Impact

Do Practitioners Prefer Self or Hands-on Matchmaking?

July 29, 2019 1696

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

Popular Paper Examines Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Analysis
Impact
July 10, 2025

Popular Paper Examines Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Analysis

Read Now
Examining How Open Research Affects Vulnerable Participants
Impact
July 8, 2025

Examining How Open Research Affects Vulnerable Participants

Read Now
Valentin-Yves Mudimbe, 1941-2025: The Philosopher on the ‘Invention’ of Africa
Impact
May 7, 2025

Valentin-Yves Mudimbe, 1941-2025: The Philosopher on the ‘Invention’ of Africa

Read Now
Christopher Jencks, 1936-2025: An Innovative Voice on Inequality
Impact
May 1, 2025

Christopher Jencks, 1936-2025: An Innovative Voice on Inequality

Read Now
Long-Term Impact Requires Archiving Research Communication

Long-Term Impact Requires Archiving Research Communication

In recent years there has been an increased focus on how research papers and supplemental data can be preserved openly. Andy Tattersall, Liz Such, Joe Langley and Fiona Marshall argue equal attention should also be paid to curating communication outputs aimed at engaging non-academic audiences.

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

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

Michael Burawoy, whose embrace of public sociology and the public at work lead him to describe his influential academic niche as “industrial […]

Read Now
How Research Credibility Suffers in a Quantified Society

How Research Credibility Suffers in a Quantified Society

To address research credibility issues, we must reform the role of metrics, rankings, and incentives in universities.

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