15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper
Evaluating Equity in Education: A Collaborative Partnership from Ireland
Angeliki Lima, Olga Ioannidou, Seaneen Sloan, Gabriela Martinez Sainz
University College Dublin, Ireland
Presenting Author: Lima, Angeliki;
Ioannidou, Olga
This paper describes the collaborative partnership for the design and implementation of an evaluation study. The partnership consists of three key partners; a) four non-formal education providers addressing educational disadvantage in Ireland, b) researchers from an Irish University who serve as external evaluators, c) an Irish grant-making and social change organisation. The overarching goal of the participating non-formal education providers is to tackle educational disadvantage among vulnerable populations, with a specific focus on young people from Traveller, Roma, and Migrant backgrounds, as well as those experiencing rural disadvantage. The evaluation study, commissioned by the funding organisation and led by the research team, aims to capture the impact of the educational activities delivered by these providers in order to build an evidence base that will inform future initiatives in education practice and policy.
Early school leavers in Ireland are more likely to experience further marginalisation and barriers to accessing and completing higher and further education, with implications for career choices and employment security (CSO, 2019). Given the interplay between social class, ethnicity and nationality (Kennedy and Smith, 2018), students’ ethnic background can contribute to learning barriers and inequality in access to educational resources and provision. It is crucial to take into account the documented stigmatisation and marginalisation faced by the Traveller and Roma communities in Ireland (UNCRC, 2016), Thus, there is a pressing need for rethinking the approaches that address the challenges faced by groups experiencing educational disadvantage in Ireland. This emphasises the significance of adopting strategies in education that are tailored to their specific needs and circumstances.
Within the partnership, the research team aims to deepen our understanding of effective strategies to support educational progression for the identified target groups facing educational disadvantage. The evaluation framework is grounded in a differentiated Theory of Change Model (TOC) co-designed with the non-formal education providers and monitored by the funding body. Against this backdrop, the project systematically analyses the educational outcomes for each of the participating education providers through the lens of SDG4: Quality Education. In this context, SDG4 is regarded as a facilitator for addressing SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities, while educational activities in the programmes include a variety of SDGs (e.g. SDG5: Gender Equality through the involvement of girls in STEM).
In this paper we explore the following research question:
What are the intricate dynamics of an effective partnership between three types of partners, (academic, funding bodies and charities) in tackling educational disadvantage?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe evaluation involves close collaboration with the funding body and key liaison staff from the participating education providers. More specifically, in the case of education providers addressing youth from the Irish Traveller and Roma community, our approach falls within the qualitative paradigm. For one of them, we are conducting in-depth interviews to delve into the lived experiences of a sample of 15 students, aiming to understand their encounters with exclusion and education. Similarly, education providers focusing on Traveller youths are evaluated through a qualitative methodology, supplemented by interviews with key individuals from local schools to gain insights into the broader community context.
A mixed-methods approach is employed for the provider directed at girls in rural or underserved communities, integrating both qualitative and quantitative techniques. This initiative aims to engage participants in workshops exploring various STEM fields, including robotics, technology, and real-world problem-solving. The overarching goal is to foster the development of leadership skills. Finally, the evaluation of a programme targeting early school leavers from various backgrounds across Ireland also adopts a mixed-methods approach to capture a holistic view of the program's effects on students.
These methodologies align with each project's unique characteristics, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation that captures the diverse experiences and outcomes of the four educational initiatives.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsDrawing from our collaborative experience with various stakeholders in evaluating funded non-formal education provider initiatives, we seek to contribute to the discourse on establishing more effective partnerships for the development of a sustainable society. Our examination of partnerships involving academic, non-academic, and NGO contributors aims to provide valuable insights into the role of education in building a more sustainable society. The presentation will provide insights into arising conflicts of interest, ethical considerations and expectations within this partnership, with the overarching goal of contributing to the development of a more sustainable and equitable society.
