Several researchers (e.g., Farrell et al., 2021; Tseng et al., 2017) and educational stakeholders are looking for novel ways to engage with school development in a changing educational landscape to bridge an identified persistent gap between research on education and educational practice. In this pursuit, researchers and practitioners invested in educational development are engaging in collaborative partnerships between academia and practice (Wentworth et al., 2021). Such long term and mutualistic partnerships could lead to school development that engages schools to a higher degree and, in turn, could make schools, teaching, and learning improve and allow our children to thrive.

This case study investigates discourses of the relationship between participants of such a collaborative school development and research partnership. The purpose of the study is to explore how such discourses are negotiated in collaborative work. In the present study, with the help of the results of a discourse analysis of 20 hours of video recorded planning meetings and development seminars of a research and school development program, I will answer the following two research questions: (RQ1) What collaborative discourses are represented, and how are they negotiated as they relate to collaborative school improvement and research efforts? (RQ2) How do researchers and practitioners identify and negotiate identities in relation to these discourses?

Previous efforts to approach research and development in, for instance, the U.S. and the U.K. have mainly promoted a sequence of research, development, dissemination and utilization (Penuel et al., 2020). Programs using this RDDU-sequence are often run by researchers positioned as experts that transfer designs to educators. The educators’ task is then to implement the designs. This top-down structure is described as a "what works" approach to disseminating research to educational practice and is represented in the state-funded what works clearinghouse in the U.S. and the education endowment foundation in the U.K. (Tseng & Nutley, 2014). However, other countries, such as Canada and Singapore, are more focused on a bottom-up approach to improving research use. Singapore, for instance, is focused on producing knowledge in schools through collaborations with researchers on producing research agendas, conducting research, and learning from it. This approach is in line with the growing interest in research-practice partnerships (RPPs) in the U.S. (Farrell et al., 2021). Moreover, RPPs and similar structures are described as promising for closing the gap between research on education and educational practice (Coburn et al., 2021; Wentworth et al., 2021).

However, closing the gap through collaborative partnerships is fraught with challenges (Firestone & Fisler, 2002). Some of the most persistent and common challenges are differences in timelines, staff turnover and finding suitable individuals to participate (Brown & Allen, 2021). Another common challenge described by Coburn et al. (2008) is finding authority structures in this new mixture of actors. It is easy for participants to avoid explicitly dealing with authority relations within partnerships between academy and practice as it might seem counterintuitive to define clear authority lines in relation to collaborative structures meant to promote more even power relations between academia and practice. Research suggests that there are several roles that researchers and practitioners can assume in partnerships, with varying distribution of responsibility and authority (Author et al., 2022). Despite this, it might well be the case that distinct and explicit authority structures are necessary to create productive working relationships across institutional boundaries. Moreover, research suggests that role negotiation influences the focus on leadership meetings and that it can affect how individuals involved work in future projects (Farrell et al., 2019). This study will focus on the discourses that influence how roles are assumed, and on how actors identify themselves to shape their perspective.

Context The case I am investigating is a collaborative research and preschool-development program. There are three types of organizational entities involved: Academia (i.e., researchers), educational practice (e.g., preschool teachers, principals, district office employees) and a third-part organization that receive funds from districts and private actors to initiate and organise collaborative research and (pre)school development programs. This program is spread across several cities and regions in Sweden. It involves about 300 educational practitioners, three researchers, and one third-part actor (additional third-part actors have limited presence). Observations To gather relevant data, I conduct video-recorded observations. There are three types of observed meetings: oversight council (policy/operational body) meetings, coordinating council (operations/implementation body) meetings and development seminars, which constitute the driving force of the implementation of the program. The development seminars are where researchers, practitioners and third-part actors (TPA) work together to initiate and discuss school development. In accordance with ethical guidelines (The Swedish research council, 2017) the video recordings only include participants who signed an informed agreement form. Analysis First, recorded observations are fully transcribed. Second, I read through the transcribed texts, highlighting any section containing representations of discourses. For instance, a passage where the oversight council discuss expectations on themselves, researchers and TPAs is highlighted. Last, I perform discourse analysis inspired by Fairclough (2003) to analyse the textual data. Of course, this process is not as linear as described. I go back and forth between these stages as my understanding of the material increase, and new discourses are identified. Specifically, two semantic concepts related to the research questions are used. • Discourses – ways of representing (RQ1) • Styles – ways of being (RQ2) To understand the discourses represented in the material, I, among other things, analyse how meanings are excluded (antonymy), included (hyponymy) and identified (synonymy). For instance, one TPA identifies (synonymy) this program as an interactive research program. Moreover, when it comes to interactive research, the TPA rejects (antonymy) the idea of only presenting results and receiving feedback from practice and includes (hyponymy) open dialogue across organisations. To analyse Styles, I investigate commitment, both in respect to what is true and what is necessary (modality) as well as what is desirable, undesirable, good and bad (evaluation). For instance, the same TPA as in the example above starts a sentence with, "my vision is that…" which is clearly followed by something desirable in the TPAs perspective.

