The Future of Practice Research Methodologies

and Collaboration with Stakeholders

 

Maija Jäppinen, University of Helsinki, Finland

Lynette Joubert, University of Melbourne, Australia

Sidsel Natland, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway

Martin Webber, University of York, UK

​

Practice research is an approach to research rather than a method (a concrete tool or technique to produce or analyse data) or even a methodology (an overarching framework for choosing certain methods). What signifies practice research as a particular approach to knowledge production is being curious about what is happening in the field of practice and doing research in dialogue with the field. It is about the democratisation of knowledge and egalitarian thinking. It is relational and process-oriented. The community of practice research shares values and a commitment to doing research that is relevant to practice and that can be taken back to practice, and to recognising and working with people with lived experience. Collaboration and co-creation between different actors is understood as the very DNA of practice research, as stated in the Aalborg statement (Andersen et al. 2026).

​

Within this framework, practice research makes use of a variety of research methods and methodologies within social and humanistic research, using both qualitative and quantitative designs. The practice research community is diverse and embraces methodological pluralism (Webber 2020). Importantly, the lived experience of practitioners and service users is the starting point for inquiry. Practice research recognises that the social contexts of inquiry are complex and diverse. Therefore, we must always consider what is the most rigorous way to approach the research question. The idea that research questions guide the methods that are most feasible for carrying out the research is not unique to practice research. However, what is distinctive about practice research is that the research questions should emerge from the field of practice (service users or practitioners) and be developed in close collaboration between researchers and stakeholders.

​

Practice research does not mean particularly practitioner-led or user-led research processes, but it does emphasize participation and collaboration on an equal footing. Participation can mean different things in different settings, and the concepts of involvement and degrees of participation can vary from lower degrees (consultation, information) to partnership and shared leadership (Cornwall 2008, Arnstein 1969). The collaboration can take place at different stages of the research process after a thorough discussion on expectations and exploration on what knowledge and competences the different participants find that they possess and can contribute with (Natland and Hansen 2017).

​

In recent years, the practice research community has recognised that collaboration with practitioners often dominates practice research. While in some countries there might be even a requirement of user involvement set by the funders, in many places there is a need to involve service users more often and in new ways in practice research processes. Furthermore, practitioners participating in research processes often struggle with lack of time and other resources for participation. These challenges need to be considered when developing such practice research methodologies, which enable full inclusion of lived experience in the research processes and collaboration on an equal footing.

​

To date, there are a variety of different types of methodologies that emphasise collaboration and lived experience, including e.g. participatory action research, co-research, co-creation, and survivor research. Practice research draws from these research traditions, learning from them, and also contributing to them. Importantly, practice research methodologies should always be developed in relation to the values of the social work profession.

​

We suggest following five foci for the development of practice research methodologies:

​

1. Developing practice research methodologies to take full advantage of different methods of social research, including quantitative and mixed methods
   Practice Research is an iterative process that begins with questions generated by practitioners and service users, or through interaction between academics and other stakeholders. Its findings feed directly back into practice. Developing a research methodology that draws on both quantitative and qualitative approaches ensures that this cycle of enquiry and application and reflection is maintained. The quantitative methods provide reliable evidence on outcomes and effectiveness, prevalence, and patterns of service use, providing practitioners and managers with a clear understanding of what is happening at scale. The qualitative methods complement these findings by capturing the lived experiences, values, and perspectives of service users, informing the “why” behind the numbers.
   
   For practice research, the integration of these two methodologies is powerful. When practitioners identify an issue —for example, how families experience end-of-life care—quantitative data can track service outcomes while qualitative interviews bring forward the voices of families and practitioners involved. The results of this are then fed back into practice, guiding service design, improving interventions, and encouraging reflective learning because practice has directly informed the research at all stages.
   
   The defining feature of this methodological approach in Practice Research is its collaborative and iterative nature. Practitioners and service users are active partners in shaping the questions, interpreting the findings and finally, applying the knowledge arising from the results of the enquiry. This ensures the research is grounded in practice, is fully relevant, and immediately useful. This type of research strengthens the evidence base underlying practice and strengthens continued service improvement.
    

2. Developing practice research methodologies to also address such critical aspects as normativity and what is considered valid knowledge
   Practice research is linked to the practice turn in science (Kaiser 2019), where theories, empirical data and practice engage in an abductive analytic process aiming to improve both science and practice.  This means that practice research often asks what ought to be done, how should the research be disseminated or used to improve services, as well as aiming at empowering and recognize vulnerable groups of end-users. Also, practice research is signified by the active  involvement of service users, practitioners and other stakeholders in this process which sets standards for the way practice research in social work is approached, carried out and applied. However, this view of scientific knowledge can be met with critique and challenges from policymakers and other stakeholders regarding the validity and trustworthiness of such research. Of importance then is that practice researchers share a view of how they approach knowledge and knowledge production and require the needed skills to conduct such research. The practice researcher must engage in a continuous reflexivity process in order to be aware of own and others normative boundaries that shape what we see as “normal” or acceptable. If not, research (and consequently, practice) may risk the marginalization of the voices and needs of groups outside the “norm”. Reflection and critical examination of normative aspects must therefore be at the core to succeed in our vision to foster equal and inclusive research.
   
   To this end, practice researchers need to reflect on the overarching, meta-theoretical questions like where and by whom is knowledge produced. Traditionally, the production of scientifically based knowledge has been linked to established institutions such as universities and research institutes, and the science is disseminated from there to be applied in practice – with the challenges that then exist in terms of knowledge transfer and the basis for good and effective connections between research units and fields of practice (see Austin & McBeath, 2022).  However, science is no longer considered something that is only produced within academic institutions, it is also produced in other arenas and with different actors with diverse and complementary competences.  The academic discourse has then revolved around what is useful knowledge; discussions that have challenged the position of academic and university-produced knowledge and its relation to society.  Nowotny, Gibbons and Scott (2001) questioned that society and science should be two sharply separated spheres by pointing to a distinction between the mode 1 and mode 2 society, with mode 1 and mode 2 science, respectively. Mode 1 refers to an understanding of knowledge in which theory and practice are separate spheres, and where the task of research is to produce knowledge that can later be translated into practice – something practitioners can use (see also Austin & McBeath, 2022). In the mode 2 society, however, science no longer has the unconditional legitimacy to define true knowledge, because here society increasingly demands that science be oriented towards application. In mode 2, practitioners, users and other relevant actors are involved in the production of knowledge. It involves a contextualization of science. And where in mode 1 one would think of such impact as barriers and sources of error, in mode 2 the influence of society is seen as essential for developing new knowledge. In mode 1, the researchers searched for a universal core of certain knowledge, supported by science's own criteria of independence and objectivity. In mode 2, this core is replaced by negotiation between many different actors and explanations (Nowotny et al. 2001, p. 179). This 'negotiation' takes place in the marketplace – the public spheres where different research institutions communicate with each other, as well as with other social institutions, interest groups and citizens. Research is socially distributed, and science that is produced on the basis of a social context will have greater impact as such a publicly discussed science is socially robust.  Nowotny et al. also introduce the concept of "expert narratives" to emphasize that expertise and scientific answers are to a large extent also part of a social construct (Nowotny et al. 2001, p.216).  In participatory practice research, this is particularly evident in the fact that users, practitioners and others participate in co-creating knowledge, and that meaningful arenas are found for entering into such relationships and interactions (Johannessen et al., 2011).
   
   The fact that science is produced within a different framework and with a more diverse layer of research participants implies acceptance and recognition of different forms of knowledge: theoretical/research-based knowledge, professional/practice knowledge and experiental/user knowledge. All participants' experiences are recognised as essential knowledge, while at the same time it can be developed and improved by research initiating processes where it is challenged and questioned. For example, a social worker, teacher, nurse or manager has a lot of practice/professional knowledge. A service user has experiental knowledge, which is also recognized as a separate form of knowledge – having lived experience can provide insights that a distanced gaze cannot. It is not without reason that user participation can be seen in the light of social innovation (Driessens et al., 2023).
   
   The Danish social scientist Bent Flyvbjerg (2001) uses the term "science of the concrete" to describe this type of research and knowledge production, as it is characterized by its focus on specific and context-dependent situational knowledge. He puts this in the context of the concept of phronetic science, a form of science that emphasizes practical knowledge, practical wisdom and ethical reflection. In his classic text "From Spectator to Participant" (1957), the Norwegian philosopher Hans Skjervheim contributed to transcending positivist research ideals and a distanced role as a researcher, to developing the scientific theoretical landscape into a place where both the researcher and the ”researched" together create reality and new knowledge. Skjervheim introduced the concept of the "common third", the issue that the relationship between researcher and participant revolves around. Skjervheim's concept of the participant role is well suited to illustrate how an ideal for knowledge production is about seeing and recognizing each other as subjects with different forms of knowledge and competences.
    

3. Developing the practice research methodologies to be more aware of outputs and outcomes

   • Research which explores ways to improve the quality of practice may use qualitative methods to co-develop practice standards with practitioners, service users and other stakeholders. These standards could then be tested using a quasi-experimental design to explore their impact on practice. The focus on both outputs (e.g. practice standards) and outcomes (e.g. for service users) drives the nature of the enquiry and the methods used.

