Research and training fellowships as a mechanism for building research capacity in social care: an evaluation of a capacity-building programme in England

Research and training fellowships as a mechanism for building research capacity in social care: an evaluation of a capacity-building programme in England | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Research and training fellowships as a mechanism for building research capacity in social care: an evaluation of a capacity-building programme in England Wenjing Zhang, Ann-Marie Towers, Alison Charles, Olivia Trapp, and 5 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7759522/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 24 Feb, 2026 Read the published version in The British Journal of Social Work → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Research capacity building in social care has received increased attention and dedicated funding in recent years, yet opportunities for practitioners to engage with research or apply evidence-based practice remain limited. This paper evaluates one mechanism for developing capacity through a research-practice partnership: funding and supporting social care staff to undertake practitioner-research fellowships. This qualitative study incorporated interviews with fellows, applicants, mentors, line managers, and experts by experience; focus groups with academic supervisors and programme leads; and reviews of progress reports. Using thematic analysis, it identified three themes: challenges in applying for and undertaking fellowships and partnership support that helped address them; the impacts of fellowships on social care practitioners and organisations; and lessons learned at individual, team and system levels, including the importance of engaging middle managers, creating a supportive academic environment, and widening access across a diverse social care workforce. Although research capacity building in social care remains in its infancy, fellowships provide valuable opportunities to nurture practitioner-researchers and foster a research culture. They enable two-way learning between practice and academia, bridging the research–practice gap. However, questions remain around sustainability, inclusivity, and long-term pathways for practitioner-researchers, highlighting the need for continued investment, infrastructure, and flexible models of support. Social Work Social Policy fellowship practitioner research professional development research capacity building social care social work Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Teaser Text Social work and social care practice should be informed by high quality research evidence on the topics that matter most for policy and practice. It is therefore imperative to support and engage the workforce in using and shaping research. Research Fellowships fund and support individuals to undertake practice-relevant research. Evidence from healthcare suggests this approach can improve research engagement and use, as practitioners are well-placed to identify useful studies and promote research among peers. One Practice-Research Partnership funded four individuals in diverse roles as Research and Training Fellows to explore this model in social care. One Fellow focused on training to build confidence and skills, while the others conducted their own research alongside formal and informal learning. We interviewed Fellows, applicants, mentors, supervisors, and sector experts to assess the programme’s impact. Findings highlighted the importance of strong support during the application process and throughout the programme. Fellows faced challenges such as time constraints, emotional demands, and boundary-setting, but gained confidence, skills, and career development. Their involvement also helped foster a research-positive culture within their teams. Future programmes should engage managers at all levels and ensure opportunities are inclusive, accessible, and relevant across the breadth of social care roles and organisations. Introduction Building research capacity amongst health and social care staff is fundamental to advancing evidence-based care practice (Cooke et al., 2018 ). However, in the UK, research capacity building in social care has only recently gained attention and dedicated funding, significantly later than comparable initiatives in the healthcare sector (Peckham et al., 2023 , Gray et al., 2024 ). Social work and social care practitioners often have limited involvement in research or the application of evidence-based practice (Ashworth and Burke, 2023 ). For example, a survey conducted by Wakefield et al. ( 2022 ) with a range of social work and care staff found that only 10% reported involvement in research, alongside low levels of confidence and knowledge across key research skills, with identified barriers including uncertainty about where or how to begin, limited time and capacity, and lack of clarity about the impact of research on practice. Recognising the need to build research capacity and foster a research culture in social care, the NIHR funded six social care capacity building partnerships across England in 2021 (Kendrick et al., 2025 ). The Kent Partnership was one of these initiatives. It brought together regional and national stakeholders, including representatives from local authorities, social care providers, sector support organisations, universities and experts by experience. The partnership aimed to improve care quality by investing in and valuing the social care workforce and promoting a positive research culture and evidence-based practice. Following the six research capacity building principles outlined by Cooke ( 2005 ) (see Fig. 1 ), the partnership applied multiple mechanisms to build research capacity in adult social care in Kent, such as communities of practice, researchers in residence, research and training fellowships, access to research evidence, and a lived experience working group (Hashem et al., 2024 , Keemink et al., 2025 , Smith