This study examines the elements of collaborative research partnerships (CRPs) between university researchers and other organizations or individuals in the education sector whose mandate is to conduct and disseminate research for service delivery. Studying these partnerships for knowledge mobilization(KMb)includes understanding the roles partners take on; the tensions or facilitators they face when bringing research into practice; the structures to maintain the partnership; and the knowledge mobilization activities. Phase 1 takes an in-depth look at one partnership using key informant interviews and document analysis, while phase 2 utilizes a survey between four overarching university-community organization partnerships across Canada. Findings suggest that although difficult, when research producers and users work together, capacity is built at the organizational level to view research evidence as an important part of the organizational service delivery, with small impacts on individual knowledge development; that partnerships remain informal in their practice; that the mechanisms by which partners use to communicate within the partnership and the frequency of communication helps to build relationships between partners; and the ideal type of CRP, where they ought to always be an equal endeavour, is overstated in the literature. Not all useful partnerships are exact equal contributions from research producers and their user-based partners. Implications include that researchers gain access to practice expertise and insights into practice-based research rather than engaging in only theoretical research while community partners gain access to greater capacity for understanding and using research through exchanges with academics.

This study examines the elements of collaborative research partnerships (CRPs) between university researchers and other organizations or individuals in the education sector whose mandate is to conduct and disseminate research for service delivery. Studying these partnerships for knowledge mobilization(KMb)includes understanding the roles partners take on; the tensions or facilitators they face when bringing research into practice; the structures to maintain the partnership; and the knowledge mobilization activities. Phase 1 takes an in-depth look at one partnership using key informant interviews and document analysis, while phase 2 utilizes a survey between four overarching university-community organization partnerships across Canada. Findings suggest that although difficult, when research producers and users work together, capacity is built at the organizational level to view research evidence as an important part of the organizational service delivery, with small impacts on individual knowledge development; that partnerships remain informal in their practice; that the mechanisms by which partners use to communicate within the partnership and the frequency of communication helps to build relationships between partners; and the ideal type of CRP, where they ought to always be an equal endeavour, is overstated in the literature. Not all useful partnerships are exact equal contributions from research producers and their user-based partners. Implications include that researchers gain access to practice expertise and insights into practice-based research rather than engaging in only theoretical research while community partners gain access to greater capacity for understanding and using research through exchanges with academics.

No description available.

This research study focused on measuring the impact of structures that support community-university research partnerships. The broad research question asked: How can we determine the impact of community-university research partnership support structures such as the Office of Community Based Research at the University of Victoria, within the university and within local, regional, national and international communities? Methods of inquiry included: participatory research, institutional ethnography and case study. These are among an increasing number of research approaches consistent with what is called engaged scholarship. Congruent with the methods of inquiry, methods of investigation included: in-context immersion, participant-observer-listener, use of available documents and information, use of an impact assessment framework prototype designed pre-data collection, key informant interviews, field notes, research journaling and the writing process. Data contributing to this study were drawn from key informant interviews. Interview participants were situated within local, regional, national and international communities. Methods of analysis included: a two-pronged approach to organising data, deductive and inductive approaches, the lens of praxis, and the prototype as an analytical framework. Assessment as praxis is proposed as broad analytic framework. Theory was constructed through data analysis. This study’s data and analysis point to impact assessment as a cycle of inquiry and eight elements that inform impact on and through community life and impact on and through the university. The proposed Impact Assessment and Measurement Framework (IAMF) includes eight elements: coupling intention with impact, spheres of impact, categories of impact, conditions of impact, points of impact, impact-focused documentation, multiple perspectives of impact, and impact assessment and measurement statements. Contributions of this study include: recognition of staff who support community-university research partnerships through their varied work spaces, research councils as a type of support structure, impact assessment as a cycle of inquiry, explicating impact through elements of impact assessment, and a literature consolidation of impact assessment in the context of support structures. Future research may include revision and refinement of the IAMF across different types of community-university research partnership support structures. / Graduate