The anticipated outcomes of this paper include gaining an understanding of how the diversity of contributors, each with unique backgrounds, goals, and practices, shapes the effectiveness of these partnerships. Our exploration will identify key factors that either facilitate or pose challenges in sustainable partnerships, aligning with Sustainable Development Goal 17. Additionally, it will draw from a variety of SDGs, such as SDG 4: Quality Education, SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities and SDG5: Gender Equality. Finally, by delving into the dynamics of multifaceted partnerships and their connections to the community, the paper will offer insights into the pivotal role of education in sustainable transitions, while reflecting on how partnerships could become more effective to achieve quality education for all.
ReferencesCentral Statistics Office (2019). Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) 2019: Poverty and deprivation. Dublin: CSO. Available at: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-silc/surveyonincomeandlivingconditionssilc2019/povertyanddeprivation/
Kennedy, P. & Smith, K. (2018). ‘The hope of a better life? Exploring the challenges faced by migrant Roma families in Ireland in relation to children’s education’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. DOI:10.1080/1369183X.2018.1471344
UNCRC (2016). ‘Concluding Observations: On the combined third and fourth periodic report of Ireland’. UN Doc CRC/C/IRL/ CO/3-4
UN General Assembly, Transforming our world : the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, A/RES/70/1. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html
15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper
Shoulder to Shoulder for an Education Towards a Sustainable Future? Reflections from Academia-NGO Partnerships on Global Education in Poland
Magdalena Kuleta-Hulboj
Faculty of Education, University of Warsaw, Poland
Presenting Author: Kuleta-Hulboj, Magdalena
Partnerships in education are not something new. There has been a significant amount of literature about various types, models and approaches of partnership in education and educational research, its different stakeholders (schools, parents, communities, HEIs, private sector, civil society organisations, governments), and diverse areas of cooperation (e.g. Anderson, Freebody 2014; Claypool, McLaughlin 2015; Otrel-Cass, Laing, Wolf 2022).
Quite often, the research paradigms referred to in such literature are engaged and transformative, and do not claim to be neutral. Instead, they explicitly state the positionality of the researcher and other partners. These types of partnership research aim at enacting social change, and promoting equity and social justice (e.g. John 2013). This is the case also in the field of global and sustainability education. UNESCO’s SDG 17 has given them special prominence.
The role of NGOs, or in general - civil society organisations, in working toward the embedding of global and sustainability education in the education system has been investigated by several scholars (Bergmueller 2013; Brown 2013; Rudnicki 2016; Tarozzi 2020). However, the aspect of partnership in research or educational activities in the field of global education was quite rarely given attention.
The presentation summarises the author’s several years of experience in doing research projects in collaboration and partnership with non-governmental organisations dealing with global education in Poland (see: Kuleta-Hulboj, Gontarska 2015; Kuleta-Hulboj, Kielak 2021; Kuleta-Hulboj 2022, 2023). All of these projects focused on global education in Poland and in the long term aimed to strengthen the position and development of global education in the country. In some of them, the author played the role of a hired researcher or consultant, others were designed as a participatory type of research and engaged not only academics and NGO representatives but also teachers, students and public administration officers (e.g. Kuleta-Hulboj, Kielak 2021). Some of the research projects explored the NGOs' activities in global education in Poland (Kuleta-Hulboj 2016, 2017), while others - the condition of global education in Poland, its strengths and weaknesses (Kuleta-Hulboj 2022, 2023) or the place of global and sustainability education in pre-service and in-service teacher training (Kuleta-Hulboj, Kielak 2021). In general, all of them could be labelled “engaged research”.
In the presentation, I would like to focus on the partnership between academia and NGOs aimed at researching, doing and promoting global education in the Polish context. The subject of exploration would be; the nature of the partnership; its strengths and weaknesses, challenges and opportunities; and the roles of different stakeholders. Although the partners from academia and NGOs may have similar interests and goals, they differ in their professional backgrounds, skills and perspectives. They are not the same and their roles differ in the partnership projects. For instance, the NGO partners perform overly advocacy roles while the author as an educational researcher and university teacher is oriented towards educational dimension and knowledge co-production.
