The researcher–practitioner symbiosis: Evolving mutualisms from parachutes

Abstract

Abstract Researchers and practitioners often exist symbiotically, but this relationship does not always benefit both parties. We here discuss a mutualistic research symbiosis that our organizations have developed over the last decade, the challenges which we have experienced as part of this process, and how our experiences may help others intending to develop such mutualisms. The defining characteristic of our model is that conservation implementers, not investigators, lead the research. This power balance has promoted synergies between researchers and practitioners and has resulted in one of the first ever Randomized Control Trials of a conservation intervention. We have shortened the distance between basic research and field practices by ensuring that the people who will use the results of an investigation play a lead role in designing and implementing it. Local conservation practitioners have been trained in cutting edge scientific methodologies, while university researchers have had an unparalleled role in designing the conservation and development intervention. Our research model is not perfect, however. Although we have facilitated tight relationships between implementers and researchers, such partnerships take significant resources to develop. Moreover, shortening the traditional “arm's length” distance between implementers and investigators is a double‐edged sword: some donors are uncomfortable that our researchers and practitioners comprise a mutually dependent team. Nevertheless, we believe that our model's benefits outweigh its costs. When our researchers undertake their investigations, they do so in ways that do not simply meet their publication needs. Rather, the integration of partners into a mutualistic research team ensures that our investigations are both scientifically cutting edge and that they can improve our conservation initiatives on the ground in real time.

Keywords

• collaborative science
• co‐production
• evidence‐based conservation
• knowledge‐action gap
• research‐implementation gap
• science‐practice gap