Why Do Practitioners Want to Connect with Researchers? Evidence from a Field Experiment

Abstract

Researchers often want to increase the broader societal impact of their work. One way to do that is to discuss research findings directly with practitioners. Yet, such interactions are voluntary and do not regularly arise, which raises a key demand question: Under what conditions do practitioners want to connect with researchers? This article shows that relational considerations affect these decisions—that is, what practitioners expect the interaction will be like. I partnered with a US-based civic association to conduct a field experiment. I find that group leaders in this association are more likely to speak with researchers after learning that the researchers will (1) efficiently share information during the interaction, and (2) value practitioners’ knowledge. The results provide actionable guidance for how researchers should approach practitioners and also demonstrate one powerful way that social science evidence can inform efforts to bridge research and practice.

Partisan differences in the effects of economic evidence and local data on legislator engagement with dissemination materials about behavioral health: a dissemination trial

“…Across all study conditions, the e-mails concluded with an invitation for consultation from the project principal investigator (PI) about evidence-supported policy approaches to addressing ACEs. This invitation was intended to provide relational context, which has been shown experimentally to increase policymaker engagement with research evidence [ 49 , 50 ]. Furthermore, building relationships between researchers and policymakers is frequently identified as one of the most effective ways to facilitate more evidence use by policymakers [ 9 , 44 , 71 , 72 ].…”

“…The perceived importance of economic evidence and local data is consistent with a larger body of research about attributes of dissemination materials that are important to policymakers [ 7 , 43 – 45 ]. Experiments with state and local legislators in the USA have also tested the effects of manipulating aspects of dissemination materials (e.g., framing of issues in e-mail subject lines [ 46 – 48 ], relational context [ 49 , 50 ], inclusion of maps and narratives [ 51 , 52 ]).…”

Whose problem is it anyway? Confronting myths of ‘problems’ in health professions education

“…This has often produced a rift between researchers and practitioners with a deficit of mutual trust and understanding. 19,25 The pivot to online learning at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic is a case in point; previous research on pandemics did not encompass the scale or severity of COVID, and research on online learning was similarly oriented to small-scale interventions rather than to moving whole programmes in a matter of days. It might be argued that this was achieved despite the research evidence rather than through meaningful knowledge translation.…”

Learning from Local Government Research Partnerships in a Fragmented Political Setting

“…In an ambitious recent effort along these lines, Goerger, Mummolo, and Westwood (2020) sent inquiries to approximately 3,000 local police and sheriff's departments to discuss potential collaborations, following up with all departments that responded affirmatively with offers to develop partnerships at the scholars' expense. Levine (2020b) implemented a similar recruitment model for partnerships with civic organizations. Even with smaller budgets, scholars can be more deliberate in finding jurisdictions dissimilar from those commonly represented in research studies.…”