Negotiating Problems of Practice in Research–Practice Design Partnerships

Abstract

This chapter focuses on how researchers and practitioners negotiate the focus of their joint work within design-based implementation research (DBIR). Studying and facilitating successful negotiation of the problems that become the focus of work and the search for solutions is important for developing DBIR, because of its commitment to focusing on persistent problems of practice from multiple stakeholders’ perspectives. Case studies of two different research–practice partnerships provide a context for exploring two different perspectives on negotiation. In one case study, the notion of partnerships as forms of cultural exchange across institutional boundaries that differ with respect to goals, norms, and practices is used to analyze a design partnership focused on repurposing curriculum units in elementary science. In the second case study, the concept of framing as developed in social movement theory is used to illuminate issues of status and authority within a partnership between a district and researchers. The chapter concludes by describing the contributions of each perspective to an understanding of how teams jointly negotiate the focus of their work and by providing some recommendations for how teams can do so successfully.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akkerman

S. F.

, & Bakker

(2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.

Beach

(2003). Consequential transitions: A developmental view of knowledge propagation through social organizations. In Tuomi-Gröhn

& Engeström

(Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary crossing (pp. 39–62). London: Elsevier.

Benford

R. D.

, & Snow

D. A.

(2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.

Binder

A. J.

(2002). Contentious curricula: Afrocentrism and Creationism in American public schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bransford

J. D.

, Brown

A. L.

, & Cocking

R. R.

(1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Coburn

C. E.

(2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343–379.

Coburn

C. E.

, Bae

, & Turner

E. O.

(2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider–outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 364–399.

Coburn

C. E.

, Honig

M. I.

, & Stein

M. K.

(2009). What's the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In Bransford

J. D.

, Stipek

D. J.

, Vye

N. J.

, Gomez

L. M.

& Lam

(Eds.), The role of research in educational improvement (pp. 67–87). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Donovan

M. S.

, Snow

, & Daro

(2013). The SERP approach to problem-solving research, development, and implementation. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2), 400–425.

10.

Engeström

, Engeström

, & Karkkainen

(1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319–336.

11.

Galison

(1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

12.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

13.

National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

14.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

15.

Penuel

W. R.

, Fishman

B. J.

, Cheng

, & Sabelli

(2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.

16.

Penuel

W. R.

, Roschelle

, & Shechtman

(2007). The WHIRL co-design process: Participant experiences. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51–74.

17.

Sabelli

, & Dede

(2013). Empowering design-based implementation research: The need for infrastructure. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2), 464–480.

18.

Schneider

, & Ingram

(1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347.

19.

Schwartz

D. L.

, Lin

, Brophy

, & Bransford

J. D.

(1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. In Reigeluth

C. M.

(Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instruction theory (Vol. 2, pp. 183–213). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

20.

Snow

D. A.

, & Benford

R. D.

(1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–217.

21.

Snow

D. A.

, Rochford

E. B.

, Worden

S. K.

Jr. , & Benford

R. D.

(1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464–481.

22.

Star

S. L.

, & Griesemer

J. R.

(1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.

23.

Stone

D. A.

(1988). Policy paradox and political reason. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

24.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

25.

Williams

R. H.

, & Kubal

T. J.

(1999). Movement frames and the cultural environment: Resonance, failure, and the boundaries of the legitimate. Research in Social Movements: Conflicts and Change, 21, 225–248.

26.

Zucker

(1991). Postscript: Microfoundations of institutional thought. In Powell

W. W.

(Ed.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 103–106). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.