There are now trends driving social research beyond academe into the wider world in what Smets et al., (2017) call a \u201cpractice turn\u201d. Gibbons (2000) and his colleagues attribute this trend to broad societal changes (e.g. uncertainty, complexity, self-organization) that call for \u201cknowledge [to be] produced in the context of application involving a much broader range of perspectives\u201d and \u201ctransdisciplinary\u2026and more socially accountable and reflexive\u201d (pp. 159, 160) social inquiry. Related to this, complexity science challenges \u201cuniversal value of reductionist explanation\u201d (Byrne & Callaghan, 2014, p. 57) as adequate to account for \u201csocial emergence and the capacities of human agency\u201d (p. 9). These themes underscore the significance of \u201ccontext\u201d as a critical element in knowledge creation that generates relevant action (Gibbons, 2000; Flyvbjerg, 2001). Accelerating this, of course, is the urgency to resolve global problems that threaten the planet which are inherently social (Homer-Dixon, 2020).<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Conventional doctoral research (Ph.D.) has been seen primarily as training and demonstration of skills\u2014research, documentation, and communication (Isaac et al., 1992). In conventional programs students are expected to begin by finding a gap in the discipline\u2019s literature and\/or to focus on a research project associated with the supervisor\u2019s research agenda. In applied social science doctoral education with practice related admission requirements, mid-career students arrive with a compelling interest in a social research problem that they have experienced the need to address. In nearly a decade of teaching, I have rarely observed a complete change in research theme. Instead, students deepen their understanding of, and commitment to, their research focus. For many, the dissertation research becomes the first step in an ongoing program of research and practice.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
In carrying their research theme throughout the course work, students educate those of us who teach and supervise dissertation research about their worlds of practice. Assignments typically involve situating course material in relation to students\u2019 research themes which, in reading their work, we must understand. As we, the faculty, expand our understanding of the wider world, the University is linked through its faculty to the world it serves. This \u2018virtuous circle\u2019 advances our capabilities, individually and institutionally, to foster the future connections between research and practice.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
When practical benefit becomes a focus, the range of relevant methodological possibilities often transcends any one given research tradition. The practice researcher balances two commitments\u2014first, the specific practical benefit(s) envisioned, and second, the selection and capable application of relevant social science methodology(ies). Knowledge of a methodological range and their respective strengths and limitations becomes critical. Further, an understanding of their different formative intellectual origins expands the practice researcher\u2019s capabilities to make judicious choices and to establish optimally helpful partnerships with other researchers.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
The importance of epistemic and methodological reflexivity, that is, making explicit one\u2019s views, values and research practices that influence research decisions and, in turn shape the research outcomes that emerge in the second half of the 20th century in social science (Alvesson et al., 2008). In practice research, however, further \u2018layers\u2019 of reflexivity and researcher positionality include attention to the political and ethical dimensions generated by the integration of formal research and research partners in a context of practice (Freshwater, 2001).<\/p>\r\n\r\n