Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 20:19:13 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
15 SES 03 A
Paper Session
| ||
    | ||
15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper Comparing Research‑Engaged School Networks: Lessons from a Transnational Knowledge Exchange Programme with School Leaders in England, Spain and The Netherlands 1: UCL, United Kingdom; 2: Gaziantep University Presenting Author:School peer review has become an increasingly influential model for school improvement, professional accountability and as a form of knowledge exchange and joint practice development (Godfrey, D. 2020). While peer review is well embedded in England, its application and adaptation across different national systems remains underexplored. The desire of national jurisdictions to build research informed practices across their school systems in order to improve the overall quality of education is also well documented (e.g. Godfrey, 2017, Malin et al, 2020, Agud & Ion, 2019, Wubbels & van Tartwijk, 2017). This paper examines findings from a year‑long transnational Knowledge Exchange (KE) involving partners from England, Spain and the Netherlands. The KE sought to deepen understanding of peer collaboration between schools and research-informed practices (RIP) between the countries. This paper explores how distinct educational cultures and governance structures were perceived as barriers and enablers to implementing RIP and collaborative improvement. In addition to how participants shared knowledge through observation and professional discussion, we also explore examples of knowledge transfer – i.e. changes in intentions or in actual practices - during and immediately after the KE programme. The study is guided by three research questions: (1) To what extent did we observe examples of successfully integrating RIP and school peer review practices in each country? (2) What did participants perceived to be the barriers and enablers of RIP and school peer review practices in each country? (3) What examples of knowledge transfer were observed between England, Spain and the Netherlands? KE participants involved two school principals from each country, representatives from academic and school improvement organisations and the author who was the KE project lead as part of a UCL knowledge exchange and innovation programme. In each country we visited schools to observe practices and to hear about the work of initiatives and programmes in action, these included: the Entre Escuelas programme in Spain; the Schools Partnership Programme (SPP) evaluation in England; and the Ontwikkelkracht and Stichting leerKRACHT programmes in the Netherlands. Our results are derived from an analysis of field notes, case studies from participants about their experiences of the KE visits and online evaluations completed after each visit. We supplement the data by looking at available evidence about the programmes presented during the visits, where this was available. The KE amplified reflective practice by enabling leaders to observe processes in different systems and question assumptions. Participants stressed that transnational collaboration supported adaptation rather than direct transfer: ideas were interpreted through local policy, governance and cultural conditions. Participants reported that RIP and school collaboration can be a powerful catalyst for leadership development and collaborative school improvement, but these require enabling conditions such as time, facilitation, policy alignment, and mechanisms for integrating research into practice. The relative lack of ‘maturity’ of the Spanish school system in terms of RIP was seen as a barrier, as well as the lack of permanent infrastructure to encourage peer review. In terms of knowledge transfer, there is emerging evidence that schools involved in the KE have continued to look for ways to continue the peer review model. In the Netherlands, the observation of the SPP programme in action has led to a project to set up and evaluate a pilot project in 2026 across several school boards. This is proceeding as a carefully evaluated pilot. Less is known about the effect on participants from England, school leaders deepened their understanding of the leadership conditions for RIP and school collaboration and strengthened their resolve to continue implementing and embedding these. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study uses a multi‑method design combining mixed‑methods programme evaluation, thematic analysis and cross‑case comparison across England, Spain and the Netherlands. Data were drawn from four sources: (1) the UCL Knowledge Exchange programme; (2) an evaluation of the Entre Escuelas programme in Spain; (3) independent evaluation of the Schools Partnership Programme (SPP) in England; and (4) evidence from follow up interviews with stakeholders in the Netherlands. We answered the following research questions: (RQ1) To what extent did we observe examples of successfully integrating RIP and school peer review practices in each country? (RQ2) What did participants perceived to be the barriers and enablers of RIP and school peer review practices in each country? (RQ3) What examples of knowledge transfer were observed between England, Spain and the Netherlands? Two theoretical perspectives influence our analysis: cultural analysis dimensions (Hofstede et al., 2010) and autopoiesis theory (Adhikari, 2025). From Hofstede’s scale, power‑distance (PDI) and uncertainty‑avoidance (UAI) scores were key dimensions. Autopoiesis theory helps explain why schools filter external ideas, adopting only those compatible with internal logics and professional cultures. These perspectives provide lenses to examine perceptions about the adoption or intention to adopt practices observed in one country to participants’ own jurisdictions. The KE programme generated evaluations and case reflections from with principals and other stakeholders; observational field notes from