这是谁的议程?在教育研究-实践伙伴关系中设置研究议程的政治导航

IF 1.6 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Policy Pub Date : 2022-11-07 DOI:10.1177/08959048221131567
Joanna L. Meyer, Clare Waterman, George A. Coleman, M. Strambler
{"title":"这是谁的议程?在教育研究-实践伙伴关系中设置研究议程的政治导航","authors":"Joanna L. Meyer, Clare Waterman, George A. Coleman, M. Strambler","doi":"10.1177/08959048221131567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we provide insight into sharing power and balancing practitioner and researcher priorities during the process of establishing a research agenda for a research-practice partnership (RPP). We draw on the literature about effective collaboration within RPPs to identify concepts and factors that can help or hinder the research agenda-setting process. Concepts include boundary spanning, spheres of interest and action, and strategic knowledge leadership. Factors include early and ongoing engagement of partners, adequate representation of diverse perspectives, funder priorities, and the presence of trusting relationships. The authors then use examples from our own experiences in RPPs to illustrate how these concepts and factors play out in the agenda-setting process.","PeriodicalId":47728,"journal":{"name":"Educational Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Whose Agenda is It? Navigating the Politics of Setting the Research Agenda in Education Research-Practice Partnerships\",\"authors\":\"Joanna L. Meyer, Clare Waterman, George A. Coleman, M. Strambler\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08959048221131567\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, we provide insight into sharing power and balancing practitioner and researcher priorities during the process of establishing a research agenda for a research-practice partnership (RPP). We draw on the literature about effective collaboration within RPPs to identify concepts and factors that can help or hinder the research agenda-setting process. Concepts include boundary spanning, spheres of interest and action, and strategic knowledge leadership. Factors include early and ongoing engagement of partners, adequate representation of diverse perspectives, funder priorities, and the presence of trusting relationships. The authors then use examples from our own experiences in RPPs to illustrate how these concepts and factors play out in the agenda-setting process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47728,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221131567\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Policy","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221131567","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在本文中,我们提供了在为研究-实践伙伴关系(RPP)建立研究议程的过程中分享权力和平衡实践者和研究者优先事项的见解。我们借鉴了关于rpp内部有效合作的文献,以确定有助于或阻碍研究议程设置过程的概念和因素。概念包括边界跨越,利益和行动范围,以及战略知识领导。因素包括合作伙伴的早期和持续参与、不同观点的充分代表、资助者的优先事项以及信任关系的存在。然后作者使用我们自己在rpp中的经验来说明这些概念和因素是如何在议程设置过程中发挥作用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Whose Agenda is It? Navigating the Politics of Setting the Research Agenda in Education Research-Practice Partnerships
In this article, we provide insight into sharing power and balancing practitioner and researcher priorities during the process of establishing a research agenda for a research-practice partnership (RPP). We draw on the literature about effective collaboration within RPPs to identify concepts and factors that can help or hinder the research agenda-setting process. Concepts include boundary spanning, spheres of interest and action, and strategic knowledge leadership. Factors include early and ongoing engagement of partners, adequate representation of diverse perspectives, funder priorities, and the presence of trusting relationships. The authors then use examples from our own experiences in RPPs to illustrate how these concepts and factors play out in the agenda-setting process.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Policy
Educational Policy EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Educational Policy provides an interdisciplinary forum for improving education in primary and secondary schools, as well as in high education and non school settings. Educational Policy blends the best of educational research with the world of practice, making it valuable resource for educators, policy makers, administrators, researchers, teachers, and graduate students. Educational Policy is concerned with the practical consequences of policy decisions and alternatives. It examines the relationship between educational policy and educational practice, and sheds new light on important debates and controversies within the field. You"ll find that Educational Policy is an insightful compilation of ideas, strategies, and analyses for improving our educational systems.
期刊最新文献
Principal Leadership of Pre-K Programs in Elementary Schools: Evidence from North Carolina Educational Policy: Analysis, Action, and Advocacy Across Contexts The Relationship Between Teacher Collaboration and Instructional Practices, Instructional Climate, and Social Relations Associations Between Administrative Burden and Children’s ECE Stability During the Covid-19 Pandemic Educational Philanthropy’s “Racial Reckoning” in the Wake of 2020: Understanding Grantmakers’ Responses to Racialized Crises
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1