Skip to main content
Log in

Stepping out of the Comfort Zone? Challenges, Advantages and Good Practices When Conducting Academic-Practitioner Research

  • Research Notes
  • Published:
Journal of Policy Practice and Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. 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”.

  2. The research is funded by BOF (Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds) of Ghent University and is not commissioned by the police.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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).

  6. Lee and Hannah-Spurlock (2015) recommend to link academics’ views to those of practitioners based on dialogue.

  7. 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).

  8. 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

Download references

Funding

Research Foundation Flanders (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek) (file number: 11F9919N) and Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds Ghent University (BOF).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lana De Pelecijn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42972-021-00029-y

Keywords

Navigation