et al., In submission, Abrahamson et al., In submission). This paper focuses on one of these key mechanisms: funding and supporting social care staff to undertake research and/or training fellowships. This aligns closely to Cooke’s first and second principles of research capacity building: (1) Developing appropriate skills and confidence, through training and creating opportunities to apply skills and (2) Supporting research ‘close to practice’ (Cooke, 2005 ). Fellowships were designed to help social care practitioners develop research skills and experience through tailored support and the opportunity to carry out a small-scale research project on a priority topic for adult social care (Hashem et al., 2024 ). They also aimed to nurture a new generation of practitioner-researchers within the social care sector. Practitioner-led research is essential to the development and improvement of the care sector and supporting workforce development (Young, 2004 , Boaz et al., 2024 ). Practitioner researchers play a key role in translating abstract concepts into rights-related, person-centred outcomes, ultimately contributing to evidence- and knowledge- informed practice (James et al 2023). Research fellowships are an established pathway in healthcare for individuals to combine practice-relevant research with personal and career development (Akudjedu et al., 2025 , Ried et al., 2007 ). These clinical research fellowships have been shown to support evidence implementation within organisations and help develop future research leaders across healthcare professions (Lizarondo et al., 2021 , Akudjedu et al., 2025 ). Although practitioner research in social work and social care has long struggled to emerge from a state of near ‘invisibility’ (Hardwick and Worsley, 2011 ), the fellowship model is now beginning to gain traction within the social care sector, particularly through initiatives such as the six aforementioned NIHR Social Care Capacity Building Partnerships, the NIHR Academy, national capacity building opportunities supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaborations, and NIHR School for Social Care Research (SSCR) Career Development Awards (NIHR, 2024 , NIHR SSCR, 2025 ). This study evaluates the Kent Research Partnership fellowship programme, assessing its impact on building research capacity at individual, team, organisational and sector levels within adult social care. It also seeks to identify lessons for designing, organising and supporting fellowship-style awards and practitioner-researchers as a mechanism for developing the workforce and fostering research culture in the social care sector. Methods Research and training fellowships As part of the Kent Research Partnership, four research and/or training fellowships were awarded to social care practitioners through two rounds of competitive funding. The partnership provided pre-submission support to all practitioners who showed interest, and nine were supported some way through the development process. The first round resulted in the selection of two fellows from three submissions. The second round led to the selection of three fellows from four submissions; however, one withdrew before the fellowship commenced. Fellowships were awarded approximately £90,000, £80,000, £30,000 and £15,000, respectively. Three of the fellowships involved both primary research projects and research training, while one focused exclusively on training. The three project research topics were: factors affecting burnout in social workers, barriers and enablers influencing employment for people with multiple sclerosis, and ways to better support neurodivergent social workers. The fellows were all women, three White and one of mixed ethnicity. They came from diverse professional backgrounds, including two social workers, one Chief Executive Officer of a user-led disability organisation, and one care worker from a domiciliary care agency. The duration of the fellowships ranged from 15 to 25 months, with one fellow undertaking the programme full-time and three on a part-time basis while remaining in practice posts. Evaluation This evaluation is a multi-method qualitative study, incorporating interviews, focus groups and document analysis. As shown in Table 1 , we conducted ten in-depth interviews with award holders, applicants, mentors, line managers and people with lived experience of social care services who also advised on fellowships and/or reviewed applications, as well as focus groups with academic supervisors of Kent Research Partnership-funded fellows and experts (either from academia or social work professional organisation) leading similar capacity-building fellowship programmes across England. We also reviewed interim and final progress reports from award holders as part of the document analysis, to complement to their interview data. Table 1 Participants characteristics Source Group Number Role Interviews Practitioner-research fellows 4 Social worker (n = 2) Care worker (n = 1) Chief Executive Officer of a user-led disability organisation (n = 1) Fellowship applicants 2 Occupational Therapist manager (n = 1) Director & Registered Manager of a care organisation providing both residential care homes and supported living (n = 1) Practice mentor / line manager of fellows 2 Social work practice development manager (n = 1) Domiciliary care agency manager (n = 1) Experts by experience 2 Family carer (n = 2)* Focus group Academic supervisors of fellows 4 Academics (n = 4) Focus group Experts who fund, oversee and support practitioner research fellowship schemes 6 Academic leads overseeing different fellowship schemes, based at different Universities in England (n = 5) Social work professional organisation representative (n = 1) Notes: * Both are family carers; one is also a care home manager. The interviews and focus groups were conducted from January – May 2025. At the time of the interview, all fellows were in the final six months of their fellowship but had not yet completed them. Interviews