   • Intervention development which focuses on optimising outcomes for service users in diverse practice or cultural contexts requires iterative phases of qualitative research. Shifting the focus from intervention fidelity to what works in particular contexts requires qualitative research with practitioners and service users who understand the context to co-develop, adjust and optimise interventions prior to experimental research. This may need to be iterative so that the intervention could be optimised in successive interviews with different groups of participants.

   • Experimental studies using a randomised controlled trial design may offer limited flexibility for methodological innovation as there is a need to ensure the experiment is as robust as possible so that the findings are believable. However, to improve the take-up of the intervention in practice following a successful evaluation, it is important to consider the outputs of the research. For example, this may be intervention training or delivery manuals; guidance for managers and practitioners on adapting the intervention for different contexts; or it could be a costing tool for services to calculate the return on investment in a new intervention or practice model. These outputs would be developed in nested qualitative research within the trial, or in prior feasibility work. Although arguably not as important as the trial itself, these outputs could nevertheless contribute significantly to the take-up of the intervention in routine practice.
     This will require forward planning in the design stages of practice research in order to consider how the findings can inform social work practice in due course. By proactively considering at the beginning how the research can inform practice, research methodologies themselves will evolve to become more attuned to social work practice. This means that the way research is undertaken, or its focus, will adapt to consider the end point and its impact on practice. This may not necessarily mean the creation of new methodologies, but the creative adaptation of existing ones.
     Some examples of how practice research methodologies may evolve to become more aware of outputs and outcomes may include:

4. Contributing to the field of participatory methods by discussing and clarifying the concept of “participation” and ethical issues in research involving service users
   Service user participation does not mean merely highlight the service user perspective in social work research, but it includes also making sure that the research, its foci and used methods correspond to the actual and lived experience of service users (Andersen et al. 2026). For this, we need service user participation in different parts of the research process, starting from identifying research topics and forming research questions.

• Who should participate, when, and on what premises?

• How to find meaningful forms of participation to stakeholders in different life situations, with different skills and resources?

• What kind of skills does participation require, and how do we ensure that those participating (practitioners, service users etc.) have access to suitable research training, when needed?

• How to involve also more leaders and managers in practice research?

• What kind of compensation do different stakeholders get for their time and efforts, how do we make sure that participation is fair and does not cause excessive burden?
   

5. Finding new and innovative alternative ways to disseminate research results

One of the core commitments of practice research is that research results are used to improve social work practice and thus the well-being of service users. This brings forth a responsibility for the researchers to disseminate research results in an effective and dialogical manner. Importantly, the results of practice research can and should not be published only in traditional academic journals. We must disseminate results also in other ways, which are more accessible also to the broader professional community, service leaders, policymakers, and service users. This requires developing new ways of popularizing research knowledge, such as podcasts, blogs, webinars etc.

Moreover, we should set a goal of discussing preliminary results with stakeholders along the way. Practice research must find solutions that gives space to both the ‘slow science’ of publishing in academic journals, but also short and process-based findings that can be shared with the participating practice field as the project is running. Timely communication of preliminary research results is important, because the cycles of traditional academic publishing are often too slow from the perspective of impacting service development with the results.

​​​​

References

​

Andersen, M. L., Mejlvig, K., & Uggerhøj, L. (2026). The Aalborg Statement of Practice Research in Social Work—Participation, Co-Creation, and Service Users’ Positions. Research on Social Work Practice, 0(0).

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 

Austin, M. J., & McBeath, B. (2022). Connecting Practice Research with the Process of Theorizing. Research on Social Work Practice, 32(7), 731-742. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315221078961

Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices, Community Development Journal, 43(3), s. 269–283, https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsn010

​

Driessens, K. & Lyssens-Danneboom, V. (Eds.) (2022). Involving service users in social work education, research and policy. A comparative European analysis. Research in social work series. Policy Press.

​

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press.

​

Johannessen, A., Natland, S. & Støkken, A. M. (2011). Samarbeidsforskning i praksis. Erfaringer fra HUSK-forsøket. [Collaborative reserarch in practice. Experiences from the HUSK project]. Universitetsforlaget.

 

Kaiser, M.I. (2019), Normativity in the Philosophy of Science. Metaphilosophy, 50:36-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12348

​

Natland, S., & Hansen, R. (2016). Conflicts and empowerment – a processual perspective on the development of a partnership. European Journal of Social Work, 20(4), 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2016.1207615

​

Nowotny, H., Gibbons, P., and Scott, M. (2001). Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. London: Polity Press.

​

Skjervheim, H. (1957/1996). Deltaker og tilskodar og andre essays. [Participant and spectacor, and other essays]. Aschehoug. (Opprinnelig utgitt 1957).

​

Webber, M. (2020). Methodological pluralism in practice research. In Joubert, L. & Webber, M. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Social Work Practice Research. London: Routledge.