Concerning this issue, another aspect to be touched upon is the status of the “hybrid” actors and their roles (Andreotti 2006; Green 2017). This category is used to describe people belonging to different 'educational worlds' (simultaneously or consecutively), such as academia, NGOs, schooling etc. Their knowledge and experience emerge from the intersection and overlap of different roles (e.g. academic, sanctioned as the creation of scientific knowledge; non-governmental, associated with activism and practice, e.g. educational; teacher and others).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe presentation is conceptualised around the following research questions:
- What are the benefits and challenges of academia-NGO partnership in working for and promoting education towards a sustainable future?
- What are the factors that facilitate or hinder successful and genuine partnerships and collaboration in research in the field of global and sustainable education?
- What are the roles of each partner in this partnership/endeavour, and how do they transform (or maybe they should not?)?
The research methods include (1) critical analysis of the documentation of the projects, (2) reflexivity understood as a method of critical reflection about the author’s practice and as a method of continuous professional learning (Fook 1999), (3) individual in-depth interviews with people holding the status of “hybridity” (academics with former NGO background, former academics now being a global education NGO activist etc.).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe expected outcomes and conclusions of the presentation will cover the following aspects:
- reflections on challenges and opportunities of the academic-non-governmental partnership in educational research, and how these challenges may be overcome;
- identification of the factors facilitating or hindering the successful partnership in research in global and sustainable education;
- initial exploration and understanding of the role of “hybrid” individuals in the partnership in educational research and knowledge production.
ReferencesAnderson, M., Freebody, K. (2014). Partnerships in education research. Creating knowledge that matters. London, New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Andreotti, V. (2006). Theory without practice is idle, practice without theory is blind: the potential contributions of postcolonial theory to development education. The Development Education Journal, 12(3).
Bergmueller, C. (2013). Global education and the cooperation of NGOs and schools: A German case study. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning. 7(3).
Brown, E. J. (2013). Transformative Learning through Development Education NGOs: A Comparative Study of Britain and Spain. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham.
Claypool, M. K., McLaughlin, J. M. (2015). We’re in this together. Public-private partnerships in special and at-risk education. Lanham: Rowman& Littlefield.
Fook, J. (1999). Reflexivity as a method. Annual Review of Health Social Science, 9(1).
Green, D. (2017). The NGO-Academia Interface: Realising the shared potential. In: Georgalakis, J., Jessani, N., Oronje, R. & Ramalingam, B. (eds.), The Social Realities of Knowledge for Development: Sharing Lessons of Improving Development Processes with Evidence. Brighton: IDS.
John, E. P. St. (2013). Research, actionable knowledge, and social change: reclaiming social responsibility through research partnerships. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.
Kuleta-Hulboj, M. (2023). Edukacja globalna w Polsce z perspektywy organizacji pozarządowych. Wnioski z badania Grupy Zagranica. In: Polska współpraca rozwojowa. Raport 2023. Warszawa: Grupa Zagranica.
Kuleta-Hulboj, M. (2022). Edukacja globalna w Polsce w obliczu nowych wyzwań. In: Polska współpraca rozwojowa. Raport 2022. Warszawa: Grupa Zagranica.
Kuleta-Hulboj, M. (2017). Sprawiedliwość i odpowiedzialność w edukacji globalnej (w narracjach przedstawicieli organizacji pozarządowych). Forum Pedagogiczne 7 (2).
Kuleta-Hulboj, M. (2016). The global citizen as an agent of change: Ideals of the global citizen in the narratives of Polish NGO employees. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies. 14 (3).
Kuleta-Hulboj, M., Gontarska, M. (eds). (2015). Edukacja globalna: polskie konteksty i inspiracje. Wrocław: WN DSW & IGO.
Kuleta-Hulboj, Kielak, E. (2021). Zrównoważony rozwój i edukacja globalna w kształceniu i doskonaleniu nauczycieli oraz nauczycielek. Raport z badań. Warszawa: Grupa Zagranica.
Otrel-Cass, K., Laing, K., Wolf, J. (2022). On Promises and Perils: Thinking About the Risks and Rewards of Partnerships in Education. In: Partnerships in Education. Cham: Springer.
