娇色导航

How can we make educational research meaningful for teachers working in busy classrooms? At Nottingham Trent University (NTU), we explored this question through a close-to-practice (CtP) partnerships programme. The project was funded through a £19,000 bid awarded by the Institute of Knowledge Exchange Practice. This supported a one‑year close‑to‑practice (CtP) programme running from June 2023 to July 2024. The programme was offered to six internal colleagues and six external practitioners from across our partnership and included a series of continuing professional development (CPD) sessions covering creative research methods, ethics and dissemination. The work culminated in a conference designed to support sector-facing dissemination.

The CtP project involved developing collaborations between schools and universities with the ambition to position teachers as co-researchers – meaningfully involved in shaping research questions, gathering data and interpreting findings. These partnerships intended to move research out of the ivory tower and into the everyday realities of classrooms and teachers, creating a ‘third space’ where theory meets practice (娇色导航, 2018).

Our project involved a structured cycle of workshops, mentoring and a culminating conference, all designed to support practitioners in conducting small‑scale, practice‑focused research with impact. Participation was voluntary, with practitioners opting in because they wanted time, space and guidance to explore questions arising from their own classrooms. Across the year, they engaged in facilitated sessions, peer dialogue and iterative mentoring that helped them refine their research projects and analyse their emerging data. This project illuminated a triad of interconnected elements experienced by the participants, which included identity, agency and the power of collaboration. Most significantly, our practitioners told us that engaging in this particular cycle of research not only boosted their confidence but transformed how they saw themselves, as professionals with a voice and position in shaping education.

‘Our practitioners told us that engaging in this particular cycle of research not only boosted their confidence but transformed how they saw themselves, as professionals with a voice and position in shaping education.’

Why close-to-practice matters

Traditional models often treat research as something done to teachers rather than with them. CtP partnerships challenge this by centring practitioner-defined questions (Wyse et al., 2018), ensuring the work remains rooted in the realities of classrooms and the professional judgment of those who know them best. Such a methodology created a shift in our practitioners’ sense of self, with one participant reflecting:

I realised I can be both a teacher and a researcher – those two things aren’t mutually exclusive.

This shift in identity is powerful. It moves research from being an abstract exercise to a tool for professional growth. As Biesta (2007) argues, research should help practitioners see and imagine their practice differently. In our project, this reimagining also expanded their sense of professional agency. Practitioners began to recognise that they could question, shape and influence their own practice through inquiry, rather than simply implementing externally generated ideas.

What worked well

Our project highlighted the impact of this type of practitioner research cycle, particularly in terms of three core elements: structured CPD, collaboration and recognition.

1. Structured CPD: Workshops on ethics and creative methodologies demystified research and gave teachers practical tools (Hordern, 2020). The impact of this was observed within a project that used comic strips as a research method to capture students’ embodied experiences of mathematics, allowing them to express feelings and understandings that might not surface through traditional approaches.
2. Collaboration: Pairing teachers with university colleagues fostered trust and cross-disciplinary learning (Coburn et al., 2021).
3. Recognition: Opportunities to present at conferences validated teachers’ contributions and built confidence (Hennebry-Leung et al., 2024). An example of this was captured through a participant’s reflections:

One of the most pleasing aspects was the breaking down of barriers between academia and practice – before the partnership, there was an element of not seeing your own research as somehow as valid as academic-led study; however, through working alongside NTU you quickly realised how impactful you could be. This was highlighted with my inclusion in two conferences, one at NTU and one at the ICERI conference in Spain. Never in my life would I have assumed I would have the opportunity to present at such events, and the effect on my confidence and esteem has been considerable.

Challenges and lessons

The project further highlighted that time was the biggest barrier. Even the most enthusiastic participants struggled to balance research with classroom demands (Parsons, 2021). Power dynamics also surfaced with teachers sometimes feeling overshadowed by academic partners – most commonly during early feedback discussions or when encountering unfamiliar research language.

However, as the project progressed and as we captured the lived experiences of the school partners, it appeared that this power dynamic decreased over time:

There wasn’t a power dynamic in that way, it just wasn’t there. We were partners.

Nonetheless, these challenges should not be disregarded. Addressing these issues requires intentional design: co-led sessions, flexible timelines and explicit conversations about equality.

Why this matters

If we – schools, universities and policymakers – want research-informed teaching to be more than superficial, we need systems that support it. Protected time, responsive CPD and recognition of teachers’ research are essential. CtP partnerships show that when these conditions are met, research becomes a living part of school culture, not an add-on.

References

Biesta, G. (2007). Why ‘what works’ won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.

British Educational Research Association [娇色导航]. (2018). Close-to-practice educational research: A 娇色导航 statement. /publication/bera-statement-on-close-to-practice-research

Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Farrell, C. C. (2021). Fostering educational improvement with research-practice partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(7), 14–19.

Hennebry-Leung, M., Elola, I., & Harfitt, G. (2024). Leaving the comfort zone: Towards closer partnership between scholars and practitioners. System, 121, article 103252.

Hordern, J. (2020). Collaboration in educational research: Power, politics, and practice. Educational Researcher, 49(3), 183–192.

Parsons, C. (2021). Reimagining collaboration in practitioner research: Towards a third space. Educational Action Research, 29(2), pp. 139-155.

Wyse, D., Brown, C., Oliver, S., & Poblete, X. (2018). The 娇色导航 close-to-practice research project: Defining and evaluating quality in close-to-practice educational research. 娇色导航 Research Intelligence, 1(1), 1–14.