cross‑national visits; and documentation from workshops and reflection sessions. The Spanish Entre Escuelas evaluation used a pre–post survey design with a competencies questionnaire administered at baseline and endline on twenty nine school principals involved in the Entre Escuelas programme. Items measured leaders’ and teachers’ confidence in evidence‑informed improvement, peer‑review processes and collaborative culture. Qualitative evidence was gathered from open‑ended responses, facilitators’ field notes, and school case reports. This report provides secondary data to be used alongside other contextual features and the evaluations of the Spanish participants in the KE programme. English SPP evidence included programme materials, facilitator interviews and observations of school‑to‑school review processes. This was a three and a half year evaluation of over 400 schools (Godfrey et al, 2023). Dutch evidence consisted of interviews with Stichting leerKracht, the Vu University partner, relevant policy frameworks, and pilot design documentation. Coding combined inductive and deductive approaches. Deductive codes were informed by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and autopoiesis theory; inductive codes emerged around leadership identity, trust and adaptation processes. Cross‑case synthesis identified convergent and divergent patterns across the three countries. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study demonstrates that this transnational knowledge exchange provided a viable approach to strengthening leadership and fostering evidence‑informed practice across diverse national settings. Its enactment is shaped by cultural norms, organisational structures and system‑level conditions. England and the Netherlands entered the KE with more established traditions of distributed leadership and inquiry‑oriented collaboration, while Spain showed the greatest growth. Hofstede’s cultural analysis dimensions show that Spain scores higher on power distance (PDI) and uncertainty avoidance (UAI), with England the lowest score on the latter. We can see evidence that this translates into a challenge for Spain to adopt a flat partnership approach required for collaborative learning. In terms of UAI, while the Netherlands shares the flat PDI dimension with England, the higher UAI relative to England suggests more rigorous data would be needed before embarking on innovative approaches. We did see evidence of this from our case studies. However, cross case analysis shows considerable consensus across the countries regarding the relational, trust and infrastructure elements required for RIP and collaborative peer approaches to school improvement. Challenges to sustainability include time constraints, the need for ongoing facilitation, and embedding research use beyond awareness raising. Without alignment to policy structures and long‑term leadership commitment, the benefits of collaborative inquiry risk dissipating. Transnational engagement acted as a catalyst for professional learning by allowing leaders to observe practices outside their own systems. Participants viewed this comparative engagement as crucial for identifying contextual influences and adapting practices locally. Trust, authenticity and relational openness emerged as core conditions for effective peer review. Participant evaluations and case studies, along with clear evidence of knowledge transfer, suggest significant value in transnational knowledge exchange, albeit cost and language issues remain a barrier for further expansion of this activity. References Adhikari, A. (2025). Autopoiesis and the Montessori Educational Paradigm: A Theoretical Framework Relating its Resonance with NEP 2020. International Research Journal of Education and Technology, 8(7), 500-514. Agud, I., & Ion, G. (2019). Research-Based Learning in Initial Teacher Education in Catalonia. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 9(2), 99-118. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.564 Godfrey, D. (2020). ‘From peer review to collaborative peer enquiry: Action research for school improvement and leadership development’. London Review of Education 18. https://doi.org/10.14324/LRE.18.3.04 Godfrey, D. (2017). What is the proposed role of research evidence in England’s ‘self-improving’ school system? Oxford Review of Education, 43(4), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1329718 Godfrey, D; Ito, A. (2025). International Knowledge Exchange: What can schools learn from each other? (ESRC Education Research Programme (ERP). Knowledge Exchange in Education. Briefing Note 3).London, UK. Godfrey, D., & Munoz-Chereau, B. (2024). Joint Practice Development through a Peer-Led School Improvement Partnership: Research-Driven Recommendations for Policymakers and School Leaders. Education Development Trust. Godfrey, D., Anders, J., Stoll, L., Jerrim, J., Munoz Chereau, B., McGinity, R., & Greany, T. (2023). Schools Partnership Programme: Evaluation Report. Education Endowment Foundation Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill. Malin, J.R., Brown, C., Ion, G., van Ackeren, I., Bremm, N., Luzmore, R., Flood, J. and Rind, G.M., 2020. World-wide barriers and enablers to achieving evidence-informed practice in education: what can be learnt from Spain, England, the United States, and Germany?. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), pp.1-14. Wubbels, T., & van Tartwijk, J. (2017). Evidence informed innovation of education in the Netherlands: Learning from reforms. In Evidence and public good in educational policy, research and practice (pp. 125-142). Cham: Springer International Publishing. 