Unpacking Relational Trust Mechanisms in Teacher-Researcher Co-Design Partnerships: Insights from a Case Study

Relational Trust as A Cyclical, Socially Constructed Process

Grounded in the integrative model of trust (Mayer et al., 1995; Schoorman et al., 2007) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), we conceptualize relational trust in RPPs as an iterative, socially constructed cycle that unfolds through partners’ interactions. As illustrated in Figure 1, this cycle moves from partners’ “initial and evolving perceptions of one another and their relational and interactional dynamics” to “trust as belief”—expectations of trustworthiness, “trust as decision”—willingness to accept vulnerability, and “trust as action”—vulnerability expressed through observable behaviors, followed by “relational interpretation and response” that confirms or updates subsequent perceptions over time.

The cycle begins with partners’ initial perceptions of one another and of the partnership relationship. Partners often enter RPPs with preexisting assumptions about others’ intentions, competence, and reliability, shaped by prior interactions, professional roles, status, and shared histories (Mayer et al., 1995; Schoorman et al., 2007). In our case, prior mentor-student relationships between the principal investigator and two teacher-partners likely informed early perceptions of expertise, supportiveness, and credibility, which in turn shaped initial expectations of trustworthiness and willingness to enter the partnership. These perceptions shape “trust as belief”—partners’ expectations of one another’s trustworthiness—and “trust as decision”—judgments about whether to accept vulnerability in the relationship and in joint work (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006; Mayer et al., 1995). Those judgments are then enacted as “trust as action,” expressed through observable behaviors such as joining the partnership, delegating authority, asking for help, or taking initiative in shared decision-making (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006).

During these interactions, partners interpret one another’s actions in light of prior history, existing expectations, and the evolving relationship—what we term “relational interpretation and response” (Brown, 2009; Kroeger, 2012; Möllering, 2005). For instance, when researchers adjust a co-design agenda based on teacher feedback, teachers may interpret this as respect and willingness to share control; when teachers implement and iterate on proposed changes, researchers may interpret this as commitment and reliability. Partners then respond in ways that may be reciprocal, consistent, and aligned with expectations of trustworthiness, or not.

Then, these actions, interpretations, and responses feed back into partners’ evolving perceptions, confirming or revising trust beliefs after each interaction (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006; Mayer et al., 1995). This cyclical and socially constructed view acknowledges the importance of initial perceptions in trust building yet emphasizes that the quality of ongoing interactions and relationships ultimately shapes and reshapes relational trust (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Lewicki et al., 2006). Over time, relational trust strengthens when cycles of enactment, interpretation, and response are reciprocal and consistent, and it weakens when these patterns become inconsistent or nonreciprocal (Edwards‑Groves et al., 2016; Henrick et al., 2017; Lezotte et al., 2022). This highlights mutuality as a central organizing principle: Trust is reinforced when partnership goals, responsibilities, and benefits are co-constructed and reciprocally negotiated over time (Lezotte et al., 2022). In our conceptualization, mutuality refers to the reciprocal alignment of partners’ actions and responses over time, such that contributions and risks are recognized and reciprocated rather than one-sided.

Relational Trust as a Multidimensional Construct

While the trust cycle in Figure 1 specifies how relational trust is formed, enacted, and revised over time, we also attend to what relational qualities are at stake as partners decide to accept vulnerability and interpret one another’s actions. To describe these qualities, we adapt Edwards‑Groves and colleagues’ (2016, 2021) five dimensions of relational trust: pragmatic, interactional, intersubjective, interpersonal, and intellectual. Although Edwards‑Groves et al. developed these dimensions to characterize the trustworthiness of middle leaders in schools—instructional leaders who occupy roles between classroom teachers and senior administrators and support professional learning and change initiatives—we reinterpret them for RPPs as a shared set of relational qualities that can be mutually enacted and experienced by teacher- and researcher-partners.

Table 1 summarizes the original dimensions alongside our adapted definitions for RPP contexts. We retain the labels to preserve continuity with the original framework, while refining definitions to reflect mutuality and reciprocal expectations between partners. For example, we define the interpersonal dimension in terms of mutual care, personal connection, emotional support, and adaptability to one another’s needs and constraints, and the pragmatic dimension in terms of practical, goal-oriented actions that align partners’ needs with the aims of the partnership.

Importantly, at any point in the trust cycle (Figure 1), a single interaction or decision may express multiple dimensions simultaneously. For instance, when a teacher invites a researcher back into the classroom after a lesson that did not go as planned, that invitation may reflect interpersonal trust (expecting support), intellectual trust (valuing feedback), and pragmatic trust (expecting the visit to help address an instructional need).

Research Design

We present a single case study examining the manifestation and facilitation of relational trust in a sustained RPP (Yin, 2018). We employed a sequential qual → QUAL approach (Morse, 2010), first exploring how relational trust emerged during a co-design workshop by analyzing participants’ perceptions and behaviors. This analysis (RQ1 - qual) offered exploratory and illustrative empirical snapshots of how trust was enacted and experienced at a later stage of the partnership. We then identified the norms, routines and strategies that contributed to developing and maintaining this trust throughout the broader RPP activities (RQ2 - QUAL). Figure 2 summarizes our research design.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Summary of Research Design

The co-design workshop included three teacher-partners with one to three years of involvement in the RPP and provided a cross-sectional view of the interactional and relational dynamics between teacher- and researcher-partners. This case helped us identify routines, norms, and strategies that were repeatedly experienced or expected across RPP activities and that facilitated relational trust across stages and boundaries (Henrick et al., 2017). It also allowed us to observe how that trust manifested in a highly collaborative context where reliance on others to achieve shared goals was essential (Costa et al., 2018).

Co-Design Research-Practice Partnership

This study is part of an NSF-funded project developing a 20-lesson, problem-based, STEM-integrated bioinformatics curriculum for high school students that engages them in analyzing local air quality data related to asthma and air pollution (Shim & Yoon, 2024; Yoon et al., 2022). Initially designed by university researchers, the curriculum was implemented over three years with sustained professional development (PD), including classroom visits, just-in-time assistance, and reflective discussions to support teachers’ enactment.

