Dynamics in District–University Partnerships Focused on Leadership for Equity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides clear and compelling arguments from the preliminary findings of a qualitative study on district-university partnerships, focused on leading through the lens of equity and guided by a rigorous self-assessment. The paper contributes to scholarship in many ways, including the importance of aligning leader standards with equity-centered leader profiles.

One suggestion for improving the work is to include an expanded theoretical framework that specifically addresses the tensions inherent in developing inclusive relationships with the community, especially in light of the funder's expectation that districts partner with a community organization (lines 217-218). For example, the study can be further informed by theories such as asset-based community development, social capital theory, collective impact for social justice, and/or community organizing theory.

Another suggestion is to expand on the 'inevitable challenge' of leadership churn (line 649). Please say more about how instability in leadership erodes mutualism. Also, please recheck the paper for small errors, such as closing the parentheses (line 281).

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer One,

We thank you for your comments and suggestions for the paper. We really appreciate the time and effort you took to review our paper. We responded to the suggestions in your review in the following manner: 

“One suggestion for improving the work is to include an expanded theoretical framework that specifically addresses the tensions inherent in developing inclusive relationships with the community, especially in light of the funder's expectation that districts partner with a community organization (lines 217-218). For example, the study can be further informed by theories such as asset-based community development, social capital theory, collective impact for social justice, and/or community organizing theory.”

We appreciate this suggestion. While this paper is focused specifically on the districts and universities in the partnership, we hope to include these theoretical lenses in future work that focuses on the community partners. We added an explanation of this to the paper: page 5, paragraph 1, line 168. We also added an additional citation about community partnerships earlier in the literature review: page 1, paragraph 4, line 78.  

“Another suggestion is to expand on the 'inevitable challenge' of leadership churn (line 649). Please say more about how instability in leadership erodes mutualism.” 

We agreed that we should explain this further, and added further elaboration on page 20, paragraph 2, line 754.

“Also, please recheck the paper for small errors, such as closing the parentheses (line 281).”

We have done so. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. Your study is timely and important. I hope that my feedback below is helpful.

 

The research questions are well framed.

 

I would encourage a revision of table 2. There are not headings for the table and that would help to guide a reader.

 

I would encourage greater clarity surrounding the study population. I see that the larger context is eight districts. Then you lift three specific districts to be illustrative but say that the analysis is from all eight districts. I would just clarify this in the methods section. Make sure it is clear if the analysis is using those three distinct cases or if it is going to include all eight districts.  

 

The analysis section could be strengthened in a few ways. First, I would include a bit more about multiple case study design, including more citations from methodological references. If taking up case, there should be attention to triangulation, how did the first pass of inductive coding work across all data sources.  I would also include a bit more about why you chose axial coding for your second cycle analysis. With axial coding’s typical role in grounded theory work (an inductive approach) a bit more about why this method of coding was chose and how it relates to the deductive coding that is claimed in line 329. Surrounding coding I would encourage some reference to methodological pieces.

 

Additionally, around the claim of deductive coding I would consider the role of the conceptual framework and make a more explicit connection to how the concepts of identification, coordination, reflection, and transformation were used to drive this deductive analysis. With the inclusion of this framework more in the discussion, I wonder if there was a deductive coding structure driven by an a priori/ theoretically driven coding schema.

 

I would encourage, if possible, to frame the results section as findings. This aligns more with trends in qualitative research.

 

The shared ownership finding is particularly interesting. I wonder if there is mutualism if the vision for the partnership is being defined by the districts nearly exclusively because of the funding model. In line 502 you point toward the evolution of true partnership, yet I only see that present in ESD from the subsequent section. This would be a stronger argument with greater evidence to support this claim.

 

I appreciate the discussion. Though I would encourage you to look at the concern with deductive analysis if this is existing in the discussion over the finding.

 

You may be able to be more explicit in answering the third research question in both the findings and discussion. The manuscript may be stronger if making this connection clearer so that we fully understand what erodes mutualism.

 

I believe that the implications of this study are important though could be further developed in the conclusion section. With so much of this grant seeming to be focused on practitioners what are the implications for practice from this study specifically.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer Two,

We thank you for your comments and suggestions for the paper. We really appreciate the time and effort you took to review our paper. We responded to the suggestions in your review in the following manner: 

 “I would encourage a revision of table 2. There are not headings for the table and that would help to guide a reader.”

The reviewer recommended revisions to Table 2 because there were no headings. This seems to be a formatting issue since headings were included in the original version of the table. We have double checked the formatting to make sure the revision is more legible.

“I would encourage greater clarity surrounding the study population. I see that the larger context is eight districts. Then you lift three specific districts to be illustrative but say that the analysis is from all eight districts. I would just clarify this in the methods section. Make sure it is clear if the analysis is using those three distinct cases or if it is going to include all eight districts.”

We clarified in the introduction and methods section that the present analysis is from three districts out of the sample of eight (page 1, paragraph 2, line 31; page 8, paragraph 1, line 280.) 

“The analysis section could be strengthened in a few ways. First, I would include a bit more about multiple case study design, including more citations from methodological references. If taking up case, there should be attention to triangulation, how did the first pass of inductive coding work across all data sources.  I would also include a bit more about why you chose axial coding for your second cycle analysis. With axial coding’s typical role in grounded theory work (an inductive approach) a bit more about why this method of coding was chose and how it relates to the deductive coding that is claimed in line 329. Surrounding coding I would encourage some reference to methodological pieces.

Additionally, around the claim of deductive coding I would consider the role of the conceptual framework and make a more explicit connection to how the concepts of identification, coordination, reflection, and transformation were used to drive this deductive analysis. With the inclusion of this framework more in the discussion, I wonder if there was a deductive coding structure driven by an a priori/ theoretically driven coding schema.

These suggestions prompted us to go back to the meeting notes from the collaborative meetings that took place during the analysis. Based on these detailed notes, we revised the analysis section to reflect the actual stages of our process. We have included information that describes what data was analyzed at each step of the process. We hope that this added clarification helps address the reviewer’s comment that the conceptual framework “drove” to the analysis. It did not. Instead, the conceptual framework helped us deepen our understanding of the findings. See page 11, paragraph 1, starting at line 367. We also bolstered our citations about qualitative research: page 11, paragraph 1, lines 367, 371, 376, 377.

“I would encourage, if possible, to frame the results section as findings. This aligns more with trends in qualitative research.”

We agree, and made this change.

“The shared ownership finding is particularly interesting. I wonder if there is mutualism if the vision for the partnership is being defined by the districts nearly exclusively because of the funding model. In line 502 you point toward the evolution of true partnership, yet I only see that present in ESD from the subsequent section. This would be a stronger argument with greater evidence to support this claim.”

We appreciated this comment, and added more to the shared ownership section. We believe the additional evidence and discussion bolsters the claim in this section. See page 15, starting at paragraph 2, line 545.  

“I appreciate the discussion. Though I would encourage you to look at the concern with deductive analysis if this is existing in the discussion over the finding. You may be able to be more explicit in answering the third research question in both the findings and discussion. The manuscript may be stronger if making this connection clearer so that we fully understand what erodes mutualism.”

We addressed the concern with deductive analysis in response to the comment above. We clarified the point we make about the evolution of a true partnership (last paragraph in the Shared Ownership of the Work section). We added explicit references to eroding mutualism in the conceptual framework: page 6, paragraph 4, line 236; findings: page 13, paragraph 1, line 455; page 14, paragraph 2, line 502; page 16, paragraph 1, line 581; page 20, paragraph 2, line 756, and to the discussion/conclusion: page 20, paragraph 2, line 806; page 21, paragraph 2, lines 836 and 844.

“I believe that the implications of this study are important though could be further developed in the conclusion section. With so much of this grant seeming to be focused on practitioners what are the implications for practice from this study specifically.”

We added a paragraph on practical implications: page 25, starting at line 955.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear colleagues,

Your manuscript is well-written and illuminating. Overall, I can clearly see how it is well aligned with the theme of this special issue, and I believe that it stands to make an original contribution, not only to the issue but also to our conceptualization of new forms of district-university partnership. With that in mind, I suggest below several ways that your manuscript might be further strengthened.

The current manuscript is structured as a conventional research article, with headings for "Materials and Methods", "Results", "Discussion". However, the contents in my reading are more aligned with that of a theoretical article with worked examples--the three focal partnerships illustrating notions adopted from Gomez et al. (2020). You foreground the notions put together in Gomez et al. (2020) of mutualism, drawn from Coburn et al. (2013) and Akkerman and Bakker's (2011) mechanisms of interorganizational learning. The empirical evidence, as presented here, comprises a subset of three partnerships from a larger corpus of eight that you studied as part of a multi-year initiative on leadership for equity. The data analyzed consists of a single focus group and/or interview with each university partner, along with fieldnotes and documents from the three partnerships. You did not include interviews or focus groups from the district side of the partnership; presumably, you draw on fieldnotes and documents to represent the district perspective. You write that the analysis, but not the research design and data collection itself, was guided by questions around the development of the partnership, especially processes that bolstered or diminished mutualism. 