Preliminary results from an initial analysis identify three discourses (ways of representing, RQ1) on collaborative school development and research efforts. Firstly, a social constructionist discourse constitutes open discussions among participants in the program to construct new knowledge. For instance, several participants mention using discussion groups to process information and draw conclusions together. Secondly, a positivist discourse constitutes presentations from researchers to provide the knowledge of what is true, or what works. For instance, several practitioners mentioned that they expected researchers to supply them with a scientific foundation and theoretical insights for the program. Lastly, a critical discourse constitutes a challenge to asymmetrical power relations. For instance, one third part actor mentioned that researchers need to take measures to open up for dialogue with practitioners, as it might not be easy for the practitioners to be "critical" with the "all-knowing" researchers. In relation to styles (RQ2), the analysis shows that researchers and practitioners mainly identify themselves in the positivist discourse and social constructionist discourse. In contrast, third-part actors position themselves in the critical- and social-constructionist discourses. The discursive approach adopted in the present study is intended to capture the underlying discourses that frame the program and how these are negotiated. Only when you are enlightened of the discourses by which you are influenced, can you start to use them for your own purposes. The critical task then, for those invested in school development and research efforts, is to take control and navigate the negotiation of discourses by explicit attention to how they unfold. I argue that then, and only then, can these partnerships reach their full potential, and truly serve to increase the quality of education, and as such, produce an environment for our children to thrive in.

Author et al. (2022) Brown, S., & Allen, A. (2021). The interpersonal side of research-practice partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(7), 20-25. Coburn, C., Bae, S., & Turner, E. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider–outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 364-399. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Psychology Press. 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. Farrell, C., Harrison, C., & Coburn, C. (2019, 01/01/). "What the Hell Is This, and Who the Hell Are You?" Role and Identity Negotiation in Research-Practice Partnerships. AERA Open, 5(2). Firestone, W. A., & Fisler, J. L. (2002, 01/01/). Politics, Community, and Leadership in a School-University Partnership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(4), 449-493. Penuel, W., Riedy, R., Barber, M., Peurach, D., LeBouef, W., & Clark, T. (2020, Oct). Principles of Collaborative Education Research With Stakeholders: Toward Requirements for a New Research and Development Infrastructure [Article]. Review of Educational Research, 90(5), 627-674. Tseng, V., Easton, J., & Supplee, L. (2017). Research‐Practice Partnerships: Building Two‐Way Streets of Engagement. Social Policy Report, 30(4), 1-17. Tseng, V., Fleischman, S., & Quintero, E. (2018). Democratizing Evidence in Education. In B. Bevan & W. Penuel (Eds.), Connecting Research and Practice for Educational Improvement: Ethical and Equitable Approaches (pp. 3-16). Routledge. The Swedish Research Council (2017). Good Research Practice. https://www.vr.se/english/analysis/reports/our-reports/2017-08-31-good-research-practice.html Wentworth, L., Khanna, R., Nayfack, M., & Schwartz, D. (2021). Closing the Research-Practice Gap in Education. Stanford social innovation review, 19(2), 57-58. Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Farrell, C. C. (2021). Fostering educational improvement with research-practice partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(7), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217211007332 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. Tseng, V., & Nutley, S. (2014). Building the infrastructure to improve the use and usefulness of research in education. In K. S. Finnagan & A. J. Daly (Eds.), Using research evidence in education (pp. 163-175). Springer. Wentworth, L., Khanna, R., Nayfack, M., & Schwartz, D. (2021). Closing the Research-Practice Gap in Education. Stanford social innovation review, 19(2), 57-58.