Actor Roles in Research–Practice Relationships: Equality in Policy–Practice Nexuses

Abstract

This chapter offers insights into an education policy–practice nexus operationalised in a recent nationwide government initiative for the development of solid and stable research–practice relationships (RPRs) in education. Among the main challenges for productive RPRs are physical, linguistic, work-related, financial and cultural distances, which characterise and separate education research and education practice. Governments and universities alike have introduced initiatives aimed at strengthening these relationships through practitioner involvement in education research. Although practitioner involvement in research is not new, today’s expectations of newer ways of working collaboratively in education research bring forward several issues regarding the roles of the actors involved. In this chapter, we study and discuss the roles of practitioners in successful RPRs and the requirements for developing ownership and relevance in these research collaborations. The analysis shows that the equality issue of practitioners and researchers in RPRs is more of an epistemological question regarding how practitioner knowledge and researcher knowledge are activated in relationships rather than a practical question of how practitioners can become more involved in research work.

Operationalisation of the Education Policy–Practice Nexus

Recent developments in education policy have emphasised the importance of practitioner involvement in education research. Practitioners’ participation is considered necessary for developing future knowledge in the field of education and for strengthening education practitioners’ knowledge base (cf. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2022). The question of practitioner involvement in research is not new, as can be seen in the traditions of action research and design-based research (Askling, 2006; Carlgren, 2005; Rönnerman, 2018). However, today’s newer ways of working collaboratively in education research and the perceived dependence of productive knowledge development in education based on both researchers’ and practitioners’ involvement bring forward several issues regarding how such processes might work and the roles that practitioners and researchers play in these collaborations. This chapter aims to investigate and discuss the topic of research–practice relationships (RPRs), which are located at the core of the policy–practice nexus. Practitioner involvement in education research is anchored in long-standing discussions on whether education research can be made (more) useful and relevant to education practice, school leaders, schoolteachers and the education sector in general and, if so, how this can be done (Furlong & Oancea, 2005; Prøitz & Aasen, 2017). Such a discussion often problematises the relevance and usability of education research from a two-way functionality perspective: first, to strengthen the professional work of school leaders and teachers in schools through knowledge mobilisation (Revai, 2021), and, second, to strengthen the focus and quality of education research available for teacher education, teacher educators and teachers (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Korthagen, 2010). Furthermore, this literature often discusses how relationships and partnerships between teacher education institutions and schools are complex and undergoing developments but still are characterised by the hierarchical structures between partners and traditional ideas about knowledge transfer and one-way relationships in which universities are expected to bring knowledge to teacher education and to schools (see, for example, Furlong et al., 2000; Lillejord & Børte, 2016). Against this backdrop, this chapter aims to continue this discussion drawing on empirical insights into an example of the education policy–practice nexus operationalised in a recent and ongoing Swedish nationwide government-initiated project for the development of solid and stable RPRs in education.

Research–Practice Relationships

Among the main challenges for productive RPRs are physical, linguistic, work-related, structural, organisational, financial and cultural distances that characterise and separate education research and education practice. Although these challenges can vary and be more or less distinct depending on context, it has been well established that the basic structures organising the working lives of researchers and practitioners are so different that elementary factors, such as differences in available time and space, hinder the establishment of well-functioning RPRs (cf. Nutley et al., 2003; Prøitz, 2020; Prøitz et al., 2022; Rasmussen & Holm, 2012). A central aspect here is how organisations such as schools, universities and local authorities have not been constructed for seamless contact, dialogue or collaboration. Rather, RPRs challenge the very structures upholding the idea of what constitutes a university and research and the school and its practice.

Over the years, the literature has presented concepts, theories and methods aiming to bridge these differences, often called the research–practice gap (Korthagen, 2010). Other strands of studies take developments in education research as the points of departure, discussing the characteristics of the relationships between research and practice in education today. For example, practice-based research has been highlighted as an umbrella term for newer approaches that link and tighten relationships (cf. Furlong & Oancea, 2005).

