Spencer Foundation Request for Proposals for Research-Practice Partnership Grants For many years, the Spencer Foundation has awarded research grants to support the work of Research- Practice Partnerships (RPPs). Now, for the first time, the Foundation has a formal grant program specifically designed to support a range of activities in several different types of these organizations. The Spencer Foundation believes that RPP models can complement traditional basic education research. Arguably, RPPs have created a new model for conducting education research, moving away from researcher-driven studies of uncertain relevance to practitioners and policy makers and toward research that is more specifically designed to guide improvement efforts. We also believe that the RPP model can facilitate the long-term accumulation of knowledge in new ways as researchers and practitioners delve into specific topics in a specific setting over time. The nature of RPPs enables this long-term focus, which is more difficult to sustain in traditional research settings, often due to the constraints of funding timelines. Over the long term, we anticipate that research conducted by RPPs will result in improved outcomes for students, teachers, schools, and communities. This grant program is guided by the definition of RPPs offered by Cynthia Coburn, William Penuel, and Kimberly Geil in 2013: Long-term, mutualistic collaborations between practitioners and researchers that are intentionally organized to investigate problems of practice and solutions for improving outcomes. i In the same paper, Coburn and colleagues identified three common types of RPPs: place-based research alliances that work with either school districts or youth-serving organizations that cross multiple sectors in addition to education; design research teams that seek to simultaneously build and study solutions in real world contexts; and networked improvements communities (NICs) that seek to leverage diverse experiences in multiple settings to advance understandings about what works where, when, and under what conditions. ii Place-based research alliances involving partnerships between researchers and local school districts have proliferated in recent years. These partnerships may be characterized by a formal Memorandum of Understanding with districts, shared agenda setting, and codified procedures for disseminating findings to stakeholders. Partnerships may also be made up of design research teams that work with practitioners to explore how certain classroom-based learning practices and curricular decisions in specific content areas impact student learning and engagement. This approach could involve collaborations between researchers and district administrators seeking to better understand the organizational supports necessary to implement effective system-level subject matter initiatives. 1 P a g e
In addition, partnerships formed across institutional boundaries for the purpose of applying improvement science to a focused research problem will be considered. These specialized learning communities or NICs emphasize solving complex problems of practice through disciplined inquiry, with a focus on the role of systems and reducing variation in outcomes. The Spencer grant program is intended to support these three types of RPPs and other configurations that may have developed in recent years that align with the definition above. No one type of partnership will be privileged over another. We also recognize that partnerships between researchers and schools or school districts have a longer, more established history, but we are open to partnerships between researchers and community-based organizations or youth-serving institutions engaged in longterm collaborative research related to education, broadly conceived. Eligibility The principal eligibility criterion for this competition is that the applicant must meet the RPP definition noted above and described in greater detail below. The two key factors for determining eligibility are long term and mutualistic. Any partnership that meets the definition above may apply to this grant program. Although we will not quantify long term, we expect that RPP applicants will have some history a track record of success as demonstrated by completed research studies, solutions-in-progress, established trusting relationships, and data-sharing agreements, for example. We will not consider applications from start-up RPPs that are just beginning their work. An additional expectation is that the partners intend to continue working together after the conclusion of the award. This grant program is specifically intended to provide some intermediate-term stability to existing RPPs, strengthen their leadership, build infrastructure and data archives, deepen and enhance on-going research efforts, broaden outreach, and provide the opportunity to build a coherent and focused longer-term research agenda. The second key factor is the concept of mutualism. By this we mean that all partners stand to gain equally from the work of the partnership, that partners have equal status and authority, and that they jointly negotiate the work of the partnership, acknowledging and respecting one other s expertise and experience. We do not consider consulting arrangements, in which an education organization contracts with researchers to answer specific questions, to be a partnership. Neither are relationships where researchers recruit schools to test their programs or interventions considered partnerships. Activities that May be Funded The following categories are meant to broadly encompass the kinds of activities we expect to fund. Research is fundamental to every research-practice partnership, and we therefore expect research activities to be a central element of every proposal. Other activities may be funded, however. We have created three additional categories that are meant to be illustrative, but not exclusive, of such activities. You know your partnership better than we do, and we want to hear your best ideas for how a grant from the Spencer Foundation can make your partnership more effective. This may include activities not listed here or activities that fall outside of these categories if there is a compelling rationale. We expect proposed activities will be highly related to partnership type. Research Activities Conducting research is a fundamental activity for research-practice partnerships. In this grant program, we intend to support research activities that enable the partnership to mature, grow, and secure 2 P a g e
