Advertisement

Research–Practice Partnerships in Education

  • Paula Arce-Trigatti
  • Irina Chukhray
  • Ruth N. López Turley
Chapter
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

Abstract

The field of education has seen a sharp increase in the formation and participation of research–practice partnerships (RPPs) over the last two decades. Bringing together two parties in education that share a concern for improved student outcomes but differ dramatically in their approaches to that end, RPPs in education have not only grown in number and type, but complementary organizations and efforts have begun to emerge as well. In this contribution, we explore the reasons for these changes, grounding our work in the organizational and institutional theories literature from sociology.

Keywords

Research partnerships Institutional theory Best practices Organizational norms Policy pressures 

References

  1. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. The Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anheier, H. (2005). Nonprofit organizations: Theory, management, policy. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berman, E. P. (2012). Explaining the move toward the market in U.S. academic science: How institutional logics can change without institutional entrepreneurs. Theory and Society, 41(3), 261–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berman, E. P., & Stivers, A. (2016). Student loans as a pressure on U.S. higher education. In Berman & Paradeise, (Eds.), The university under pressure (Research in the Sociology of Organizations) (Vol. 46, pp. 129–160).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birkeland, S., Murphy-Graham, E., & Weiss, C. (2005). Good reasons for ignoring good evaluation: The case of the drug abuse resistance education (DARE) program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28(3), 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. (2011). On network theory. Organization Science, Articles in Advance, 1–14.Google Scholar
  9. Bryk, A. Gomez, L., & Grunow, A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. In Maureen T. Hallinan (Ed.), Frontiers in sociology of education. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burch, P. E., & Thiem, C. (2004). Private organizations, school districts, and the enterprise of high stakes accountability. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  11. Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Burt, R. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coburn, C., & Stein, M. K. (2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. Blue Ridge Summit: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Coburn, C., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 469–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coburn, C. E., Honig, M. I., & Stein, M. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In J. D. Bransford, D. J. Stipek, N. J. Vye, L. M. Gomez, & D. Lam (Eds.), The role of research in educational improvement (pp. 67–87). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  17. Coburn, C., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). Research–practice partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvements in school districts. Commissioned by the William T. Grant Foundation.Google Scholar
  18. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Corcoran, T., Fuhrman, S. H., & Belcher, C. L. (2001). The district role in instructional improvement. The Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. London/New York: Routledge/Falmer.Google Scholar
  21. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Every Student Succeeds Act, Public Law 95, 114th Cong., 1st Sess. (2015).Google Scholar
  23. Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fleming, D. S. (1988). The literature on teacher utilization of research: Implications for the school reform movement. In S. D. Castle (Ed.), Teacher empowerment through knowledge linking research and practice for school reform. Papers presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 5–9.Google Scholar
  25. Fligstein, N., & Dauter, L. (2007). The sociology of markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Foster, J. G., Rzhetsky, A., & Evans, J. A. (2015). Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. American Sociological Review, 80(5), 875–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Princeton: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gulati, R., Lavie, D., & Madhavan, R. (2011). How do networks matter? The performance effects of interorganizational networks. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guthrie, J. W. (1989). Educational laboratories: History and prospect. Commissioned by the United States Department of Education.Google Scholar
  32. Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. (1992). Dynamics of organizational populations: Density, legitimation, and competition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Honig, M. I. (2003). Building policy from practice: Central office administrators’ roles and capacity in collaborative policy implementation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Honig, M. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: District central office administrators as boundary spanners in complex policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Honig, M. I., & Coburn, C. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices: Toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy, 22(4), 578–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Honig, M. I., & Venkateswaran, N. (2012). School–central office relationships in evidence use: Understanding evidence use as a systems problem. American Journal of Education, 118, 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hood, P. D. (1982). The role of linking agents in school improvement: A review, analysis, and synthesis of recent major studies. Far West Lab for Educational Research and Development.Google Scholar
  40. Huberman, M. (1989). Predicting conceptual effects in research utilization: Looking with both eyes. Knowledge in Society, 2(3), 6–24.Google Scholar
  41. Huberman, M. (1994). Research utilization: The state of the art. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 7(4), 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2005). Districtwide strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC, Canada.Google Scholar
  43. Klein, A. (2016). Under ESSA, states, districts to share more power. Education Week, January 5, 2016.Google Scholar
  44. Kraatz, M. S., & Zajac, E. J. (2001). How organizational resources affect strategic change and performance in turbulent environments: Theory and evidence. Organization Science, 12(5), 632–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kramer, R. (1981). Voluntary agencies in the welfare state. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Massell, D. (2001). The theory and practice of using data to build capacity: State and local strategies and their effects. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. One hundredth yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 148–169). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.Google Scholar
  48. Massell, D., & Goertz, M. E. (2002). District strategies for building instructional capacity. In A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh, & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 43–60). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  49. McEvily, W. J., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1133–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Meyer, J. W., & Scott, R. (1983). Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. National Research Council. (2003). Strategic education research partnership. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  53. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110, 20 U.S.C. (2002).Google Scholar
  54. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. (2008). Networks and institutions. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 596–623). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  55. Podolny, J. M., & Page, K. L. (1998). Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 54–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.Google Scholar
  57. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  58. Reichardt, R. E. (2000). The state’s role in supporting data-driven decision-making: A view of Wyoming. Aurora: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.Google Scholar
  59. Roderick, M., Easton, J. Q., & Sebring, P. B. (2009). CCSR: A new model for the role of research in supporting urban school reform. UChicago Consortium on School Research Report. Accessed from https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/ccsr-new-model-role-research-supporting-urban-school-reform
  60. Rowan, B. (1982). Organizational structure and the institutional environment: The case of public schools. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(2), 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scott, W. R., & Biag, M. (2016). The changing ecology of U.S. higher education: An organizational field perspective. In E. P. Berman & C. Paradeise (Eds.), University under pressure (Vol. 46 of Research in the Sociology of Organizations) (pp. 25–51). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  62. Smith-Doerr, L., & Powell, W. (2005). Networks and economic life. In N. J. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology (2nd ed., pp. 379–402). New York/Princeton: Russell Sage Foundation & Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sparks, S. D. (2016, December 23). New Regional Education Research Labs expand partnerships for ESSA support. Blog post. Retrieved from: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-schoolresearch/2016/12/new_regional_research_labs_exp.html
  64. Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  67. Strauss, V. (2015). The successor to No Child Left Behind has, it turns out, big problems of its own. Washington Post, December 7, 2015.Google Scholar
  68. Stuart, T. E., & Podolny, J. M. (1999). Positional consequences of strategic alliances in the semiconductor industry. In S. Andrews & D. Knoke (Eds.), Networks in and around organizations (Vol. 16 of Research in the Sociology of Organizations) (pp. 161–182). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  69. Tolbert, P., & Zucker, L. (1983). Institutional source of change in organizational structure: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Turley, R., & Stevens, C. (2015). Lessons from a school district–university research partnership: The Houston Education Research Consortium. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1S), 6S–15S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Weiss, C. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge, 1(3), 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zucker, L. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paula Arce-Trigatti
    • 1
  • Irina Chukhray
    • 1
  • Ruth N. López Turley
    • 1
  1. 1.Rice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations