Conference Agenda

Amid escalating global turbulence characterized by rapid technological change, geopolitical instability, widening inequalities, climate-related disruptions, and post-pandemic pressures schools and educational institutions face complex, shifting demands that outpace prevailing approaches to school and educational development. These conditions amplify uncertainty in teaching and learning, strain resources, and magnify equity concerns, while simultaneously accelerating expectations for digital transformation and data-informed practice. Research–practice partnerships (RPPs, e.g. Farrell et al., 2021) offer a robust mechanism to respond: they align evidence generation with local needs, build capacity for adaptive problem-solving, and sustain iterative innovation through trust-based collaboration. By co-designing solutions, integrating practitioner expertise with research insight, and developing shared infrastructures for learning, RPPs help schools and educational institutions navigate volatility, enhance resilience, and ensure that educational change remains both context-sensitive and equitable.

This symposium examines research–practice partnerships (RPPs) across educational contexts in Northern and Central Europe and North America, covering topics at the school, city, national, and international levels and within professional development and innovation networks. The central research question in this symposium is: Which fostering and challenging factors influence the creation and sustainability of RPPs in these contexts?

Prior literature identifies challenges to sustaining RPPs that include organizational constraints (timelines, resources, turnover), cultural integration, and power dynamics (Farrell et al., 2018; McGeown & Sjölund, 2025). Educator attitudes and participation opportunities also shape the trajectory of partnerships (Korhonen et al., 2024). Notably, some hindering factors can become productive sites for learning; negotiations at boundaries can create opportunities for joint work (Sjölund & Lindvall, 2024). Conversely, clear allocation of resources and time, targeted professional development (Korhonen et al., 2024), and professional networking (Fischer-Schöneborn & Ehmke, 2023) are known enablers. Most recently, McGeown and Sjölund (2025) highlight four key enablers for sustaining RPPs: infrastructure, funding, training, and incentives.

The symposium aims to present and critically evaluate factors that enable or impede sustainable RPPs. The contributions offer comparative perspectives across settings where RPP-like approaches are enacted under varied conceptual frameworks and methods, thereby addressing how RPPs manifest in European contexts while engaging US colleagues to broaden the discussion. Responding to calls to close the international research gap on RPP processes, outcomes, and evaluation (Fischer-Schöneborn & Ehmke, 2023), the symposium provides an opportunity to identify enabling and impeding conditions, share experiences, and foreground locality and contextual contingencies.

The symposium draws on frameworks that conceptualize core characteristics and principles of effective RPPs. Henrick et al. (2023) delineate five dimensions of effectiveness with associated indicators: cultivating trust and relationships for sustained joint work; engaging in inclusive research or inquiry to address local needs; supporting practice or community organizations in making progress toward jointly set goals; engaging with the broader field to improve educational practices, systems, and inquiry; and fostering ongoing learning while developing infrastructure for partnering. Application of these principles must be sensitive to each partnership’s goals, composition, and context.

This symposium offers an integrative overview of factors influencing the initiation, structuring, and sustainability of RPPs across diverse educational settings. By highlighting enabling conditions, boundary challenges, and collaborative roles that shape co-construction, professional learning, and system-level improvement, the symposium advances a shared, evidence-informed understanding of key issues and promotes mutual learning among participants.

While partnerships have historically formed the foundation of many important revelations across the years, including within the field of education (e.g., Andersen, 2008), research-practice partnerships (RPPs) have tended to focus on challenging uneven power relations, exploring issues of equity, and solving for a persistent lack of communication or knowledge sharing across those who work in education and those who study (Tseng, 2012). Moving beyond simple agreements to collaborate on a short-term project in which researchers drop into an educational context, gather and analyse data, then publish independently of educators, RPPs have been defined as long-term and mutually-beneficial collaborations. RPPs focus on improving educational practice through research engagement that is explicitly designed to connect diverse forms of knowledge and experience in ways that elevate all perspectives while centering equity in a partnership (Farrell et al., 2021; Coburn & Penuel, 2016). Across both the US and Europe, RPPs have driven innovation toward improved learning as their structure becomes an expectation by funders (e.g., Spencer Foundation, W.T. Grant Foundation), government organizations (e.g., the ULF agreement in Sweden), and innovative professional learning efforts (e.g., RPP broker workshops at the University of Franche-Comté (Pasco et al., 2025)). Though a few structures exist for US-based RPPs and projects to learn from one another, European-based RPPs have thus far lacked an infrastructure for learning together about their work. This symposium contribution presents an international effort to address this lack of shared learning infrastructure. In 2024, a small group of international RPP researchers (names anonymized) raised funds to invite US and European colleagues to a 2-day workshop at Rice University in Paris (France) in September 2025. It was the first workshop of its kind to bring together RPP expertise from different continents. Twenty attendees envisioned what an international RPP network could be through a series of six knowledge-sharing and consensus-building activities. These included: 1) learning about each other’s RPP projects, partners, and outcomes, 2) developing shared language and understanding of how RPPs function, 3) coming to agreement about what distinguishes RPPs from other forms of educational research collaborations, 4) exploring ideas for an international RPP network that begins with European and US partnerships, 5) articulating and discussing RPP relevant sub-topics for working groups, and 6) mapping out next steps for building this international RPP network. Findings of this 2-day gathering, lessons learned as well as next steps will be presented.

Andersen, N. Å. (2008). Partnerships: Machines of possibility. Policy Press. Coburn, C. & Penuel, W. (2016). Research-Practice Partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1): 48-54. Farrell, C., Penuel, W., Coburn, C., Daniel, J., & Steup, L. (2021). Research-Practice Partnerships in education: The state of the field. William T. Grant Foundation. New York, NY. Pasco, D. & Bolou-Chiaravalli, C. & Cappoci, C. & Rupic, B. (2025). The role of brokers in fostering research use through RPPs: A case study from France. AERA Conference. Denver, CO. Tseng, V. (2012, July). Partnerships: Shifting the dynamics between research and practice. William T. Grant Foundation. New York, NY.

For over 20 years the Innokas Network has guided schools toward creativity and innovation through innovation education in the context of digitalization. What began with a handful of enthusiastic teachers is now a nationwide network of over 750 schools, coordinated across 11 regions by the University of Helsinki. During the last five years, the network has pursued even broader effectiveness and focused on systematic school culture development projects with a research-practice partnership approach. Special care has been taken to build long-term partnerships and support participating educators, for example, in acting as idea brokers or interpreter for the findings (Sjölund et al., 2023). In addition, these co-development projects between universities and educators used various participatory methods, such as initial mapping of the development targets and quick analysis of results (Tiippana et al., 2025). Despite these efforts, we have recognized the need for further fostering the agentic roles of participating educators (Korhonen et al., 2024). To address this need, an interview study of 14 regional network coordinators was designed. The interviews examined participants’ experiences, activities, needs, and roles within the network. In line with RPP principles, this study contributes to both research and practice by offering new insights into educators’ perceptions of the factors that support and hinder sustainable RPPs. Preliminary analysis show that the main fostering factors brought forward were supporting educators’ sense of belonginess and the creation of common targets. The sense of belonginess was highlighted in various ways, such as an opportunity to bring forward one’s own expertise, the ability to contribute to a common target, and a sense of being heard. The creation of common targets was frequently highlighted in the interviews as essential for helping educators feel that they were “speaking the same language” as the researchers. Challenging factors highlighted structural aspects. Since RPP’s can often be externally funded development projects, partnerships are not necessarily as long-term as would be ideal (Penuel & Gallagher, 2017). Limited or short-term funding can block new projects or reduce participation. Dependence on individual actors was also viewed as a challenge; when a previously active contributor left the organization, the partnership risked being compromised. The findings illustrate how the RPP approach can at its best foster sustainable educational change by giving voice to educators and engaging them in solving practical problems in collaboration with researchers. Structural challenges, in particular, place pressure on university partners and municipal actors to identify sustainable funding solutions.

Korhonen, T., Salo, L., Reinius, H., Malander, S., Tiippana, N., Laakso, N., Lavonen, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2024). Creating transformative research–practice partnership in collaboration with school, city, and university actors. Education Sciences, 14(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14040399 Penuel, W. R., & Gallagher, D. J. (2017). Creating research-practice partnerships on education. Harvard Education Press. Sjölund, S., Lindvall, J., Larsson, M., & Ryve, A. (2023). Mapping roles in research-practice partnerships – a systematic literature review. Educational Review, 75(7), 1490–1518. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.2023103 Tiippana, N., Korhonen, T., Reinius, H., & Hakkarainen, K. (2025). Research–practice partnership as a school development method: Educators’ experiences on collaborative school development process and outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 36(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2024.2432333

