Abstract
In many Western countries, an emerging collaboration between academic researchers and practitioners can be noticed. While different practitioners (e.g. government and policy actors, national security practitioners, social welfare practitioners) are increasingly drawing on external knowledge and expertise to improve their evidence-based policies and practices, academic researchers are involving such actors more closely in their research to benefit the research process. However, despite the various advantages of such cooperation, some ethical and practical issues may arise inherent to their different practices and objectives that could hamper interaction and cooperation between both parties. Starting from personal research experiences, the aim of this contribution is to provide both academic researchers and practitioners with insight into the potential challenges they may encounter during academic-practitioner cooperation and how to overcome them. By providing an overview of good practices and effective strategies, we hope to improve and increase future engagement and interaction between both worlds. This contribution draws upon the research experiences of both authors conducting (criminological) research commissioned by and/or in collaboration with practitioners in Belgium. In the first research project, commissioned by the Flemish government, the disengagement policy in the Flemish prisons was evaluated based on qualitative in-depth interviews, observations and a framing-analysis. The second project, focussing on police officers’ ethical decision-making processes, entails a mixed-method design (exploratory phase, online survey, semi-structured interviews, systematic social observations, field check by means of focus groups). The challenges of academic-practitioner cooperation relate, amongst others, to the context in which the research is conducted, the researcher’s academic independence, the dissemination of the research results and anonymity and confidentiality concerns. The advantages relate, for instance, to the facilitation of (certain parts of) the research process, the knowledge exchange between both worlds, the dissemination of the research results and the networking opportunities. We explicitly aim to give some practical recommendations and good practices concerning how to organize cooperation between practitioners and academic researchers. Cooperation between practitioners and academic researchers is essential for both parties. For this purpose, it is crucial to communicate transparently about the aims of the project and the expectations from both partners and to work out some agreements that may be relevant in the course of the project. A ‘research agreement’ could be used to capture all these aspects.
Notes
We follow the definiton of (Macduff & Netting, 2000, p.48): “For the purposes of this article, collaboration is viewed as a process in which two or more persons work together and play together to achieve some result or create some product in which they are jointly invested and about which they care enough to pool strengths”.
The research is funded by BOF (Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds) of Ghent University and is not commissioned by the police.
The BLM protests focused on police violence against people with a different skin color. In Belgium, these protests were mainly based on reporting of American incidents. The protests against police violence were based on Belgian incidents, regardless of personal characteristics of the citizen enduring the violence. Such occurrences can shape a researcher’s perceptions, which will partly impact how he/she studies the topic.
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC.
We follow (Henry & Mackenzie, 2012) argument that ‘knowledge exchange’ is a suitable term as it clarifies that knowledge flows in two directions (i.e. a mutual, collaborative, and not unidirectional process).
Lee and Hannah-Spurlock (2015) recommend to link academics’ views to those of practitioners based on dialogue.
According to Amabile et al. (2001), succesfull collaboration between academics and practitioners depends on collaborative team characteristics, collaboration environment characteristics and collaboration processes (e.g. formal, well-planned communication, conflict resolutions processes, institutional support).
Submitting a paper to practitioners for feedback also allows them to check if anonymity and confidentiality are respected. If necessary, they can make recommendations to ensure it.
References
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2014). Quick-start guide to dissemination for practice-based research Networks. https://pbrn.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/AHRQ%20PBRN%20Dissemination%20QuickStart%20Guide_0.pdf
Aksoy, L., Guilloux, L., Duneigre, H., & Keita, S. (2019). Viewpoint: service research priorities – bridging the academic and practitioner perspectives. Journal of Services Marketing, 33(5), 626–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-03-2019-0147
Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P. W., Marsh, M., & Kramer, S. J. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418–431. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069464
Barnes, P. (2018). Academic independence, freedom and ‘enlightenment’: the case of accounting research. Accounting History, 24(4), 591–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1032373218785192
Battaglio, R. P., & Scicchitano, M. J. (2013). Building bridges? an assessment of academic and practitioner perceptions with observations for the public administration classroom. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(4), 749–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2013.12001762
Benoit, C., Jansson, M., Millar, A., & Phillips, R. (2005). Community-academic research on hard-to-reach populations: benefits and challenges. Qualitative Health Research, 15(2), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803/2013/12001762
De Pelecijn, L., Decoene, S., Hardyns, W., Janssens, J., Beyens, K., & Aertsen, I. (2018). Disengagement geradicaliseerde gedetineerden: beschrijving en evaluatie praktijk. Steunpunt Welzijn, Volksgezondheid en Gezin.
