Impact

Are Practitioner-Researcher Conversations Enjoyable?

August 19, 2019 1520

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.

Main Finding: In addition to gathering feedback on the substance of the conversations, it was also important to learn about how practitioners and researchers evaluated the experience itself. After all, they are diverse in terms of their professional experiences (as well as possibly many other attributes) and although “diversity increases creativity and innovation…interacting with people from different backgrounds…can [also] be a source of…conflict.” With that possibility in mind, I wanted to know if the experience itself was enjoyable.

As shown in the table below, the large majority of researchers and practitioners reported that the experience was enjoyable. There was only one researcher who reported that it was a negative experience, largely due to the practitioner not being very conversational.

Note that having an enjoyable conversation is not the same thing as a useful one. For example, in another paper I described how one practitioner reported that the conversation missed the mark in terms of his substantive goals. Nevertheless, he reported that the researcher was enjoyable to speak with. This particular experience underscores how the instrumental value of a conversation (e.g. learning something useful) can be distinct from its relational value (e.g. whether the conversation itself is a pleasant experience). Both are important.

Evaluations of their Interactions

Proportion of researchers who reported that their experience speaking with a practitioner was enjoyable (N=37) 97%
Proportion of practitioners who reported that their experience speaking with a researcher was enjoyable (N=37) 100%

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?

Do Practitioners Prefer Self or Hands-on Matchmaking?

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

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
Impact
September 18, 2024

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

Read Now
Webinar: Fundamentals of Research Impact
Event
September 4, 2024

Webinar: Fundamentals of Research Impact

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
A Milestone Dataset on the Road to Self-Driving Cars Proves Highly Popular

A Milestone Dataset on the Road to Self-Driving Cars Proves Highly Popular

The idea of an autonomous vehicle – i.e., a self-driving car – isn’t particularly new. Leonardo da Vinci had some ideas he […]

Read Now
Why Social Science? Because It Can Help Contribute to AI That Benefits Society

Why Social Science? Because It Can Help Contribute to AI That Benefits Society

Social sciences can also inform the design and creation of ethical frameworks and guidelines for AI development and for deployment into systems. Social scientists can contribute expertise: on data quality, equity, and reliability; on how bias manifests in AI algorithms and decision-making processes; on how AI technologies impact marginalized communities and exacerbate existing inequities; and on topics such as fairness, transparency, privacy, and accountability.

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