Evaluating research-practice partnerships in social care

There is widespread recognition that the social care system needs reform. However, social care research rarely receives a fair share of attention or, indeed, funding. Delivering social care that truly meets the needs of users presents many challenges; research has the potential to play a role in improving service delivery. But, understanding the effectiveness of research-practice partnerships can be challenging. It requires complex evaluation.

The role of research-practice partnerships, and knowing ‘what works’

Research-practice partnerships are increasingly seen as essential for getting the best value from public services, for example by providing access to specialist local knowledge, or through making best use of resources to achieve economies of scale. One way this is being explored in social care in England is through six partnerships that are working, in different ways, to build research infrastructure and to identify research priorities. Each partnership aims to strengthen collaboration between researchers, practitioners, and citizens to produce research that improves social care.

But how do we know which partnership approaches are most effective and in what circumstances? Evaluation is key for research funders who need to ensure they are getting value for money.

Each of the six partnerships had its own approach to evaluation and published its findings independently. Often the research questions were complex and messy, and the evaluation process became complex and messy too.

This blog sets out some of the overarching lessons that we learned.

Key lessons

In November 2025, four of the partnerships (SCRIPT; Curiosity; Creating Care and Kent Research Partnership) came together to share learning about the challenges and opportunities of evaluating their different approaches.

The first lesson was that “partnership” means different things to different people in different contexts. Although, in each case, the overarching goal was similar – to strengthen relationships between research and practice to deliver higher quality social care research that better met the needs of service users – there was more than one way to achieve this. Capacity building, for example, was a common focus in all four partnerships, but it varied in emphasis. Two focused on bringing in research expertise, skills, and knowledge, while another emphasised research production – creating and testing new evidence.

The second lesson was that decisions about evaluation design need to reflect the goals and local context of each partnership. Methods must also be compatible with the multiple, complex, and often turbulent contexts of social care. The scale of the partnerships also affected the choice of methods. The small size of some limited the use of, for example, surveys, which made it difficult to capture quantitative data.

The third lesson was that evaluations must be adaptable and grounded in real-world realities. Sometimes this meant adjusting method or approach part way through the research process or using pragmatic approaches that drew on, for example, observational data about the behaviour and conduct of the partnerships.

Encouragingly, all evaluations found that partnership working does work within the social care context (although a longer timeframe in which to evaluate long-term impact would be ideal). Commonly identified benefits related to the relational nature of partnerships, including improvements in trust, quality of communication, and shared purpose. Perhaps, then, we should look beyond the word “partnership” to think about relational endeavours. Maybe we can learn from how other sectors evaluate relational work too.

So, it seems partnerships can be a promising route for getting research into social care practice. But what stops them reaching their full potential?

Key challenges – two things stand out:

1. Relational nature – while a strength of the partnership model, this feature means that development is rarely linear or mechanistic. It tends to be messy and organic, reflecting how relationships evolve in the real world. Ripple effects and chains of reaction create challenges for evaluation and highlight the need for agility. Distinguishing between attribution and contribution becomes critical when there are moving parts and multiple concurrent investments in social care improvement.
2. Lack of alignment between funding models and research processes, which assume linearity. Lengthy and convoluted research processes potentially jeopardise trust, engagement, and timely research delivery. Partnerships might be better understood as requiring part infrastructure investment and part research funding, yet few research funders are willing to invest in infrastructure. A challenge is achieving this balance in a changing landscape for social care research.

By working together, the partnerships were able to share honest reflections about what did, and didn’t, go to plan. It was a valuable opportunity to share lessons and reflect on the realities of conducting partnership evaluations – recognising the importance of being willing to deviate from original protocols as partnerships evolved, and if planned methods were no longer considered the best fit.

A shared interest among funders and researchers in the sustainability of these partnerships suggests that future evaluations should place emphasis on how new practices become routine and why some partnerships succeed while others fail. Such a common focus will help identify the approaches most likely to demonstrate the benefits of strengthened relationships between research and practice, to achieve social care research which better meets the needs of service users.