Policy Futures in Education. (2021). 19(5). Special Issue “The activist university and university activism”. https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/pfea/19/5
Rudnicki, P. (2016). Pedagogie małych działań. Krytyczne studium alternatyw edukacyjnych. Wrocław: WN DSW.
Tarozzi, M. (2020). Role of NGOs in global citizenship education. In: Bourn, D. (ed.), The Bloomsbury Handbook of Global Education and Learning. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper
Multi-level Partnership and Research-based Collaboration Targeting Schools Facing Difficult Challenges – Lessons Learned from Collaboration for Better Schools in Sweden
Niclas Rönnström1, Jan Håkansson2, Martin Rogberg3
1Stockholm University, Sweden; 2Dalarna University. Sweden; 3Stockholm University
Presenting Author: Rönnström, Niclas;
Håkansson, Jan
The Swedish Government reform project Collaboration for Better Schools (CBS) started in 2015 (The Government remit U2015/3357/S) partly triggered by an OECD (2015) review arguing that many Swedish schools needed qualified support, and that the Swedish school system were in need of urgent reform. The review suggested, among other things, nationwide mobilization for and a unified commitment to school improvement among relevant parties within or linked to the school system. Similar to many other nations (Blossing, 2010; Boyd, 2021; Schueler et al, 2021), the CBS is targeting struggling schools, and, particularly, schools lacking capacity to improve their own education practices, such as teaching and learning for all students regardless of their background and capabilities. In this light, the CBS is hardly unique in 21st century education largely shaped by a globally structured agenda for education revolving around quality and results for all without exception (Dale, 2005; Rönnström, 2019).
However, although many nations are addressing similar challenges with regard to struggling schools facing difficult challenges, they differ in the ways they respond to, target, intervene in, or support such schools. In Sweden, more than 500 hundred struggling schools (and their local education authorities (LEA)) have been or are participating in the CBS. The Swedish National Agency of Education (NAE) invites selected schools to three-year long multi-level partnerships and research-based collaboration aiming at capacity building (Rogberg et al, 2021). The CBS is largely about capacity building in schools lacking capacity for quality education and necessary change and improvement. The CBS is challenging for the participating schools because of the challenges they face. However, it is also challenging for all parties involved because of the collaborative innovation and the partner relationships required.
Apart from teachers, first teachers, middle managers, principals, school managers and other key agents among LEA’s, and the specially trained agents from the NAE, more than 150 teachers and researchers from Swedish universities are involved in multi-level partnerships. The CBS requires partnerships between school professionals, NAE agents and researchers depending on one another in all phases of the improvement work, such as problematizing, data-analyzing, focusing and goal setting, mobilization and resourcing, iterative intervention and intelligent implementation, and, following up and adjusting interventions. The multi-level partnership developed refers both to a nationwide collaboration within the Swedish school system, and collaboration between different organizational levels of the participating LEA’s. The CBS requires collaboration based on partnerships (Robertson, 2016), but when it started nearly a decade ago there were no prior experience of such required partnerships among the parties involved. Moreover, the NAE and the partner universities had very limited experience of working together with struggling schools facing difficult challenges, and they were usually drawing their resources from research based on successful schools.
