Situated Partnership: Dynamics of Role Formation in a Research–Practice Partnership

Background or Context: Research–practice partnerships (RPPs) are collaborative efforts between researchers and practitioners aimed at improving educational practices through engagement in research. Previous studies have highlighted the dynamic nature of roles within RPPs, emphasizing the need for role negotiation and adaptation to local contexts. This study builds on existing literature by focusing on the roles of academic faculty within an evolving RPP involving two higher education institutions and 21 schools in Israel. The aim of the RPP was to give participating schools the opportunity to evaluate and understand pedagogical processes and make changes through engagement in school-based research. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore the roles of academic faculty within an evolving RPP and understand how these roles develop and adapt over time. The research focused on faculty members’ experiences in supporting schools’ research endeavors, emphasizing the contingent nature of their roles. The study addressed the following research questions: What types of roles are formed for faculty within an RPP? How do faculty roles develop within the RPP? By examining these questions, the study seeks to contribute to a deeper understanding of role dynamics in RPPs and provide insights for more effective partnership implementation. Research Design: We explored faculty roles through a fine-grained analysis of their discourse during biweekly meetings, where they reported and reflected on their interactions with practitioners in the schools. These meetings served as a forum for faculty to share their responsibilities and tasks within the partnership and to negotiate and construct their professional identity within the RPP. Data were collected from 24 transcribed meetings, each lasting 90 minutes, and segmented into episodes categorized as “small stories.” We employed a grounded-theory method to code each segment and drew on these findings to further our understanding of how faculty members’ roles were formed within the RPP. Conclusions/Recommendations: Faculty roles within the RPP were not fixed; they were highly contingent on the specific contexts of the participating schools. The concept of “situated partnership” emerged as a key finding, emphasizing the dynamic and context-dependent nature of faculty roles. The study recommends that future RPPs consider the importance of flexibility and adaptability in role definitions, allowing for the evolution of roles based on local contexts.