In my reading, the subset of data you have drawn on here does not provide a solid foundation for justifying empirical claims around the holistic development of the partnership from both the district and university sides of the partnership coin. Moreover, there are problems with the foundational piece on which you are basing your analysis. Gomez et al. (2020) is itself an elaboration of other's theories, offering interesting and relevant inferences but not claiming to be rigorous in its examination of existing empirical evidence, either as original research or as a systematic review. (To be fair to that chapter, it does not aim to use empirical warrants to justify its claims; it's a high-level philosophical discussion of broad shifts in the field.)

That said, your analysis and discussion does provide interesting insight into the university perspective on the partnership and the reciprocal influence of engagement with the district on university preparation and leadership development.  In my experience with leadership preparation partnerships, one of the most interesting and least explicitly examined aspects of recent approaches to district-university partnerships concerns the influence of the district on the university side, and this is where you are on more solid ground to justify your claims.

To do this effectively in my view, however, requires that you differentiate the kind of partnership you are studying from conventional partnerships. You do draw out ways that the preparation partnership you are studying is distinct from a variety of research-practice partnerships, but I don't yet see the unique characteristics of this type of partnership brought clearly to the fore. This would require highlighting the benefit to the university, which you do address in a short paragraph on p. 4 (lines 137-140). You cite some of the sources that would provide a suitable case for this in your general discussion of partnerships but there is an emerging scholarship focused more squarely on related kinds of mutualistic preparation partnerships that you do not touch on (e.g., Gomez et al., 2023; Goldstein et al., 2024) along with several case studies in the Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership that might be useful for differentiating this kind of partnership in a more articulated manner (e.g., Alemán et al., 2013; Méndez et al., 2013; Phelps Moultrie et al., 2017). A closer look at the intended and actual mechanisms of transforming university preparation through engagement with districts would also strengthen your case for exploring the initiation phase of the partnership. 

In sum, I would encourage you to go beyond providing worked examples of "mutualism" broadly to a critical analysis of that concept as applied to this kind of preparation partnership in ways that might illuminate aspects that have not been well articulated before. Relevant to your data set and findings is a close examination of how reciprocal influence shapes the university side of the partnership. 

Other points that I'd invite you to consider:

You introduce the concept of mutualism as originating in Gomez et al. (2020) [page 2, lines 42-45]. I would encourage you to make clear that this is a concept that originates in Coburn et al. (2013). You do mention that work in the preceding sentence but in the context of defining RPPs, not in relation to mutualism as a concept. 

You do not provide the reader with any statement about your positioning as researchers in relation to the partnership. I'm left to imply that you were, perhaps, hired as evaluators of the larger initiative? Especially in discussing this kind of mutualistic partnership in relation to non-conventional approaches to educational research, it's important to highlight your relationship to the partnership.  

I would encourage you to tighten the focus of your manuscript in the service of more clearly delineating the innovative kind of partnership that you are studying here. I do believe you have important and interesting findings to report that will help deepen our understanding of the nature of novel forms of partnership.

References

Alemán, E., Pérez-Torres, J. C., & Oliva, N. (2013). Adelante en Utah: Dilemmas of Leadership and College Access in a University–School–Community Partnership. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 16(3), 7-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458913498476

Goldstein, J., Panero, N. S., & Lozano, M. (Eds.). (2024). Radical university-district partnerships: A framework for preparing justice-focused school leaders. Teachers College Press. 

Gomez, L. M., Biag, M., Imig, D. G., Hitz, R., Tozer, S., & Bryk, A. S. (2023). Improving America's schools together: How district-university partnerships and continuous improvement can transform education. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 

Méndez, Z. Y., & Rincones, R. (2013). Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Faculty’s and Academic Administrators’ Dilemmas in a University–K-12 Partnership. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 16(3), 77-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458913498480

Phelps Moultrie, J., Magee, P. A., & Paredes Scribner, S. M. (2017). Talk About a Racial Eclipse: Narratives of Institutional Evasion in an Urban School–University Partnership. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 20(1), 6-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458917690429

Author Response

Dear Reviewer Three,

We thank you for your comments and suggestions for the paper. We really appreciate the time and effort you took to review our paper. We responded to the suggestions in your review in the following manner: 

“In my reading, the subset of data you have drawn on here does not provide a solid foundation for justifying empirical claims around the holistic development of the partnership from both the district and university sides of the partnership coin.”

