Think Tank as a Growing Knowledge Bridge
A Short Reflection
For several years now, we've been testing a think tank within the social services sector in Västerbotten. It's been rewarding to watch the think tank take shape, from just a few participants primarily from R&D and university researchers along with occasional practitioners from municipal social services. These have evolved to include more researchers, more people from R&D, and most importantly, more participants from social services. What began as unstructured gatherings to bring together people for conversations between academia and practice has now grown into a larger platform where one participant recently suggested we can envision the platform as a base with branches extending to more forums - as the social services field is broad with many different actors involved.
Contact Surfaces That Bridge Knowledge
When I reflect on our conversations in the think tank, I'm struck by how they mirror the deeper dynamics between theory and practice, between systems and people, that permeate the entire welfare sector. R&D units occupy a fascinating position - as translators between academia's theoretical perspectives and the everyday reality of practice.
This role as knowledge broker is both demanding and crucial. In the think tank, we discussed how practice needs support systems for knowledge building and how R&D can be a key player in translating insights from the national level to local contexts. But behind these pragmatic discussions lies a deeper question: how can different forms of knowledge - research-based, experience-based, and that which comes from service users' own life experiences - meet and enrich each other?
Dialogue That Builds Bridges
Our conversation about creating consensus around problems, interventions, and outcomes touches the core of this challenge:
Problem formulation requires a mutual dialogue about needs where practice's grounding in reality meets research's systematic perspective.
For interventions, municipalities need to both listen to scientific findings and critically examine them based on local conditions.
And when it comes to outcomes and quality indicators, we need to develop ways to measure what truly matters, not just what is easy to measure.
The example from a municipality where IT staff tested working in home care services is particularly illuminating. When technical expertise (about interventions) meets everyday care work (based on needs), new insights emerge that neither party could have reached on their own. This demonstrates the strength of bridging different knowledge domains.
Communities That Develop Practice
Perhaps the most valuable aspect of the think tank is not the individual insights, but the space it creates - a space where different perspectives can meet without having to subordinate themselves to each other. By bringing together researchers, developers, and practitioners, conditions are created for knowledge development that is neither one-sidedly theoretical nor one-sidedly practical, but genuinely integrative.
Looking back at the think tank's development - from an informal discussion forum to a structured platform with potential to branch out further - I see a hopeful example of how the gap between different knowledge worlds can actually be bridged. Not through quick solutions or technology fixation, but through patient relationship building and mutual respect.
Perhaps it is precisely in such spaces - where different worlds meet - that the most fruitful development can occur. Not by choosing between human judgment and systematic methods, but by creating spaces where they can coexist and complement each other. In a time of increasing complexity, we need more, not fewer, such contact surfaces.
A short reflection on social work