Human and Machine: A Journey - Part 15
Connecting Research and Practice
Throughout our journey exploring welfare systems, we've discovered that the tension between human and machine approaches exists at every level of the hourglass we've used to understand knowledge flow. This tension isn't simply between research and practice as separate domains—it lives within each domain as well, shaping how we create, value, and use knowledge throughout the system.
The Human-Machine Tension Across All Domains
Within the research world, we see this tension vividly displayed. Quantitative methods strive to eliminate human bias through systematic protocols, standardized measures, and statistical analyses—representing the machine approach to knowledge creation. Qualitative approaches deliberately engage with human subjectivity to understand lived experience, meaning, and context—embodying the human element. Both are valid and necessary, yet they operate according to different logics and values that don't always easily reconcile.
Similarly, within practice, we find comparable variations. Some approaches center deeply relational, human-centered work that prioritizes empathy, connection, and individual adaptation. Others implement highly formalized, rule-driven systems where professionals risk functioning like robots following scripts rather than engaging as humans. Most practitioners navigate somewhere between these poles, constantly balancing procedural requirements with human responsiveness.
This multidimensional tension creates complex challenges for connecting research and practice. It's not simply about bridging two distinct worlds, but about navigating multiple variations of human and machine approaches within and across these domains. When quantitative research meets relationally-focused practice, or when qualitative studies encounter rule-driven implementation, different translations and integrations are needed.
A Professional Journey Across Boundaries
In my professional life, I've constantly navigated these variations - collaborating between academia and practice, managing organizational logics, developing both clients and colleagues as human beings touched by society's machinery. This boundary-spanning work has taught me that meaningful connections between research and practice require more than better dissemination methods or implementation strategies. They demand a fundamental rethinking of how knowledge is created, valued, and integrated across different contexts.
What I've observed is that the most productive connections happen when we create spaces for genuine dialogue across different knowledge traditions - where researchers and practitioners can engage as equal partners with complementary expertise. These spaces aren't just about transferring findings from one domain to another but about co-creating new understanding that neither could develop alone.
For several years, I've been involved in a think tank within the social services sector in Västerbotten (a northern, mostly rural, part of Sweden) that exemplifies this boundary-spanning work. What began as unstructured gatherings with just a few participants - primarily from R&D units and university researchers alongside occasional practitioners from municipal social services - has evolved into a vibrant platform where knowledge actively flows between academia and practice. The R&D units occupy a fascinating position as translators between academia's theoretical perspectives and the everyday reality of practice, serving as knowledge brokers in a complex system.
In our think tank sessions, we engage in genuine dialogue about how different knowledge forms can meet and enrich each other. This process requires mutual conversation about how problems are formulated - where practice's grounding in reality meets research's systematic perspective. These discussions explore how municipalities need to both listen to scientific findings and critically examine them based on local conditions, and how to develop ways to measure outcomes that truly matter, not just what is easy to measure.
What makes this approach powerful isn't just the individual insights but the space created - where different perspectives meet without having to subordinate themselves to each other. The resulting approaches are neither purely academic nor practice-based, but integrations that respect all traditions.
The Hourglass Reimagined: Trilateral Relationships
Knowledge doesn't just flow between research and practice but moves through a more complex system that includes citizens, society, and research in dynamic interaction. Citizens direct society through democratic processes while society exercises power over citizens; research attempts to understand humans, technology, and social structures to move us forward.
This trilateral relationship transforms how we think about connecting research and practice. When we recognize that knowledge flows both upward and downward through our metaphorical hourglass, we see that effective integration requires engaging all three spheres:
Citizens/Service Users bring crucial experiential knowledge about their own needs, strengths, and circumstances. Their lived experience provides essential insights that neither research nor practice can access directly. Yet this knowledge often remains marginalized in how we develop and implement welfare approaches.
Society/Practice Systems develop organizational structures, professional roles, and intervention approaches that shape how services are delivered. These systems embody societal values and priorities through policy, funding decisions, and regulatory frameworks. They translate both citizen input and research knowledge into concrete action.
