American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 627–640 | Cite as

Building and Sustaining Academic Researcher and Criminal Justice Practitioner Partnerships: A Corrections Example

  • Dara C. DrawbridgeEmail author
  • Sema A. Taheri
  • Natasha A. Frost


Bringing researchers and practitioners together in partnerships has substantial benefits. Partnerships can inform research questions and provide researchers with data to further their academic dialogues. Collaborative research provides practitioners with a better appreciation for research, and its integration into the provision of service. Published examples of successful partnerships in the criminological field offer insight into navigating the relationship building and maintenance process. The current paper discusses a partnership between researchers and practitioners at a corrections institution. The benefits and challenges to partnerships and recommendations for building and sustaining researcher-practitioner partnerships are discussed.


Corrections Researcher-practitioner partnerships Offender re-entry 


  1. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Jersey: Matthew Bender.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2006). Risk principle in case classification in correctional treatment: A meta analytic investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 88–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antonio, M. E., Young, J. L., & Wingeard, L. M. (2009). When actions and attitude count most: Assessing perceived level of responsibility and support for inmate treatment and rehabilitation programs among correctional employees. The Prison Journal, 89(4), 363–382. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Backes, B. (2009). NIJ seeks to strengthen the practitioner-researcher bond. Corrections Today, 71(4), 78–80.Google Scholar
  5. Backes, B., & Rorie, M. (2013). Partners in research: Lessons learned in Los Angeles. Natonal Institute of Justice Journal, 272, 47–52.Google Scholar
  6. Bickel, W. E., & Hattrup, R. A. (1991). A case study of institutional collaboration to enhance knowledge use: Restructuring practitioner-researcher dialogue in education. Knowledge and Policy, 4(4), 56–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Block, C. R., Engel, B., Naureckas, S. M., & Riordan, K. A. (1999). The Chicago women’s health risk study lessons in collaboration. Violence Against Women, 5(10), 1158–1177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bumbarger, B.K., & Campbell, E.M. (2012). A state agency-university partnership for translational research and the dissemination of evidence-based prevention and intervention. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 39(4), 268–277. Scholar
  9. Carise, D., Cornely, W., & Gurel, O. (2002). A successful research-practitioner collaboration in substance abuse treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 23(2), 157–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carson, E. A. (2015). Prisoners in 2014. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  11. Drawbridge, D., Monteiro, C., & Frost, N. (2012). Second chance? Correctional programming in the age of reentry. In M. S. Crow & J. O. Smykla (Eds.), Offender reentry: Rethinking criminology and criminal justice (pp. 75–94). Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning.Google Scholar
  12. Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D., & Snyder, H. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  13. Fabelo, T., Arrigona, N., Thompson, M. D., Clemens, A., & Marchbanks, M. P. (2015). Closer to home: An analysis of the state and local impact of the Texas juvenile justice reforms. New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center.Google Scholar
  14. Fischer, B. (2004). Section IV: Building an infrastructure to improve research capacity and practice and strengthening researcher-practitioner collaborations. In B. Fischer (Ed.), Violence against women and family violence developments in research, practice, and policy (pp. IV-1–IV-2). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  15. Huberman, M. (1990). Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 363–391. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lane, J., Turner, S., & Flores, C. (2004). Researcher-practitioner collaboration in community corrections: Overcoming hurdles for successful partnerships. Criminal Justice Review, 29(1), 97–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Latessa, E. (2004). The challenge of change: Correction programs and evidence-based practices. Criminology & Public Policy, 3(4), 547–560. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2005). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(2), 263–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moon, B., & Maxwell, S. R. (2004). Assessing the correctional orientation of correctional officers in South Korea. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(6), 729–743. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oliver, K., Innvar, S., Lorenc, T., Woodman, J., & Thomas, J. (2014). A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Services Research, 14(2), 1–12. Google Scholar
  21. Pivik, J. R., & Goelman, H. (2011). Evaluation of a community-based participatory research consortium from the perspective of academic community service providers focused on child health and well-being. Health Education & Behavior, 38(3), 271–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Richie, B. (2004). Research on violence against women and family violence: The challenges and the promise. In B. Fischer (Ed.), Violence against women and family violence developments in research, practice, and policy (pp. IV-3–IV-8). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  23. Rojek, J., Smith, H. P., & Alpert, G. P. (2012). The prevalence and characteristics of police practitioner-research partnerships. Police Quarterly, 15(3), 241–261. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rudes, D. S., Viglione, J., Lerch, J., Porter, C., & Taxman, F. S. (2014). Build to sustain: Collaborative partnerships between university researchers and criminal justice practitioners. Criminal Justice Studies, 27(3), 249–263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shook, J. J., & Sarri, R. C. (2007). Structured decision making in juvenile justice: Judges’ and probation officers’ perceptions and use. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(10), 1335–1351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taxman, F. S., & Kitsantsas, P. (2009). Availability and capacity of substance abuse programs in correctional settings: A classification and regression tree analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103(Suppl 1), S43–S53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thanner, M. H., & Taxman, F. S. (2003). Responsivity: The value of providing intensive services to high-risk offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 24(2), 137–147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilson, J. A., & Davis, R. D. (2006). Good intentions meet hard realities: An evaluation of the Project Greenlight reentry program. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(2), 303–338. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dara C. Drawbridge
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sema A. Taheri
    • 2
  • Natasha A. Frost
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolShrewsburyUSA
  2. 2.Measures for JusticeRochesterUSA
  3. 3.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations