Epistemic Authority and School-University Partnerships: Findings From a Collaborative Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The divide between theory and practice in education is well-established and longstanding (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Ferguson, 2021; Zeichner & Liston, 2013). School-university partnerships (SUPs) offer one model for potentially addressing this divide. Nonetheless, common challenges experienced by school and university-based stakeholders identified in the SUP literature include power differentials and relational dynamics (Bernay et al., 2020; Herbert et al., 2018; Sarmiento-Márquez et al., 2023). This chapter reports findings from a qualitative interview-based collaborative inquiry investigating the Praxis Project; a SUP that involved collaboration between a secondary school and a teacher education program in Toronto, Canada. Working in triads, this SUP involved in-service teachers, pre-service teachers, and doctoral students co-designing small-scale collaborative action research studies on a topic pertinent to the in-service teacher’s classroom context and teaching practice. This SUP project is unique in its grouping of triads and in its inclusion of doctoral candidates as primary research mentors in place of university-based professor(s). We report our findings and identify two key recurring tensions that signal learning opportunities for our specific SUP, drawing on theory and practice in this field more broadly. These tensions implicate considerations of epistemic authority and considerations of structural parameters in school-university-community partnerships and collaborative inquiry initiatives.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".