Research/Knowledge Development creates systematic understanding through various methodological approaches, each with distinct strengths and limitations. This domain includes not just traditional academic research but also practice-based inquiry, evaluation, and other forms of systematic knowledge generation.
Effective connections between research and practice require attention to how knowledge moves through this entire system—not just from research to practice or practice to research, but through complex pathways that involve all three spheres. When service users actively participate in both research design and practice development, for instance, entirely new possibilities emerge that transcend traditional boundaries.
Configuring Systems for Knowledge Integration
How do we build welfare systems that support this kind of multilateral knowledge integration? Several key principles emerge from successful examples:
Creating Boundary-Spanning Roles and Structures that actively bridge between different knowledge domains. These include not just formal positions like research liaisons or practice-based researchers, but also collaborative networks, communities of practice, and other structures that create ongoing dialogue across traditional boundaries.
Developing Integration Skills that help professionals navigate between different knowledge forms. These include critical appraisal skills for engaging with research, systematic documentation approaches for practice wisdom, and dialogical capabilities for productive engagement across differences.
Building Knowledge Democracies that value diverse forms of expertise, including the lived experience of service users. This means creating genuine decision-making roles for those with experiential knowledge, not just consultation opportunities after key decisions are made.
Supporting Adaptive Implementation that recognizes how interventions transform as they move between contexts. Rather than treating adaptation as implementation failure, this approach sees it as a necessary process of contextualizing knowledge in specific settings.
These approaches don't eliminate the distinctive contributions of different knowledge domains but create spaces where they can productively interact, generating new integrated understanding that enhances both research and practice.
The Digital Horizon: New Possibilities and Challenges
As we stand at the threshold of an AI revolution that may fundamentally transform the relationship between humans and machines, I look toward the future with curiosity. How might these emerging technologies reshape not just our tools but our understanding of what it means to be human in increasingly technologized welfare systems?
Digital transformation creates both challenges and opportunities for connecting research and practice. Current systems often reinforce separations - research databases remain inaccessible to practitioners, while practice documentation systems rarely capture insights in ways that can inform research. Yet emerging technologies could potentially create entirely new possibilities:
Large Language Models could help translate between different knowledge domains, making research findings more accessible to practitioners while helping researchers understand practice contexts more deeply.
Collaborative Digital Spaces could support ongoing dialogue across traditional boundaries, creating virtual communities where researchers, practitioners, and service users engage as equal partners in knowledge development.
Practice-Based Evidence Platforms could aggregate insights from practice in ways that reveal patterns and variations across contexts, making tacit knowledge more visible and shareable.
These technologies won't automatically improve knowledge integration - indeed, poorly designed systems could further entrench existing divides. The key lies in configuring digital environments that enhance human connection and dialogue rather than replacing them with automated processes.
Looking Forward: The Ongoing Human-Machine Dance
As I reflect on the future of welfare services, I see neither a purely human nor a purely systematic approach, but an evolving dance between these elements. The most effective approaches will integrate rigorous methodologies with deep human understanding, systematic patterns with contextual wisdom, standardized frameworks with creative adaptation.
This integration becomes increasingly urgent as welfare services face growing complexity and rapid technological change. We need both the systematic rigor of research and the contextual wisdom of practice. We need both generalizable patterns and adaptive processes. We need both structured methods and creative approaches.
The future lies in developing what we might call integrative expertise - the ability to move skillfully between different knowledge domains, recognizing their distinctive contributions while creating meaningful connections between them. This expertise isn't just technical but deeply ethical, engaging with questions about whose knowledge counts and how different forms of understanding shape our shared future.
As we approach the final segments of our journey exploring human and machine approaches, I invite you to reflect:
How do you navigate between different knowledge forms in your own practice?
Where do you see the most promising possibilities for genuine dialogue across research, practice, and lived experience?
What would welfare services look like if they truly valued and integrated diverse forms of knowledge while maintaining commitment to rigorous inquiry in all its forms?
What role might emerging technologies play in either enhancing or hindering this integration?
This is part 15 in our ongoing series exploring the intersection of human judgment and systematic knowledge in modern welfare systems. Join the conversation by sharing your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.