We used targeted recruitment to engage teachers positioned to provide in-depth feedback for refining the curriculum (IES/NSF, 2013). Recruitment focused on environmental science and biology teachers recognized for instructional effectiveness or recommended by school science directors. By Cohort-3, recruitment expanded to lower-resourced schools to test the curriculum across diverse contexts, including one of our teacher-partners who taught at a school serving a low socioeconomic population.

Over three years, implementation and PD evolved in response to COVID-19. In Year 1, five Cohort-1 teachers participated in in-person PD and implemented the curriculum; in Years 2 and 3, PD moved online. Four Cohort-1 teachers supported this transition by revising the PD, with two serving as teacher-facilitators for Cohort-2. In Year 3, ten teachers implemented the curriculum (one from Cohort-1, three from Cohort-2, and six from Cohort-3), with online PD facilitated by two Cohort-1 teachers. Table 2 summarizes the three-year timeline of project activities, cohorts, and partner roles.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2

Timeline of RPP Activities, Teacher Cohorts, and Partner Roles

Name	Cohort	Sum ‘19 PD	AY ‘19–20	Sum ’20 PD	AY ‘20–21	Sum ‘21 PD	AY ‘21–22	Sum ‘22 Co‑design
Teacher-partners
Alan	C1	P	I, RF	DC, TF	I, RF	DC, TF	I, RF	CD
Sarah	C2	—	—	P	I, RF	—	—	CD
Rick	C3	—	—	—	—	P	I, RF	CD
Other teacher-partners (n = 4)	C1	P	I, RF	DC (n = 3), TF (n = 1)	I, RF (n = 1)	TF (n = 1)	–	—
Other teacher-partners (n = 3)	C2	—	—	P	I, RF (n = 3)	—	I, RF (n = 3)	—
Other teacher-partners (n = 5)	C3	—	—	—	—	P (n = 5)	I, RF (n = 5)	—
Researcher-partners
Kaitlin		D, F	S	D, F	S	D, F	S	CD (D)
Madison		D, F	S	D, F	S	D, F	S	CD (D/F)
Sooah		D, F	S	D, F	S	D, F	S	CD (D)

Note. AY = academic year; PD = professional development; co-design = curriculum co-design workshop. Teacher codes: P = participated in PD; I = implemented the curriculum unit; RF = facilitated research activities during implementation; DC = PD design collaborator; TF = teacher facilitator in PD; CD = co-designer. Researcher codes: D = curriculum/PD designer; F = PD facilitator; S = implementation support (e.g., school visits, just-in-time assistance); CD (P) = co-design design; CD (D/F) = co-design design and facilitation. An en-dash (–) indicates that the partner was not involved in that phase. Parenthetical counts (e.g., n = 3) indicate the number of teacher-partners in the cohort holding the role.

Co-Design Workshop

Over three years, teacher and student feedback indicated a need for substantial curriculum revisions, particularly to reduce the unit’s length. To address this, a co-design team of one teacher from each cohort and one researcher participated in a three-day workshop to redesign the unit. Alan (Cohort-1), Sarah (Cohort-2), and Rick (Cohort-3) were selected to represent different school contexts and levels of implementation experience: Alan had implemented the curriculum for three years at a selective magnet school; Sarah had implemented it for one year at a charter school outside the district; and Rick had implemented it for one year at a low socioeconomic school within the district.

Because they taught in different schools and districts, the teacher-partners did not know one another before joining the RPP. Their interactions before the workshop were largely mediated through PD structures: Alan interacted with Sarah and later Rick through his teacher-facilitator role in online PD, whereas Sarah and Rick had limited direct interaction before the co-design workshop (Table 2).

The co-design workshop consisted of three in-person sessions held at the research team’s university, each lasting 3.5 to 6.5 hours. Designed by the three researcher-partners (Kaitlin, Madison, and Sooah), the sessions were coordinated and facilitated by Madison. As the sessions unfolded, teachers’ input prompted adjustments to the format and activities, such as replacing planned video reflections with open discussion. Teachers and Madison collaboratively reframed the unit by defining its scope, establishing lesson objectives, and developing materials for the first lesson. Teachers then independently designed lessons aligned with their expertise and interests, which were shared for collective feedback. The workshop resulted in five redesigned lessons; the remaining seven lessons were adapted by the researcher and refined through virtual feedback from teachers.

Research Participants

The participants in this study were three teacher-partners who participated in the co-design workshop and three researcher-partners (Kaitlin, Madison, and Sooah) who supported PD and curriculum implementation. The teachers taught biology or environmental science in Northeastern U.S. high schools and had 17 (Alan), 7 (Sarah), and 21 (Rick) years of teaching experience at the start of the workshop. All three held master’s degrees in education, two from the research team’s university. Their cohort histories, implementation roles, and prior involvement in the RPP are summarized in Table 2.

The researcher-partners were Kaitlin, a learning sciences professor and principal investigator of the project, and her two doctoral advisees, Madison and Sooah, who together developed the curriculum and professional development and supported teachers throughout the RPP activities.

Researcher Positionality

The three researcher-partners served dual roles as both study participants and members of the author team. As a former K–12 teacher, Kaitlin’s shared professional identity with teachers (Tanis & Postmes, 2005) and expertise in teacher PD likely supported early trust by signaling familiarity with classroom constraints and pedagogical competence. She also had preexisting relationships with Alan and Sarah as former master’s students. These prior mentor-student interactions likely provided firsthand evidence of trustworthiness (e.g., responsiveness, nonjudgmental feedback), which shaped their initial perceptions of Kaitlin at partnership entry. In Figure 1 terms, these perceptions informed “trust as belief” and “trust as decision.” Reciprocal familiarity also mattered: Kaitlin viewed Alan and Sarah as capable and reliable, enabling her to delegate meaningful responsibilities. Such relational histories can seed initial trust (Coppola et al., 2004) that is then confirmed or updated through ongoing partnership interactions (“trust as action” and “relational interpretation and response” in Figure 1). Thus, by the co-design workshop, this initial trust was likely calibrated through their sustained interactions. Kaitlin’s dual role as mentor and researcher nonetheless required reflexivity regarding potential interpretive bias.

Beyond the PI’s positionality, the broader research team’s relational context also shaped the partnership. By the time of the co-design workshop, Kaitlin, Madison, and Sooah had collaborated for five to six years. Sooah and Madison—Kaitlin’s doctoral advisees—had worked with her and with each other across multiple projects, developing shared routines for planning, facilitation, and decision-making that likely supported consistent, predictable partner-facing work (e.g., coordinated support and follow-through).

Within this team structure, Madison and Sooah played key intermediary roles in researcher-teacher relationships. They co-designed and facilitated the curriculum and PD and worked closely with teacher-partners. Madison primarily supported Rick, and Sooah supported Alan and Sarah through classroom visits, implementation assistance, and ongoing communication, creating repeated opportunities to confirm or recalibrate trust within each researcher-teacher duo. Madison’s K–12 teaching background may also have supported early perceived trustworthiness, as shared professional identity often shapes positive perceptions in RPPs (Tanis & Postmes, 2005), particularly for Rick, who did not have prior ties to the team. Differences in the form, frequency, and context of these interactions likely contributed to variation in how trust developed.

Because the three researcher-partners held dual roles as RPP facilitators and study participants, the first author—a learning sciences postdoctoral researcher who joined the team after the co-design workshop—led the research design, interviews, analysis, and manuscript preparation. With no prior relationship with the teacher-partners, her outsider position supported candid reflection during semi-structured interviews. She also emphasized that the interviews were not intended to evaluate teachers or researchers, but to identify trust-building norms, routines, and strategies that could strengthen RPPs; responses would be shared with the research team without identifying teachers by name.

Kaitlin, Madison, and Sooah are co-authors who contributed contextual clarification, reflexive analytic debriefs, and supported theoretical framing, interpretation, and revision. Although they generated observational and debrief data in their RPP roles, they did not conduct interviews or participate in initial coding or primary analysis. Accordingly, the author team comprises the first author and the three researcher-partners; throughout the manuscript, “we” refers to this author team.

Data Sources and Collection

We drew on four data sources to address our research questions: (a) audio recordings from the co-design workshop (partial), (b) semi-structured interviews with three teacher-partners and three researcher-partners, (c) researchers’ classroom-implementation observation notes, and (d) audio-recorded post-lesson debriefs.

For RQ1, we analyzed the audio recordings of the first day and part of the second day of the co-design workshop and the interview segments focusing on the workshop to document trust-relevant behaviors and participants’ interpretations of those interactions. Teachers requested the remaining co-design sessions not be recorded to maintain a relaxed atmosphere; therefore, interviews served as the primary data source for later workshop dynamics, with recordings used to contextualize and triangulate participants’ reflections. For RQ2, we analyzed the interview segments focusing on partnership experiences across the broader RPP, along with implementation-era observation notes and debriefs, to identify routines, norms, and strategies that participants enacted and experienced as trust-facilitating.

Interviews (n=6; ~45 minutes each) were conducted via Zoom four months after the workshop, using a single protocol that included prompts about both the co-design workshop and the broader partnership. Informing both RQs, the prompts were organized around four themes: (1) motivations and expectations for joining and continuing the partnership, (2) factors influencing participation in the co-design workshop, (3) reflections on the co-design planning, interactions and activities, and (4) relationships and interactions between partners across the broader partnership (see Supplemental Appendix A).

The interviews were critical for capturing participants’ expectations and situated interpretations of partnership dynamics that were not directly observable in recorded interactions (“relational interpretation and response” in Figure 1; Bryk & Schneider, 2002). These interpretations shape whether trust beliefs are confirmed or revised over time, facilitating how trust is enacted and experienced in an RPP (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006). Thus, we used interviews as a primary data source to examine how trust manifests in co-design interactions, and the routines, norms, and strategies partners associated with sustaining trust across the broader RPP.

For RQ2, we supplemented these interviews with observation notes and audio-recorded post-lesson debriefs collected during the three teachers’ curriculum implementations by each teacher’s assigned researcher-facilitator. Observation notes followed a structured protocol documenting student and teacher engagement, enactment of PD, implementation challenges, curriculum adaptations, and student learning. Debriefs (~5-15 minutes; audio-recorded) were brief semi-structured conversations after lessons that focused on teachers’ rationales for instructional decisions, plans for subsequent lessons, challenges encountered, and support needs. They were usually researcher-led but occasionally co-led by teachers during collaborative problem-solving. Informal social talk often accompanied these debriefs, contributing to variation in content and length across teacher-researcher pairs.

The number of observations and debriefs varied across teachers due to differences in implementation years, facilitator classroom-visit frequency during implementation, and geographic constraints. We collected 16 observation notes from Alan (three-year implementer), 15 from Rick (one-year implementer), and none from Sarah (one-year implementer) due to her remote teaching location. Debrief counts were 15 for Alan, 8 for Rick, and 2 for Sarah. All audio recordings (co-design sessions, interviews, debriefs) were transcribed using a professional AI service and thoroughly reviewed by the first author for accuracy.

Data Coding and Analysis

We employed qualitative content analysis (QCA) to systematically categorize our data and identify patterns, themes, and meanings relevant to our RQs (Schreier, 2012). Because QCA attends to both manifest content (what partners said or did) and latent content (the meanings and interpretations partners attached to those actions), it allowed us to examine both observable/described trust-relevant behaviors and partners’ context-specific interpretations through which trust was constructed and negotiated (“trust as action” and ‘”relational interpretation and response” in Figure 1) (Elo & Kyngäs, 2018).