Donovan, C. (2005). The benefits of academic/practitioner collaboration. Accounting Education: an International Journal, 14(4), 445–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/06939280500347720
Edwards, M. (2005). Social science research and public policy: narrowing the divide. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(1), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2005.00417.x
Feys, Y. (2020). Studying police officers’ ethical decision-making process: Insights and directions. In G. Meško, J. Shapland, A. Groenemeyer, & C. Gayet-Viaud (Eds.), Challenges of comparative criminological research (Vol. 6, pp. 10–54). Maklu.
Head, B. W. (2010). Reconsidering evidence-based policy: key issues and challenges. Policy and Society, 29(2), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.001
Hemsley-Brown, W. J. (2004). Facilitating research utilisation: a cross-sector review of research evidence. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(6), 534–552. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550410554805
Henry, A., & Mackenzie, S. (2012). Brokering communities of practice: a model of knowledge exchange and academic-practitioner collaboration developed in the context of community policing. Police Practice and Research: an International Journal, 13(4), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2012.671598
Lee, R. E., & Hannah-Spurlock, S. (2015). Bridging academic and practitioner interests on interlocal collaboration: seasoned managers share their experiences in Florida. State & Local Government Review, 47(2), 127–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X15587983
Macduff, N., & Netting, F. E. (2000). Lessons learned from a practitioner-academician collaboration. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764000291004
Matthews, M. (2013). Building effective collaboration between government and academia: Putting the role of evidence-based policymaking into a more realistic context [Keynote speech]. Improving collaboration between the Australian Public Service and researchers, Crawford. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZm__HwKXvAhUD2KQKHQlOBNsQFjABegQIAxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcrawford.anu.edu.au%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fnews%2Ffiles%2F2013-06%2F06212013_matthews_speech_final.pdf&usg=AOvVaw149oYHu0kA8uA_UGdhaaXv
McIntyre, A. (2007). Participatory action research. Sage
Newman, J. (2011). Boundary troubles: working the academic-policy interface. Policy & Politics, 39(4), 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557310X550150
Newman, J., Cherney, A., & Head, B. W. (2016). Do policy makers use academic research? reexamining the “two communities” theory of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12464
Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: how research can inform public services. Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qgwt1
Quayle, A., & Kelly, B. (2019). Building informal knowledge-sharing relationships between policy makers and academics: insights from a PM&C engagement project. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 78(2), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12341
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC.
Roper, L. (2002). Achieving successful academic-practitioner research collaboration. Development in Practice, 12(3–4), 338–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/0961450220149717
Schmid, A. P. (2014). Terrorism research and government. International Centre for Counter-Terrorism. https://icct.nl/publication/terrorism-research-and-government/
Steenhout, I. (2013). Facing resistance to research results. In K. Beyens, J. Christiaens, B. Claes, S. De Ridder, H. Tournel, & H. Tubex (Eds.), The pains of doing criminological research (pp. 181–193). VUBPRESS.
Steenhout, I., & Beyens, K. (2012). Onterecht Geschuwd: Verborgen Participerende Observatie. Kwalon, 49(1), 36–42.
Talbot, C., & Talbot, C. (2015). Bridging the academic-policy-making gap: practice and policy issues. Public Money & Management, 35(3), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2015.1027491
van San, M., & Leerkes, A. (2001). Criminaliteit en criminalisering. Allochtone jongeren in België. Amsterdam University Press.
Funding
Research Foundation Flanders (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek) (file number: 11F9919N) and Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds Ghent University (BOF).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
De Pelecijn, L., Feys, Y. Stepping out of the Comfort Zone? Challenges, Advantages and Good Practices When Conducting Academic-Practitioner Research. J of Pol Practice & Research 2, 178–193 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42972-021-00029-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42972-021-00029-y