Finally, herewith please find some thoughts about the gained results, challenges, the role of reflectiveness and planning that can lead to stabilize the results, and help us to provide new ways of learning both individual and organizational level regarding the school-university partnership.
The EDiTE has had significant impact on the development of SUP and produced important benefits for all actors. It has led to the recognition of the importance of the DS-PO collaboration as a new research field and co-operation. However, although SUP is a well-known research field, the partnership at the doctoral level training is unique. This is one of the greatest potentials of reciprocal effect which depends very much on the openness of the university. It is obvious that DS can support PO in their professional development. The reciprocal effect means that the school/PO can influence the organizational development of the university and as a part of that, the DS as well.
Those researchers and supervisors who work closely together with schools and practitioners definitely would have different views about the role of research and science. They not only can become more sensitive towards the practical problems and issues, but they can also learn to move between “worlds”, thus contributing to the demolishing of the traditional wall between academia and the world of schools. This knowledge and attitude have impacts not only at the personal level but – through the professional discussion among the researchers at the university – also at the organizational level. A DS having strong collaboration with POs probably would ochoose different topics offering their students, provide and organize different learning environment, consider more important to produce research results which can increase the quality of learning at POs as well. So, the cooperation supports the evolution of a common shared language between schools and universities.
The results achieved during the project were accompanied by bottlenecks and challenges. One of the most important was the lack of time that was emphasised by both sides’
representatives. In spite of the guideline developed for the DS-PO collaboration, there was some
21 critical voice as regards more concept would have been needed for the cooperation. However, it is the normal way of innovation getting into practice.
The project produced clear, however fragile results. Taking into consideration the fast changing world, the fast-speed technological development and the increasing complexity of the world, all these push education – public and higher – to be more adaptive, to support and inspire their learners (students, young researchers and also their teachers and researchers) to learn and make effort for both personal and organizational development. However, thinking out of the box, leaving the comfort zone is one of the greatest challenges both at personal and organizational level. That’s why collaboration, its concept and implementation, the continuous development is the key issue for the actors. Balance needs to be found between creative thinking and implementation procedures (working out procedures at organisational and individual levels), planning this process step by step is crucial. The collaboration fosters the organizations (DSs, POs) to extend their roles: DS can act as advisor and service provider for schools (school development), while POs can enhance researchers’ competences, can influence the content, applied teaching methods and learning outcomes of doctoral programmes (university development). A medium-term strategic plan (3-5 year) and a short term (1 year) action plan would be needed to stabilize the gains that EDiTE has achieved already and increase them further. Any plan needs the active and continuous participation of the stakeholders in the process, needs altering, creative and divergent phases and structured convergent phases.
Finally, I want to get back to the time challenge. While it is without question that our turbulent world doesn’t make it easy to find time for such activities than the DS-PO collaboration. While it is very attractive, there is no question it is partly jumping into the dark.
There is no built highway, so the actors should find and cut the path for themselves. Anyway, it is basically depending on the priorities which the actors can decide about. Everybody has 86,400 seconds a day. No second can be repeated if we do not use it well, but we can learn from what we have done, and learning supports us to do it better next time.
References
(OECD, 2018): Oslo Manual 2018. Guidelines for Collecting, reporting and Using Data on Innovation. 4th edition. OECD, Paris.
Bologna Seminar on “Doctoral Programmes for the European Knowledge Society” (Salzburg, 3-5 February 2005). Conclusions and recommendations. Retrieved 11 October 2019 from https://www.eua.eu/downloads/publications/salzburg%20recommendations%202005.pd f
Carayannis, E. G. and Campbell, D. F. J. (2012): Mode 3 Knowledge Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems. Twenty-first-Century Democracy, Innovation and Entrepreneurship for Development. in: Springer Briefs in Business. 7. pp. 1–63.
Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F.J. (2010): Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation, and environment relate to each other? in:
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development. 1(1), pp. 41–69.
de Rosa Pires, A., and Castro, E. A. de (1997): Can a Strategic Project for a University Be Strategic to Regional Development? in: Science and Public Policy, 24(1), 15-20.
EDiTE (2014): Teacher education and teacher education policies in the European Union. Issues Paper. Final conference of the EDiTE program. 3rd-4th July 2014. Budapest (online:
http://www.edite.eu/files/ISSUES_PAPER_EDiTE_Budapest_conference_Issues_Paper _201407.pdf)
22 ELTE PPK (2015): “Okos köznevelés”. Javaslat a Nemzeti Oktatási Innovációs Rendszer stratégiájának kiegészítésére. „NOIR+ stratégia”. (manuscript, available:
http://halaszg.ofi.hu/download/A_NOIR_plusz_%282015.07.26%29.pdf)
Etzkowitz, H. (1993): Technology transfer: The second academic revolution. in: Technology Access Report 6, 7-9.