Across both RQs, the unit of analysis was a meaning unit (a clause, sentence, short turn of talk, or discrete observation-note entry) in which a partner enacted, described, or evaluated a trust-relevant action, interaction, expectation, or relational experience (Schreier, 2012). In the co-design workshop and post-lesson debrief transcripts, meaning units consisted of a turn of talk or a short exchange of adjacent turns expressing a trust-relevant action or interpretation; in interviews, meaning units were clauses/sentences in which participants recounted, interpreted, or evaluated co-design and broader RPP interactions and relational dynamics; and in classroom observation notes, meaning units were discrete entries (e.g., a sentence or bullet) documenting an observed trust-relevant action or interaction and/or the observer’s evaluative interpretation (e.g., evidence of teacher competence, uptake of feedback). Meaning units could receive multiple codes when they included multiple trust-relevant actions or interpretations.

Our analysis was abductive: We began with an a priori coding frame for each RQ and iteratively refined it through cycles of deductive and inductive coding as the data extended, nuanced, or challenged initial categories or behaviors (Elo & Kyngäs, 2018; Schreier, 2012).

RQ1

We first applied a deductive coding frame from trust-in-collaboration literature that organized trust-related behaviors into three functional categories—collaborative, risk-taking, and monitoring—operationalized through observable/described actions and interpretive reflections (Table 3).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3

Coding Frame for Trust-Informed Behaviors in Co-Design (RQ1)

Behaviors	Illustrative Excerpt(s)
Collaborative behaviors. Behaviors enacted, described, or evaluated through which partners enact interdependence and shared ownership in joint work (i.e., reduced protective behavior such as withholding, and increased reliance on others’ contributions).
Willingness to share information: Partners share ideas/resources without strategic withholding, contributing to advancement of shared goals (Simons & Peterson, 2000; Zand, 1972)	Rick: It’s important to backward plan . . . introduce the final project early . . . my students struggled when we got to the end—“Where do I get this information?”Sarah: Yeah.Rick: So that they’re constantly working towards that. And then it’s a real-world application because it’s not like we’re gonna learn all about this, then we’re gonna build a car. We’re going to build each piece and put it on again.Sarah: Yeah, I . . . saw something like another project-based learning curriculum, where, like, in the beginning, when you first introduce it, you give them one worksheet that has everything they’re going to need. And then they just spend the time filling it out.
Commitment to shared goals: Partners align decisions and actions with the partnership’s objectives and persist in collective decision-making under uncertainty (Breuer et al., 2016)	Madison: If you’re introducing this project on day one, what is the hook? . . . We have to make it personal.Rick: survey . . . to get information that I can say, “Here’s your class of students . . . that . . . has a breathing condition . . . in their immediate and extended family . . . then brainstorm ways that we’re going to fix this.”Alan: You might have to follow up more on the air pollution . . . they might not know what PM is, but I agree. That’s a good bridge . . . what is . . . PM2.5?Rick: Right. And how do we get that reading? Here’s your sensor.
Proactive idea implementation: Partners take initiative to prototype, reorganize, or develop ideas/artifacts rather than waiting for direction, advancing the collaboration’s goals (Parker et al., 2006)	Madison: I had started writing stuff on sticky notes and sticking them to the wall. Alan got up and . . . started moving them around, adding sticky notes of his own as we were talking . . . He just got up, and it was like, “No, no, I think they should go in this order . . .” which is exactly what we wanted to have happen.
Reliance on others: Partners explicitly depend on others’ judgments in decision-making and validate others’ contributions as consequential (Clark & Payne, 1997)	Alan: I don’t think between the four of us, we knew exactly where we were going. We were all putting ideas forward and . . . Once we started on a path, one person would say, “Oh, that’s a good idea. Let’s add to it.” And so, it was very, very collaborative.
Unilateral investment of effort toward shared goals: Partners voluntarily take on additional work (e.g., finding resources, drafting materials) to move shared work forward (Williams & Karau, 1991)	Madison: There’d be a conversation happening about the order of something, and then Sarah would briefly drop out of the conversation. And then she would come back in and be like, I just found a video.
Accept influence from others: Partners revise decisions/approaches based on others’ input (e.g., incorporating ideas or ceding control over process/product; Costa & Anderson, 2011; Edmondson, 2003; Zand, 1972)	Madison: I had this whole idea of . . . video reflections online . . . use this tool and everything, and they [teachers] were just like this is too much . . . We don’t have time to do this . . . I’ve heard that. And I took a step back, and . . . we’re gonna do it this much simpler way.
Risk-taking behaviors. Behaviors enacted, described, or evaluated through which partners voluntarily accept interpersonal/professional vulnerability, uncertainty, or challenge in interaction
Providing and seeking feedback: Partners give and/or solicit constructive critique about ideas/artifacts and respond in ways that keep dialogue productive (Edmondson, 2003; Mayer et al., 1995)	Madison: I had written the original curriculum . . . I went into that without feeling like there was any resentment . . . I felt so lucky to have them and their expertise and their knowledge like each day . . . they were so thoughtful . . .
Disclosure of sensitive or personal information: Partners share personal experiences or vulnerabilities (Edmondson, 2003; Mayer et al., 1995)	Sarah: Initially, when we were asked to contribute our ideas . . . I was a little reserved because I thought, what is my experience compared to these people? [teacher-partners] . . . hearing from others who’ve taught longer . . . was a little intimidating. So, day one was maybe a little awkward. They started contributing ideas, but then, by the second day, we started to get along better. And maybe it just has to do with spending time together and hearing each other’s ideas.
Asking for help and support: Partners request assistance, guidance, or encouragement, revealing need/uncertainty (Edmondson, 2002; Mayer et al., 1995)	Madison: Obviously there were some good things in it [curriculum], but obviously there were a lot of things that weren’t working . . . tell me how to fix it.
Open communication: Partners engage in candid, constructive exchanges of ideas (including disagreement) with transparent reasoning (Costa & Anderson, 2011; Simons & Peterson, 2000)	Madison: Maybe doing a little bit of research and putting together a list of, like, things that you can do to volunteer . . .Alan: I also think a quantification aspect to scientific action might be helpful . . . What would be the effect of . . . PM on her CO2? . . . If you planted a tree? what about 20 Trees? . . . would that get them to think about . . . what do I really need to do to mitigate this? . . .Rick: trees take lifetimes to grow . . . you can . . . raise garden beds on the sidewalk and see how that changes the air quality. It’s really making a difference where you have these garden beds installed . . .
Monitoring behaviors. Behaviors enacted, described, or evaluated through which partners coordinate oversight and autonomy to keep work aligned with shared goals
Moderated control: Partners balance their oversight of others’ activities and interactions, allowing them to operate with more autonomy while ensuring that the overall project remains aligned with its shared goals (Costa & Anderson, 2011; Ferrin et al., 2007; Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995; Zand, 1972)	Madison: I was the person who kept us on tasks and was like, okay, we’re getting out topic like we need to come back. So, I . . . did have that role of facilitator.
Authority-granting: Partners with positional authority (e.g., researchers in our case) delegate decision-making power or responsibilities to others with minimal oversight, accepting uncertainty in others’ choices (McKnight & Chervany, 2001)	Madison: I was just like all right; I don’t have an agenda here other than that we need a curriculum when we leave . . . Let’s just build this together . . . they totally took ownership of the process.

Note. Unilateral investment was treated as trust-informed when described/experienced as voluntary commitment; it can also signal imbalance if framed as compensatory or resentful. Accepting influence from others may function as collaborative (integrating ideas) and/or risk-taking (ceding control/face) coded based on the local function in context. Monitoring behaviors can signal distrust when excessive; they were coded as trust-informed only when participants framed them as supportive coordination that preserved autonomy.

Using this frame, we segmented the workshop transcript and interview data into meaning units and deductively coded each unit to a primary category (collaborative, risk-taking, or monitoring) and behavior(s) as a first pass, flagging ambiguous units for refinement (Elo & Kyngäs, 2018). Two independent researchers double coded the data and resolved discrepancies through debriefing sessions (Patton, 2015).

Because the deductive frame did not fully capture relational and interpretive dynamics, we followed up with inductive coding, systematically re-examining meaning units to identify emergent processes, stances, and meanings beyond the initial frame (Schreier, 2012; Saldaña, 2016). This inductive process surfaced new process-oriented (e.g., disagreeing with others) and value- and emotion-related codes (e.g., frustration with the process). We iteratively moved between the deductive framework and emergent codes, using constant comparison to examine how behaviors functioned across contexts (Elo & Kyngäs, 2018; Graneheim et al., 2017; Schreier, 2012). This process revealed instances where the same behavior functioned differently depending on context. For example, accepting influence from others included both integrating input toward a shared goal (collaborative) and allowing a partner to lead (risk-taking). We then compared and clustered related codes into higher-order themes that draw on the collaborative, risk-taking, and monitoring behaviors in Table 3. We treated these behaviors as trust-informed when they enacted voluntary professional/interpersonal vulnerability and/or reliance on others’ expertise and good intent in interdependent work, and when partners’ interpretations and responses treated these actions as evidence that trust expectations were being affirmed or recalibrated. Next, we revisited relevant literature and held analytic debriefs with Madison (workshop facilitator) to check contextual accuracy and theoretical coherence. We also solicited feedback from teacher-partners on our interpretations of data (member checking) to ensure they are aligned with their understandings and perspectives (Graneheim et al., 2017; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

RQ2

Using meaning units (defined above), we applied Edwards-Groves et al.’s (2016, 2021) five dimensions of relational trust—interpersonal, intellectual, pragmatic, intersubjective, and interactional—as an initial deductive coding frame (Table 1). We deductively coded interview, debrief, and observation-note meaning units in which partners described, enacted, or evaluated trust-relevant actions and interpretations (“trust as action” and “relational interpretation and response” in Figure 1) for the trust dimension(s) they reflected (Schreier, 2012).

To move from dimensions to trust-supporting mechanisms, we conducted inductive open coding to identify specific behaviors, and the meanings participants attached to them (Bieber & Viehoff, 2023). Open-coding generated both process-related codes (e.g., responding quickly, communicating issues) and emotion- or value-related codes (e.g., value of responsiveness, nonjudgmental environment). We then used axial coding to compare and cluster codes into broader behavioral categories, attending to how similar codes could function differently depending on the relational quality at stake (Elo & Kyngäs, 2018; Graneheim et al., 2017; Saldaña, 2016). For example, responding quickly and timely communication constituted reciprocal reliability when reflecting partners’ dependability and responsiveness in communication, and mutual personal regard when reflecting care and attentiveness to one another’s well-being beyond professional responsibilities. Throughout, we iteratively checked emerging categories against relevant theoretical and empirical work to support conceptual coherence (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Given variation in observational coverage across participants and activity settings, we treated behaviors as recurring mechanisms when participants explicitly characterized them as typical/expected across partnership episodes and/or when they appeared in multiple segments and, where available, across data sources. We also memoed contextual conditions that participants described as stabilizing or destabilizing trust (e.g., researchers’ prior teaching experience), attending to how trust was also shaped by roles and histories (Denner et al., 2019; Farrell et al., 2019; Penuel & Gallagher, 2017).

