Impact

Do Practitioners Prefer Self or Hands-on Matchmaking?

July 29, 2019 1524

Background: Although many researchers and practitioners would like to connect with and learn from each other, they face severe time constraints and are part of very different social networks. These considerations motivated research4impact’s creation of its fully-interactive, LinkedIn-style online platform r4impact.org. Launched in March 2017, the platform allows members of these groups to create profiles as well as reach out to others directly through the site. In early 2018 research4impact also began offering hands-on matchmaking in which we offered to connect practitioners and researchers.

This is the fourth in a series of short posts by Adam S. Levine spotlighting what the organization Research4Impact has learned about connecting social science researches with practitioners. Each post will be downloadable as a one-sheet PDF.

Main Finding: Here I compare how many practitioners engaged in self-matchmaking by contacting researchers directly through the site versus the number who requested hands-on matchmaking. As of this writing, self-matchmaking was available for 21 months (March 1, 2017 through December 1, 2018) whereas we actively advertised the hands-on matchmaking for 3 months.

As shown below, practitioners very clearly prefer hands-on matchmaking. Upon speaking with several who created profiles on the site but did not reach out to any researchers themselves, a common concern was that although they are very interested in connecting with those who are competent, available, and trustworthy, it is hard to ascertain that kind of detailed information strictly from the profiles. The problem is not that the profiles (and the platform) are ill-designed, but instead something more fundamental: some of what practitioners want to know is not the kind of candid information that researchers are likely to share in an online setting and/or be willing to update regularly. For instance, researchers are unlikely to list all of the research-related tasks and topics they are both competent in and also not competent in.

These experiences underscore how building successful working relationships between practitioners and researchers often requires a human touch in addition to new technology.

Practitioner Demand for Self-initiated and Hands-on Matchmaking

Number of practitioners reaching out directly to researchers (via r4impact.org) over a 21 month period 2
Number per month 0.1
Number of practitioners requesting hands-on matchmaking over a 3 month period 37
Number per month 12.3

For a PDF version of this post, please click HERE.

Check out www.r4impact.org/how-it-works for more on what we’re learning about researcher-practitioner relationships!


Previous post in series:

When Do Practitioners Want to Connect with Researchers?

Do Practitioners Prefer to Connect with Researchers who are Local?

When They Connect with Researchers, are Practitioners Time-Sensitive?

Do Researchers Want to Engage with Practitioners?

Do Researchers Share New Information or Just Tell Practitioners what they Already Know?

Adam Seth Levine is a professor of government at Cornell University. He is the "chief matchmaker" at research4impact, an organization he co-founded with Jake Bowers and Donald P. Green.

View all posts by Adam S. Levine

Related Articles

Long-Term Impact Requires Archiving Research Communication
Impact
March 14, 2025

Long-Term Impact Requires Archiving Research Communication

Read Now
Michael Burawoy, 1947-2025: Patron Saint of Public Sociology
Career
February 6, 2025

Michael Burawoy, 1947-2025: Patron Saint of Public Sociology

Read Now
How Research Credibility Suffers in a Quantified Society
Higher Education Reform
January 8, 2025

How Research Credibility Suffers in a Quantified Society

Read Now
Young Scholars Can’t Take the Field in Game of  Academic Metrics
Infrastructure
December 18, 2024

Young Scholars Can’t Take the Field in Game of Academic Metrics

Read Now
Canada’s Storytellers Challenge Seeks Compelling Narratives About Student Research

Canada’s Storytellers Challenge Seeks Compelling Narratives About Student Research

“We are, as a species, addicted to story,” says English professor Jonathan Gottschall in his book, The Storytelling Animal. “Even when the […]

Read Now
Tom Burns, 1959-2024: A Pioneer in Learning Development 

Tom Burns, 1959-2024: A Pioneer in Learning Development 

Tom Burns, whose combination of play — and plays – with teaching in higher education added a light, collaborative and engaging model […]

Read Now
Research Assessment, Scientometrics, and Qualitative v. Quantitative Measures

Research Assessment, Scientometrics, and Qualitative v. Quantitative Measures

The creation of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) has led to a heated debate on the balance between peer review and evaluative metrics in research assessment regimes. Luciana Balboa, Elizabeth Gadd, Eva Mendez, Janne Pölönen, Karen Stroobants, Erzsebet Toth Cithra and the CoARA Steering Board address these arguments and state CoARA’s commitment to finding ways in which peer review and bibliometrics can be used together responsibly.

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments