How can funders promote the use of research? Three converging views on relational research

The paper addresses the under-examined role of research funders in shaping the production, usefulness, and use of research evidence. Despite funders’ clear influence on what research is conducted and whether stakeholders are engaged, there is limited analysis of why funders prioritize certain approaches and how they support evidence use. Moreover, insights are siloed across policy areas (education, environment, health, business, international development), limiting cross-sector learning. The authors aim to fill these gaps by offering insider perspectives from three funding programs in different sectors (education and environmental sustainability) and geographies, explaining how and why they adopted relational approaches (e.g., research-practice partnerships, coproduction, boundary spanning), the challenges encountered, and implications for a more coordinated evidence ecosystem. The study’s importance lies in informing funders’ strategies to move beyond linear dissemination toward relational models that better align research with decision-makers’ needs and contexts.

The authors situate their work in literature critiquing linear, one-way models of research dissemination and advocating relational approaches that emphasize two-way engagement, coproduction, and boundary spanning. Prior work highlights the limits of information-deficit models (e.g., What Works agenda in education; linear science communication in environmental policy) and underscores the value of trusted relationships, local relevance, iterative knowledge exchange, and collaboration across the research-use process (Cash et al., 2003; Nutley et al., 2007; Dilling & Lemos, 2011; Lemos et al., 2018). Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) in education are presented as promising vehicles for contextualized, useful research (Coburn et al., 2013; Henrick et al., 2017; Tseng & Coburn, 2019). Boundary spanning, originating in organizational literature (Carlile, 2002; 2004), is highlighted as key to managing intergroup knowledge flows and aligning incentives and languages across sectors. The authors also draw on frameworks for assessing credibility, saliency, and legitimacy (Cash et al., 2003) and on emerging evaluation approaches for measuring research use and collaboration effectiveness (Posner & Cvitanovic, 2019; Gitomer & Crouse, 2019).

The study employs an autoethnographic and collaborative autoethnographic approach to reveal funder decision-making from insider perspectives. Each author developed a narrative describing their program’s evolution supporting research use, guided by shared questions: (i) the initial landscape; (ii) how funding changed over time; (iii) the author’s role; and (iv) observed changes in research production and use and their drivers. Narratives varied in source depth: two authors drew on nearly two decades of direct experience; the third triangulated with archival materials and internal checks. The team iteratively read and critiqued each other’s narratives to bring outsider perspectives, identify dilemmas, and surface cross-cutting themes. Through recursive reflection, they compared strategies (e.g., in-house staffing vs. grant-funded roles; field-building) and synthesized implications for funders. This qualitative, reflective method aims to move beyond personal accounts to actionable, cross-sector guidance for the funding community.

Case narratives and cross-case synthesis yielded the following findings:

William T. Grant Foundation (education):

• Identified research-practice partnerships (RPPs) as promising vehicles to improve research usefulness and use, contrasting with top-down, linear dissemination/What Works models.
• Field-building actions included commissioning a landscape/research framework (Coburn et al., 2013), convening a 3-year learning community of nine RPPs, and launching an RPP resource site (rpp.wtgrantfdn.org).
• Supported establishment and growth of the National Network of Education Research-Practice Partnerships (NNERPP), which by 2022 had 59 members, and convened a funder learning community (“Nerd Herd”).
• Elevated RPPs through extensive outreach (over 80 presentations and 15 publications/blogs, 2011–2021) and supported research on RPP effectiveness, including a five-dimension framework (Henrick et al., 2017) and measurement tools.
• Identified five core elements of successful RPPs: partnership structures; shared commitments; activities for producing/using research; capacity building; and sustained funding for both projects and infrastructure.
• Emphasized sustainable funding models blending governmental and philanthropic support to cover critical but often unfunded infrastructure and staffing.

Lenfest Ocean Program at Pew (marine conservation):

• Evolved from linear science communication to proactive, bidirectional engagement and coproduction to address complex policy needs.
• Built boundary-spanning capacity in-house to scope policy contexts, match researchers with decision-makers, facilitate engagement, and tailor communication.
• Articulated practical funding steps for relational research: co-defining questions with users; early and sustained engagement; tailored communication throughout; ensuring peer-reviewed outputs for scientific credibility plus engagement deliverables; and dedicated boundary spanners.
• Developed a measurement framework capturing multiple uses of research beyond direct policy change (e.g., reframing options, opening policy windows, building long-term relationships), and expanded cross-sector peer learning (education, public health, international development).
• Persistent challenges: tracking outcomes over relevant timeframes, attributing influence amidst confounding factors (e.g., advocacy), and limited grantee capacity for engagement, necessitating significant program staff involvement.

