Impact

When They Connect with Researchers, are Practitioners Time-Sensitive? Impact
Male hand with classic stopwatch. (XXL-File)

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

July 22, 2019 1638

Background: In early 2018 I reached out to several practitioners’ listservs and invited them to share problems they were facing in their work in which they thought research might be helpful. In response I would match them with a social scientist one-on-one. I targeted listservs composed of non-partisan, non-profit organizations with a mission to remedy social ills. 37 practitioners responded over several months.

Based on these requests I identified four reasons why nonprofit practitioners want to engage with social scientists: 1) to receive an overview of a research literature, 2) to help make an immediate evidence based decision, 3) to gain ideas about how to measure impact, and 4) to collaborate on a new project (see here for more details: www.r4impact.org/how-it-works).

Main Finding: These requests also help answer another important question: When they connect with researchers, are practitioners time-sensitive? Traditionally one of the biggest obstacles to building relationships between researchers and practitioners is different time scales — nonprofits’ “focus is urgent, immediate, and often in response to events…moving quickly and loudly” whereas “academics work to a different rhythm”.

The requests for matchmaking in some ways echo this concern and in some ways do not. Overall, very few of the practitioners (16%) expressed any time sensitivity, yet it varied depending upon their goals. Of the 37 practitioners, 3 faced near-term decisions and wanted to use research to ensure these decisions were evidence-based. All of them expressed time-sensitivity. Beyond these three, the most frequent time-sensitive requests arose when practitioners were interested in collaborating with a researcher on a new project. These practitioners had funding in place and staff time already allocated, and faced a specific timeline for getting the collaboration off the ground. Overall, however, these data show how practitioners are often not time-sensitive when interacting with researchers.

Proportion of Practitioners Expressing Time-Sensitivity
(For everyone, and by goal; N=37)

All practitioners16%
Goal 1: To receive an overview of a large research literature 0%
Goal 2: To make an immediate evidence-based decision 100%
Goal 3: To gain ideas about how to measure impact 14%
Goal 4: To collaborate with a researcher on a new project 44%

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?

Do Practitioners Prefer Self or Hands-on Matchmaking?

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