[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-590395-105":59,"doc-detail-590395-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","between-transaction-and-collaboration-struggles-for-coherence-responsiveness-and-mutuality-in-a-fizzled-out-research-practice-partnership-partnership","Between Transaction and Collaboration: Struggles for Coherence, Responsiveness, and Mutuality in a Fizzled-Out Research-Practice Partnership - Partnership","","This article examines how a university–district research-practice partnership (RPP) formed for educational improvement became “fizzled out” after one year. Drawing on interviews and meeting recordings, it analyzes interactions that both enabled and hindered collaboration. Findings identify three struggles: coherence difficulties across siloed district structures, responsiveness conflicts between reactive adaptations and a longer-term vision, and mutuality problems created by funding arrangements positioning university partners as service providers. The study links these struggles to a drift toward transactional interactions and partnership dissolution.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/between-transaction-and-collaboration-struggles-for-coherence-responsiveness-and-mutuality-in-a-fizzled-out-research-practice-partnership-partnership/590395/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/between-transaction-and-collaboration-struggles-for-coherence-responsiveness-and-mutuality-in-a-fizzled-out-research-practice-partnership-partnership/590395.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Pentious","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the main focus of the study on research-practice partnerships?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The study traces interactions that enabled and hindered collaboration in a district–university RPP that ended after one year, examining how relationship dynamics shifted over time.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What three core struggles did the partnership experience?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The paper identifies coherence struggles, responsiveness struggles, and mutuality struggles, each tied to different interaction patterns and structural conditions.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How did the findings explain the partnership’s dissolution?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The struggles pulled the partnership into transactional interactions, undermining collaborative goals and contributing to the partnership’s breakdown.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},590395,1792192627,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":29,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":46,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":31,"preview_page_count":4},1374404730887,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","AERA Open  \nJanuary-December 2025, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1–20 DOI: 10. 1177/23328584251401885  \nArticle reuse guidelines: [sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[ ](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)© The Author(s) 2025. [https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ero](https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ero)  \nBetween Transaction and Collaboration: Struggles for Coherence, Responsiveness, and Mutuality in a Fizzled-Out Research-Practice  \nPartnership  \nElizabeth Zumpe  \nUniversity of Oklahoma  \nPeter Piazza  \nUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst  \nKatherine Ashton  \nUniversity of Oklahoma  \nA movement for research-practice partnerships (RPPs) in education has gained momentum, defined as long-term collaborations between researchers and practitioners involving mutually beneficial joint work. Given the history of transactional relationships, establishing a long-term collaboration poses challenges. While scholars have warned that many RPP efforts may not succeed, few studies have examined unsuccessful partnerships. Through analysis of interviews and meeting recordings, this paper traces interactions that enabled and hindered collaboration in an aspiring district-university RPP that fizzled out after one year. The study revealed three core struggles: (a) coherence struggles when working across a siloed district invited fragmented goals; (b) responsiveness struggles when reactive adaptations to emergent needs competed with a longerterm vision; and (c) mutuality struggles when funding arrangements positioned university partners as service providers rather than collaborative researchers. These struggles pulled the partnership into transactional interactions and contributed to the partnership’s dissolution, posing implications about collaborative partnership development.  \nKeywords: Action research, coherence, collaboration, district reform, district-university partnerships, educational reform, in-depth interviewing, leadership, observational research, organization theory/change, principals, qualitative research, research-practice partnerships, urban education  \nAmid critiques of educational research as traditionally onesided and short-term, a movement for research-practice partnerships (RPPs) in education has gained momentum. Scholars define RPPs as a long-term collaboration between researchers and practitioners who pursue mutually beneficial joint work to bring about improvement through research (Coburn et al., 2013; Farrell et al., 2021) . Because relationships between researchers and practitioners have tended toward the extractive and transactional (Gomez et al., 2023; Tseng, 2024), establishing a collaborative relationship focused on district improvement can pose challenges, especially in the early stages (Coburn & Penuel, 2016; Farrell et al., 2019b) .  \nWhile the field has offered insights about how researchers and practitioners might embark upon such collaborative work (Nelson et al., 2015; NNERPP, 2023; Russell et al.,  \n2017), a limitation of existing RPP literature is a tendency to rely upon sustained and successful partnerships. While scholars have cautioned that many RPP efforts may not succeed (Booker et al., 2019; Coburn & Penuel, 2016), few empirical studies have focused on challenges in partnerships aspiring to become RPPs that do not sustain.  \nResponding to Coburn and Penuel’s (2016) call for more studies of “failed” partnerships, this paper arises out of our efforts to establish an RPP between a diverse urban school district and a public research university in New England. Atthe outset, we believed conditions were conducive for an RPP, but our partnership ultimately fizzled out after one year. We believe that systematic analysis of our efforts contributes to an emerging research base about RPP dynamicsand may help others organize more successful endeavors. Through interviews of RPP participants and transcripts of  \nCreative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms o","cbCaitWgS1h3KLWk","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaitWgS1h3KLWk","pdf",644642,"English","# Relevant Literature\n## Critiques and transactional dynamics in RPPs\n# Study Context and Research Question\n## University–district RPP in its first year\n# Findings\n## Coherence struggles\n## Responsiveness struggles\n## Mutuality struggles\n# Implications","[{\"question\":\"What is the main focus of the study on research-practice partnerships?\",\"answer\":\"The study traces interactions that enabled and hindered collaboration in a district–university RPP that ended after one year, examining how relationship dynamics shifted over time.\"},{\"question\":\"What three core struggles did the partnership experience?\",\"answer\":\"The paper identifies coherence struggles, responsiveness struggles, and mutuality struggles, each tied to different interaction patterns and structural conditions.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the findings explain the partnership’s dissolution?\",\"answer\":\"The struggles pulled the partnership into transactional interactions, undermining collaborative goals and contributing to the partnership’s breakdown.\"}]","Between Transaction and Collaboration: Struggles for Coherence, Responsiveness, and Mutuality in a Fizzled-Out Research-Practice Partnership - Partnership | PDF",1792069549]