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper Developing System Improvement, Collective Agency and Reflexive Leadership: Lessons from two Research–Practice–Administration Partnerships in Education FAU, Germany Presenting Author:Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs) have historically been defined as long-term, mutualistic collaborations between researchers and practitioners aimed at investigating problems of practice to improve educational outcomes (Coburn et al., 2016). These collaborations were conceptualized around a simple dichotomy of "research" on one side and "practice" on the other. However, contemporary critiques suggest that this binary model is insufficient as it often subsumes complex layers of governance and administration under the general umbrella of "practice," thereby overlooking the unique mandates, specific dynamics, and specific logics of these stakeholders. In response, recent models are evolving to more reflect the multi-layered nature of educational systems. Drawing on the work of Manitius and Bremm (2021), such collaborations are increasingly framed as "Research-Practice-Administration Partnerships" (RPA-Partnerships) or "multiprofessional partnerships". This approach intentionally integrates system-level leaders from administration and ministries to ensure that professional learning is not confined to individual schools but are systematically sustained and scaled. Our research team focuses on educational governance and educational change. Two of our research projects operate as RPA-Partnerships. In collaboration with practitioners and system level leaders they co-create learning environments aimed to strengthen system and school improvement capacities (SIC, cf. Maag-Merki, 2017). The project designs focus on collective agency, understood as “a foundational capability of groups to undertake any productive work or solve any problems together” (Zumpe, 2024). Therefore, the projects employ co-creational, design-based approaches such as design thinking (Brown, 2008) and design-based school improvement (Mintrop, 2016). In both cases researchers work as project managers, workshop facilitators, and analysts which open up new perspectives on their roles within multiprofessional partnerships. Together with the participants, evidence-based analyses from the project context are reflected upon to stimulate learning among the actors involved. In first project, the DBSI-DesignLab in the federal state of Berlin (Germany) is a three-year multiprofessional partnership launched in 2024 (building on the learning of a previous project from 2019-2024) between the Berlin Department of Education , the Robert Bosch Stiftung , and Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU). Transitioning to a RPA framework, the project focuses on qualifying school development coaches as system leaders for school improvement. These coaches, in collaboration with administration, support schools in underserved communities using Design-Based School Improvement (DBSI) tools and mindsets . The partnership operates through a deeply interwoven co-design infrastructure: university partners provide conceptual foundations, while coaches facilitate DBSI sessions at school sites. Data-driven feedback from session recordings inform monthly case conferences, enabling "collective sensemaking" and the continuous adaptation of the DBSI approach to local requirements and professional logics. Crucially, the DesignLab is aligned with Berlin’s systemic strategy for educational quality, targeting improvements in linguistic, mathematical, and social-emotional competencies. In the LeadCom project (Leadership Communication and Cooperation), FAU collaborates with another federal state (that does not want to be named) to redesign feedback mechanisms for school evaluation data. The aim of this redesign is to strengthen stakeholder engagement, thereby fostering greater understanding and acceptance, as well as generating actionable insights for data-informed school system development. During the first phase, a researcher facilitated the planning process together with representatives from school supervision and external evaluation. In this collaboration, they jointly prepared the second phase—a design thinking workshop (Brown, 2008)—in which 21 participants representing school leadership, teaching staff, all-day program providers, school supervision, external evaluation, and school development consultancy co-designed prototypes for a new feedback dialogue. A central concern of the external evaluation is ensuring broad participation of all stakeholders in developing this new conversation format. The project contributes to capacity building by (1) promoting cross-level collaboration within the workshops and (2) co-developing strategies for cross-level communication and cooperation through the newly designed feedback format. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The DesignLab research design employs a mixed-method design, integrating elements of Grounded Theory with Qualitative Content Analysis (Kuckartz et al., 2022). This approach allows for the systematic preparation of empirical data—including session recordings, field notes, and reflective dialogues—to facilitate "collective sensemaking" among school development coaches, administrative leaders, foundation representatives, and researchers. By combining inductive coding for emergent phenomena with deductive categories based on school improvement capacities and partnership effectiveness, we ensure that findings are both scientifically rigorous and practically actionable. This development inquiry is rooted in an integrative learning approach based on three principles: 1) Co-design in partnerships: Following the RPP framework (Coburn, 2016; Farrell, 2021), the refinement of DBSI occurs through mutual exchange, ensuring all actors collaborate on equal footing. 2) Sociocultural and collective learning: Drawing on Knapp (2008), the project positions learning as a communal process of sensemaking within the real-world professional environment. 