ReviewThe British journal of educational psychology2026
Research-practice partnerships in education: Benefits, challenges, methodological considerations and key enablers for change.
Review in The British journal of educational psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strengthening Prevention Systems: Insights from Two Decades of Researcher-State Agency Partnership to Evaluate Youth Substance Use Prevention in Washington State.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026Article
- Research-practice partnerships in education: Benefits, challenges, methodological considerations and key enablers for change.The British journal of educational psychology · 2026Review
- Participatory adaptation of mental health screening tools for school-aged children: a qualitative study in Slovakia.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch-practice partnerships reflect collaborations between researchers and practice-based professionals to co-produce new research knowledge and are often cited as one way to narrow the widely recognized gap between research and practice. Within the context of education, research-practice partnerships draw upon the knowledge, expertise and experience of researchers and practice professionals with the aim of co-producing methodologically robust and educationally relevant research aligned with priorities of practice. Over the last decade, this methodological approach has been gaining traction, yet it is not without its challenges and methodological considerations, which need to be understood and carefully navigated as this trajectory seems set to continue.
aimsThis article reviewed the benefits, challenges and methodological considerations associated with research-practice partnerships, and proposes four key enablers-infrastructure, funding, training and incentives-for research-practice partnerships to be optimally introduced, embedded and sustained.
methodsDrawing upon the research literature and diverse examples of infrastructure, funding, training and incentives across different European contexts, specifically Sweden, Norway, Germany, England and Scotland, this article aimed to synthesize academic and real-world insights to advance knowledge and thinking in this area.
conclusionsThis article provides a contemporary account of key enablers that can initiate, develop, and sustain research-practice partnerships, drawing on insights from the research literature and illustrative examples of existing structures. In doing so, it aims to make a significant contribution to knowledge, thinking and potentially practice, as we work more collectively and productively together to reduce education inequalities and improve the educational experiences and outcomes of children and young people.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.