (2019). Assessment to promote equity and epistemic justice: A use-case of a research-practice partnership in science education. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 683(1), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716219843249

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Russell, J., Stein, M. K., Correnti, R., Bill, V., Booker, L., & Schwartz, N. (2017). Tennessee scales up improved math instruction through coaching. State Education Standard, 17(2), 23–27.

 Google Scholar

*Singh, P., & Glasswell, K. (2013). Chasing social change: Matters of concern and the mattering practice of educational research. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 1(2), 162–183.

 Google Scholar

*Blazar, D., & Kraft, M. A. (2019). Balancing rigor, replication, and relevance: A case for multiple-cohort, longitudinal experiments. Aera Open, 5(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419876252

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Blue, E., & Collins, J. L. (1998). Learning to coconstruct critical learning processes in an urban school-university partnership. Urban Education, 32(5), 577–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085998032005003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cannata, M., Cohen-Vogel, L., & Sorum, M. (2017). Partnering for improvement: Improvement communities and their role in scale up. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(5), 569–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2017.1368633

 Google Scholar

*Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D., Staus, N. L., Wyld, J. N., Bailey, D. L., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). The “Synergies” research-practice partnership project: A “2020 vision” case study. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(1), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9716-2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Harrison, C., Wachen, J., Brown, S., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2019). A view from within: Lessons learned from partnering for continuous improvement. Teachers College Record, 121(9), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811912100902

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hindman, A. H., Snell, E. K., Wasik, B. A., Lewis, K. N., Hammer, C. S., & Iannone-Campbell, C. (2015). Research and practice partnerships for professional development in early childhood: Lessons from ExCELL-e. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 20(1-2), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.984036

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Neville, E. (2010). Utilizing a school-university collaborative partnership to design, present, and support pre-K-12 coursework on differentiated instruction. School-University Partnerships, 4(2), 92–95.

 Google Scholar

Rosenquist, B. A., Henrick, E. C., & Smith, T. M. (2015). Research-practice partnerships to support the development of high quality mathematics instruction for all students. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 20(1-2), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.988335

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Borda, E., Warren, S., Coskie, T. L., Larson, B. E., Hanley, D., & Cohen, J. (2018). Cross-disciplinary, whole school education reform in secondary schools: Three critical components. School-University Partnerships, 11(1), 46–56.

 Google Scholar

*Erskine-Cullen, E. (1995). School-university partnerships as change agents: One success. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6(3), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345950060302

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Evans, K., Holley, J., Richburg-Sellers, F., Robey, S., Suber, S., Burton, M., & Field, B. E. (2012). Rice Creek Elementary School and the University of South Carolina: A shared vision for excellence. School-University Partnerships, 5(1), 19–27.

 Google Scholar

*Hirsch, S. E., Ely, E., Lloyd, J. W., & Isley, D. (2018). Targeted professional development: A data-driven approach to identifying educators’ needs. School-University Partnerships, 11(2), 84–91.

 Google Scholar

Israel, M., Goldberger, N., Vera, E., & Heineke, A. (2017). An unlikely destination: Meeting the educational needs of immigrant, migrant and refugee children in the suburbs of Chicago, IL. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(5), 580–597. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2016-0190

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Leslie, D. A. (2011). Seeking symmetry in a school-university partnership: University of Chicago and Chicago public schools - A collaborative approach to developing models and tools for professional development and teacher preparation. Planning and Changing, 42(1-2), 120–154.

 Google Scholar

*Osler, J. E., II, Bull, P. H., & Eaton, D. (2012). Dynamic educational collaboration between university and high school faculty promoting partnership in teaching and learning in the 21st century. Journal on School Educational Technology, 7(4), 34–48.

 Google Scholar

*Siers, R., Jr., Elburn, S., Gasior, P., Briggs, R., & Ramey, C. (2015). Mardela middle and high school and Salisbury university PDS partnership. School-University Partnerships, 8(2), 3–8.

 Google Scholar

*Beaty-O’Ferrall, M. E., & Johnson, F. W. (2010). Using supportive team building to promote improved instruction, student achievement, and collaboration in an urban professional development school. School-University Partnerships, 4(1), 56–64.

 Google Scholar

*Kamler, E., Szpara, M., Dornisch, M., Goubeaud, K., Levine, G., & Brechtel, S. (2009). Realities of a school-university partnership: Focus on leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 19(1), 81–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460901900105

 Google Scholar

*Nelson, T. H. (2005). Knowledge interactions in teacher-scientist partnerships - Negotiation, consultation, and rejection. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(4), 382–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105279938

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

O’Sullivan, M., Tannehill, D., Knop, N., Pope, C., & Henninger, M. (1999). A school-university collaborative journey toward relevance and meaning in an urban high school physical education program. Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich ), 51(3), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1999.10491683

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dichele, A. M. (2016). Quinnipiac School of Education–The importance of our NAPDS association. School-University Partnerships, 9(2), 5–8.

 Google Scholar

*Johnson, L., & Rakestraw, J. (2013). Winthrop University - School partnership network. Educational Renaissance, 1(2), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.33499/edren.v1i2.57

 Google Scholar

*Le Cornu, R., & Peters, J. (2009). Sustaining school-university collaboration for reciprocal learning. International Journal of Learning, 16(9), 231–246.

 Google Scholar

*Muchmore, J. A., Cooley, V. E., Marx, G. E., & Crowell, R. A. (2004). Enhancing teacher leadership in urban education: The Oak Park experience. Educating students placed at risk. Educational Horizons, 82(3), 236–244.

 Google Scholar

*Post, J., & Lubeck, S. (2000). Head start-university collaborations: Widening the circle. Childhood Education, 76(5), 277–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2000.10522113

 Google Scholar

Thompson, J., Richards, J., Shim, S. Y., Lohwasser, K., Von Esch, K. S., Chew, C., Sjoberg, B., & Morris, A. (2019). Launching networked PLCs: Footholds into creating and improving knowledge of ambitious and equitable teaching practices in an RPP. Aera Open, 5(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419875718

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar