Conference Agenda

This symposium presents infrastructures with different focuses, functions, and construction phases as well as national contexts in Europe. European societies are facing numerous societal challenges, including demographic changes and the ecological crisis. The symposium integrates four presentations that highlight current European infrastructures, including those from Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland, which are relevant for supporting educational research, development, and practice.

The role of research infrastructures is focal in facilitating high-quality research. In Europe, research infrastructures form a significant whole, both quantitatively and economically. Substantial sums have been invested in them, and they support extensive international research cooperation. Research infrastructures are seen as a key factor of the Europe 2020 strategy, where they support excellence in research, innovation, open science principles and researcher mobility. (Toom & Miller, 2018.) Indeed, research infrastructures havethe potential to improve research opportunities and open science by bringing together discipline-specific data,research facilities, and actors in the scientific community (Fabre, et al., 2021). Typically, research infrastructures have been systematically developed in natural sciences. However, in educational and social sciences, infrastructures have been scarce. Hence, it is important for the scientific communities and research infrastructures to collaborate to strengthen the development and networking in the field of educational science.

Finnish Teacher Education Database, FinTED, covers Finnish teacher education and brings together all national actors, data, and activities. The Norwegian Teacher Education Panel Study (TEPS) is a scientific, systematic, and longitudinal database and a national research infrastructure for teacher education in Norway. In Sweden, the initiative ULF (Education, Learning, Research) is a collaboration for long-term research infrastructure as an ecosystem for research–practice partnerships. It provides an organisational and financial framework for practice-based research collaborations between schools and higher education institutions. Switzerland presents multi-level education data infrastructures consisting of the following two pilars: the Federal Statistical Office (FSO), and the Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences (FORS).

In the symposium, the following questions are dealt with

• Why and how was the infrastructure built?
• What is the focus, functions, and construction phase of the infrastructure?
• What is the role of the infrastructure on facilitating research, research-based development, and practices on national and European level?
• What are the future directions and collaboration possibilities for the European infrastructures?

Pedagogical implications of current infrastructures to develop the research-based educational research, and, also, future directions and collaboration possibilities for the European infrastructures are discussed. In the current challenging times, European research collaboration is vital.

In the presentation, we examine the construction phase of the national database for teacher education (FinTED) in the framework of expansive learning. We ask the following questions: How did the need for the FinTED research infrastructure in the construction phase come about? How can the development of FinTED infrastructure be understood through the theory of expansive learning? FinTED was launched as an activity funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture, bringing together the actors, materials and functions of teacher education. All Finnish universities with extensive teacher training are included. The growing strategic importance and impacts of research infrastructures have been recognised in different fields of science. Research infrastructures have the potential to improve research opportunities and open science by bringing together discipline-specific data, information and actors in the scientific community (Fabre et al., 2021). Throughout the history, Finnish teacher education has become an internationally respected part of our education system and plays a key role as the basis for citizens' competence and education (Tirri, 2014). At the heart of this activity, the master's level research-based teacher education has carried out its mission by offering teacher students research-based teaching, in which students learn, among other things, critical thinking skills and how to research and apply the research knowledge they have acquired (see Mikkilä-Erdmann et al., 2024). Critical thinking, research data and research-based development are increasingly needed in a situation where the previous success of the field is challenged by the weakening PISA results of students and the maintenance of the general attractiveness and retention of the field. (Heikkilä, 2022; Vilppu et al., 2022.) In examining the construction phase of FinTED, we utilise the theoretical framework of expansive learning, which focuses on collective change of practices through analysis, modelling, implementation and reflection on new forms of activity. Expansive learning is characterized by a repetitive, non-linear nature that combines theoretical and practical perspectives. The expansive learning process is guided by stages, which provide tools for structuring learning and development. (Engeström & Sannino, 2010.) In structuring learning, we utilise the material created during the construction phase of FinTED, the meeting memorandums included in the activities, and the material of the planning and development workshops of the activities. Based on the analysis, we will bring into the discussion, among other things, the contents and learning actions of the first stages of learning cycles.

Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning; foundations, findings and further challenges. Educational Research Review, 5, 1–24. Fabre, R., Egret, D., Schöpfel, J., & Azeroual, O. (2021). Evaluating the scientific impact of research infrastructures: The role of current research information systems. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 42–64. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00111 Heikkilä, M. (2022). Methodological insights on teachers’ professional agency in narratives. Professions and Professionalism, 12(3). Mikkilä-Erdmann, M., Heikkilä, M., Iiskala, T., & Warinowski, A. (2024). Research-based teacher education: A Finnish perspective. In V. Symeonidis (Ed.), Enhancing the value of teacher education research (vol. 3, pp. 42–61). BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004689992_003 Tirri, K. (2014). The last 40 years in Finnish teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 600–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2014.956545 Toom, K., & Miller, P. F. (2018). Research infrastructure. In J. Andersen, K. Toom, S. Poli, & P. F. Miller (Eds.), Research management: Europe and beyond (pp. 205–212). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805059-0.00009-2 Vilppu, H., Mankki, V., Lähteenmäki, M., Mikkilä-Erdmann, M., & Warinowski, A. (2022). Debunking the myth of high achievers in Finnish primary teacher education: first-year preservice teachers’ learning strategies and study success. European Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 508–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2022.2047175

In this presentation we introduce the Norwegian Teacher Education Panel Study (TEPS), a scientific, systematic, and longitudinal database as a national research infrastructure for teacher education in Norway. The presentation addresses the pressing need for such an infrastructure, elaborates on the development and design, and presents the current status of TEPS. High-quality teacher education is critical for sustaining a teaching profession capable of responding to increasingly complex educational challenges, while also supporting recruitment and retention of students over time. At the same time, many countries, including Norway, face persistent teacher shortages, declining application rates to teacher education programmes, and increasingly demanding classrooms realities (UNESCO, 2024; Utdanningsforbundet, 2024; White et al., 2025). Addressing these challenges requires a strong empirical knowledge base. However, most existing research on teacher education has been small-scale, fragmented, and predominantly qualitative, limiting cumulative knowledge building and the capacity to inform policy and practice (Cochran-Smith et al., 2015; Forsström & Munthe, 2023; Livingston & Flores, 2017). In response to the urgent need to advance the state-of-the-art in teacher education research, the TEPS is in the process of establishing a comprehensive scientific database to enable and stimulate high-quality educational research on teacher education and the transition into working life in Norway. TEPS aims to follow student teachers from entry into five-year integrated master’s programmes through their transition into working life, employing a longitudinal, multi-level, and multi-cohort design. The infrastructure integrates multiple data sources, including questionnaires, register data, and text-based materials. The use of already available data, where possible, is intended to reduce participant burden. Through this design, TEPS aims to provide a research database allowing strong inferences, including causal ones, which in turn enables evidence-based policy and practice through high-quality research. Recently, a framework providing the foundation for the ongoing development and piloting of TEPS has been developed (see Martinussen et al., 2025). In August 2026, the instruments will be piloted, after which TEPS will enter its operational phase with data collection covering the full target population. In line with open science principles, the database will be made available to the research community through digital infrastructure provided by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (SIKT). In doing so, researchers, both from Norway and abroad, can utilize the database to conduct high-quality teacher education research also enabling cross-national collaborations.

Cochran-Smith, M., Villegas, A. M., Abrams, L., Chavez-Moreno, L., Mills, T., & Stern, R. (2015). Critiquing teacher preparation research: An overview of the field, Part II. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114558268 Forsström, S. E., & Munthe, E. (2023). What characterizes nordic research on initial teacher education: A systematic scoping review. Nordic Studies in Education, 43(3), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.23865/nse.v43.5588 Livingston, K., & Flores, M. A. (2017). Trends in teacher education: A review of papers published in the European journal of teacher education over 40 years. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1387970 Martinussen, L. J., Senden, B., & Steinmann, I. (2025). The Teacher Education Panel Study (TEPS) Framework: Version 1.0 (Nos. SK25-10). OsloMet skriftserien. https://skriftserien.oslomet.no/skriftserien/article/view/952 UNESCO. (2024). Global report on teachers: Addressing teacher shortages and transforming the profession. United Nations. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789231006555 Utdanningsforbundet. (2024). Lærerutdanningene – søkere og uteksaminerte kandidater 2024 (No. Faktaark 11/2024). Utdanningsforbundet. https://www.utdanningsforbundet.no/globalassets/var-politikk/publikasjoner/faktaark/faktaark_11.2024.pdf White, M., Nortvedt, G. A., Rohatgi, A., & Bjørnsson, J. K. (2025). Den norske lærerrollen i endring: Resultater fra TALIS 2024. University of Oslo. https://kudos.dfo.no/dokument/409808/den-norske-laererrollen-i-endring-resultater-fra-talis-2024-2025

This paper examines the Swedish initiative ULF (Education, Learning, Research), a collaboration for long-term research infrastructure as an ecosystem for research–practice partnerships (RPPs). Rather than constituting a single partnership or project, ULF provides an organisational and financial framework for practice-based research collaborations between schools and higher education institutions. ULF enables locally embedded RPPs within a nationally coordinated structure. On the ULF website (www.ulfavtal.se), over 400 publications from ULF-funded activities are publicly available. A filtering module is currently under development to create a database that helps users identify relevant publications. In this paper, the analysis draws on policy documents and evaluations concerning ULF (www.ulfavtal.se/dokumentation), to examine the emergence of ULF, the design of the 2025–2034 Agreement, and the tensions shaping knowledge production within the ecosystem. The analysis is informed by Farrell et al.’s (2021) five core principles of RPPs – long-term collaboration, focus on problems of practice, engagement with research, integration of diverse expertise, and attention to power relations – together with Arce-Trigatti et al.’s (2023) concept of responsivity as sustained joint efforts by researchers and practitioners over time. Using this framework, the paper highlights defining characteristics of ULF as an RPP ecosystem and examines how collaboration between higher education institutions and school authorities is sustained at a national level. By building local and regional research environments, the ULF Agreement addresses challenges related to long-term collaboration that often undermine RPPs. At the same time, significant tensions emerge around the integration of diverse expertise and power relations. Although ULF is formally based on a 50/50 governance model between academia and school authorities, evaluations indicate that universities retain epistemic dominance. The ecosystem attempts to mitigate this by sharing diverse expertise through "combined positions", creating hybrid professionals to bridge the two worlds. Finally, we argue that the heavy institutionalization required to maintain these power balances creates a paradox of responsivity. From identifying the need for new knowledge, implementing research projects, to utilizing the results, dialogue is required. A dialogue that takes advantage of different knowledge among professionals. The infrastructure risks becoming rigid rather than responsive to the shifting realities. ULF’s challenge for 2034 is thus to maintain the stability of a national infrastructure while cultivating the local agility required to remain responsive to the school professions and teacher education, thereby enabling actors within ULF to jointly shape knowledge production within the ecosystem.

Farrell, 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. Arce-Trigatti, P., Klein, K., & Lee, J. S. (2023). Are research-practice partnerships responsive to partners’ needs? Exploring research activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Policy, 37(1), 170–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221134584

Switzerland has developed a differentiated and multi-level education data infrastructure in which several complementary actors provide education researchers with access to high-quality data (CSRE/SKBR, 2023). A central pillar is the Federal Statistical Office (FSO), which collects, harmonises, and disseminates administrative and survey data covering all levels of the education system. Through unique personal identifiers, standardised classifications, and longitudinal designs, FSO datasets enable the analysis of educational trajectories over time and the linkage of education data with other social domains. Regulated access procedures, secure data environments, and comprehensive documentation ensure both usability and data protection. A second key infrastructure actor is FORS, the Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences. FORS conducts and supports large-scale national and international surveys relevant to education research, hosts the main social science data archive in Switzerland, and serves as the national service provider for CESSDA (Consortium of European Social Science Data Archives). Through data curation, metadata standardisation, and long-term preservation aligned with European standards, FORS facilitates the reuse of educational research data and strengthens the integration of Swiss education research into the European research area. In recent years, FORS has intensified its engagement with education researchers, addressing challenges related to sensitive data, informed consent, and the methodological diversity characteristic of educational studies. Beyond these infrastructures, the Swiss education data landscape includes major longitudinal studies, smaller thematic initiatives, and governance-based coordination structures. The Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education (EDK) plays an important coordinating role in shaping data production and use across a highly federalised education system. In addition, educa.ch has proposed frameworks and services to improve data use, interoperability, and access across educational levels. Cantonal initiatives have also gained importance, with several cantons developing their own data infrastructures and research collaborations; the canton of Zurich, in particular, has been highly active in expanding data availability and linking administrative data with research needs. Overall, the Swiss education data infrastructure has been built incrementally over several decades through public investment and close cooperation between statistical authorities, research institutions, and educational governance bodies (FSO, 2023). Its core functions include data production, longitudinal integration, metadata standardisation, secure access, and user support. At the national level, these infrastructures support education research, research-based development, and evidence-informed practice. At the European level, they enable participation in comparative studies and alignment with shared infrastructure standards, thereby strengthening the contribution of Swiss education research to European educational sciences.

Swiss Coordination Centre for Research in Education (CSRE/SKBF), 2023. Swiss Education Report 2023. Aarau: CSRE. https://www.skbf-csre.ch/fileadmin/files/pdf/bildungsberichte/2023/BiBer_2023_E.pdf Federal Statistical Office (FSO), 2023. Bildungsstatistik 2022 / Education Statistics 2022 (Swiss Statistics series). Swiss Federal Statistical Office. https://www.bfs.admin.ch/asset/en/24586339