Research and creating learning opportunities in higher education is often carried out in collaboration with external partners. However, a systematic overview of the most relevant mechanisms in such collaborations is lacking. This project consists of two parts. First, the study reports upon a secondary data analysis of a literature-based scoping review (Sarmiento, 2023) on the evaluation of the collaboration between higher education and external partners. Second, the outcomes of the aforementioned analyses are validated for the Dutch context, by means of in-depth interviews with Dutch partnerships’ stakeholders. Ultimately, the project formulates design principles for successful collaborations.

Background information

Utrecht University and other higher education institutes frequently engage in collaborations with external partners. External partners benefit from these collaborations through the knowledge sharing that takes place and through the inspiration brought by researchers and students. Similarly, researchers and students become inspired as well during these collaborations and use these experiences to guide their future work. Whereas the efficiency and effectiveness of collaboration has been occasionally evaluated, a systematic overview of the barriers and affordances of reciprocal collaborations between universities (of applied sciences) and external partners is missing.

Project description

In this project, a secondary data analysis of a literature-based scoping review on the barriers and affordances in higher education and external partner collaborations was performed. The analysis was conducted by using the CIMO framework (Denyer et al., 2008), resulting in a set of design constituents for collaboration. After that, in-depth interviews with individual stakeholders from seven different partnerships were conducted. The results from the in-depth interviews defined the design constituents necessary in a partnership and the underlying dynamics between them. These elements were compared with the initial design constituents, resulting in their validation.

Aims

This project has the following objectives:

• Identifying the mechanisms that make partnerships successful and identifying the main barriers and affordances for collaboration between higher education and external partners.
• Developing recommendations to encourage future collaborations across institutions.
• Identifying enhancing or hindering factors for the success and sustainability of the partnerships.

Results & Conclusions

The results from the secondary data analysis show that the contexts in which partnerships are created can be distinguished in the following typology: content focused (e.g. STEM, digital literacy, etc.), teacher-education focused, research focused, and partnership focused. Some partnerships touch on more than one of these contexts.

In order to reach their goals, specific interventions take place. The secondary data analysis showed that these interventions can be organized around four intervention premises: Adding (activity or intervention that allows an expert to add expertise to a group of practitioners); Aligning (activities or intervention allow all stakeholders to align interests, decisions, or desired outcomes); Researching (activities within the partnership allow actors to study data or conduct research together to improve education practices); Scaling up (activities or intervention depart from a previous success and aim to expand this way of working to other schools or practice settings).

These interventions, as well as the partnership, are sustained by a set of processes that we defined as mechanisms, characterized by different dimensions: Social dimension (a change occurs between persons or organizations), Instrumental dimension (a co-created product or way of working is jointly developed), Expertise dimension (a change in expertise impacts the dynamics in the partnership), Motivational dimension (changes in motivation in actors in the partnership occur  – that in turn set in motion a new mechanism).

The last elements identified in the CIMO analysis are Outcomes. The following categories emerged: (Improvements in) Governance of partnership (i.e. clear partnership structure), (Improvements in) Individual learning or motivational outcomes (i.e. better knowledge of a subject), Reciprocity (i.e. acknowledgement of each others expertise), Community building (i.e. networking time), Sustainable relationships (i.e. continuity), Shared visions or languages between institutes (i.e. alignment in the curricula), Applicable products or ways of working (i.e. pedagogical tools).

The results of the interviews aligned with the components identified in the secondary data analysis, validating them. All components (Contexts, Interventions, Mechanisms and Outcomes) show dynamics both within and between them. For example, when looking at the Context component, interviews revealed that the composition of the consortium and the goals of the partnership are key aspects. However, these are influenced by external factors, such as available funding, societal challenges, and the career development of those involved in the partnership. These external influences can lead to changes in the consortium’s structure and its goals, requiring adjustments to ensure they remain aligned with the partnership’s overarching purpose and long-term sustainability. This process of internal adaptation within the consortium and the refinement of goals then impacts other elements of the partnership, including the interventions carried out, the mechanisms driving collaboration, and the outcomes achieved.

External factors inevitably affect each component (e.g. personnel shortages, changes in governance), requiring internal adjustments to restore balance. These adjustments then influence the interactions and dynamics between the other components in the system.

Actionable knowledge was derived from the project, leading to the following preliminary design principles. If the goals are to establish a successful partnership between knowledge institutions and practice, it is important to:

• Ensure clear role definition: every stakeholder involved in the partnership should have a clear understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities. This can be facilitated by establishing a well-structured organization with defined levels or teams (e.g., strategic, tactical, and operational levels, or through groups like a steering committee and direction group). A clear organizational structure helps maintain the sustainability of the partnership’s network, even during personnel changes.
• Foster trust, communication and shared vision: these three factors ensure a positive and supportive environment where stakeholders appreciate each other’s expertise and contributions, collaborating and co-creating the steps necessary to achieve the partnership’s goals. Tools like boundary-crossing objects or activities (e.g., shared curricula, visiting each other’s environments) can enhance collaboration and mutual understanding.
• Adopt and promote a continuous learning approach: incorporating evaluation processes, feedback mechanisms, and reflective practices support the dynamic, circular nature of the partnership’s lifecycle, aligning with both the CIMO framework and the three distinct SUP phases (Exploration, Implementation and Sustainability; Sarmiento, 2023).
• Support sustainability of achieved goals: “To design is always to redesign” (Van de Akker, 1999), once a goal is achieved, it will require ongoing maintenance to ensure its relevance and effectiveness over time. Reviewing goals, interventions and methods based on the time constraints of the partnership stakeholders together with the availability of the funding allow for a strong and sustainable partnership.

Partnership building on this actionable knowledge can lead to evidence-based practice and practice-based science.

References

• Akkerman, S., & Bruining, T. (2016). Multilevel Boundary Crossing in a Professional Development School Partnership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 240-284.
• Admiraal, W., Kruiter, J., Lockhorst, D., Schenke, W., Sligte, H., Smit, B., Tigelaar, D., & de Wit, W. (2016). Affordances of teacher professional learning in secondary schools. Studies in Continuing Education, 38(3), 281–298.
• Comeau, D. L, Palacios N, Talley C, et al. (2019) Community-Engaged Learning in Public Health: An Evaluation of Utilization and Value of Student Projects for Community Partners. Pedagogy in Health Promotion. 5(1), 3-13.
• Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., & Van Aken, J. E. (2008). Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies, 29(3), 393–413.
• Farrell, C. C., Penuel, W. R., Coburn, C. E., Daniel, J., & Steup, L. (2021). Research-Practice Partnerships in Education: The State of the Field. William T. Grant Foundation.
• Sarmiento-Márquez, E. M., Pishtari, G., Prieto, L. P., & Poom-Valickis, K. (2023). The evaluation of school-university partnerships that improve teaching and learning practices: A systematic review. Educational Research Review. 29.
• Zuiker, I., Schot, W. D., Oomen, C., de Jong, A., Lockhorst, D., & Klein, T. (2017). Succesvolle Werkplaatsen: Wat is er nodig voor een vruchtbare onderzoekssamenwerking tussen onderwijspraktijk, hogescholen en universiteiten?