We further coded behaviors for directionality—that is, whether they were expected of or enacted by teachers, researchers, or both (e.g., mutual personal regard as mutually expected; genuine care as unilaterally expected of researcher-partners). To enhance credibility and validity, the first author and an external researcher independently coded the data and reconciled discrepancies through analytic debriefing; we also debriefed with the research team to check interpretive accuracy and contextual fit (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 2015; Yin, 2018). After consensus, we produced a matrix mapping behaviors to trust dimensions and directionality, alongside associated routines/norms/strategies and contextual conditions, which is summarized in Table 4.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4

Relational Trust-Supporting Mechanism Categories by Trust Dimension

Mechanism category	Directionality	Common mechanisms	Illustrative excerpts
Interpersonal dimension
Demonstrating genuine care: Researchers’ receptiveness and responsiveness to teacher-partners’ personal and professional struggles, needs, and constraints, in ways that treat teachers’ well-being as integral to the partnership	Unilateral (R)	[Routine] Regular post-lesson debriefs during implementation[Norm] Safe disclosure and nonjudgmental uptake of teachers’ struggles and constraints[Strategy] Validation and accommodation, affective check-ins, and encouragement of trial-and-error during implementation	Rick: She [Madison] understood when I said, I’m just fried. I need to take a couple of days off from doing this because my kids . . . were overwhelmed with a lot of it . . . [She said] no problem.
Mutual personal regard: Partners’ reciprocal, voluntary accommodations, often logistical (time, availability, effort), that went beyond formal role expectations in ways that signal personal valuation beyond instrumental contribution	Mutual	[Norm] Acceptability of informal communication channels, mutual accommodation of shifting priorities[Strategy] Discretionary schedule flexibility, rapid informal coordination (e.g., exchanging phone numbers, texting)	Alan: She [Sooah] has a schedule . . . But at the same time, she always kind of drops everything . . . she was willing to come in when she couldn’t come . . . help out.
Rapport building: Partners’ efforts to build personal connection by sharing personal stories, learning about one another’s lives, and engaging in informal interaction	Mutual	[Norm] Appropriateness of personal talk alongside partnership work[Strategy] Personal check-ins, reciprocal self-disclosure, assigning a consistent researcher-facilitator[Routine] Regular researcher presence during implementation (classroom visits and post-lesson debriefs)	Kaitlin: Some informal time that we can just get to know each other . . . I can figure out what she might be interested in, and also, she understands that I’m going to look out for her.
Pragmatic dimension
Targeted activities and professional support: Researchers’ tailoring of RPP activities and implementation support to teachers’ needs, goals, and classroom constraints	Unilateral (R)	[Routine] Regular researcher presence during implementation (classroom visits and post-lesson debriefs)[Norm] Teacher feedback about feasibility is taken up as consequential (not merely heard/pacified)[Strategy] Active listening with follow-through, tailoring PD to teachers’ interests and desired takeaways, side-by-side problem-solving during implementation, and just-in-time support/troubleshooting.	Rick: Kaitlin’s really good . . . listens to us and doesn’t just pacify us if it can’t be done . . .
Investment in design, PD, and research efforts: Teachers’ active contributions to design, professional learning, and research work beyond curriculum implementation (e.g., substantive feedback, PD support, and research coordination)	Unilateral (T)	[Routine] Regular researcher presence during implementation (classroom visits and post-lesson debriefs)[Norm] Teacher feedback about feasibility is taken up as consequential (not merely heard/pacified)[Strategy] Providing in-depth feedback on curriculum/PD materials, supporting PD facilitation/coaching for newer implementers, and coordinating research tasks/logistics	Madison: We, as researchers, are looking for certain things, and how people are talking and responding. Alan, Rick, and Sarah gave good feedback. We had some teachers that we were getting frustrated with things. Alan, Rick, and Sarah were all thoughtful. They like to share their thoughts, and they give good feedback.
Intersubjective dimension
Community building and mutual identification: Partners’ intentional efforts to create a collective identity and sense of belonging by embracing shared values, goals, and experiences and cultivating inclusive spaces where partners feel connected and integral to the partnership’s work	Mutual	[Routine] Regular researcher presence during implementation (classroom visits and post-lesson debriefs)[Norm] Teachers are positioned as co-inquirers rather than research subjects, and the work is framed as a shared exploratory process with shared ownership (“we”)[Strategy] Positioning teachers and researchers as co-inquirers, using inclusive “we” language, and attending to inclusive RPP design features that support identification across contexts	Sooah: As a whole team, we put a lot of effort really not just to consider our teacher participants as like research participants or examples.
Intellectual dimension
Recognition and respect for expertise: Partners’ making one another’s expertise visible and consequential in joint work; distribution of instructional authority/discretion	Mutual	[Routine] Regular researcher presence during implementation (classroom visits and post-lesson debriefs)[Norm] Recognition shown (not assumed)[Strategy] Respectful time negotiation/reciprocity, granting teacher discretion, instructional authority sharing during implementation visits, role-positioning (e.g., “second teacher”)	Sooah: When I introduce myself to the students, I would also explain my positionality there and my relationship with the teacher. I would emphasize that . . . like we invited your teacher as an expert and a pedagogical expert who knows best on how to teach our high school students. And then we’re content experts, and we collaborated. We are collaborative together in A or B and C ways.
Demonstration of professional knowledge and competence: Partners’ observable demonstrations of pedagogical and practical expertise that make competence visible in the partnership’s work.	Mutual	[Routine] Regular researcher presence during implementation (classroom visits and post-lesson debriefs)[Strategy] Just-in-time classroom support	Sarah: Partially because she [Kaitlin] knew that I have a pretty good knowledge base for environmental science teaching and curriculum writing.
Interactional dimension
Regular communication and collaboration: Partners’ recurring coordination touchpoints that support reflection on implementation and alignment on next steps, creating predictable opportunities for shared sensemaking	Mutual	[Routine] Regular researcher presence during implementation (classroom visits and post-lesson debriefs)[Strategy] Reflection prompts (“how did that go?”) and shared reflection/discussion of adjustments	Alan: Follow-up conversations were really helpful. Each time Sooah came, she would like, “Can you talk about how that just went and like that,” and then I would tell her what I was thinking, and how that went, then we would talk about it . . .
Open and safe communication: Partners’ candid, constructive exchanges, raising concerns, offering suggestions, and giving/receiving feedback, with the expectation that input will be listened to and taken up rather than dismissed	Mutual	[Norm] Constructive responsiveness to feedback[Strategy] Active listening and follow-through, and uptake of feedback in subsequent practice	Rick: You listened to my suggestions and worked side by side to figure out how I could get my students to work with the sensors that weren’t working. You listen to us, and you’re open to suggestions.
Reciprocal reliability: Partners’ mutual dependability and timely follow-through on communication and coordination commitments across RPP activities	Mutual	[Norm] Timely responsiveness[Strategy] Prompt replies, issue-flagging as problems arise, follow-through on time-sensitive tasks, and quick email/text follow-up	Sooah: Teachers’ commitment was critical . . . whether they are timely and responsive to us . . . Because we’re working as a whole group, and there are a lot of time-pressing preparations . . .