3) Reflective Practice: In accordance with Schön (1983), the design links "learning by doing" with systematic reflection-on-action. This project design aims to create a "protected space" where multiprofessional teams can analyse data excerpts to negotiate professional stances and advance system-wide improvement capacities. During the first phase of the LeadCom project, several steering group meetings were audio-recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were subsequently interpreted within multiple interpretation groups to understand collective thoughts and the praxeology of action by using the documentary method (Bohnsack, 2021). Approximately ten months later, upon completion of the design thinking process, the steering group received an initial presentation of the data analysis of meetings (1–3) during a reflection meeting (4), which also served as a forum for exchange with the researchers. This discussion was likewise recorded and analyzed. Consistent with the premises of documentary interpretation, the researchers were regarded as integral members of the group throughout the interpretive process. The interpretation of the in-situ documentation, conducted in line with the documentary method, examines how governance practices are enacted at steering interfaces and within project planning. Moreover, it explores the implicit orientations that guide actors’ collaborative actions. In the joint reflection on the initial interpretations with the researchers, participants’ guiding orientations regarding their own leadership practices become explicit, revealing both enabling conditions and developmental potentials for effective collective agency. Through comparative analysis with materials from the planning phase, learning processes—manifested as shifts and openings in guiding orientations—can be reconstructed. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings After one year, including more than ten co-design sessions, the DBSI-DesignLab generated formative outcomes centered on professional learning and systemic capacity building. Specifically, with the continuous involvement of district authorities and school development coaches, the co-design process was able to leverage key insights around regional strategies and structural interdependencies, as well as existing professional norms and methodologies in the context of school improvement. This allowed for highly responsive designs and local adaptation of a hitherto novel approach to school improvement. Examples of productive struggles include the renegotiation of goals and evaluation metrics as perspectives of stakeholders shifted, reflection of professional roles of school developments coaches positioned between local school needs and systemic demands, or the design of systematic learning opportunities to build school improvement capacities, that go beyond fixing a problem of practice. Within the reflective dialogue in LeadCom, leadership practices and underlying tensions between aspired collective agency and actual communication and cooperation patterns became visible and discussable. Participants critically examined their routines and assumptions in conversational settings characterized by openness and mutual trust. These discussions allowed alternatives and starting points for more coherent practices to be identified and problematized. Self-critical engagement with one’s own practices and their embeddedness in organizational structures emerged as a core component of collaboration within RPA partnerships and the development of system-level improvement capacity. Fostering a reflexive stance among all involved actors—particularly those in leadership roles—is essential, as they often serve as initiators of innovation projects. Openness to diverse perspectives and the cultivation of cooperative professionalism (Hargreaves, 2018) at the governance level seem indispensable for facilitating the inclusion of additional actors and building trust in joint developmental work. Both projects demonstrate that embedding leaders' reflexive expertise in RPA drives transformation, while offering critical reflections on the partnership designs required for sustaining systemic success. References Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92. Bohnsack, R. (2021). Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung: Einführung in qualitative Methoden (10. Auflage). UTB. https://doi.org/10.36198/9783838587851 Bremm, N., & Manitius, V. (2019). Knowledge brokerage through research-practice-administration partnerships: Learnings from Germany. In J. Malin & C. Brown (Eds.), The role of knowledge brokers in education: Connecting the dots between research and practice (pp. 139–153). Routledge. Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750 Farrell, C. C., Penuel, W. R., Coburn, C. E., Daniel, J., & Steup, L. (2021). Research-Practice Partnerships in Education: The State of the Field. William T. Grant Foundation. Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. T. (2018). Collaborative Professionalism: When Teaching Together Means Learning for All (1st Aufl.). Corwin Press. Knapp, M. S. (2008). How can organizational and sociocultural learning theories shed light on district instructional reform?. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 521–539. https://doi.org/10.1086/589313 Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung: Grundlagentexte Methoden (5. Auflage). Beltz Juventa. Mintrop, R. (2016). Design-based school improvement: A practical guide for education leaders. Harvard Education Press. Schön, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Zumpe, E. (2024). School improvement at the next level of work: The struggle for collective agency in a school facing adversity. Journal of Educational Change, 25(3), 485–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-023-09500-x 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper Traces of Development Processes After Co-operation for the Best School Possible (CBS) in Three School Organizers Mid Sweden University - Sundsvall Campus: Mittuniversitetet, Sweden Presenting Author:This study highlights how the improvement agenda and improvement agents can be understood as central and lasting features in The Swedish government initiative Co-operation for the Best School Possible (CBS) (Samverkan för Bästa Skola, SBS). The initiative was aimed specifically at schools that have challenges in terms of improving their knowledge results on their own or increasing equivalence within and between school and preschool units (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2022). The school development work is done in tripartite cooperation between the Swedish National Agency for Education (SNAE) (Skolverket), Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and school organisers. Based on Rönnström and Håkansson's (2021) framework, the improvement agenda emerges as a crucial factor in creating both motivation and direction in schools' development work after the external process support provided by the university has ended. The improvement agenda is about formulating why improvements are necessary and what direction the development work should take. The study shows that the CBS process helped to clarify these aspects by providing the activities with new knowledge, more well-thought-through organisational structures and a more systematic approach within the framework of systematic quality work. Of particular importance was the analytical work carried out at the beginning of the CBS process with the Swedish National Agency for Education, which mapped the current situation, challenges and development needs of the operations. According to the respondents, these analyses have an important track and continue to serve as a basis for long-term improvement work. In this way, the improvement agenda has not only been linked to CBS as a project, but has also been integrated into regular operational development processes. The study also shows that the improvement agenda has not only had a guiding function, but also a motivating function. By creating a common understanding of problems and goals, the CBS process has helped to increase commitment to development work among both principals and key individuals. This has been particularly important in operations that were previously characterised by organisational instability, high staff turnover or unclear structures. A clearer agenda has thus served as a cohesive framework that has given the development work legitimacy and continuity even after external support has ceased. School leaders and key individuals who have participated in the CBS process can be understood in this study as improvement agents, i.e. actors who actively drive, anchor and implement improvement work in their own organisation. The results show that these agents of improvement have played a central role in keeping the development processes alive over time. They have participated in the planning, implementation and follow-up of improvement efforts and have acted as bearers of the working methods, structures and values established during the CBS process. A particularly interesting result is that most of the school leaders and key individuals who participated in CBS are still active in their organisations. This continuity has been of great importance for the ability to maintain and further develop the improvement work. The achievement of objectives for students was considered to be largely unchanged, but the focus of the work had shifted to issues such as absenteeism. At the same time, a safe and secure working environment for both students and teachers was reported. Cultural issues have received greater attention, with efforts to reduce the number of parallel development processes in order to create better conditions for sustainable school development. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The design for this study was a qualitative interview study. Interviews can be seen as a way of studying how individuals understand the world around them by describing their activities, experiences and opinions in their own words (Kvale & Brinkman, 2009). In this study, key individuals and school leaders (N=10) were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Interviews were used to investigate and describe how key individuals and school leaders perceived how development processes had continued in the organisation approximately 3-4 years after the end of the CBS process support from the university. The selection of informants was based on two selection principles. The first selection principle was to focus on the school organizers who had participated in the CBS process support, where of the members of the project group had been involved for at least two years and had positive experiences of the relationships with the school leaders and key individuals as a process supervisor role. The second selection principle was to investigate the school organizers who had ended their collaboration at approximately the same time. The school organizers can be described as small municipalities in central Norrland. A total of nine interviews were conducted with ten key individuals and school leaders representing three school organizations. The interviews with the key individuals and school leaders were conducted via Teams, recorded and transcribed. Each interview took about an hour. Each interview took approximately one hour. An interview guide was used in accordance with Kvale and Brinkman (2009). The data material was analysed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clark, 2009; 2012). Thematic analysis is described as a systematic method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns or themes in the collected data material. Themes were constructed based on the data material. Rönnström and Håkansson's (2021) framework for improvement capacity was then applied. The research ethics requirements of the Swedish Research Council (2017) were followed. This study did not involve sensitive information. The integrity of the informants was protected, and the respondents were informed that participation was voluntary and could be discontinued at any time. The research material was stored in accordance with ethical requirements and only researchers affiliated with the project had access to the data material. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The project Development processes at principals after completion of CBS process support: A search for traces of CBS has contributed to clear development in several areas. Grading and assessment in particular have made an impression through increased assessment competence at one principal. The systematic quality work is perceived as relatively clear, even though the introduction of a new SKA system has created some uncertainty about working methods and documentation. The activities have been strengthened through clearer structures and increased awareness of the importance of balancing a functioning work organisation with a long-term development organisation. Goal fulfilment is considered to be largely unchanged, but the focus of goal work has been directed to a greater extent towards issues such as absenteeism. At the same time, security for both students and teachers has increased. Cultural issues have received greater attention, with an effort to reduce the number of parallel development processes in order to create better conditions for sustainable school development. The study shows that CBS has contributed to a clearer improvement agenda by creating motivation, direction and structure in the development work, including through new knowledge, organisational structures and more systematic quality work. Analyses carried out early in the CBS process remain in place and continue to be used in the development work. Headteachers and key individuals who participated in CBS act as agents of improvement in the operations and have continued to drive the improvement work. It is interesting to note that many of them remain in the organisation and, in several cases, have been given roles with greater development responsibility, which has contributed to continuity and sustainability in the improvement work. References Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Kvale, S. & Brinkman S. (2009). The qualitative research interview [Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun]. Studentlitteratur. Rönnström, N. & Håkansson, J. (2021). Leading development of improvement capacity and educational quality [Att leda utveckling av förbättringskapacitet och utbildningskvalitet]. In N. Rönnström & J. Olofsson. Improving schools with the support of research: Examples, analyses and challenges [Att förbättra skolor med stöd i forskning: Exempel, analyser och utmaningar] (pp. 185–220). Natur och kultur. Swedish National Agency for Education (2022). The Co-operation for the best school possible. Report of the government mission 2021 [Samverkan för bästa skola. Redovisning av regeringsuppdrag 2021]. https://www.skolverket.se/publikationsserier/regeringsuppdrag/2022/samverkan-for-basta-skola-202 The Swedish Research Council (2017). Good research practice [God forskningssed]. https://www.vr.se/download/18.2412c5311624176023d25b05/1555332112063/God-forskningssed_VR_2017.pdf 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper A Case Study of a Research-Practice Partnership for Forest Schools in the UK 1: Newcastle University, UK, United Kingdom; 2: Scotswood Garden, UK Presenting Author:Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs) are ‘an important part of the educational ecosystem that connects research, policy, practice and community work in the United States’ (Farrell et al., 2021, p.iv). They are recognised as long-term collaborations between researchers and those in policy and practice, bringing together diverse expertise and disrupting traditional power structures, they seek to improve education and reduce inequalities through research that meets the needs of schools and communities (Farrell et al., 2021). Internationally, there has been a renewed focus on connecting research with practice and examples of RRPs are developing in Europe (Sjölund, 2022), with researchers also highlighting the challenges in developing similar collaborative models in varied educational contexts (France, 2025). In this paper, the authors will share their experience of a small-scale RPP focused on Forest School practice in the North East of England, UK. Forest School (FS) is a child-centred outdoor educational experience, focused on holistic development through play and supported risk taking, it should be regular and long-term (FSA, n.d.). First developed in England in the 1990s and inspired by outdoor pre-schools in Denmark, FSs are now found across Europe and internationally. In the UK they are popular in early years and primary education, in supporting children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), as an alternative educational approach and as an extra-curricular activity (Knight, 2016). FS is facilitated by qualified FS practitioners, this may be teachers, teaching assistants or outdoor practitioners, and sessions happen as part of formal and/or non-formal education. In 2012 the Forest School Association (FSA), the professional body for FS, was established with six principles on which FS practice should be based (FSA n.d.b); these principles were developed by practitioners, drawing on their collective experience of delivering FS over 18 years. However, there was a need to establish an evidence base for Forest School and in recent years a body of research has developed that has largely sought to evidence the benefits and challenges of the approach (Garden & Downes, 2023; Harris, 2022), and most recently Knight et al. (2024) have proposed an interdisciplinary theoretical framework for FS. In researching FS, it is essential to engage with communities delivering provision, whether that be early years settings, schools, charities or independent organisations, and those participating (children, young people and their parents/carers). There are significant benefits to both the FS and research communities in working together, but we also know that educational research partnerships