Research Impact Through Matchmaking (RITM): Why and How to Connect Researchers and Practitioners

Abstract

Researchers and practitioners increasingly want to learn from one another and work together to solve problems. This article presents results from a new evidence-based approach for connecting them, called Research Impact Through Matchmaking (RITM). This method leverages research on organizational diversity to initiate new relationships between diverse people. The article describes the method and presents data from 37 new connections between practitioners working at nonprofits and social scientists. To my knowledge, this is the first dataset describing reasons why a large variety of nonprofit practitioners value social science research. I also document the impact of these matches. Overall, this article provides actionable guidance for those who want to initiate their own new connections (i.e., match themselves) and/or to broker new connections between others.

The Praxis of Partnership in Civically Engaged Research

“…CBPR studies highlight a commitment to co-learn with a critical consciousness (Freire 1970). RPPs tend to differ, given that learning is based mainly on independent first-person selfreflections (Coburn and Penuel 2016) rather than an explicit commitment to share lived experiences and lessons-although there are exceptions (Levine 2020). We find that CER draws from literature that supports structuring discussions in which group members recursively revisit how system structures shape their lives and focus on how learning from one another provides benefits that impact everyone (Thompson Sanders 2019).…”

“…This emphasis is key given that partnerships often do not take place because they require openness and unlearning old practical habits and norms that govern "how things have always been done" (Chicago Beyond 2019). Some scholars point to an inception problem-that is, potential collaborators never begin a conversation about partnership in the first place (Levine 2020). Others find that prospective collaborators intentionally avoid "difficult conversations" on how to build reciprocal partnerships, opting for paths of least resistance (Lipovsek and Zomer 2019).…”

“…They view co-learning as an intentional act to cross boundaries as a way to understand differences and shape mutually shared outcomes and to resist a unidirectional translation from research to practice. To circumvent the problem of inception in RPPs, Levine (2020) argued that academics and practitioners must decenter their own specific priorities by focusing on problems and identifying how their own expertise can accomplish shared tasks. For partnerships that formalize, collaboration is time-intensive (Coburn, Penuel, and Geil 2013).…”

Can citizen pressure influence politicians’ communication about climate change? Results from a field experiment

“…Finally, there are multiple ways to incorporate advocacy group expertise into research. One approach is to engage in academic-practitioner collaborations that treat the practitioners as a full partner in experimental research from conceptualization to execution (Levine 2020(Levine , 2021. Our study represents an instance of this kind of collaboration.…”

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

“…Previous work suggests several factors that matter. Practitioners need to perceive that researchers offer practically useful information (Druckman 2015), including an overview of a large research literature, evidence that will help them make an immediate decision, ideas about how they can better measure their impact, and/or ideas for a new formal collaboration (Levine 2020a). They also need to perceive researchers as trustworthy-that is, as having aligned rather than competing interests (Lupia 2014).…”