Note. Directionality indicates whether the mechanism category was typically expected of/enacted by researcher-partners (R), teacher-partners (T), or both (Mutual) in this dataset; mechanism categories may be instantiated through routines, norms, and/or strategies.

Finally, we solicited teacher-partner feedback on our interpretations of the findings (member checking) to confirm resonance and refine our analytic claims (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Consistent with RQ2’s purpose, our analysis was design-oriented rather than evaluative: We synthesized participants’ accounts into trust-supporting routines, norms, and strategies that we or other co-design RPPs can adapt, generating actionable and transferable design considerations grounded in partners’ expectations and motivations (Bieber & Viehoff, 2023; Kunnel & Quandt, 2016; Li, 2007).

RQ1. Trust-Informed Behaviors in Co-Design Workshop

We identified three themes in how relational trust was enacted and interpreted in the co-design workshop: shared decision authority through moderated facilitation, commitment to shared goals through diverse participation, and transparent and constructive interaction. Because the co-design workshop was only partially recorded, interviews serve as the primary evidence for partners’ accounts of trust enactment and their retrospective interpretations (“trust as action” and “relational interpretation and response”; Figure 1). We use the available recordings as illustrative interactional vignettes; Supplemental Appendix B provides extended excerpts and analytic annotations.

RQ2. Relational Trust-Supporting Mechanisms across Five Trust Dimensions

Building on the co-design snapshot in RQ1, RQ2 traced earlier partnership episodes and post-co-design interviews to identify recurring trust-supporting mechanisms (routines, norms, strategies) that were described and, where possible, enacted, and experienced as typical across the broader RPP. These mechanisms were organized using the five relational trust dimensions as a presentation frame, while recognizing that a single routine, norm, or strategy can support multiple dimensions simultaneously. We also coded each mechanism’s typical directionality, whether it was typically enacted and/or expected of researcher-partners, teacher-partners, or both, to capture where trust work was reciprocal versus role-specific. Table 4 summarizes the resulting mechanism categories by dimension and directionality with illustrative excerpts.

Trust-Informed Behaviors in Co-Design

We identified three interconnected themes of trust-informed behavior across the co-design data: shared decision authority through moderated facilitation, commitment to shared goals through diverse participation, and transparent, constructive interaction.

First, shared decision authority through moderated facilitation illustrates how trust becomes visible under conditions of structural asymmetry. RPP scholarship has long noted that researchers’ institutional status can render practitioner input consultative rather than consequential (Coburn et al., 2008; Denner et al., 2019; Farrell et al., 2019). In this case, teachers experienced the workshop as equitable because facilitation enacted a calibrated balance: Teachers’ input shaped both product and process decisions, while the researcher-facilitator coordinated time and focus in ways participants interpreted as autonomy-preserving rather than controlling. This distinction matters because monitoring can easily be read as distrust when experienced as excessive oversight (McAllister, 1995). Here, monitoring functioned as supportive coordination, aligning with work showing that authority sharing and monitoring can reinforce cooperation when experienced as goal-aligned and competence-affirming (Ferrin et al., 2007; McAllister, 1995). In trust-cycle terms, authority-granting moves constituted vulnerability on the part of the facilitator, while teachers’ interpretation of those moves as “leveling” reinforced positive judgments of researchers’ trustworthiness (Costa & Anderson, 2011; Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006).

The themes of commitment to shared goals and transparent, constructive interaction further demonstrate how trust became observable in action. Across episodes, teacher and researcher partners advanced ideas, allowed them to be shaped by others, voiced critique with expectations of good-faith uptake, and sustained momentum toward shared deliverables. These patterns align with research linking trust to constructive disagreement and sustained task-focused engagement (Breuer et al., 2016; Costa & Anderson, 2011; Simons & Peterson, 2000). Importantly, the uptake of teacher critiques shows that teacher expertise was consequential in the moment, not merely acknowledged in principle, a critical distinction in co-design RPPs where power asymmetries can otherwise blunt practitioner influence (Coburn et al., 2008; Denner et al., 2019; Farrell et al., 2019).

However, these trust-informed interactional norms were not taken up uniformly across teachers. In the recorded segments, Alan and Rick were more verbally active, whereas Sarah was less visible in group talk early on. Sarah’s retrospective account framed this pattern in relation to peer-facing positioning, especially experience/seniority comparisons and limited prior ties within the teacher group. Consistent with multilevel views of trust in teams, these layered “being different” cues—i.e., seniority/prestige, cohort/geographic belonging, and potentially gendered participation norms given that she was the only woman teacher-partner—can shape within-group relational dynamics and interactional patterns (Costa et al., 2018; Jassawalla & Sashittal, 1999; Tsui et al., 1992). This foregrounds teacher-teacher trust dynamics as consequential in co-design partnerships, extending RPP accounts that more often emphasize teacher-researcher role and power asymmetries (Coburn et al., 2008; Kyza & Agesilaou, 2022).

