Qualitative investigation reveals facilitators and barriers in partnerships among speech-language pathologists and researchers, indicating areas for improved collaboration.
Purpose: Collaborative partnerships contribute to the development of effective tools and practices while simultaneously creating new knowledge. However, establishing and maintaining these partnerships is challenging, and understanding factors that support or hinder the success of the partnership is necessary. Adopting qualitative methods to understand the experience of those engaged in the partnership can identify barriers and facilitators of partnered research. Method: In the current project, school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and researchers comprising the leadership of a collaborative partnership to validate a kindergarten assessment tool aimed to understand their partnership experiences by participating in a qualitative research project with two components. A perceptual mapping activity with eight participants was completed to gather details about facilitators and barriers within the partnership. Two SLPs completed a semistructured interview, which was an opportunity to explore factors influencing the partnership in more depth. Results: Four themes emerged from the data including (a) facilitators to the partnership, (b) barriers to the partnership, (c) factors important to partnership initiation, and (d) factors important to partnership maintenance. Subthemes specific to each theme and illustrative quotes are used to describe each theme in more detail. Conclusions: Practice-based research is a powerful way for researchers and clinicians to create meaningful changes to clinical practice but requires effective collaboration. Results from this in-depth examination of a collaborative partnership revealed factors related to facilitators of success, barriers that may disrupt success, and partnership establishment and maintenance. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.31662613
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vollebregt et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: