Child protection research traditionally relies on an “outside–inside” model, where researchers design studies remotely and practitioners are only involved in supporting roles alongside their existing workloads. This separation often leads to delays, low participation, and disengagement. Two recent studies, one in the UK and one in Portugal, demonstrate the benefits of embedding practitioners as genuine partners from the outset. In both cases, funding structures supported this partnership model, resulting in research that was more feasible, ethically grounded, and smoothly implemented.
The UK study evaluated a parenting group delivered by a local authority. The funding mechanism matched the service provider and the evaluation team based on expertise, ensuring that both entered the project as equal partners rather than as a researcher-imposed study. Practitioners actively shaped the study protocol, aligning materials and procedures with family needs and service routines. Recruitment became easier because parents were introduced to the research by familiar practitioners, and data collection tasks were completed consistently as practitioners viewed themselves as co-responsible for the evaluation. The study became a shared endeavour rooted in practice rather than a purely academic exercise.
In Portugal, a large child protection provider commissioned the research team to develop and evaluate a parenting capacity assessment protocol. Senior practitioners were embedded in the research team, ensuring that the protocol was adapted to local legal, cultural, and organisational contexts while remaining grounded in international evidence. Frontline professionals were trained to implement the protocol, and their feedback was incorporated into the pilot. Practitioner-led recruitment facilitated engagement with families and addressed logistical challenges, ensuring that the research was integrated into service development rather than seen as an external imposition.
Despite differences in context and design, both studies showed that engaging practitioners as genuine partners makes research easier to design and implement. Practitioners ensured that materials were feasible, facilitated recruitment through existing relationships, and followed through on tasks requiring practitioner involvement. Co-production enhanced ecological validity, improved feasibility, and strengthened trust with families—outcomes that are difficult to achieve through researcher-led approaches alone. These findings align with wider arguments that complex systems like child protection benefit from relational, iterative, and practice-embedded models of evidence generation.
Embedding practitioners from the outset also supports flexible and context-sensitive approaches to evidence generation. While experimental studies have unique value, they are not always feasible in statutory contexts. Observational and practice-based evidence is crucial for understanding what works on the ground. Both the UK and Portuguese studies demonstrate that integrating practitioners naturally supports these grounded approaches, improving both the process and the quality of research evidence.
The implications for child protection research are clear: funding models that support integrated teams enable co-production, making studies more agile and aligned with real-world practice and family needs. For researchers, designing studies with practitioners enhances feasibility and relevance. For services, research becomes a tool for improvement rather than a burden. For funders, fostering collaboration from the outset strengthens the overall impact of studies. Embedding practitioners as equal partners ultimately creates research that is practical, ethically sound, and closely aligned with the realities of children’s social care.
The studies were supported by the What Works Centre for Children & Families and the Mission Interface Program from the Resilience and Recuperation Plan, with no competing financial interests declared.