Consequently, the CBS required capacity building among all involved in order to support pre-schools and schools lacking capacity for quality education and school improvement. In hindsight, the implementing the CBS has meant that the partners involved have learned the way forward together through the required partnership they formed (Rogberg, 2021). In this paper we describe, analyze and critically examine the CBS as multi-level partnership and research-based collaboration targeting schools facing difficult challenges. In particular, (1) we describe the emergence of partnerships between the partners involved in the CBS, and the nature of the partnerships developed 2015-2024; (2) we analyze and critically examine to what extent the partnerships developed are experienced as enabling or disabling in school improvement; and, (3) we suggest four ways in which partnership-based collaboration is essential to improving capacity building in schools facing difficult challenges.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper is part of a larger research study on partnership-based collaboration for capacity building in schools facing difficult challenges. The present study draws from what Hopkins et al (2014) and Håkansson and Sundberg (2016) refer to as the fourth generation of school improvement (See also Reynolds et al, 2014), theories and research on school and school system capacity building (Rönnström, 2022; Stoll, 2009) and partnership models for building individual and organizational capacity in schools (Robertson, 2016; 2022). This study builds on data collected from partners within the CBS which we have collected in a CBS-database 2016-2024. In this study we analyze data from 50 LEA’s participating in the CBS in terrms of documents and reports written during the three-year long partnership. We analyze reports and documents produced by 5 university research- and development teams 2020 - 2024. We also analyze documents and reports written by the NEA specialist in the course of their CBS work. One type of data is documents that partners produce in the three-year school improvement partnerships in different phases of the process: analysis-goal setting-planning-intervening- follow up and evaluation. Theese are data all partners are required to produce during the three-year long commitment. The second type of data are collected from special seminars in which the partners explicitly work together in order to improve or problem solve their own collaboration and partnerships. We have collected data from 12 seminars in which NAE staff meet with partner universities. Alla data are analyzed with tools drawn from the frameworks above.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe preliminary findings are as follow. We argue that the multi-level partnership and research-based collaboration targeting schools facing difficult challenges developed within the CBS has resulted in a an emerging nation-wide and system-deep school improvement capacity among partners within or linked to the Swedish school system. In the beginning, it was rare for schools, the NAE and universities to collaborate and develop knowledge and strategy together. Collaboration was usually restricted to professional development courses, expert assignments, expert advice, etc. However, the CBS collaboration has developed into partnerships showing reciprocity, dialogue and shared commitments over time, which challenges conventional roles and responsibilities in collaboration, and expectations of what one party can expect from the other. Consequently, partnership-based collaboration with schools facing difficult challenges is rewarding but also truly challenging for all concerned. In order to cope with their new roles as partners, the universities have developed national and local organisation for mutual learning and capacity building as they felt the need for innovation. When we trace the developments of the CBS over time, we can see a shift in the understanding of the problems and dynamics of school improvement on the one hand, and of school improvement approaches and processes on the other linked to the partnerships developed. The four points below can summarize the development of the CBS as a multi-level partnership and research-based collaboration targeting schools facing difficult challenges: from courses and training to locally adapted context sensitive three-year capacity building support; collaboration from linear models and short term commitments towards iterative models and long term commitments; from assuming tame problems and technical problem solving towards mobilization for wicked and collaborative problem solving; and from isolated interventions directed at different organizational levels independent of one another to coordinated and co-dependent interventions at different organizational levels.
ReferencesAdolfsson, C., Håkansson, J. (2018). Evaluating School Improvement Efforts: Pupils as Silent Result Suppliers, or Audible Improvement Resources? International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. 17. 34-50.
Dale, R. (2005). Globalization, knowledge economy and comparative education. Comparative Education, 41, 2: 117-149.
Håkansson, J., & Sundberg, D. (2016). Utmärkt skolutveckling. Forskning om skolförbättring och måluppfyllelse. Stockholm: Natur & Kultur.
Hopkins, David, Stringfield, Sam, Harris, Alma, Stoll, Louise & Mackay, Tony (2014). School and system improvement: A narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and Improvement, 25(2), 257-281.
OECD (2015) Improving Schools in Sweden: An OECD Perspective. Paris: OECD.
Reynolds, David, Sammons, Pam, De Fraine, Bieke, Townsend, Tony, Teddlie, Charles & Stringfield, Sam (2014) Educational effectiveness research (EER): a state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 25(2): 197-230.
Rönnström, N. (2022) Leadership capacity for change and improvement. In Peters, M. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Teacher Education. Springer Major Reference Works. Springer Verlag.
Schueler, B., Armstrong, C., Larned, K., Mehtora, S. and Pollard, C. (2021) Improving Low-performing schools. AERA Research Journal 59 (5), 975-1000.
Swedish Government Resolution 2015/3357/S Uppdrag om samverkan för bästa skola [Mission for Cooperation for Better Schools, in Swedish]
Stoll, L. (2009). Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity for learning? A changing landscape. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2-3), 115-127.
|
