Practice research’s challenges and opportunities across project conceptualisation, implementation, and dissemination: a Singaporean case study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because practice research’s benefits in social work contexts are well-documented, research attention has shifted to improving its operationalisation within organisations. However, few studies have examined practice research’s challenges and opportunities across project conceptualisation, implementation, and dissemination. Even fewer have considered practitioner-researcher and organisational power dynamics, especially in Asia. Using a qualitative exploratory case study approach, we first described the challenges a Singaporean youth work agency faced during conceptualisation, implementation, and dissemination across three practice-research projects. Subsequently, we evaluated how the core practice-research team seized opportunities to address these challenges (i.e. manpower and resourcing, disproportionate researcher influence, sustaining interest internally and externally) and future improvement opportunities (i.e. institutionalise knowledge, build organisational capacity, and examine structural impediments). Implications for practitioners and researchers and effective organisational strategies – internally, externally, and structurally – are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it