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (1995): The Triple Helix: University -Industry -Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge-Based Economic Development. EASST Review 14,14 -19.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. in:
Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123.
EUA (2010): Salzburg II recommendations. European universities’ achievements since 2005 in implementing the Salzburg Principles. EUA, Brussels.
EUA-CDE (2010): Implementing the Salzburg Principles. In: EUA-CDE-news, Issue 10.
Retrieved 11 October 2019 from
http://www.phdcentre.eu/inhoud/uploads/2018/02/EUANewsIssue10_LYpublicatieHS.p df
European University Association (2016): Doctoral education – Taking Salzburg forward.
Implementation and new challenges. EUA-CDE, Brussels.
Leydesdorff, L. (2010): The Knowledge-Based Economy and the Triple Helix model.in:
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 44. pp. 367–417.
Leydesdorff, L. (2012): The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, …, and an N-Tuple of Helices:
Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based Economy? in: Journal of Knowledge Economy, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp. 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0049-4
OECD (2005): Oslo Manual. Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. 3rd edition. OECD, Paris.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., Smith, A. (n.d.): Value Proposition Design. Wiley.
strategyzer.com/vpd
Vargo, S. L., Lush R. F. (2014). Service-dominat logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities.
Cambridge University Press, 3-30. (e-book)
Vas, Zs. (2012): Tudásalapú gazdaság és társadalom kiteljesedése: A Triple Helix továbbgondolása - a Quadruple és Quintuple Helix. in: Dialógus a regionális tudományról. Széchenyi István Egyetem Regionális- és Gazdaságtudományi Doktori Iskola; Magyar Regionális Tudományi Társaság, Győr, Magyarország, pp. 198-206.
23
A
LITERATURE REVIEW WITH A STRONG SYSTEMATIC ASPECT OF SCHOOL-
UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPSCsilla Pesti, Helena Kovacs, Judit Saád, Khin Khin Thant Sin, Deisi Yunga
ABSTRACT
This paper aims to, firstly, provide a literature review on school-university partnerships with a strong systematic aspect, and secondly, to present the learning that occurred among the research team members while collaborating in this pillar. The analysis of 49 relevant studies has revealed the homogenous nature of research on school-university partnerships by identifying a set of common characteristics in them. Our non-traditional methodology to review existing literature with a strong systematic aspect has also proved to be a viable approach to identify the characteristics of a researched field/topic, as well as to map out the gaps and the missing links.
Keywords: school-university partnership, levels of partnership, teacher preparation, empirical research
Introduction
In the frame of the School-University Partnership research, besides conducting small-scale and big-scale quantitative questionnaire inquiries, qualitative interviews and international case studies, the idea of conducting a systematic literature review on school-university partnerships arose. The methodology of systematic literature reviews and meta-analysis enjoys academic popularity at our Faculty: there are doctoral courses not only teaching the method but also planning PhD students’ learning by applying it, there are crash-courses offered to faculty members. Moreover, an ongoing institutional project on teachers’ continuous professional development titled Models of Teacher Learning (MoTeL)14 draws a great deal on the methodology of systematic literature review, and the experiences gained in this project on establishing and coordinating such collaboration between team members in an online environment have led to the idea of channelling this practical knowledge into our project.
Conducting a systematic literature review is a resource-intensive endeavour. In many cases, the time required to conduct a rigorous systematic literature review is the deterrent factor that obstructs researchers to choose this method. Our team was aware of this (and other) bottleneck, yet we faced the challenge and embarked on a journey of conducting a systematic literature review, especially because of the following two reasons: firstly, we thought that even if the end product will not be based on the rigorous premises of the systematic literature review methodology, by following its step, i.e. by identifying relevant studies, analysing them, and writing up a synthesis will be, can be a valuable input for those interested in the topic; and secondly, this collaboration was also a learning opportunity for the participants to broaden their knowledge on the topic of school-university partnership, as well as to expand their methodological repertoire.
14 https://nevtud.ppk.elte.hu/
24 Firstly, this article provides a brief overview of existing literature (systematic and traditional) reviews on the topic of school-university partnership, which is followed by the state-of-art situation in the European context. After elaborating on the methodology, we move on the presenting and discussing the results.