Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) have the potential to affirm the dignity of participants through caring interactions, which support good relationships. A key ethical principle to guide the cultivation of good relationships in an RPP is a quality of relating that we call dignity-affirming care. We define dignity-affirming care as speech, actions, and dispositions that demonstrate concern for another and their expressed needs and goals in a manner that affirms their essential worth or value. We provide evidence that RPPs can embody the principle of dignity-affirming care while also noting some ways partners experienced ways of relating that did not reflect this kind of care. Further, we describe four underlying mechanisms that support care: the intensity of and concentration of relationships, a willingness to recognize social identities, and the ability to take on new roles.

An increasingly popular form of collaboration involves forming partnerships among researchers, educators, and community members to improve or transform education systems through research inquiry. However, not all partnerships are successful. The field needs valid, reliable, and useful measures to help with assessing progress toward partnership goals. In this community case study, we present a participatory, mixed-methods approach for creating measures to assess the progress of education research-practice partnerships (RPPs). The case illustrates a novel approach to measurement design, driven by perspectives and feedback of over 300 members of 80 partnerships. As a result, the measures align with the values and practices of the very collaborations the measures were intended to assess.

This framework explores the plurality of ways that research-practice partnerships (RPPs) conceptualize issues of equity, and with what consequences for what gets studied, whose voices are included in inquiry, and what knowledge is foregrounded in partnership activity. We draw on institutional theory and the perspectives of members from diverse partnerships to create a framework on the beliefs and practices of equity in RPPs. In terms of their missions, RPPs’ conceptions of equity ranged from a focus on individualism and standardization, to advancing goals of identity, culture, and belonging and attending to power, justice, and anti-racism. Equity was reflected within processes for working together, varying across coordination, collaboration, or transformation of roles and power dynamics. For RPPs, the framework can help develop a common language and shared meanings. For future research, it can serve as an analytic lens to understand when and how RPPs work in service of educational transformation and change.

This symposium brings together eleven projects across three continents to examine notions of disruption in educational research.Historically, notions of disruption have pointed to the ways research leverages innovation and transformative practice.However, amid global pandemic and intersecting unrest, the authors in this session recognize the need for deeper conversation across contexts to understand the ways that educational research in the learning sciences can leverage disruption toward transformational learning.To respond to this year's call for building and sustaining knowledge in community, we seek to foster conversation about the ways that designed for and encountered disruptions act as opportunities for critical reflection and new kinds of engagement in educational research.Together, we examine various notions of disruption as they exist in our disparate work.We seek to provoke meaningful conversations about the ways educational research can embody the contemporary realities of learning with and toward disruption.

This study was conducted in a museum-based lab setting where scientists research the genetics of taste. Unlike academic labs with graduate students, the museum lab model trains volunteers (community scientists) who are (in true citizen science fashion) primarily responsible for enrolling museum guests into clinical studies; thus, they collect the bulk of the data for the research. Like most public participation in science research, the non-professional contributions have historically been largely limited to data collection; however, this study shows the power of invitations and structured opportunities for expanded participation among citizen scientists in a wider range of science practices. Through interpretive case study research, we examine how community scientists exercise agency and respond to opportunities for expanded participation in scientific practices including study design, data analysis, and dissemination of scientific findings through work on scientific articles. The case study research findings show that providing opportunities for involvement is only part of what accounts for community scientists’ expanded participation. Dialogic negotiation of participation is also necessary, through bids and responses to bids, and through proffered guidance and scaffolding. Committed involvement thus entails deep cultivation and nurturing by both the museum staff, and at times, other more knowledgeable volunteers. Expanded participation is also bolstered by one’s capacity, motives for, and satisfactions from pursuing those opportunities that align with past, present, or future interests and identifications. Such interests and identifications contribute to community scientists’ willingness to overcome barriers and time constraints when they arise.

A group of collaborative approaches to education research sits uneasily within the existing infrastructure for research and development in the United States. The researchers in this group hold themselves to account to ways of working with schools, families, and communities that are different from the ways envisioned by models for education research promoted in U.S. policies and endorsed by U.S. federal agencies. Those models, widely supported by funders, privilege the research priorities of individual investigators and regularly yield products and findings with little relevance to educational practice. In this article, we review four collaborative approaches: Community-based Design Research, Design-based Implementation Research, Improvement Science in Networked Improvement Communities, and the Strategic Education Research Partnership. Through a participatory process involving developers and advocates for these approaches, we identified a set of interconnected principles related to collaboration, problem solving, and research. Further, we reviewed evidence of these principles in projects belonging to these four approaches. We contend it is worth attempting to understand, build upon, and support enactments of these principles in research proposals and projects, because there is evidence these approaches can promote agency and equity in education. To do so would require the field to develop criteria for judging quality, which peers can use to evaluate individual studies or sets of research; new outcomes by which to measure progress; new venues for developing and giving accounts of research; and an appreciation for the value of developing and cultivating relationships with educators, families, and communities as an integral part of research.

This study explores how involving education leaders in the process of research can enhance the practical value of research for them. This paper describes: 1) a design process used for engaging US state science leaders in participatory research; and 2) shifts in understanding that state leaders reported based on their participation. The authors explicate the steps of how they engaged practitioners in the process of data collection and analysis. They then present evidence for how and why the participatory research process was impactful for practitioners. Through engaging in the process of conducting focus groups and analysing qualitative data from the focus groups, state science leaders shifted their understanding of the value of qualitative research and made adjustments to their goals for improving science education in their respective states. Creating opportunities for practitioners to fully engage in the research process may result in a greater influence of the research on practice and local policy.