present challenges including inequalities in participation, negotiating different working cultures and boundary crossing (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2004). Nevertheless, there are substantial potential benefits where research and practice successfully collaborate, learn from each other and together, enabling new ways of working, insights and change that may not otherwise be possible (Edwards, 2006). This FS research partnership was instigated by the education manager from a community garden who was delivering FS and had noticed the social and emotional benefits for children and young people with additional needs, she was planning a new project and approached the local university to engage with a researcher. The resulting FS network has developed over nine years and now includes the community garden, 11 schools, a charity supporting families that have experienced domestic abuse, and the university. The partnership has developed through numerous research projects and overcome challenges, with a commitment to the research not only evidencing impact but informing the development of FS practice within the network. We will use Farrell et al.’s (2021) five defining features of RPPs to explore this partnership, reflecting on how it has developed, what has supported and challenged the partnership, and the benefits and costs to partners. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The research uses a co-production (Hatzidimitriadou, Mantovani and Keating, 2012) approach in evaluating impact through theory of change evaluation (Dyson and Todd, 2010). Theory of change engages with stakeholders through in-depth interviews to understand contexts, existing knowledge and challenges, and desired outcomes. Dialogue plays a key role in developing shared understandings between stakeholders and researching in this way has the potential to ‘democratise evaluation’ and change relationships between researchers and practitioners (Laing, 2022). Following thematic analysis (Braun and Clark, 2006) of qualitative interview and questionnaire data from partners, this paper will assess the network as a RPP using Farrell et al.’s (2021) five defining features and explore how the theory of change evaluation and participatory research methods underpinned and shaped the partnership. We will further discuss how this approach to research necessitated engagement with ‘everyday’ and ‘relationships-based ethics’ (Banks et al., 2013). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Preliminary analysis of qualitative data from partners, suggests that trust, reciprocity and flexibility are defining features of this RPP and work to support its long-term sustainability. We argue that theory of change evaluation not only provides a robust framework for data collection and analysis but supports a dialogic and relational approach between partners and prioritises shared learning and practice outcomes. Understanding how to support research partnerships with schools and outdoor practitioners is essential for the growth and sustainability of Forest School in the UK, Europe and internationally. In exploring and reflecting on this FS network and how it developed as a RPP, we seek to draw conclusions that will be of benefit to the international research, education and outdoor learning communities. References Banks, S., Armstrong, A., Carter, K., Graham, H. Hayward, P., Henry, A., Holland, T., Holmes, C., Lee, A., McNulty, A., Moore, N., Nayling, N., Stokoe, A. & Strachan, A. (2013) Everyday ethics in community-based participatory research, Contemporary Social Science, 8:3, 263-277. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), pp.77-101. Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. L. (2004) Practitioner inquiry, knowledge and university culture, in: J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey & T. L. Russell (Eds) International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 601-649. Dyson, A. and Todd, L. (2010) Dealing with complexity: Theory of change evaluation and the full service extended schools initiative. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 33(2), 119-134. Edwards, A (2006) Relational Agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol 43, p168-182. Farrell, C.C., Penuel, W.R., Coburn, C., Daniel, J., & Steup, L. (2021). Research-practice partnerships in education: The state of the field. William T. Grant Foundation. France, R. (2025). Research–practice partnerships in education: Lessons from the United States. British Educational Research Journal, 51, 1469–1480. FSA (n.d.) https://forestschoolassociation.org/what-is-forest-school/ FSA (n.d.b) https://forestschoolassociation.org/full-principles-and-criteria-for-good-practice/ Garden, A., & Downes, G. (2023) A systematic review of forest schools literature in England. Education 3-13, 51(2), 320–336. Harris, F. (2022). Forest school, CABI Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1079/cabireviews202217041 Hatzidimitriadou, E., Mantovani, N. and Keating, F. (2012) Evaluation of coproduction processes in a community-based mental health project in Wandsworth. London: Kingston University/St George’s University of London. Knight, S. (2016). Forest School: A model for learning holistically and outdoors. In H. E. Lees & N. Noddings (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of alternative education. Palgrave Macmillan. Knight, S., Coates, J. K., Lathlean, J., & Perez‐del‐Aguila, R. (2024). The development of an interdisciplinary theoretical framework for Forest School in the United Kingdom. British Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 905–922. Laing, K. (2022) The contribution of a ‘synergic theory of change’ approach to democratising evaluation, Research for All, 6 (1): 8, 1–17. Sjölund, S., Lindvall, J., Larsson, M., Ryve, A. (2022) Using research to inform practice through research‐practice partnerships: A systematic literature review, Review of Education 10 (1), 1-25 | ||