Moreover, Sarah described becoming more comfortable through spending time together and engaging others’ ideas, suggesting that relational trust expectations can recalibrate as interactional history accumulates (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Lewicki et al., 2006). Her substantive contributions through less public modes (e.g., taking on a larger share of lesson drafting than other teachers) further reinforce that co-design participation is realized across multiple moments and forms of contribution (Bratteteig & Wagner, 2016). Read together, Sarah’s participation patterns complicate any simple mapping of talk time onto trust enactment. Consistent with our relational trust-cycle framing, this underscores that trust is evidenced not only in participation patterns but in how partners interpret those patterns and respond in ways that confirm or recalibrate trust expectations over time (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006; Mayer et al., 1995). Yet, further research is needed to examine how intersecting positionalities (e.g., gender, professional seniority) within role groups shape these participation trajectories and relational interpretations and uptakes that reinforce or weaken trust in RPP interactions.

Trust-Supporting Mechanisms in RPP

RQ2 extends the co-design snapshot by identifying infrastructures that stabilized relational trust across activity settings. Building on RPP scholarship on joint-work infrastructures and predictable, revisitable routines (Henrick et al., 2017; Ryoo et al., 2015), we add empirical specificity by showing how routines, norms, and strategies stabilize trust cycles by linking trust-enacting actions to relational interpretation and response, rendering trust less diffuse and more designable as a set of interactional affordances. Taken together, the mechanism categories summarized in Table 4 point to three broader takeaways: Trust was stabilized through recurring work-cycle routines, through patterned combinations of nonjudgmental responsiveness and visible follow-through, and through practices that made expertise and shared ownership consequential in joint work.

A central finding is that the most trust-supportive mechanisms were not isolated relational moves but recurring work-cycle routines that created low-risk opportunities for vulnerability, sensemaking, and follow-through. The classroom-visit and post-lesson debrief routine illustrates this dynamic. While prior RPP work emphasizes the value of regular check-ins (Henrick et al., 2017), our findings specify what makes such routines trust-supportive: They repeatedly transformed implementation uncertainty into shared problem solving while making responsiveness, competence, and care observable. In trust-cycle terms, these micro-interactions invited trust as action (e.g., surfacing struggles, offering critique) and generated relational interpretation and response through nonjudgmental uptake, timely support, and visible follow-through (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Lewicki et al., 2006). This interactional history helps explain why monitoring and coordination during the co-design workshop were experienced as autonomy-preserving rather than controlling, as oversight-like actions were consistently paired with assistance and a nonjudgmental stance, shaping how they were interpreted (Costa & Anderson, 2011; Ferrin et al., 2007).

Limited researcher presence in Sarah’s classes highlights an important boundary condition: when routines and touchpoints are constrained, opportunities for rapport and “withness” may be delayed or reduced, shaping intersubjective trust and contributing to felt disconnection, an equity-relevant concern often noted abstractly in RPP scholarship but less frequently tied to specific infrastructures (Denner et al., 2019; Vetter et al., 2022). More broadly, this illustrates that trust-supportive mechanisms do not map neatly onto single trust domains because partners interpret actions holistically within unfolding activity settings (Edwards-Groves et al., 2016, 2021).

A second cluster of mechanisms centered on how nonjudgmental responsiveness, consequential follow-through, and relationship building operated together as patterned trust work. Vulnerability in RPPs requires teachers to surface constraints and researchers to accept influence or revise plans, actions that carry professional risk under role and status asymmetries (Coburn et al., 2008; Denner et al., 2019; Farrell et al., 2019). Across interactions, nonjudgmental uptake paired with visible follow-through, and supported by rapport, flexibility, and availability, lowered the perceived cost of candor and shaped how feedback, oversight, and disagreement were interpreted as constructive engagement rather than evaluation or dismissal (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Edmondson, 2003; McAllister, 1995). Treating teachers’ judgments as decision-relevant expertise, rather than acknowledged but disregarded, was critical for sustaining trust, consistent with prior RPP findings (Denner et al., 2019; Farrell et al., 2019).

Relatedly, partners made expertise visible and consequential through recognition, respect, and authority-sharing moves rather than affirmation alone. While competence-based trust is a core basis for reliance under uncertainty (Mayer et al., 1995; Rousseau et al., 1998), in RPPs it is inseparable from role and authority: Researchers and teachers hold different forms of expertise, and trust depends on how these are recognized in practice (Coburn et al., 2008; Farrell et al., 2019). Granting discretion, negotiating time, and legitimizing in-the-moment classroom contributions shaped whether instructional involvement and adaptation were interpreted as collaboration or intrusion, thereby keeping joint-work workable rather than rigidly controlled (Ferrin et al., 2007; Edwards-Groves & Grootenboer, 2021).

The final mechanism theme concerns how shared ownership was enacted through both discourse and labor, including community-building practices (e.g., co-inquirer positioning, inclusive “we” language) and teachers’ substantive investment in design, professional learning, and research work. Together, these practices fostered a sense of collective purpose and made reciprocal commitment visible in ways that sustained partnership work in context (Edwards-Groves et al., 2016, 2021; Henrick et al., 2017; Lezotte et al., 2022). At the same time, Sarah’s account highlights a boundary condition: As the only out-of-district teacher, she experienced disconnection when curriculum work centered city-specific cases misaligned with her context, underscoring that belonging depends not only on inclusive discourse but on whether partnership artifacts substantively recognize contextual variation. This aligns with equity-oriented RPP scholarship emphasizing that trust and inclusion are shaped by power, culture, and whose experiences are centered in partnership activity (Denner et al., 2019; Vakil et al., 2016; Vetter et al., 2022).

Across themes, trust was reciprocal but occasionally role differentiated. While many mechanisms were mutual, others were non-mutual in analytically distinct ways: Some reflected complementary, role-specific contributions essential to joint work, whereas others involved asymmetrically distributed relational labor. Making this directionality visible clarifies how mutuality may be enacted through complementary roles rather than identical behaviors, extending scholarship that treats mutuality as a core partnership principle (Henrick et al., 2017; Lezotte et al., 2022). When trust-supporting labor becomes concentrated in one role, partnerships may benefit from explicit negotiation of expectations and reciprocity to support sustainability over time (Denner et al., 2019).