A space to explore, share and shape the issues facing social and behavioral scientists
The president of research4impact offers a real-life example of how social science researchers teamed with a climate change nonprofit find a way to create more engaged members and a more stable membership.
The last in a series from Adam Seth Levine. “Diversity increases creativity and innovation…interacting with people from different backgrounds…can [also] be a source of…conflict.” With that possibility in mind, Adam Seth Levine wanted to know if the experience itself was enjoyable.
When practitioners first learn about the matches we do at r4i, one question that sometimes arises is whether it’s worth taking the time to speak with a researcher? Here Adam Seth Levine uses the 2018 data to help answer this question.
Do researchers want to be engaged? Many have suggested otherwise. By and large I found the opposite. The large majority of researchers accepted my invitation to connect with practitioners.
Adam Seth Levine compares how many practitioners engaged in self-matchmaking by contacting researchers directly through the site versus the number who requested hands-on matchmaking.
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”.
One long-standing concern with connecting research and practice is that the implications of research findings are often presented in a highly “decontextualized, distant way” that makes it difficult for practitioners to apply them to the specific context where they work.
In the first of a series of short posts by Adam S. Levine spotlighting what the organization Research4Impact has learned about connecting social science researches with practitioners, he identifies four reasons why nonprofit practitioners have wanted to engage with social scientists.
