Network
NW 15 Research on Partnerships in Education
Title
Evaluating Research–Practice Partnerships (RPPs) in Education
Abstract
This ECER 2026 special call examines the evaluation of Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs) in education across Europe. RPPs are sustained collaborations between researchers and practitioners focused on problems of practice, rigorous inquiry, capacity building, and actionable knowledge production. While diverse research-practice cooperations exist throughout Europe, systematic evaluation evidence remains limited. This call invites contributions exploring RPP implementation processes, partnership dynamics, and impact through innovative methodological approaches. Topics include partnership formation and sustainability, capacity-building outcomes, the role of brokers, equity and power dynamics, and participatory evaluation designs. By advancing RPP evaluation, we can strengthen these partnerships' conceptual foundations and build coherent evidence supporting their effectiveness in bridging research and practice.
The Call
In recent years, education systems across Europe have shown growing interest in strengthening the connections between education research and practice (Schlicht-Schmälzle et al. 2024). Among the approaches to bridge these worlds are Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs) - long-term, mutual collaborations between practitioners and researchers designed to investigate problems of practice and improve educational outcomes (Farrell et al., 2021).
Farrell et al. (2021) and colleagues identify five defining features of RPPs: they are (1) sustained over time; (2) focused on problems of practice identified collaboratively; (3) grounded in rigorous inquiry; (4) build capacity among all partners; and (5) produce knowledge that is both actionable and generalizable. These criteria offer a framework for understanding what makes such partnerships effective, equitable, and sustainable.
Across Europe, a wide variety of education research–practice cooperations has emerged. While many of these collaborations share elements of the RPP model, not all fully embody the principles outlined by Farrell et al. (2021). In some contexts, partnerships remain short-term or project-based; in others, research and practice components are unevenly balanced, or practitioner agency remains limited. At the same time, European networks are forming to promote collaboration and knowledge exchange around RPPs. These initiatives are beginning to map the diversity of partnership forms across different educational and policy contexts, while highlighting the need for systematic and comparable evidence on their implementation and impact (Henrick et al. 2017).
To deepen our understanding of the formation, functioning, and effects of RPPs in Europe, it is essential to focus on their evaluation (Fischer-Schöneborn & Ehmke 2023). Evaluations can shed light on how partnerships are initiated, governed, and sustained; how they support learning and capacity building; and how they contribute to changes in practice, policy, and outcomes for children and educators. By studying both implementation processes and impact pathways, evaluations also help to design stronger future partnerships - those capable of demonstrating value to funders and stakeholders, while remaining responsive to local contexts and needs.
Evaluating RPPs requires approaches that go beyond conventional measures of research productivity or short-term outcomes. Because partnerships evolve through relationships and shared inquiry, effective evaluation must attend to processes, complex social dynamics and collaborative learning (Hartmann & Decristan 2018; Sjölund et al. 2022). Developmental and participatory evaluation designs can capture how partners negotiate goals, share expertise, and adapt their collaboration over time. Mixed-method approaches can illuminate both the tangible and intangible dimensions of partnership impact - from classroom change to shifts in organizational culture and system learning.
This EERA Special Call on “Evaluating Research–Practice Partnerships (RPPs) in Education” invites contributions that explore these issues from theoretical, methodological, and empirical perspectives. We welcome papers and symposia that:
- Present evaluations focused on RPP implementation processes, partnership dynamics, and/or impact.
- Offer methodological innovations for evaluating partnerships as complex social system, including participatory and mixed-method designs.
- Examine the impact of partnerships on capacity-building and knowledge mobilization and other outcomes.
- Explore the role of brokers in partnerships.
- Address issues of culture, equity, and power in partnership work.
- Consider how evaluation can inform design, accountability, and sustainability of RPPs.
Contact Person(s)
Raphaela Schlicht-Schmälzle, r.schlicht-schmaelzle(at)dipf.de
Kathrin Otrel-Cass, kathrin.otrel-cass(at)uni-graz.at
References
Farrell, C.C., Penuel, W.R., Coburn, C., Daniel, J., & Steup, L. (2021). Research-practice partnerships in education: The state of the field. William T. Grant Foundation.
Fischer-Schöneborn, S., & Ehmke, T. (2023). Evaluating boundary-crossing collaboration in research–practice partnerships in teacher education: Empirical insights on co-construction, motivation, satisfaction, trust, and competence enhancement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 79, Article 101305.
Hartmann, U., & Decristan, J. (2018). Brokering activities and learning mechanisms at the boundary of educational research and school practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 114–124.
Henrick, E.C., Cobb, P., Penuel, W.R., Jackson, K., & Clark, T. (2017). Assessing Research-Practice Partnerships: Five Dimensions of Effectiveness. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation.
Schlicht-Schmälzle, R. et al. (2024), “Bridging the research-practice gap in education: Initiatives from 3 OECD countries”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 319, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Sjölund, S., Lindvall, J., Larsson, M., & Ryve, A. (2022). Mapping roles in research-practice partnerships – a systematic literature review. Educational Review, 75(7), 1490–1518.