The purpose of this paper is to draw out the lessons from the Every-Dundee-Learner-Matters (EDLM) strategy. The strategy places collaboration and networking to promote equity and inclusion “within-schools” and “between-schools” as a central driver for change. The strategy focuses on developing the three ‘Ps’ of Presence, Participation and Progress of all children and young people across the city. Underpinned by professional learning and co-constructed with a diverse range of stakeholders, Design-Based Implementation Research (Fishman et al., 2013) guides this work. This points to the possibility of ‘joint practice development’, which Fielding et al., (2005) define as learning new ways of working through mutual engagement and sharing practices with others. Through such collaborative activities, teachers and leaders across the city are developing evidence-informed communities of practice where collaboration and engagement foster identification of goals and acquisition of new knowledge and skills (e.g. Sim, 2006; Wenger and Lave 2001). Key to the strategy has been the formation of a Headteacher Strategy Group to drive the strategy forwards. This challenges traditional ways of working across local authorities and schools in Scotland by promoting subsidiarity rather than top-down approaches to change. The work of the SIPs and SIGs are monitored through four strands of data collection and analysis: secondary data, qualitative research, generation of artifacts and - Mixed Methods Social Network Analysis (MMSNA) to map the social interactions within and across SIGs (Borgatti, 2018) and inform the development of qualitative data collection. This paper focuses on the interview data and MMSNA to offer insights into how collaborative processes are developing through this city-wide strategy. The paper focuses on the following research questions: - What factors influence the implementation and sustainability of the strategy? - What evidence is there of impact on the presence, participation and progress of learners? - What are the implications for sustaining policies and practices for the future? Research and collaborative professional learning have supported the development of collective agency of teachers and school leaders. In turn, this has created the context for developing more sustainable practices across the city. However, the development of SIGs and SIPs are influenced by a range of factors including leadership conditions, relational trust, and beliefs in schools which also has implications for developing sustainable practices. Findings support the growing body of international evidence demonstrating the impact of RPPs on improving the education through collaborative processes to support professional learning and the development of an inquiring stance.

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2018). Analyzing social networks. Sage. Fielding, M. Bragg, S. Craig, J. Cunningham, I. Eraut, M. Gillinson, S. Horne, M. Robinson, C. & Thorp, J. (2005) Factors Influencing the Transfer of Good Practice, Nottingham: DFES Publications. Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A. R., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. O. R. A. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. Teachers College Record, 115(14), 136-156 Sim, C. (2006). Preparing for professional experiences – Incorporating pre-service teachers as “community of practice.” Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1), 76-83 Wenger, E., & Lave, J. (2001). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

This paper presents a comprehensive mixed-methods evaluation of the Peers4Practice program, conducted at the DIPF | Leibniz Institute for research and information in education in the Rhine-Main metro area in Germany. Peers4Practice is a professional development initiative for early career teachers and researchers that fosters brokering competences at the intersection of educational research and school practice, particularly within Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs) (Wentworth et al 2023). The evaluation was designed as a formative and summative study, accompanying program implementation while systematically assessing its quality, processes, and impact. The program addresses teachers in their residency or early career stages as well as PhD students and postdoctoral researchers in the Rhine-Main metro area (Germany). Two cohorts (42 participants total, balanced across practice and research) run from January 2024 to January 2026. Participants collaborate in tandems or trios for eighteen months to develop competences including perspective-taking, cooperation, communication, evidence-based practice, research skills, and reflection (Wentworth et al. 2023, Hartmann & Decristan 2018). The curriculum begins with a two-day kickoff workshop, followed by collaborative work over six quarters, online training sessions, reciprocal classroom/lab visits, and a mid-term meeting, concluding with a final workshop for presentation and reflection. The study combines the assessment of the program theory, implementation processes, and impact, relying on multiple data sources (Patton 2015; Greene et al. 1997, Rossi et al. 2019). As part of the process evaluation, monthly online surveys tracked satisfaction, time investment, and tandem relationship quality for the participants. Focus groups gathered in-depth perspectives on benefits and challenges. The impact evaluation relies on repeated self-report questionnaires (pre-program to six months post-program) to assess changes in brokering competences. Supervisor surveys further documented perceived changes in professional practice and organizational environments. Preliminary results highlight consistently high satisfaction with program quality, though individual engagement varied. Most tandems adapted suggested co-constructive formats to their needs, and some training sessions were viewed as less aligned with targeted competences. Supervisor feedback indicated weak integration into schools and labs. Teachers voiced concerns regarding schools’ limited capacity for research collaboration. Regarding impact, participants entered with high competences, suggesting ceiling effects. However, data show positive trends in perspective-taking, cooperation, and self-reflection in both cohorts. In conclusion, the Peers4Practice evaluation suggests high potential for brokering professional development. While overall satisfaction was high, future cohorts would benefit from more targeted workshops, support for co-constructive formats, and deeper organizational involvement at the participants’ workplaces to enhance institutional impact.

Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms [Special issue]. New Directions for Evaluation, 1997(74). Jossey-Bass. Hartmann, U., & Decristan, J. (2018). Brokering activities and learning mechanisms at the boundary of educational research and school practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.04.016 Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Henry, G. T. (2019). Evaluation: A systematic approach (8th ed.). SAGE Publications. Wentworth, L., Arce-Trigatti, P., Conaway, C., & Shewchuk, S. (2023). Brokering in education research-practice partnerships: A guide for education professionals and researchers.