In design-based research (DBR, McKenney & Reeves, 2019) as a strategy for both “useful educational intervention and effective theory for solving individual and collective problems of education” (Easterday et al., 2014, p. 323) RPPs are an essential part of an iterative design-process. Partners from research and practice are seemingly natural allies and collaborative closely to create educational innovations (Campanella & Penuel, 2021). Even though the potential of such design- and research strategies in bridging the so-called research-practice-gap is quite obvious, there are objections concerning different objectives of practitioners and scientist in DBR-projects (Euler, 2024). Certain obstacles in forming sustainable RPPs can be identified (Penuel et al., 2021; Schroeder & Reh, 2023), e.g. divagating aims and expectations for success or different approaches to problem-solving, among others. Regarding these obstacles, it makes a big difference whether there is prior experience of working in RPPs or not. Especially considering that the German education system does not provide for such collaborations as standard. In the DBR-project DiPoSa, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, we implemented RPPs. A team consisting of scientists form different disciplines and expert-teachers form inclusive primary schools worked together to develop a video-based education-platform for teacher education, focusing on adaptive teaching in inclusive primary education. On a regular basis of four design-conferences per year design-principles (Euler, 2017) were negotiated and implemented in the platform, creating a support-structure for student- and in-service-teachers. At the end of the project the experiences of working in RPPs were explored via group-discussions (N = 3). The group-discussions were separated according to status groups. As a result of the qualitive-content-analysis of the group-discussions obstacles and opportunities from the perspectives of practitioners and scientists alike could be elaborated regarding governance structures and so-called design conferences as a collaboration strategy. For example, the practitioners described their commitment to the project as doing “just part-time-science” or mentioned the challenges of being involved in a time-consuming process where the individual usefulness of the final product is uncertain. These obstacles, but also the opportunities perceived in the tested form of RPPs, are discussed against the background of the structures in Germany for RPPs as well as the overall aims of DBR in developing educational innovations.

Campanella, M., & Penuel, W. R. (2021). Design-Based-Research in Educational Settings: Motivations, Crosscutting Features, and Considerations für Design. In Z. A. Philippakos, E. Howell, & A. Pellegrino (Eds.), Design-Based-Research in Education. Theory and Applications (pp. 3-22). The Guilford Press. Easterday, M., W., Lewis, D. R., & Gerber, E. (2014). Design-based research process: Problems, phases, and applications. In Proceedings of International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), 317–324. (pp. 317-324). Euler, D. (2017). Design principles as bridge between scientific knowledge production and practice design. EDeR. Educational Design Research, 1(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.1.1.1024 Euler, D. (2024). How to align objectives of practitioners and scientists in DBR projects? EDeR. Educational Design Research, 8(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.8.1.2131 McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2019). Conducting Educational Design Research (2. ed.). Routledge. Penuel, W. R., Furtak, E. M., & Farrell, C. C. (2021). Research-practice partnerships in education. Advancing an evolutionary logic of systems improvement. Die deutsche Schule, 113(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:22074 Schroeder, R., & Reh, A. (2023). Design-Based-Research als Innovationsstrategie in der Sonderpädagogik: Wissenstransfer in der dialogischen Wissenschafts-Praxis-Kooperation. In M. Grummt, W. Kulig, C. Lindmeier, V. Oelze, & S. Sallat (Eds.), Partiziaption, Wissen und Kommunikation im sonderpädagogischen Diskurs (pp. 272-278). Klinkhardt.