Research-Practice Partnerships in Education: Benefits for Researchers and Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to study how researchers and practitioners from universities and school authorities in Alberta, Canada, lead eleven research partnership projects, shared work and learning responsibilities, as well as understood their common challenges. Project leaders (N = 38) revealed their perceptions of the research partnership through an online survey and semi-structured interviews. Practitioners indicated advantages to partnering such as access to research expertise and data analysis tools in addition to deepening their research skills for educational decision making. Researchers outlined three benefits to the partnership: having access to research sites, learning more about current issues in schools, and developing relationships with practitioners. The researchers explained that these relationships would facilitate their ability to complete future research and conduct knowledge mobilization activities that would reach professional and academic audiences. Both researchers and participants identified challenges, such as time, communications, reporting requirements, and unforeseen circumstances while engaging in these research partnerships. Key words: University-school partnerships; educational partnerships; researcher-practitioner partnership; knowledge mobilization; case study L'objectif de cette recherche était d'étudier comment les chercheurs et les praticiens des universités et des autorités scolaires de l'Alberta, au Canada, ont dirigé onze projets de partenariat de recherche, partagé les responsabilités de travail et d'apprentissage, et perçu leurs défis communs. Les chefs de projet (N = 38) ont révélé leurs perceptions du partenariat de recherche par le biais d'un sondage en ligne et d'entrevues semi-structurées. Les praticiens ont indiqué les avantages du partenariat, tels que l'accès à l'expertise en recherche et aux outils d'analyse des données, en plus de l'approfondissement de leurs compétences en recherche pour la prise de décision en matière d'éducation. Les chercheurs ont souligné trois avantages du partenariat : avoir accès à des sites de recherche, en apprendre davantage sur les problèmes actuels dans les écoles et développer des relations avec les praticiens. Les chercheurs ont expliqué que ces relations faciliteraient leur capacité à réaliser des recherches futures et à mener des activités de mobilisation des connaissances qui toucheraient des publics professionnels et universitaires. Les chercheurs et les participants ont identifié des défis, tels que le temps, les communications, les exigences en matière de rapports et les circonstances imprévues, dans le cadre de ces partenariats de recherche. Mots clés : partenariats université-école; partenariats éducatifs; partenariat chercheur-praticien; mobilisation des connaissances; étude de cas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.220 | 0.196 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.039 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.068 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".