An Exploratory Study of how to Use RPPs to Build Trust and Support the Use of Early Warning Systems

Abstract

Background/Context Emerging experiences suggest that research-practice partnerships (RPPs) can benefit both research and practice. As researchers and practitioners become part of the same social network, they also can become trusted sources of information for one another. By modeling the research use process, practitioners can incorporate what they learn into their own research acquisition and interpretation processes and researchers can gain a better understanding of how their work can be designed and conducted so that it is directly relevant to practice. Purpose/Focus of the Study Prior literature on research-practice partnerships has identified common challenges of these partnerships such as turnover, trust, common language, and complex systems. The study follows a grounded theory approach to better understand challenges and dynamics within research-practice partnerships. Setting The study included members of eight research-practice partnerships including two focused primarily on the use of early warning indicators to reduce high school dropout. Partnerships were diverse in their location and maturity. Five partnerships were located in the Midwest, one partnership was located in the South, and two partnerships were located in New England. Half of the partnerships were less than two years old at the time of the interviews, and the oldest partnership was 8 years old. Research Design Using a grounded theory approach to better understand challenges and dynamics within RPPs, we analyzed qualitative interview data inductively to identify common themes discussed by respondents. Data Collection and Analysis The study team conducted telephone interviews with two researchers and two practitioners from eight RPPs, for a total of 31 interviews – one researcher was interviewed for two different partnerships. The team used semi-structured interview protocols aligned to the four research questions. In analyzing the interview data, we identified themes, categories, and theories that emerged from the data and confirmed or refuted our initial impressions.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.