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS) (climate solutions):

• Transitioned from information-deficit approaches to the “PICS way,” embedding coproduction and boundary spanning across projects following a strategic review and a new Theory of Change.
• Structured partnerships among PICS (boundary spanner), researchers (knowledge producers), and solution seekers (policymakers/practitioners), with explicit pathways to scholarly and non-scholarly impact and regular engagement.
• Funding design: at least half of funds support emerging researchers/students; remaining funds for engagement, meetings, communications, and research activities; PICS embeds expert staff in all projects and hires full-time boundary spanners for large projects.
• Broader institutional strategies: long-term relationships with key agencies and sectors; Theme Partnership Program (4–5 years; ~$1M) to tackle complex problems and enabling environments; ongoing communications and impact tracking across relational and scholarly outcomes.
• Earlier organizational outputs included 24 postdocs, 140+ graduate researchers, 120+ journal articles, and 100+ policy/technical outputs, but the shift emphasized solution-orientation and coproduction to improve real-world impact.

Cross-cutting themes and recommendations:

• Boundary spanner capacity is essential yet under-resourced; funders should finance explicit boundary-spanning roles/functions, professionalize the workforce (training, career paths), and provide tools for researchers and partners.
• Strengthen research on research use (RORU): fund rigorous, theory-driven evaluations of relational approaches; develop and validate measures; use methods such as social network analysis, interviews/surveys, and document/observational analyses to capture use and influence beyond simple metrics.
• Reshape academic incentives: fund institutional changes recognizing policy-engaged scholarship in tenure/promotion; support course releases, training, non-academic outputs, and fellowships to build partnered research capacity; establish centers to connect faculty with partners.
• Coordinate funders across sectors and countries: align practices, co-fund initiatives, and build communities such as the Transforming Evidence Funders Network (TEFN) and the Transforming Evidence Network to reduce duplication and accelerate progress.

The analysis demonstrates that relational approaches—research-practice partnerships, coproduction, and boundary spanning—more effectively align research with decision-makers’ needs than linear dissemination models. By embedding engagement throughout the research lifecycle, investing in boundary-spanning infrastructure, and nurturing long-term partnerships, funders can increase research saliency, legitimacy, and credibility, thereby increasing prospects for use in policy and practice. The three cases show convergent evolution toward similar models in distinct sectors, suggesting transferability across domains. Findings address the core question of how funders can promote research use by identifying practical roles for funders: convening and field-building (e.g., RPP networks), resourcing specialized engagement capacities, funding rigorous evaluation of research use and impact, and catalyzing academic incentive reforms. The results are significant as they reframe funders’ roles from passive financiers to active system-shapers within the evidence ecosystem, highlighting cross-sector coordination (e.g., TEFN) as a multiplier for learning, standard-setting, and scalable impact.

Across disparate sectors, the authors converged on relational models to enhance research usefulness and use. They moved beyond dissemination toward coproduction and partnerships, invested in boundary-spanning infrastructure, and built communities and frameworks to support and evaluate this work. The paper calls on funders to increase transparency, jointly develop and adopt rigorous assessments of research use, broaden conceptions of impact, and coordinate across sectors and geographies. Future efforts should include co-funding larger-scale initiatives (e.g., international RORU centers; university system transformations; robust, fair impact assessment systems; boundary spanner workforce development) and expanding cross-sector networks to grow capacity for engaged research. These steps can help normalize researcher–policy–community collaboration and strengthen an evidence ecosystem where research is routinely useful to and used in decision-making.

The paper is based on autoethnographic narratives from three funders and thus reflects insider perspectives rather than independent evaluations; findings may be context-specific and not universally generalizable. The authors note challenges in tracking and attributing outcomes over long policy timelines and amid confounding influences (e.g., advocacy). Capacity constraints (limited boundary-spanning resources within grantee institutions; significant reliance on funder staff) may affect scalability. Evidence cited is primarily qualitative and illustrative; more longitudinal, independent, and comparative studies are needed to rigorously test effectiveness of relational approaches across contexts.