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 1542

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

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
Communication
November 21, 2024

Canada’s Storytellers Challenge Seeks Compelling Narratives About Student Research

Read Now
Tom Burns, 1959-2024: A Pioneer in Learning Development 
Impact
November 5, 2024

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

Read Now
Research Assessment, Scientometrics, and Qualitative v. Quantitative Measures
Impact
September 23, 2024

Research Assessment, Scientometrics, and Qualitative v. Quantitative Measures

Read Now
Paper to Advance Debate on Dual-Process Theories Genuinely Advanced Debate

Paper to Advance Debate on Dual-Process Theories Genuinely Advanced Debate

Sage 1270 Impact

Psychologists Jonathan St. B. T. Evans and Keith E. Stanovich have a history of publishing important research papers that resonate for years.

Read Now
Webinar: Fundamentals of Research Impact

Webinar: Fundamentals of Research Impact

Sage 1103 Event, Impact

Whether you’re in a research leadership position, working in research development, or a researcher embarking on their project, creating a culture of […]

Read Now
Paper Opening Science to the New Statistics Proves Its Import a Decade Later

Paper Opening Science to the New Statistics Proves Its Import a Decade Later

An article in the journal Psychological Science, “The New Statistics: Why and How” by La Trobe University’s Geoff Cumming, has proved remarkably popular in the years since and is the third-most cited paper published in a Sage journal in 2013.

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