additional funding through other research grant programs. Partnerships often engage in iterative processes in which findings from one study lead to follow-up studies in rapid succession. In your proposal, you may describe existing research activities that could be strengthened or new studies that could be launched with additional funds. Please describe how these research activities address one or more topic area that you are currently or plan to be studying. You may describe any kind of research activity that is pertinent to your work, but we encourage you to think about activities that typically are not eligible for funding as stand-alone studies, such as those that lay the groundwork for future research and therefore are essential to the work of the partnership. For example, several extant partnerships have excelled at scrupulous descriptive research, showing in detail the condition of education within specific jurisdictions. As a result, partnership members gain in-depth knowledge about important topics such as student and teacher mobility patterns, achievement trends and growth patterns within and between schools, student and teacher attendance patterns and trends, grade retention, graduation and dropout rates, student safety, and course-taking patterns, for example. In addition, partnerships often engage the broader community for the purpose of understanding the context that shapes these trends, processes, and outcomes. In doing so, they administer surveys or conduct focus groups and interviews with parents, students, and community members to better understand schooling experiences across a range of learning contexts. Sometimes, researchers have provided their practice partners with technical expertise in survey development, in probing the technical qualities of assessment systems, or in providing rapid response data analysis. Other partnerships engage in the development of a system improvement map, locating where and how the root causes of a problem of practice manifest. These root causes then become targets for improvement. There are likely many other examples of research activities that are difficult to fund through traditional channels, and we encourage you to describe new activities that could be initiated or existing activities that could be strengthened with additional funding. Research Infrastructure Building a successful and long-term program of research requires many behind the scenes efforts. Foundation funds may support data gathering, cleaning and testing, the matching of records across multiple files, the manipulation of administrative records for statistical purposes, and reliability and validity checks. Other potential activities include the development of standard procedures for resolving data conflicts and for creating standard data definitions that hold across data sets and individual projects; the creation and validation of new leading and outcome indicators; the development, testing, and administration of annual or biennial student, teacher, and administrator surveys; training in the use of innovative data collection tools; and the linking of existing data sets to new sources of data, such as unemployment records or juvenile justice data. Ongoing research activities depend on the maintenance of a physical infrastructure, including sophisticated servers that can process large amounts of data. Foundation funds might support purchasing a new server or hiring new staff, such as a database programmer, Information Technology specialist, or data archivist. You may request funds for statistical software programs or licenses. We recognize that different types of RPP configurations may require different infrastructure. We encourage you to propose building infrastructure that meets your needs. 3 P a g e
Outreach, Communications, and Relationship Building Successful research-practice partnerships devote a great deal of attention to building and maintaining trust across stakeholder groups. This work is time consuming and, often, invisible. We will fund activities that strengthen the working relationship between partners and other stakeholders. Potential activities may include convening researchers and practitioners to develop a research agenda that is sensitive to the needs of the district or other educational organization; hiring a communications specialist and/or developing a strategy for communicating research findings to practitioner partners or a broader audience; or embedding research staff in the partner organization to manage partnership relations, assist researchers and practitioners in identifying productive avenues for joint work, and coordinate research studies. Some partnerships have been able to embed graduate research assistants in district offices to conduct data analyses for districts. Relationship-building depends on the availability of communication technologies, particularly when partners are not geographically close, as is often the case with design research teams and NICs. Foundation funds might be used to purchase technological infrastructure that supports virtual collaboration. In some cases, face-to-face meetings are critical to relationship-building. You may also ask for funds to pay for travel to in-person meetings. There are likely to be other ways that Foundation funds could support the work of maintaining, nurturing, or growing the partnership, and we welcome your ideas. Capacity Building Many research-practice partnerships seek to assist the district or other educational organizations in developing capacity to use research evidence and data in their daily decision-making. There may also be ways that Foundation support could be used to develop the capacity of researchers involved in this work to conduct better research or to be better equipped to communicate research findings to practitioners. Potential activities may include convening researchers and practitioners to plan research studies, interpret findings, or discuss implications of the findings; a shared staff position to work with both researchers and practitioners; professional development to assist practitioners in better understanding research; professional development to assist researchers in better communicating findings to a wide audience; or training for junior scholars to become skilled at conducting applied research. In the case of networked improvement communities, capacity-building often centers on the development of leadership in the hub organization, which is charged with coordinating the work of a distributed network. Activities may include the development of practical measures, analytic tools for reporting these measures, and building a culture for participating in improvement research. Similar capacity-building activities may be relevant to other RPP configurations. We welcome other ideas you have for building capacity on all sides of the partnership. Proposal Elements Proposal Narrative Please use the following outline in writing your proposal. Do not exceed 4,000 words. We are looking for well-written documents that make a persuasive argument for the value of your partnership and for why the proposed activities will strengthen the partnership. Avoid excessive technical jargon. 4 P a g e
