Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs) are increasingly recognized as crucial frameworks worldwide for bridging the gap between educational research and practice. These collaborations are characterized as "long-term collaboration aimed at educational improvement or equitable transformation through engagement with research, intentionally organized to connect diverse forms of expertise and shift power relations in the research endeavor[…].” (Farrell et al., 2021, p. IV). Recent systematic reviews suggest that contextual conditions significantly influence RPP development, though comprehensive studies in this area remain limited (Schlicht-Schmälzle et al., forthcoming). Unlike North America, where RPPs have been extensively explored and promoted through entities like the National Network of Education Research-Practice Partnerships (NNERPP), Europe lacks similar structures, and little is known about how these partnerships operate under diverse political and educational frameworks. In two connected ECER symposia, we aim at comparing the evolution of RPPs in Europe and how macro systemic and micro level dynamics influence their development.

The discourse on various forms of collaboration between researchers, practitioners and other involved actors in education is not new in the European context. To illustrate this highly multifaceted endeavor, here are some examples: Activity Theory (Engeström & Sannino, 2010); the concept of boundary crossing (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011); Design-Based research (Euler, 2014; McKenney & Reeves, 2014); participatory research (von Unger, 2014), or the idea of Community of Practice (Wenger et al., 2002).

Not only the European discourse about collaboration but also RPPs are highly diverse, encompassing research alliances, design research collaborations, networked improvement communities, or hybrids of these approaches (Henrick et al., 2017). Still, Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs) present an appealing framework, not by attempting to unify theoretical and methodological approaches, but by describing the core characteristics of such efforts, outlined by Farrell et al. (2021, pp. 6–11): 1. RPPs are long-term collaborations. 2. RPPs aim for educational improvement or equitable transformation. 3. Engagement with research is a central activity. 4. RPPs are intentionally organized to integrate diverse expertise. 5. RPPs employ strategies to shift power dynamics in research endeavors, ensuring all participants have an equal voice.

Acknowledging the very different context in the USA compared to Europe, these principles of cooperation are also becoming increasingly relevant here. In this symposium, we adopt the five characteristics of RPPs (Farrell et al., 2021) and examine their application across four different national contexts. In addition the studies will introduce the educational contexts of the RPPs and provide deeper insights into their dynamics.

Study 1:

The paper presents a comparative analysis of state-initiated RPPs in Norway and Sweden. The study investigates how the initiatives are structured nationally and experienced locally by participants in RPPs.

Study 2:

The presentation highlights preliminary findings from group discussions focusing on the opportunities and challenges of collaboration within RPPs in Germany. The analysis emphasizes a partnership approach that recognizes practitioners as equal contributors in the context of educational design research.

Study 3:

An analysis of RPP meetings at the micro level, focusing on challenging power dynamics in Switzerland incorporating practitioners’ perspectives through interviews.

By systematically comparing these case studies and integrating both internal and contextual aspects, the two symposiums aim to enhance understanding of what factors contribute to the success or failure of RPPs in varied European educational settings. The discussions of both symposia will build-up on each other by addressing questions about a) the macro-systemic conditions of developing RPPs on the national level, b) common challenges and needs for developing RPPs, and c) the potentials of European structures – similar to NNERPP in the US -for the evolution of RPPs in Europe.

Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. https://doi.org/10.2307/23014366 Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002 Euler, D. (2014). Design-Research – a paradigm under development. In D. Euler & P. F. E. Sloane (Eds.), Design-Based Research (pp. 15–44). Franz Steiner. Farrell, C. C., Penuel, W. R., Coburn, C. E., Daniel, J., & Steup, L. (2021). Research-practice partnerships in education: The state of the field. William T. Grant Foundation. http://wtgrantfoundation.org/research-practice-partnerships-in-education-the-state-of-the-field Henrick, E. C., Cobb, P., Penuel, W. R., Jackson, K., & Clark, T. (2017). Assessing Research-Practice Partnerships: Five Dimensions of Effectiveness. William T. Grant Foundation. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2014). Educational Design Research. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 131–140). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_11 Schlicht-Schmälzle, R. S., et al. (under review). Research-practice partnerships in education - A literature review on their mechanisms for educational improvement. von Unger, H. (2014). Partizipative Forschung: Einführung in die Forschungspraxis. Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01290-8 Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business Press.