Partners for Change: A Mixed Methods Case Study of an Intermediary-led Partnership for STEM Education Reform

Cross-sector partnerships have come to the fore as a vehicle for STEM education reform in recent years. Despite the significant investments of resources in such partnerships, little is understood regarding the processes that partnerships use to effect change and, indeed, there is evidence that partnership-led initiatives face numerous challenges that may reduce their effectiveness. This study examined a STEM education partnership led by an intermediary, or third party, organization in a southern state in order to understand how its work created an infrastructure for regional change. A mixed methods case study design was used in which a quantitative survey measuring collaboration was embedded within a primarily qualitative study to understand the characteristics of the partnership and partners' perspectives on its progress. This research design permitted a more holistic understanding of the partnership's work by providing a broad perspective on collaboration within the partnership that complemented and enhanced interview findings. A framework of collective impact was used, in which five themes were used to guide the understanding of the partnership's progress. These five themes---common agenda, shared measurement systems, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and backbone support---were related to collaboration factors measured in the survey instrument and qualitative and quantitative findings were integrated to create a nuanced description of the partnership's work. The study revealed that the partnership had made progress in each of the collective impact themes with the exception of shared measurement systems. Findings revealed that the intermediary leadership structure of this partnership coupled with the interdisciplinary backgrounds and strong networking skills of individuals in leadership positions had contributed to its accomplishments. This synergy of organizational structure and individual characteristics was enhanced by the inclusive agenda-setting process used during partnership initiation and by the strategic use of resources in the partnership. Infrastructure gaps included potentially weak bridging capital among some stakeholder groups in the partnership, lack of public understanding of the partnership's role in STEM education, and the lack of robust measurement systems within the partnership. These findings have implications for this partnership, and, more broadly, for educational partnerships in general and for STEM education reform. Additionally, this study's findings have implications for collective impact theory and for the use of mixed methods in studying partnership.