We took this point, and chose to add data to the paper, rather than change our overall argument to focus solely on the university side. We believe that it is important to highlight how the partnership developed from both sides. In the revised manuscript, we include an analysis of interviews with district initiative leaders and district superintendents to strengthen the evidence for our claims. This change is reflected in the methods section (page 9, chart; page 10, paragraph 1, line 345), as well as in descriptions of the district perspective for the five organizing themes (page 12, paragraph 2, starting at line 424, page 12, paragraph 3, line 437; page 15, paragraph 2, starting at line 545; page 16, paragraph 2, starting at line 591).

“Moreover, there are problems with the foundational piece on which you are basing your analysis. Gomez et al. (2020) is itself an elaboration of other's theories, offering interesting and relevant inferences but not claiming to be rigorous in its examination of existing empirical evidence, either as original research or as a systematic review. (To be fair to that chapter, it does not aim to use empirical warrants to justify its claims; it's a high-level philosophical discussion of broad shifts in the field.)”

We acknowledge that Gomez, et al (2020) does not claim to be a systematic review. However, we believe that several elements of the philosophical discussion in this chapter provide a substantive theoretical framework for our analysis. First, as was pointed out earlier in the review, the concept of mutualism has been established as a definitional aspect of research practice partnerships (e.g. Coburn, 2013). So, we feel it is important to use this concept as we establish the significance of this different type of partnership. Second, Akkerman and Bakker (2011) framework for organizational learning is based on empirical evidence, and we feel the concept - in conjunction with mutualism - translates into this context appropriately. 

“That said, your analysis and discussion does provide interesting insight into the university perspective on the partnership and the reciprocal influence of engagement with the district on university preparation and leadership development.  In my experience with leadership preparation partnerships, one of the most interesting and least explicitly examined aspects of recent approaches to district-university partnerships concerns the influence of the district on the university side, and this is where you are on more solid ground to justify your claims.”

To reiterate our explanation above, we decided to add in the district perspective, rather than adjust the scope of our claims. 

“To do this effectively in my view, however, requires that you differentiate the kind of partnership you are studying from conventional partnerships. You do draw out ways that the preparation partnership you are studying is distinct from a variety of research-practice partnerships, but I don't yet see the unique characteristics of this type of partnership brought clearly to the fore. This would require highlighting the benefit to the university, which you do address in a short paragraph on p. 4 (lines 137-140).”

We add several references and elaborations regarding the distinct nature of the partnership we are studying, in the introduction, literature review, and discussion. We note that the partnership is distinct from RPPs, as it does not have a research focus, but it is also distinct from other partnerships focused on leadership preparation in a few ways. First, these partners can learn from and with their peers in the 8-district grant, and second, they benefit from collaborations with researchers who are separate from the partnership, but dedicated to supporting the efforts. However, we did not want to overstate the uniqueness of the case. While this specific grant might be new, other district-university partnerships have also emerged to focus specifically on developing equity-centered leaders. So, while we believe it is accurate and important to draw a distinction between our cases and traditional RPPs, we do not see our case as singular. See: page 1, paragraph 1, line 26; page 4, paragraph 3, line 154; page 5, paragraph 2, line 178; page 20, paragraph 4, line 776; page 24, paragraph 4, line 932.

We highlighted the reciprocal benefits of the partnership in a few additional places: page 1, paragraph 2, line 35; page 23, paragraph 5, line 904;  also see page 17, paragraph 2, starting at line 632. However, because we opted to add data from the district perspective rather than narrow our paper’s focus, we did not alter the paper to focus more singularly on the benefits to the university only.

“You cite some of the sources that would provide a suitable case for this in your general discussion of partnerships but there is an emerging scholarship focused more squarely on related kinds of mutualistic preparation partnerships that you do not touch on (e.g., Gomez et al., 2023; Goldstein et al., 2024) along with several case studies in the Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership that might be useful for differentiating this kind of partnership in a more articulated manner (e.g., Alemán et al., 2013; Méndez et al., 2013; Phelps Moultrie et al., 2017). A closer look at the intended and actual mechanisms of transforming university preparation through engagement with districts would also strengthen your case for exploring the initiation phase of the partnership.”

We included all five suggested citations throughout the paper (most notably in the introduction and literature review: page 1, paragraph 1, line 26; page 2, paragraph 3, line 63; page 2, paragraph 4, line 78; page 3, paragraph 1, line 92 and line 98; paragraph 5, line 114 and 116, paragraph 6, line 122; page 4, paragraph 3, line 160; page 6, paragraph 3, line 233; page 22, paragraph 2, line 837). In particular, we appreciated the suggestion to consider Goldstein, et al 2024: the explanation of “radical partnerships” in this work helped us further conceptualize the partnerships we are studying. We also included more justifications for the importance of studying the beginning stages of a partnership (page 3, paragraph 4, line 106; page 4, paragraph 1, line 132; page 25, paragraph 3, line 969) in addition to the justifications that were already present in the original manuscript. 

“In sum, I would encourage you to go beyond providing worked examples of "mutualism" broadly to a critical analysis of that concept as applied to this kind of preparation partnership in ways that might illuminate aspects that have not been well articulated before. Relevant to your data set and findings is a close examination of how reciprocal influence shapes the university side of the partnership.”

We believe that with the revisions to the paper, and the combination of Akkerman and Bakker’s 2011 framework with our discussions of mutualism, we are providing a critical analysis of the partnerships we study. We chose to keep our original focus on both sides of the partnership by adding additional data to showcase the district side. In addressing the reviewer’s suggestion for a deeper analysis of mutualism, we added more examples of how reciprocal influence not only benefits district partners but also shapes the work of university partners (see page 16, lines 591-606). Moreover, we note that of the interorganizational learning mechanisms proposed by Akkerman and Bakker (2011), reflection was absent in our data and examine the consequences of this absence (see page 23 under the Reflection subsection, esp. lines 884-887; 895-896). We also expand on Akkerman and Bakker’s framework by exploring how organizational transformation was possible despite the absence of reflection (see page 23, lines 901-909). In these ways, we believe our manuscript critically builds on the concept of mutualism and Akkerman and Bakker’s (2011) framework, contributing to a deeper understanding of interorganizational learning processes.

“Other points that I'd invite you to consider:

You introduce the concept of mutualism as originating in Gomez et al. (2020) [page 2, lines 42-45]. I would encourage you to make clear that this is a concept that originates in Coburn et al. (2013). You do mention that work in the preceding sentence but in the context of defining RPPs, not in relation to mutualism as a concept.” 

We clarify that the term “mutualism” originated in Coburn, et al 2013. 

You do not provide the reader with any statement about your positioning as researchers in relation to the partnership. I'm left to imply that you were, perhaps, hired as evaluators of the larger initiative? Especially in discussing this kind of mutualistic partnership in relation to non-conventional approaches to educational research, it's important to highlight your relationship to the partnership.  

We added a paragraph about researcher positionality to the “initiatives” section (page 7, paragraph 3, line 267). 

“I would encourage you to tighten the focus of your manuscript in the service of more clearly delineating the innovative kind of partnership that you are studying here. I do believe you have important and interesting findings to report that will help deepen our understanding of the nature of novel forms of partnership.”

We did consider altering the focus of the paper, but decided ultimately to add data instead. We worked to clarify the distinct nature of the partnership in several places (noted above) with a focus on reciprocal benefits to the districts and universities.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is clear that the author(s) thoughtfully engaged with the recommended revisions. I appreciate the attention to revisions in the methods sections. Thank you for the work that you put into these revisions. 

Author Response

The reviewer had no comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the care you have taken in addressing reviewers' concerns. Your manuscript is indeed greatly strengthened by the revisions you have made in response to reviewers' comments, and you make an original contribution to our understanding of leadership preparation partnerships and their role viz the education system. 

I look forward to reading the final manuscript in print!

A few minor edits that I noted:

line 46 - needs to be completed "insert what mutualism is".

line 63 - reference to Goldstein, et al 2024 appears to be repeated.

line 116 - year for citation is incorrect, if quoting Goldstein et al. Year should be 2024. 

line 138 - check in-text citation for W.T. Grant.

line 154ff - the newly-added passage switches tense to current from preceding which is past tense. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for pointing out the places that required minor corrections. We have addressed all the comments you provided.