Alignment of mutualism concepts and partnership practices
| Mutualism concept | Partnership practice example |
|---|---|
| Invested Benefits (Connor, 1995) | University and district leaders jointly designed the residency pathway, attended planning meetings together, and co-constructed project plans |
| Co-Construction and Shared Expertise (Johnson & Johnson, 2002; Vargas et al., 2022) | University and district personnel collaboratively designed and implemented the resident selection process, bringing together district priorities and university expectations to guide decision-making |
| High-Trust Cooperative Engagement (Powell & Walsh, 2018) | Boundary-spanning activities, such as recruitment events and project kickoff, and ongoing collaboration across institutional contexts fostered trust and strengthened relationships among university and district partners |
| Reciprocal Commitments and Responsiveness (Cooper et al., 2021; Lezotte et al., 2022; France, 2025) | Following the loss of grant funding, university and district leaders worked together to reorganize resources, revise program structures, and identify pathways forward for residents |
| Support for Multiple Stakeholders (Chorzempa et al., 2010) | University and district partners collaboratively revised the pathway to balance the needs and commitments of residents, schools, and both partner institutions following the loss of external funding |
| Mutualism concept | Partnership practice example |
|---|---|
| Invested Benefits ( | University and district leaders jointly designed the residency pathway, attended planning meetings together, and co-constructed project plans |
| Co-Construction and Shared Expertise ( | University and district personnel collaboratively designed and implemented the resident selection process, bringing together district priorities and university expectations to guide decision-making |
| High-Trust Cooperative Engagement ( | Boundary-spanning activities, such as recruitment events and project kickoff, and ongoing collaboration across institutional contexts fostered trust and strengthened relationships among university and district partners |
| Reciprocal Commitments and Responsiveness ( | Following the loss of grant funding, university and district leaders worked together to reorganize resources, revise program structures, and identify pathways forward for residents |
| Support for Multiple Stakeholders ( | University and district partners collaboratively revised the pathway to balance the needs and commitments of residents, schools, and both partner institutions following the loss of external funding |
Note(s): Drawing on mutualism theory (Bronstein, 1994; Connor, 1995), the table illustrates how concepts from the theoretical framework were reflected across the partnership's development, disruption, and sustainability efforts
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.