Seen from a traditional perspective, initiatives to strengthen RPRs blur the demarcation lines between theory and practice, scientific knowledge and experience-based knowledge, the researcher and the practitioner, and the university and the school. In the field of education, the relationship between these categories has often been characterised by tension, as being opposites, contradictory and even conflicting. On the other hand, researchers have pointed out that the gap metaphor is an exaggerated misunderstanding; instead, it can be used productively to make people aware of the challenges in the field and the development of these towards more integrated perspectives (cf. Carr, 1980; Gallagher, 2004; McGarr et al., 2017). It has been well documented that policy and society challenge the traditional differentiation between scientific and experience-based knowledge, established actor roles and the place for research production by stimulating a combination of experience- and scientific-based knowledge and research production outside the university (Furlong & Oancea, 2005; Hessels & Van Lente, 2008; Nowotny et al., 2001).

Governments and universities alike have introduced several initiatives aiming to strengthen RPRs in education. Across Nordic countries, we can see variations of these initiatives, for example, in partnership agreements between universities and schools, and with local authorities, funding schemes that require collaboration between researchers and practitioners, and the growth in professional doctoral programmes, in which applicants must have teacher education experience and preferably work in teacher education or in schools while doing their doctoral work (Prøitz & Aasen, 2016; Prøitz & Wittek, 2019). Despite variations, a common characteristic across initiatives is the involvement of multiple actor groups in what we have traditionally considered the academic turf of researchers. Another feature is the strong belief in how researchers and practitioners, solely by being brought together, will almost effortlessly develop a stronger relationship between research and practice, as well as bring new and improved knowledge that is applicable and relevant to education practice. However, research has shown that it takes more than placing researchers and practitioners in the same room to develop practice-oriented research and that the obstacles in RPRs are often under-communicated and underestimated (Lillejord & Børte, 2016; Nutley et al., 2009). How the roles of the actors involved, particularly practitioners, in these collaborative efforts can best be positioned is an empirical question that we aim to investigate and discuss further in this chapter.

Context of the Study

The initiative that we studied, called ULF,¹ involved 25 universities with teacher education programmes, more than 150 municipalities and a substantial number of schools and teachers² across Sweden. The goal of the ULF policy initiative was to strengthen the scientific basis for teacher and pre-school teacher education and thus the overall educational system in Sweden. The government highlighted four main arguments for this initiative. The first is the collaboration argument, which emphasised the need for increased collaboration between research and education in general. The second is the judicial argument, which underscored that teaching in Swedish schools and pre-schools according to the Education Act should be grounded in both a scientific basis and proven experience. The third is the relevance argument, which emphasised that practice-based research must ensure a relevant knowledge base available for quality work in the school system, school and pre-school goal attainment, and teacher training while also maintaining high international scientific quality. The fourth is the attractiveness argument, which highlighted the need to make the teaching profession more attractive, both to recruit new teachers and to retain those already in the system. These arguments illustrate how the ULF initiative was expected to contribute to and solve several policy issues and thus involve a range of education policy–education practice nexuses.

The ULF government initiative must also be understood in a socio-historical context. Over time, reforms and projects have been initiated as answers to questions about how existing research, organisational methods and forms of collaboration could contribute to strengthening comprehensive and long-term collaboration on practice-based research and the development of the school system on a scientific basis. Central in this context was the goal to make research more practice oriented, relevant and accessible for use by the profession (Prøitz et al., 2022). The initiative was organised as a national pilot project that would develop and test sustainable collaboration models regarding research, school activities and teacher education between academia and the school system.

The Swedish example have shown RPRs involving practitioners in the research process and in different types of research roles. It also displays practical difficulties, such as providing teachers with the necessary time to be involved and finding gathering areas that can function for all. Other issues relate to research competencies and research literacy among practitioners, researcher knowledge about the everyday lives of schools and concerns related to funding and available resources. The Swedish case has shown interesting ways of building and organising infrastructures for RPRs across the country through a nationwide network of collaboration agreements and practice-based projects between teachers, school leaders in schools and local municipalities, and researchers in universities within a short period of time (Prøitz et al., 2022).

The topic of multiple actor roles in education research is particularly interesting to revisit in the Swedish context (c f. Prøitz, 2020; Prøitz et al., 2022) as involvement of teachers in research activities are not new in Sweden; rather, there is a long tradition of action and design research in the country (Askling, 2006; Carlgren, 2005; Rönnerman, 2018). However, this new initiative both includes and parallels such approaches, thereby raising the question of actor involvement in all types of education research, not only those approaches that have teacher involvement as a built-in part of the methodology.

Practitioner Involvement and Its Ideals

The ideal frames for research partners in education have been described by several researchers. Often, the ideal of practitioner involvement is pinpointed as a relationship in which all parties have ownership of a shared enterprise (Coburn & Penuel, 2016; Schuck, 2013). Well-functioning partnerships have been described as involving equal partners in all phases of the research process, from research problem identification and definition to data collection, data analysis and presentation of the results (cf. Coburn & Penuel, 2016). Carlson (2001) describes the following principles for the development of RPRs: ‘Agreement on common problems, breaking down of the traditional academic pecking order, commitment to a sharp project focus, recognition and rewards for all participants, leadership that values actions over bureaucratic regulations’ (pp. 83–84). Other scholars have supplemented this idea by emphasising the importance of sharing, recognition of interests and involvement of all parties from the very start of projects (cf. Schuck, 2013). Schuck (2013) notes that true collaboration entails agreement regarding what the collaboration is about and that collaborative partnerships are characterised by power sharing and an agreement on the desired goals. Similarly, Coburn and Penuel (2016) underscore the importance of equality in power and decision making between parties. They stress the importance of practitioner involvement in all/most of the phases of the partnership work.

In sum, the literature emphasises that ideal RPRs (1) involve practitioners from the start of the research–practice initiatives, (2) involve practitioners in most phases of the research and (3) are marked by equality in power and decision making and by the sharing of a common goal.

Although these ideals seem reasonable, studies have shown how challenging they can be to uphold for a range of practical, cultural and linguistic reasons (cf. Lillejord & Børte 2016; Nutley et al., 2008, 2009; Schuck, 2013). With this in mind and considering the complexity of research practice relationships calls have been made for more systematic studies of contextual factors and what might lead to functional research practice partnerships in education (Weddle et al., 2021; Gutierrez & Penuel, 2014). Another concern is that to date, the diverse literature has mostly been theoretically and conceptually driven; it consists of limited empirical investigations. As such, the foregoing has inspired this empirical study, which focuses on answering the following questions: What roles do practitioners, such as teachers, school leaders and administrators, have in well-functioning research–practice relationships and what characterises the relationships in terms of practitioner involvement?

The understanding of well-functioning RPRs in this study is grounded in the fact that the empirical cases examined were selected because they were considered well-functioning by the governing body of the ULF initiative and by the informants of the studied cases themselves.

Method

This chapter draws on the methods and data material collected and analysed in a four-year study (2018–2022) of a national Swedish research–practice initiative (Prøitz et al., 2022). The analysis presented in this chapter draws on both interview and survey data.

The interviews were conducted with actors involved in research–practice collaborations at four universities in Sweden. The interview data material consisted of 26 semi-structured interviews with researchers, municipality representatives, school leaders and teachers, who were all involved as partners in the collaborative arrangements. Twelve interviews were transcribed verbatim for data analysis, while the remaining interview recordings were listened to during the analysis process.

The quantitative survey was distributed to 800 participants of the initiative, and 322 participants responded to the survey, resulting in a response rate of 40%. The central topics covered in the survey that were relevant to this study were collaboration, involvement, participation and success factors. The survey covered the different actors involved in the initiative variably; the largest group of informants comprised the university sector (46.6%), the second largest group consisted of teachers and pre-school teachers (36.3%), the third largest group comprised representatives from the municipalities (14.6%) and the smallest group (2.5%) consisted of individuals in other types of work.

The qualitative material, both from the interviews and the open-ended questions in the survey, was analysed according to the principles of thematic analysis (Braun & Clark, 2006, 2021). This means that the authors conducted readings of the material and identified themes that were then discussed in the research group for the agreed interpretation and meaning condensation of topics that clearly appeared in the material. Categories were also established based on the methodological principles of saturation (Morse, 1995).³

Analytical Framework and Analysis

In this chapter, we used the concept of third space to analyse and discuss the study’s empirical data material. The research questions point the analysis towards a focus on those involved in RPRs, particularly practitioners’ roles and involvement. As previous studies have shown how research has often dominated the relationship between research and practice in education, both in terms of what is expected of academia in education and how RPRs are established (Korthagen, 2010; Lillejord & Børte, 2016), we selected the concept of third space as helpful for the analysis. We consider the concept of third space to bring an interesting understanding of and useful lenses for the study of what can happen when multiple discourses meet at what we consider as the core of the operationalised nexus between a policy initiative and those involved in the RPR, including both researchers and practitioners. As such, we consider the third space concept to be a tool that is compatible with and enables a closer analysis of education policy–education practice nexuses. As a theoretical contribution, the third space seeks to address challenges related to different groups of actors in research–practice partnerships and suggests a hybrid solution or a third space understanding of partnership as a fruitful way of considering RPRs (Passy et al., 2018). The term ‘third space’ originates in research that considers different actors’ use of different discourses from different contexts, that is, research as well as one’s own experiences, to understand the world (Lynch, 2015). Hybrid thinking emphasises that positions between areas of knowledge and different discourses can be productive, but they are also limited to human activities and practices. In the literature, third space is characterised as a place or a space where the integration of knowledge and discourses from different areas occurs and merges; an example is when people’s knowledge and discourses from the home and the local environment or network, characterised as the first space, meets and merges with knowledge and discourses within a formalised institution, such as school or work, characterised as the second space (Moje et al., 2004).

In the Swedish initiative, this may be understood as researchers’ knowledge and discourses from academia (first space) meeting and merging with schools’, school leaders’ and teachers’ knowledge and discourses (second space), forming a potentially common and new knowledge base and discourse through collaboration and partnership in a third space. An interesting element in this thinking is that third space can mean a reconstruction that defines a new, alternative situation and problem understanding based on mutual respect for the positions, experiences, knowledge and discourses of others (Moje et al., 2004). Furthermore, it is also important to recognize that third space thinking can be understood in at least three ways: as a means to build bridges between marginalised and academic discourses, as a way to navigate different environments with discourses and as a space where different and possibly competing ideas are brought together to challenge dominant discourses (Moje et al., 2004). All three perspectives can help reduce unwanted hierarchical structures and competing discourses between, for example, teachers in schools, on the one hand, and professors/researchers in academia, on the other hand (Passy et al., 2018).

The analysis is structured into four sections. The first three sections refer to the characteristics of the ideal RPRs presented earlier in this chapter. This means that the analysis first focuses on practitioners and the activities they are involved in before equality in power, sharing and common goals in RPRs are presented. Second, we present participants’ considerations about the outcomes they experienced in RPRs.

Participant Involvement and Equality

As mentioned, research shows that it is an advantage for RPRs if all actors are involved from the start and in most phases of the initiative, such as in planning and management, decision making and definition of research questions. Therefore, how ULF participants perceived their own participation in different parts of ULF work is interesting. In the survey, we asked about the respondents’ degree of agreement with the following statements: I have been involved in initiating ULF projects, I have been involved in planning and leading ULF collaboration, I have been involved in making decisions about the direction of the ULF work, I have been involved in formulating research questions for the ULF work, I have been involved in publishing research in the ULF work.

In general, and as Fig. 15.1 depicts, most of the participants reported that they had high levels of participation and involvement in ULF. Around 60–70% of the respondents agreed or fully agreed with our four first statements. Around 20–30% disagreed or completely disagreed with our statements about participation and involvement. The fact that some respondents stated that they were not involved in taking the initiative or in planning and leading ULF is not surprising. We know from other studies of ULF that a limited group of participants often work with applications and agreements at the very start of RPRs and that they are mostly researchers, municipal leaders and school leaders (Prøitz et al., 2021, 2022).

Fig. 15.1

Involvement: initiatives, planning and leading, decisions on direction and research issues (N = 322)

Nevertheless, it is interesting that so many participants report that they were involved in formulating research questions, as previous research has often shown that these are the processes in which practitioners, in particular, tend to come in late. When we look more closely at which groups of actors most strongly and strongly disagreed with the statement about involvement in the development of research questions, we do not find a specific pattern, except that there was, to some extent, a higher number of representatives from municipalities or teachers in this group.

Interestingly, there was a far lower proportion of participants who stated that they were involved in publishing research in the context of ULF. This may be related to the fact that research publication comes later than the actual project implementation, but mainly, it is probably related to the fact that fewer actors from schools participate in this part of the research–practice initiative.

The question of participation and involvement is also about how the actors experienced the climate of cooperation. This was evident on whether there was agreement on important issues, whether the actors experienced being equal with their colleagues in discussions and decision making, and whether they wanted another direction for the work. The results of the survey indicate that most of the respondents experienced collaboration between actors in ULF as equal. They reported having agreed on the relevant direction of and priorities for ULF. Only a few stated that they wanted a different direction for the work (Fig. 15.2).

Fig. 15.2

Equality, agreement and satisfaction with the direction of ULF (N = 322)

However, we can also observe a higher proportion of respondents (20%) who reported having ‘no opinion’. This could be interpreted as participants holding back by selecting a neutral position. Another interpretation that would follow the patterns observed for the other questions in the survey could be that these respondents did not participate in ULF long enough to have formed opinions, as the statements assumed knowledge of the history of various ULF projects. To a certain degree, the answers here correlate with the responses to the open-ended questions of the survey in which we asked questions that would require some participant history and to which those respondents with a shorter experience with ULF often replied that they could not answer because of their shorter history with ULF (less than a year).

In our qualitative interviews, equality was described by several ULF actors as ‘cooperation at eye level’. Several informants from the school described themselves as equal actors and that ULF was different from their previous experiences in which academia stood for something higher or better, and in which it could be easy to feel inferior. The informants from schools/pre-schools in the initiative described their experiences as meeting the researchers at ‘eye level’. Questions and approaches were developed in partnership through close and continuous dialogue grounded in a common goal. The path was made as they went. At the same time, the case studies also showed that in the ULF context, there was a certain concern among some school leaders and teachers that they were not good enough or that they may be at risk of making mistakes in practical contexts of collaboration. We observed that despite this uncertainty, the informants described solutions through which they were able to overcome these concerns and continued with their work. In the context of building equal relationships between practice and research, the informants highlighted that a common language and respect for one another’s competencies were crucial. For example, one researcher said, ‘The competencies are different, and we should respect that and listen to one another. We’re trying to do that in the project, I think. And that’s a huge advantage’.

Outcomes: Participant Experiences with the Research–Practice Initiative

In addition to investigating the participants’ experiences with involvement, participation and equality, we were also interested in the informants’ thoughts about what ULF might have contributed to the promotion of practice-based research.

We asked the respondents to consider whether they agreed with the following statement: ULF contributed to promoting practice-based research. Of the respondents, 92% ‘agreed’ (42.9%) or ‘completely agreed’ (49.1%) that ULF contributed to the promotion of practice-based research. The 322 respondents in the survey also clearly reported that ULF led to increased collaboration between academia and municipalities, as well as between academia and schools. We asked the respondents to take a position on the following two statements: ULF contributed to increased cooperation between academia and pre-schools/schools and ULF contributed to increased cooperation between academia and municipalities. On the issue of increased collaboration between academia and pre-schools/schools, 84% of the respondents stated that they ‘agreed’ or ‘completely agreed’ with this statement. We found a similar pattern in the responses to the statement that ULF contributed to increased collaboration between academia and municipalities, as 73.9% ‘agreed’ or ‘completely agreed’ with this statement.

For a broader and more detailed picture of the actors’ experiences with ULF, we also asked the respondents an open-ended question in the survey: What do you think is the most important thing that ULF contributed to your organisation? This open-ended question was analysed through identification of thematic categories based on the occurrences of themes in a process of meaning condensation inspired by Braun and Clark (2006).⁴ The results of the analysis of the open-ended answers are presented here with reference to the respondents’ workplaces in municipalities, pre-schools, schools and universities.

Municipalities

The most frequent responses from municipality actors can be summarised into two categories: increased collaboration and increased “scientificity”. The larger category, increased collaboration, included answers indicating that ULF contributed to establishing collaboration areas/arenas and that it provided municipalities with a model for collaboration when working with universities/researchers and a model for collaboration between teachers, educators and researchers. Furthermore, several respondents described collaboration as ‘equal collaboration’, ‘mutual knowledge exchange’ and meaningful and rewarding collaboration for all parties. Some respondents also mentioned that higher education institutions have made efforts to develop ‘meetings at eye level’.

Pre-schools and Schools

The most frequent responses of pre-school employees (teachers and leaders) can also be summed up into two categories. First, most of the respondents answered that ULF contributed with research that provided new knowledge or ‘in-depth knowledge’ and that they were able to test theories for teaching, new methods and new tools in their didactic work. One example is a respondent who answered that they were able to ‘open their eyes to theoretical methods in pre-school’. The respondents also stated that ULF contributed to increased scientificity and an increased focus on the ‘importance of a scientific basis’ for school development. For example, one respondent said, ‘A scientific basis is now perceived as more useful’. The second category was about ‘collegial collaboration’, in which the respondents described that they ‘began to discuss different teaching methods/models at pre-school’ and that ULF contributed to joint professionalisation and provided them with an opportunity to ‘reflect on what works together with their colleagues’.

Regarding actors from schools (teachers and leaders), we find patterns resembling those in the pre-schools. ULF was most frequently mentioned to have contributed with research, in-depth knowledge and new methods and tools. Many also said that, ‘The most important thing that ULF contributed was facilitating collaboration with researchers/universities/colleges’, such as ‘establishing partnerships between practitioners and researchers’ and ‘opening dialogues and conversations between researchers and, in this case, teachers’. The teachers also described how ULF contributed to increased collegial collaboration and a greater degree of joint discussions and reflections with colleagues.

Universities

The most common answer among actors from universities is that ULF facilitated ‘increased collaboration with principals and teachers’ and provided an ‘increased understanding and knowledge’ when it comes to the principals’ and teachers’ questions and challenges. Some examples of answers are as follows: ‘An increased understanding of one another’s practices/professional fields (university, school principal), which is important for the quality of research’ and ‘Enabling research in close collaboration with a school, which also meant that we gained access to the school that would otherwise not be possible’. The second category of answers mentioned by the respondents from universities/colleges was that ULF increased interest in, opportunities for and the focus on practice-based research.

Discussion

This study of the Swedish ULF initiative provides a novel opportunity to elucidate what the involvement of different groups of actors, particularly practitioners, entails in a national authentic research–practice initiative. For this chapter, we asked the following questions: What roles do practitioners, such as teachers, school leaders and administrators, have in well-functioning research–practice relationships and what characterises the relationships in terms of practitioner involvement? The questions emphasise one of the core issues in the operationalisation of a topic currently being debated in and about the education policy–education practice nexus. As such, this study can inform several nexus levels that are being thematised in this book.

This study confirms the findings of previous literature on the importance of actors’ involvement in RPRs. It extends the existing knowledge base by bringing in aspects of participant satisfaction and participant experiences regarding outcomes.

The overall data material of the ULF initiative generally shows that there was great enthusiasm towards the initiative and that the actors were satisfied with their participation (Prøitz et al., 2022). In detail, the survey showed, for example, that most of the ULF participants reported being satisfied with the priorities and direction of the ULF work.

Figure 15.3 indicates that the ULF initiative managed to establish structures for RPRs in which the actors in general seemed to be satisfied. What this entailed in detail is the focus of our discussion.

Fig. 15.3

Participant satisfaction (N = 322)

The experiences and outcomes seem to carry with them a range of promising effects of research–practice collaborations. These are seen in light of the expressed policy goals of establishing stronger connections between education research and practice and of developing practice-based research.

This study also contributes by nuancing and discussing some of the ideals presented in the literature, such as 1) involving practitioners from the start, 2) involving practitioners in all the research phases and 3) the importance of equality in RPRs. This nuancing seems highly appropriate and may help in realistically defining involvement while also recognising that all parties involved have their own and not necessarily the same interests in the relationships, bring different knowledge, experiences and discourses, and have very different opportunities and preconditions for involvement. Previous studies (cf. Furlong et al., 2000; Lillejord & Børte, 2016; Nutley et al., 2008, 2009), as well as our studies on the ULF initiative, have shown that there are several obstacles and barriers to building well-functioning RPRs. In the following section, we discuss the ideals for well-functioning RPRs with reference to the third space concept as an analytical lens.

Involvement and Equality

The data material shows that most of the participants were satisfied with their involvement in ULF. They reported participation across a range of central activities that set the frame, focus, organisation and ongoing work of the project, such as initiating, planning and leading, making decisions about project directions and formulating research questions. Although we know from the study that school leaders and teachers reported somewhat less involvement in the initiating phase of applying for funding and related processes, they reported higher degrees of involvement in the central phases of the project. As such, the data material explicates that the participants in ULF seemed to have been involved mainly in setting the frame and defining the focus of their projects. This may indicate that ULF laid the groundwork for sharing and knowledge development between the different discourses that the participants brought with them, thereby opening opportunities for the development of a third space of common language and common goals of the RPRs (Moje et al., 2004; Passy et al., 2018).

When it comes to the ideal of practitioners’ involvement in most or all phases of the research process, we observed that the practitioners in ULF, to a high degree, reported having been involved in the important stage of defining research questions. We also know from the interviews that pre-schools/teachers and leaders described their involvement in data collection and interpretation. However, there were differences between the types of practitioners involved and who were engaged in what. For example, municipal administrators or leaders, along with researchers, were more involved in taking the initiative and contributing to application processes. School leaders can be involved in starting projects and ensuring that schools and teachers could participate in the project themselves. Although variably, teachers seemed to be more strongly involved in project activities when set in motion by taking part in discussions on research questions, design and data collection, as well as by being part of the data collection and interpretation.

Both the survey study and interview data indicate that practitioner involvement can consist of a range of different practitioners and activities at different project stages. This challenges the ideal of practitioner involvement in all stages of the project or at least the understanding of practitioner involvement as being done by one and the same person or group throughout the project period. Our study shows how different persons and groups of practitioners enter research–practice projects at different times and with different roles while still securing practitioner involvement of one kind or another throughout the project period. The participation of different practitioner groups often seemed to reflect the structures of responsibilities and areas of work, such as having the power to make decisions about agreements and funding, staffing of projects and how close actors are to the topic in question for the project, as well as availability and personal engagement. This illustrates the complexity of RPRs in which a multitude of spaces are involved in the potential creation of a third space through the different actors involved. Here, it is a question whether the theoretical and conceptual third space as a metaphor is too limited when a range of variations in actors and arenas shift in time and space throughout RPRs. Nevertheless, the third space concept helps us see how varied discourses involved bring actors together and that there are limitations, such as how the picture of participant involvement completely changes when it comes to research publication. The survey and interview data showed that less than 40% of the participants were involved in research publication. This result marks a clear limit in their participation in all stages of RPRs and may be an example of where the different discourses and contexts of the participants clearly separate into distinguished spaces. This can be understood in terms of how the publication of results in research is a highly specialised activity that is related more to inner academic processes with weaker connections with and relevance to practice. This further exemplifies how practitioners take part in RPRs in different activities at different stages of the research process.

Looking at the last of the three ideals for RPRs—equality in power and decision making—we observed a particular understanding of equality among the ULF participants. Equality does not refer to being equally involved in all phases or activities of the RPRs or doing the same things; rather, it means equal partnership of the practitioners in decision making, in discussions on topics and themes to be investigated and in how to collect data and interpret them. This places the equality issue of practitioners and researchers in RPRs as an ideational and epistemological question regarding how practitioner knowledge and researcher knowledge are viewed and activated, rather than as a practical question of how teachers can become more involved and can learn about research work. This aspect of RPRs can be interpreted as the essence of third space conceptualisations (Moje et al., 2004), in which none of the parties involved are taken over by the discourse of the other but rather form a new understanding as part of a common discourse regarding the activities and elements of the RPR.

From this perspective, every actor is involved in research based on their already existing knowledge, competencies and experiences. However, such an approach requires several issues to be considered; for example, it entails the acknowledgement of practitioner knowledge as being equally important as scientific knowledge in RPR development processes. This is not necessarily easy because actor status, actor power and perceptions of hierarchy between researchers and practitioners influence the knowledge that dominates the discussions. It requires mutual competence building, respect and curiosity between the parties involved, which take time and engagement. Swedish history has shown that over time, practice-based initiatives can tend to become more development oriented instead of research oriented and that upholding the principles of scientific rigour in collaboration with multiple actor groups with varied interests can be a challenge. This requires researcher competence and experience in performing practice-based research. Therefore, the question of involvement is also an epistemological consideration of what constitutes quality in education research, as Furlong and Oancea (2005) have noted. Research in the field and our recent study of the Swedish initiative have shown that practice-based research requires efforts that focus on access to and the meeting places between practitioners and researchers for well-thought-out processes and arenas adapted to the working situations of all parties involved.

The argument made here underscores not only the involvement of multiple actor groups but also the multiple ways of involving and mobilising practitioners and researchers in collaboration for practice-oriented knowledge development. Practitioners’ involvement can be carried out in terms of practice orientation and practice involvement in the various phases of the research process. It can also be done in pre- and post-research processes, for example, as part of needs identification processes and of considerations of relevance as an integrated part of securing scientific quality.

Rethinking the Research–Practice Relationship

Research that describes well-functioning RPRs points towards the ideal of involving actors as equal partners in all phases of the research process. Others have emphasised how challenging this can be, for example, for economic, practical and cultural reasons, such as a lack of shared language and knowledge frameworks and asymmetrical power structures and statuses that inhibit productive relationships. As such, an RPR is a concrete example of the education policy–education practice nexus with all its meeting points between national policy ambitions, local policy and administration interests and opportunities, and local school life in projects with researchers in universities.

The ULF initiative as presented here can be understood as both a deliberate effort by all parties to construct a nexus space where building stronger relations despite the well-known differences between research and practice in education becomes a space where researchers, practitioners and politicians can legitimately come together. Another aspect is the fact that ULF has also been shown to provide a space that supports already existing RPRs in further building and extending existing third space collaborations between researchers and practitioners in education (Prøitz et al., 2021).

In light of the current results, a reasonable question to ask would be the following: What is to be gained by teachers or administrators in RPRs, and what are the best ways for everyone to be involved? The Swedish example displays well-functioning projects involving practitioners in the research process, as well as in different roles and phases for the research projects. The Swedish case also presents practical difficulties, such as providing teachers with the time they need to become involved and finding gathering areas that can function for all. Other issues are related to research competence and research literacy among practitioners, researchers’ knowledge about the everyday lives of schools and concerns related to funding and available resources. This study points in the direction of rethinking the ideals for RPRs as an answer to these questions. It also raises new questions about how RPRs can support the development of new knowledge relevant to practitioners, as well as provide new and expanded insights into the field of education in general. With reference to this book theme and the acknowledgement of the complexity of education, these considerations make a call for more research into not only how the core of policy and practice nexuses function but also their potentials for teachers and schools, municipal administrators, teacher education and education research in general.