According to Sonja Muders, a research associate at the German Institute for Adult Education, “If researchers understand practitioners’ everyday challenges, they can conduct research on topics that are valuable to society and learners.” Photo: Young on Unsplash.
According to Sonja Muders, a research associate at the German Institute for Adult Education, “If researchers understand practitioners’ everyday challenges, they can conduct research on topics that are valuable to society and learners.” Photo: Young on Unsplash.
“A trusting, eye-to-eye dialogue is needed for fruitful collaboration between research and practice,” says Sonja Muders of the German Institute for Adult Education. Amid divergent languages and priorities, how can that be achieved?
We spoke to Sonja Muders, research associate at the German Institute for Adult Education (DIE), about an article she published with her colleague Christian Spoden in 2022, entitled “How collaboration on equal terms can succeed”. It explores how collaboration between research and practice can become fruitful for the transfer of research results when based on a trusting dialogue on equal terms and a respectful partnership.
“We need to recognise that problems can only be solved together: only an eye-to-eye conversation will get us where we want to be,” says Sonja Muders of the German Institute for Adult Education. Photo: Sonja Muders.
Cooperation between academics who research adult education and practitioners involved in lifelong learning projects has long been regarded as fundamental in stakeholder collaboration to improve the overall quality of offerings for learners and increase the relevance of the research itself. However, one aspect that is not often discussed is innovation and how collaboration between these two fields can boost innovative practices.
“Educational research in the field of digitalisation has highlighted how essential cooperation between research and practice is to enhance the ability for innovation,” explains Muders.
Her work mainly focused on Germany and showed that when researchers have a good standing in the field, they can implement research results and develop theories and studies that best fit reality. At the same time, once research has been implemented, practitioners can benefit too, “since they will have incentives to develop more innovative projects, thanks to the unique perspective offered by researchers,” continues Muders.
For instance, the metaproject “Digitalisation in Education”, a joint project under the direction of the Learning Lab with the participation of DIE, is a “great example of how this collaboration can foster innovation,” explains Muders.
The objective is to identify the instruments for the empirical assessment of co-constructive knowledge transfer and its conditions for success and how they might need to be adapted. The initiative aims to be a service provider for funding projects whose services are based on research findings that have already been obtained and are currently being collected.
The idea is to compile research on practical issues in education and digitalisation, prepare it in a practice-oriented way and share it through suitable channels. It also focuses on identifying and using synergies in content, methods and transfer within and beyond projects for networking and collaboration.
Another benefit of the collaboration between these two groups is the possibility of developing more relevant, useful research that could be impactful for practices, too.
“If researchers speak to practitioners and understand the practical everyday challenges, they are ultimately able to research topics that are actually relevant and useful for society and for learners. This is how we increase the impact of our work,” she explains. “What we have observed is that – with these premises – collaboration between research and practice is a win-win situation.”
However, this does not mean it is as easily achievable as one might think. The current landscape of collaboration among these actors in adult education in Germany is not quite there yet.
In Germany, there are transfer agencies aimed precisely at enabling information exchange between research, practice and politics in adult and continuing education. While the DIE considers this a fundamental aspect of research-driven knowledge, Muders sees the need for more cooperation in the field.
“As researchers, we find it really hard to achieve real and effective knowledge transfer. It’s not so hard to get into the field, and that is very important, but we cannot disseminate our findings,” she says.
“This means that academics are often involved in the earlier stages of the project and are able to get access to the field to do observation work and therefore develop research questions that are relevant to the difficulties faced in the field. But once we’ve conducted a study, it would be of utmost importance to apply the results of our research to the field. And that is not possible in most cases,” she says.
Testing the results of one’s research in the field is arguably a fundamental part of the scientific process, as it is the only way to tell if the study has relevance at all. “So, this really hinders the collaboration between the two spheres,” observes Muders.
She goes on to explain why this problem occurs, identifying three main challenges that researchers and practitioners currently face in Germany when it comes to inter-field collaboration: lack of time and resources, different goals and focus on short-term projects.
As is often the case in academia, resources and time often fall short, but “these are two fundamental aspects of this collaboration,” says Muders, who thinks that there should be a management plan.
“What we ask is that knowledge transfer be included and written into the project plan from the outset, ensuring that it is considered and implemented. Currently, most projects end without this crucial transfer element.”
Knowledge transfer should be included into the project plan.
The second challenge that Muders raises is intrinsically connected to the first, as it stems from a well-known problem with adult education projects in Europe: the difficulty of focusing on long-term solutions.
“As I said before, getting access is relatively easy, but what many academics have observed is that there is no long-run involvement in projects. Most of the time we lose funding or connections after a couple of pilot initiatives, so it’s a short-term collaboration. This makes the implementation of our findings even more difficult, and unfortunately, funding for implementation projects is getting smaller and smaller,” Muders says.
This is particularly important when it comes to studies on vulnerable groups of learners in Germany and more generally in Europe.
“I firmly believe that research on social inequality should definitely be more participatory and suggest political solutions by looking at different approaches internationally and being involved with first-hand experiences. The problem is that we know virtually nothing about these groups. And while it’s fundamental for researchers to get insights into these learners, this would require time and resources that we simply do not have.”
This often results in fewer studies and focus on disadvantaged learners and therefore less tailored and impactful strategies to help them.
Research on social inequality should be more participatory.
While solving these two challenges is likely beyond the remit of researchers and more in the hands of policy makers, the second issue identified by Muders is more related to a cultural shift that needs to occur and will probably prove harder to address.
“The truth is, researchers and practitioners have different goals and speak different languages, which sometimes makes collaboration difficult,” she says. “In science, you need credit from good papers and peer reviews, while practitioners need good course rates and high participation.” So how do we reconcile the two?
While Muders can only speak for herself and the category of researchers she represents, one of the main situational constraints for academics is getting published.
“Research with high ethical standards and substantial involvement in the field allows us to incorporate more creative practices into the research design and will ultimately have a more impactful output, but it’s less likely to be published in high-profile journals,” she notes.
The reason for this is mainly that practice-based approaches in science require an interactive process.
“The starting questions often change mid-project because scientists need to adapt their theories and hypotheses based on what they observe, and reality is often more nuanced than expected. However, the most respected journals want clear research designs, not unpredictability. So, at the end of the day, researchers are forced to choose between making an impact or progressing in academia.”
It’s challenging to think about specific steps to solve these issues, as it often varies from case to case. However, Muders and her colleagues have identified successful best practices in Germany that could inspire other countries regarding fruitful collaboration between researchers and practitioners.
“One example that comes to mind is the ‘Clearing House Unterricht’ (‘Clearing House Teaching’) initiative of the TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology in Munich which focuses on research promoting education. This is a dialogue-based project that aims to bring together educational research and educational practice,” Muders explains.
The ‘Clear Clearing House Teaching’ initiative is aimed at summarising scientific findings on effective STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) teaching at the secondary level to teacher trainers and helping them integrate these skills into their lessons.
“What I particularly appreciate about this project is that these networks of collaboration are permanent and focused on mutual exchange. I believe this is the best way to find new solutions and ideas and open minds and broaden horizons on both sides,” she adds.
Permanent networks of collaboration are the best ways to find new ideas.
Resolving these issues and differences will not be achieved overnight, but it requires willingness on both sides and extensive work, both culturally and practically. However, Muders and her colleagues have identified some key starting points.
“First, we need to establish the concept that research needs to be seen as an interactive process. It’s not just a project plan that needs to be followed blindly and closely; it needs to be flexible. We need to observe reality, responses and adapt to those. This is how science becomes impactful.”
Muders also suggest shifting the mindset of the industry in general, both from the perspective of researchers and practitioners.
“We need to recognise that problems can only be solved together and on an equal footing: only an eye-to-eye conversation will get us where we want to be,” she concludes.
This article is part of the theme 'Research and Practice 2025'.
Read related articles here