Describe the nature of your partnership, including but not limited to: who the key players in the partnership are, the history of the partnership, its central goals and achievements to date, and how you envision the partnership progressing over the next five to ten years or longer. We also expect the proposal to make a compelling argument for why your partnership is useful and how it adds value above traditional research. Make it clear how funding from the Foundation will advance the mission of the partnership and have a lasting impact on your longer-term goals. Here is where you convince us that your partnership is both long-term and mutualistic, by addressing the criteria described on page 2 of this RFP. Describe the activities you will undertake with support from the Foundation. You should describe how funds will be used to strengthen ongoing research activities or enable you to launch new studies. Situate these research activities in one or more particular topic area and explain how proposed activities will lead to knowledge generation that ultimately advances understanding of the issue. To make this argument, you may consider briefly describing existing research and gaps in that work, but we do not expect a full literature review. In addition to research activities, you should describe how funds will support activities that fall under at least one of the three other categories: research infrastructure; outreach, communications, and relationship-building; or capacity-building. We recognize that the budget is unlikely to permit you to engage in activities that fall under all three categories. We also recognize that there may be activities that will advance your work that fall outside these categories. We will consider proposals that seek funds for other kinds of activities with a compelling rationale for their importance to your work. Finally, describe the key personnel involved in the work of the partnership and their experiences and qualifications to do this work. The PI should be associated with the administering organization for this grant, which could be either member of the partnership. At least one co-pi should be from the other member organization(s). Budget Project budgets are limited to $400,000 for up to three years, including indirect cost charges. The Spencer Foundation restricts indirect cost charges to 15 percent or less of the direct costs of the proposal. The online application has a budget form that must be filled in with the proposed expenses for the project. It also contains a field for a budget justification where further detail about the expenses should be provided. Partner Letter and Optional Appendices The partner organization to the applicant organization should provide a letter describing the value of the partnership from its perspective. If there is more than one partner organization, please submit one representative letter. Additional supporting evidence may also be uploaded, such as Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), data-sharing agreements, descriptions of governance processes, and other relevant documents, as applicable. Curriculum Vitae of the PI (and Co-PIs) In the online application system, the PI and each named Co-PI on the project are expected to complete their online profile details and upload a current CV that is no longer than 10 pages. 5 P a g e
Evaluating Proposals Below are some of the questions the Foundation will use in its evaluation of applications. History, Background, and Context of Partnership Has the partnership had a successful history as evidenced by research or related activities that produce findings with the potential to inform local policy or practice? Do the research activities build on the strengths and competence of participants on both or all sides of the partnership? Are there structures in place for continuing communication and negotiation about the aims, goals, and consequences of the research agenda throughout the lifecycle of the project? Proposed Activities Does the proposal make a compelling case for how the proposed activities will strengthen the partnership and lay a solid foundation for its future? Do the proposed activities have the potential to advance a longer-term research agenda that might lead to greater understanding and knowledge of a specific problem? Procedures The deadline for proposal submissions is 4:00 pm CDT, Thursday, June 4, 2015. The online application will be accessible beginning Monday, May 4, 2015 along with detailed proposal submission guidelines. We anticipate the review process will take approximately five months; notifications of final decisions will be sent via email by late October. The Spencer Foundation is committed to developing and supporting a vibrant community of scholars. Partnerships whose proposals are funded will be expected to participate in meetings of all grantees under this RFP. Spencer will provide additional resources to bring together the teams funded under this RFP to learn from one another and share ideas. (This amount does not need to be accounted for in your proposed budget.) Requirements and Restrictions Administering Organization The Spencer Foundation does not award grants directly to individuals, therefore all proposals must be submitted by an administering organization within the United States (proposals from partnerships outside the U.S. are not eligible for this grant program). The administering organization must have a non-profit determination from the IRS (e.g., 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, university, college, research facility, school district, etc.). Personnel The Principal Investigator (PI) and any co-pis named on the proposal are expected to have an earned doctorate in an academic discipline or professional field, or demonstrated professional experience appropriate for this RFP. 6 P a g e
Concurrent Grants The Spencer Foundation normally restricts PIs and co-pis from holding more than one awarded grant from the Foundation at a time. PIs or co-pis who hold current grants from the Foundation that will continue past October 2015 are ineligible to receive an award for this RFP. Additionally, if a Research- Practice Partnership is currently receiving support from the Spencer Foundation, it is ineligible to apply for this RFP. Questions If you have any questions about this RFP, please visit the Frequently Asked Questions page. If your question is not answered there, feel free to send an email to partnerships@spencer.org. i Coburn, C.E., Penuel, W.R., & Geil, K.E. (January 2013). Research-Practice Partnerships: A Strategy for Leveraging Research for Educational Improvement in School Districts. William T. Grant Foundation, New York, NY. ii Ibid, page 10 7 P a g e