This paper examines the Swedish initiative ULF (Education, Learning, Research), a collaboration for long-term research infrastructure as an ecosystem for research–practice partnerships (RPPs). Rather than constituting a single partnership or project, ULF provides an organisational and financial framework for practice-based research collaborations between schools and higher education institutions. ULF enables locally embedded RPPs within a nationally coordinated structure. On the ULF website (www.ulfavtal.se), over 400 publications from ULF-funded activities are publicly available. A filtering module is currently under development to create a database that helps users identify relevant publications. In this paper, the analysis draws on policy documents and evaluations concerning ULF (www.ulfavtal.se/dokumentation), to examine the emergence of ULF, the design of the 2025–2034 Agreement, and the tensions shaping knowledge production within the ecosystem. The analysis is informed by Farrell et al.’s (2021) five core principles of RPPs – long-term collaboration, focus on problems of practice, engagement with research, integration of diverse expertise, and attention to power relations – together with Arce-Trigatti et al.’s (2023) concept of responsivity as sustained joint efforts by researchers and practitioners over time. Using this framework, the paper highlights defining characteristics of ULF as an RPP ecosystem and examines how collaboration between higher education institutions and school authorities is sustained at a national level. By building local and regional research environments, the ULF Agreement addresses challenges related to long-term collaboration that often undermine RPPs. At the same time, significant tensions emerge around the integration of diverse expertise and power relations. Although ULF is formally based on a 50/50 governance model between academia and school authorities, evaluations indicate that universities retain epistemic dominance. The ecosystem attempts to mitigate this by sharing diverse expertise through "combined positions", creating hybrid professionals to bridge the two worlds. Finally, we argue that the heavy institutionalization required to maintain these power balances creates a paradox of responsivity. From identifying the need for new knowledge, implementing research projects, to utilizing the results, dialogue is required. A dialogue that takes advantage of different knowledge among professionals. The infrastructure risks becoming rigid rather than responsive to the shifting realities. ULF’s challenge for 2034 is thus to maintain the stability of a national infrastructure while cultivating the local agility required to remain responsive to the school professions and teacher education, thereby enabling actors within ULF to jointly shape knowledge production within the ecosystem.

Farrell, 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. Arce-Trigatti, P., Klein, K., & Lee, J. S. (2023). Are research-practice partnerships responsive to partners’ needs? Exploring research activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Policy, 37(1), 170–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221134584