Associative Research: easier said than done
In this thinkpiece, Brian Belton presents a challenge to research in youth and community work that embraces an associative research strategy in drawing together multiple stakeholders in ‘sincere partnerships’ that provide the grounds for demonstrative impact on policy and practice.
(Note to readers: this was written before the Covid-19 pandemic and has, perhaps, even greater resonance as the sector engages in research to identify the emergent needs of young people and communities)
The relatively small research community in youth work has over recent times made gallant strides to increase its research rigor, but relative to related fields this has not been sufficient in terms of starting to create a body of impactful research, that is stuff that has the means to make those guiding and developing policy sit up and listen and more importantly act.
In this blog I aim to present an attitude and approach that has facilitated the integration of practice, research and policy development. It is my contention that associative strategy heightens the likelihood of producing better policy and more informed decision making. In short it is a plea to see research not wholly as the province of academics or the province of specialist researchers but as a process of collaboration engendered by active and sincere partnerships between stakeholders.
In terms of evidence-based responses our sector clearly needs to do more with regard to establishing standards of evidence and critical analysis of the same. Questions connected to what it takes to implement initiatives and about the efficacy of the same in different contexts, delivery/operating conditions are hardly broached. The prioritizing of the need to generate a range robust means of evidence gathering to address these issues is clear. However, my argument is that researchers, without the input of practitioners and a clear understanding of the needs or requirements of policy makers, are working something less than myopically.
At present, the youth work field seems more concerned about ‘getting the research right’ (which of course includes clearly communicating direction and purpose) but this is just the start of any research journey. Policy makers and practitioners always need to be able to understand the meaning of research and its impact on specific issues and concerns. It is hard for them to achieve this understanding without their concerted involvement.
We are not just confronted with the need to transmit and disseminate research findings more effectively, we need to be able to translate conclusions and evidence in ways that make them not only understandable but convincing to audiences outside our own academic discourse; this discourse needs to be informed and overlap with the nature of practice and the policy that underpins and advances practice.
As a colleague put it sometime ago “We claim to be ‘expert’ communicators, but we seem incapable to teaching others to understand our language or of learning to understand theirs.”
The antidote to this is to ask ourselves who might be the most efficient and appropriate translators and in what way might we fashion effective situations for translation. Perhaps researchers need to be the translators, given that they are involved (in the best of worlds) in engineering findings. However, Donovan (2011) argues for researchers co-creating alongside practitioners and one might argue that practitioners might be better at this if they are actively involved in generating research in the light of policy and practice. However, what seems more useful is the creation of dynamic discussion about research involving all parties. Experience indicates that engendering ongoing and consistent lines of communication between researchers, practitioners and policy makers presents the possibility for research to ‘fit’ with (and respond effectively to) the needs of these stakeholders to build, develop and effect a better match between practice and policy.
So pooling the input of appropriate individuals and groups in (so to speak) the same space facilitates apposite discourse about research purpose, use, direction and content, its potential consequences/implication for or in specific conditions.
Agencies can be a bridge that connects decision/policy makers and researchers. This type of nexus can be crucial in identifying key issues and problems of framing practice in relation to policy and vice-versa. This situation enables a coalescence of proficiency (the agency) and research that has the means to shape and drive policy.
The makers of policy or decisions makers are inevitably going to question research about its relevance in terms of context (e.g. local, regional, national) and the limitations of the applicability of findings. For all this, it is probably advantageous if policy makers, practitioners and researchers work together to recognize the restrictions of findings and robustness of evidence. In this way ongoing research is strengthened while subsequent research is informed.
It is perhaps self-evident that a consistent relationship and line of communication (discussion) between researchers, practitioners and policy makers can engender more relevant research subsequent to more effective evidence/data gathering. These relationships between those who make policy, deliverers of the same and researchers create a means to establish a collaborative ‘feel’ of research practice. It is this that makes researchers potential stakeholders, drivers and sometimes mediators of policy.
At the very least, this associative approach to research makes the research more productive, less defensive, open to debate, and so maybe more democratic or representative. It almost certainly provides the means to identify and fabricate appropriate and efficient evidence bases. It also creates stepping stones between researchers, policy makers, practitioners and client groups, so extending the parameters of ethical research practice.
So, what is being proposed is a development of the research horizon, looking beyond a particular community of research. This is an attitude to research, policy and practice that involves those who might put the research to use and those they use it with.
Champions of evidence-based practice and policy rarely fail to seek cogent and direct deployment of research. It has been claimed that research usually realizes influence by way of a longwinded progression (Weiss 1977). It bleeds into policy and slowly modifies the way issues are thought about and/or approached. As such the impact of research becomes hard to identify. Human beings (just as a reminder, this includes researchers, decision makers and practitioners) assimilate novel ideas and perceptions more or less incrementally. If research is (more or less) implemented, it has other and usually unforeseen repercussions (Nutley et al., 2007).
Practice and policy and the relationship between both are complex; it is shaped and even distorted by diverse evidence, social, economic and political consideration. It is in fact relatively exceptional for research to have a major (or any discernible) defining impact on any individual decision. The political use of research (positive or negative) is hard to gauge in an unqualified way. Practitioners and those who have roles in shaping policy are obliged to validate their position and as we know, all involved will look to use research to advance their views or agenda (see Weiss, 2000). Deliberate biases in research are often premised by the declaration “according to research”. This can distort the purpose and capacity of research - we do not undertake research to prove a point – this turpitude can be found far too much of what passes for research in the youth work field. It provokes defensiveness, fear and/or mistrust of as well as cynicism about research. Associative research can do much to mitigate such phenomena, both in terms of developing robust methodology and shared interpretation, and use, as well as the tempering of any one area of bias.
Developing and honing partnerships between practitioners, policy makers and researchers, fostering thorough and consistent association between these partners, will logically be fruitful in terms of timely producing rigorous and practical data and findings that can be used beneficially.
Ultimately we need to grasp the potential uses and be aware the needs of the users of research and co-opt this understanding to direct and shape research. Subsequent to research all can have roles in translation an analysis. However fashioning such inclusionary partnerships demands us changing our attitudes, facing our assumptions and altering much loved practices, recognising the contribution other expertise might make to the research task.
The type of relationships suggested above are in character and practice, resource-intensive. Time and energy are needed; trust is hardly ever cheap as it usually demands shared commitment (Donovan, 2011). To advance the nature, practice and research in our field it must not only impact policy, but also have a part in provoking it. This requires a generous measure of critical analysis and reflection on how we might steer our efforts in collaboration with practice agencies and policy makers. This associative effort is therefore congruent with our hopes for research.
Donovan, M. S. (2011). The SERP approach to research, design, and development. Paper presented at the Design-based Implementation Research Workshop, San Francisco, CA.
Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol, United Kingdom: Policy Press.
Weiss, C. H. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3, 531-545
Weiss, C. H. (2000). The experimenting society in a public world. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Validity and social experimentation (pp. 283–302). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.