lasted between 30 and 70 minutes and were conducted either in-person or online, based on participants’ preferences. Focus groups were held online via Microsoft Teams and lasted less than 90 minutes. This study was granted ethical approval from the University of Kent on 10/10/2022 (Reference number 0708). All participants provided informed consent prior to taking part in interviews and focus groups. To ensure confidentiality - particularly given the small scale of the programme and the public availability of information about the associated awards - interviewees were given the opportunity to review their transcripts and withdraw any sections. Academic supervisors were also offered the chance to review quotes attributed to them before inclusion in this manuscript (and nothing was retracted). All data have been anonymised, with names and organisations replaced by participant codes. Interview and focus group recordings were transcribed and analysed using reflective thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2019 ) to identify and interpret patterns of shared topics in the data. Using NVivo 14, WZ inductively coded five of the ten interview transcripts, developing a set of initial codes and themes. AMT reviewed the draft codebook, and WZ and AMT discussed and agreed on the coding structure and identified key themes. WZ then completed the coding of the remaining interviews using the agreed coding structure. Further team discussions were held to review the updated codebook and incorporate the analysis of focus group and documentary data. Key findings from the interviews were presented to the expert focus group prior to their session, to inform and guide the discussion. In addition to interviewing two family carers who supported fellows and/or involved in the fellowship selection panels, two people with lived experience of social care services reviewed early drafts of this manuscript. Findings The following sections present findings under three themes: challenges and support social care practitioners and practitioner-researchers had in applying for and undertaking research and training fellowships; the key impacts of the fellowships on research capacity building in social care, as well as on practice and policy; and suggestions on strengthening research opportunities for social care practitioners through fellowship-style awards. 1. Undertaking and applying for fellowships: challenges and support This evaluation identified practical, emotional and system level challenges faced by social care practitioners in applying for and undertaking fellowships, as well as the importance of different types of support that applicants and fellows benefited from. Navigating the application process Several challenges were identified by fellows and applicants in understanding and navigating the fellowship application process, particularly as most of them were new to research. For example, despite efforts to streamline and simplify the application forms for social care practitioners, some fellows and applicants found the application forms complex, the academic language inaccessible, and designing a training plan difficult. ‘The biggest challenge for me was actually completing the application... I can get the concept and I knew what I wanted to do… but actually having to break it down into components of sort of how long this might take or what reason, what literature research should be done around this to support that hypothesis… how you would use the hours that were available within the fellowship, and the finance that was available and how you break that up and actually use all of that was quite complicated and quite an alien thing for me.’ Applicant 01, interview Support for practitioners new to research and academic work was considered crucial from the pre-application stage onward. Fellows and applicants found the tailored support they received during the application process, especially from the researchers in residence (RiRs, three academic research fellows with practice experience and one local authority-based Research Practitioner (Smith et al., In submission)) and their academic supervisors, played a crucial role in addressing these barriers. “[RiR names] were my first links into [partnership name]… meeting them and talking to them one-to-one has been really useful during the application process… they have given me lots of ideas, lots of feedback, and lots of encouragement. I think that encouragement really helped… they were kind of willing me on and on my side, which was very useful because without that, I probably would have gone, ‘No, I haven't got time for this.’” Fellow 03, interview Experts from other fellowship programmes also emphasised the importance of this kind of early and sustained support. “helping them pre-application, explaining what the expectation was, and then also I kind of gave them a bit of support with the application itself... encourage those without that research experience to actually apply.” Expert 02, focus group Managing practical and emotional challenges Time constraints and competing priorities also emerged as a significant challenge, particularly for part-time fellows and applicants who were balancing the fellowship alongside existing professional and personal responsibilities. ‘Initially I found it challenging to adjust to this new role and to manage my time between tasks appropriately. Another issue we have found is when we have high volumes of staff sickness or holiday, the clients take priority, so fellowship tasks may be delayed or postponed.’ Fellow 04, interim report To address this, fellows were supported in setting boundaries around their time commitments. In some cases, members of the supervision/support team facilitated difficult conversations with line managers or other stakeholders to ensure fellows used their protected fellowship time, as planned. ‘My managers thought I would still be available on [fellowship days]… I had those conversations with my supervisor and she said, you really need to have a boundary, otherwise this will never work… I made a meeting with my manager and I said this is the boundaries - I'm not available on [fellowship days] and if there's any work that needs doing, that needs to be done by somebody else.’ Fellow 02, interview Fellows also experienced emotional challenges. For many practitioner-researchers, their research passion and commitment were often deeply rooted in personal and professional experiences, which strongly influenced their choice of research topics. While this connection was a source of motivation, it also contributed to emotional strain, as conducting research closely tied to personal experience can be particularly demanding. ‘Fellows have chosen something that’s quite close to our own experiences… I had to talk to [supervisor’s name], “Is this me seeing this because it’s what I’ve experienced as a practitioner, or is it actually there?” so there was that kind of worry that my own experiences were colouring not only how I was coping with the interviews, but how I was actually analysing the data.’ Fellow 01, interview Negotiating system level challenges Despite partnership working between social care organisations and the University, some fellows felt unsupported by their employers. Research culture is still developing in social care and middle-managers (those line managing the award holders) sometimes appeared disengaged. Lack of institutional backing created barriers to participation and progression. ‘I find it sad at the times we're in now where training and research is not seen as that path… I would love for practitioners to see it as their right, and our responsibility as an authority to make sure they get it and it's protected.’ Practice mentor/manager 01, interview A shared challenge identified by our fellows and their supervisors was research infrastructure, particularly lengthy and complex ethical approval processes. Substantial time was required from both academic supervisors and fellows to navigate these processes, reflecting the limited infrastructure and lack of organisational understanding. ‘[Fellow name] was also very unlucky in university ethics to get the most pedantic review I've had… That's the point the supporter can step in and say, we have experience to know how to respond to these comments to the confidence to say no back to someone and say I think you're wrong here.’ Supervisor 03, focus group Challenges with ethics applications and governance approvals from local authorities for practitioner-led projects were not specific to the Kent Research Partnership. Experts from other capacity-building programmes noted similar challenges: ‘For our practitioner researchers, three of them needed HRA [Health Research Authority] ethics for the small Masters-level research projects… Local authorities tended not to trust the HRA and university approvals so… started asking questions and demanding changes that would have meant going back to the other ethics approvals to ask for amendments.’ Expert 04, focus group 2. The impact of Fellowships on individuals and organisations This evaluation identified a range of individual, team, and sector-wide benefits of the research fellowships for social care practitioners. Impact on professional roles and practice Notably, fellows reported enhanced confidence and credibility in their professional roles, both within their organisations and in wider stakeholder interactions. “For my own development, to make me more credible in my field… I think it will give me much more credibility once it's complete, if I can get it published.” Fellow 03, interview “I've learnt what I am capable of and what I could push towards. It's opened doors for me that I didn't think I could do, and I think it shows a lot about my potential... My confidence has increased so much because of the fellowship.” Fellow 02, interview This was also observed by applicants and echoed by people with lived experience, who similarly experienced a strengthened sense of legitimacy and engagement within the research process. “It really does give so much credibility and impact, not only for your own organisation but for the wider social care… It's that kind of power… rather than just kind of kicking words around, you can actually say to somebody the research shows.” Applicant 02, interview ‘It's given me the sense that I do know what 90% of the time what I'm talking about… especially [fellow name]’s research was a care management one, I felt important to be able to share the view of people working with those care managers.’ Expert by experience 02, interview Another achievement was the tangible impact that practitioner-researchers can make on both practice and policy within a relatively short timeframe. Several fellows were able to contribute directly to service and management improvements, with their research informing changes at local and organisational levels. ‘I think [this fellowship]'s had an impact on others as well, particularly in my teams, because I was able to give presentations and talk about [the programme] and also the research that I was doing and neurodiversity and create that awareness.’ Fellow 02, interview Their involvement often led to increased recognition, resulting in greater access to resources, invitations to contribute to discussions with local authorities, policymakers, and cross-departmental teams, thereby amplifying their influence and extending the reach of their work. Some benefits were already evident at an organisational level, for example, one fellow’s research project was featured and praised in the Care Quality Commission (CQC) report for the partner local authority (CQC, 2025 ). ‘Use research skills in the workplace to support social care practice. Over the past few months we have been doing this more and more so I feel this has been achieved and will continue to grow with time.’ Fellow 04, interim report ‘Nationally, a white paper has just been released… about connect to employment about their push to get people with disabilities long term health conditions and mental health issues into employment… I have been in touch with the [names] Councils. And I am hoping that I will be able to join their steering group to talk about it… that feels like an opportunity I might not have had before.’ Fellow 03, interview Finally, the fellowships played a role in driving culture change in social care. Participants became vocal advocates for the value of evidence-informed practice, workforce development, and professional training. Their contributions underscored the importance of embedding research into the fabric of social care, linking this to wider efforts around professionalising the sector. ‘As part of the prep for the fellowship, we were facing really challenging times with recruitment… So we started to look at a lot of that data as an organisation… it's made us look recruitment probably in a more scientific way, which… we were doing probably anecdotally previously, now part of my board reports every month… Research is really important… for all of the reasons we've talked about: professionalising, recognising social care as a profession and the complexities of the people we support, the complexities of the staffing requirements and the training needs.’ Applicant 02, interview Learning research skills Unsurprisingly, participants reported significant improvements in their research literacy and methodological understanding. Access to formal training, supervision, and peer learning environments strengthened their competencies in research design, data analysis, and ethical governance. It is worth noting the predominantly qualitative focus of the research and training undertook by our four fellows; yet, one attended quantitative research training and others expressed interest in further developing in quantitative analysis in the future. ‘I think the confidence [Fellow name] had in that knowledge, when we had a meeting with the commissioners, was really good… it was obviously the most important bit they were interested in… wasn’t a specific person or an outcome for a specific person, it’s more about the data.’ Practice mentor/manager 02, interview Knowledge mobilisation activities (e.g. presenting at conferences and events) not only developed their dissemination and communication skills but also expanded their professional networks. These platforms facilitated cross-sector collaboration and encouraged ongoing involvement in research beyond the fellowship period. ‘I did present at conferences, these were still national conferences like the British Association of Social Workers… presenting to people that are of like huge calibre, within my world, within social work.’ Fellow 01, interview Widening career horizons and aspirations Career development was another important outcome. The fellowship experience broadened career horizons for practitioners and, on occasion, their managers and practice mentors, equipping them with transferrable research skills that opened new pathways within and beyond social care. Fellows also became visible role models within their organisations, inspiring colleagues and advocating for greater research engagement across the sector. ‘What this has given me is like practitioner-led research, that is my edge, that is what I want to do… I’ve had two years pure research, now I’m going to go back to practice, but hopefully keep that academic side of it through qualifying as a practice educator.’ Fellow 01, interview ‘I wouldn't want to leave practice… That's not to say that a PhD or DLAF [Doctorate Local Authority Fellowship] takes you away from practice. I think it could only motivate and encourage you within your role.’ Fellow 02, interview ‘[being a mentor] has made me feel confident in thinking about what my role is and thinking how it fits to research and thinking broader than the local authority.’ Practice mentor/manager 01, interview All award holders from this programme had returned to social care practice, with plans to champion and contribute to social care research in different roles/capacities. They recognised the unique value they bring as practitioner-researchers, distinguishing this from transitioning fully into academic roles. Some also realised that leading research is not for them, but remain committed to contributing to social care research through advisory roles. ‘[Fellow name] does not see herself as changing careers… One thing she's learnt is that she doesn't want to be a researcher… “It's just not for me, in terms of being a dedicated researcher, but … think about how my knowledge, experience, and also my links to research… fit into what [I] do.... perhaps taking on [a research] advisory role?” And I know she has.’ Supervisor 03, focus group ‘We had many meetings with [fellow name] about her leaving, at least temporarily… practice… But what happened over that time is that she kind of grew in, “oh, I understand that my USP [Unique Selling Point] is being a practitioner-researcher”’ Supervisor 01, focus group 3. Strengthening research opportunities for social care practitioners This evaluation identified pertinent points of learning for future fellowship schemes including the importance of support from senior and middle management, being embedded into an academic environment and suggestions for drawing in the wider social care sector outside of local authorities. Buy-in from senior and middle managers The interview and focus group data emphasised that support from senior leaders, managers and peers was necessary but not sufficient for developing a research culture in social care. For practitioners to realistically access and participate in research opportunities, middle managers were key. This group play a pivotal role in managing team time and resources, and their encouragement (or lack of) can be a deciding factor for potential applicants. ‘My advice would be to make sure you have the buy-in from all your colleagues and make sure that they really understand the importance of being able to put the time to it that you need.’ Fellow 03, interview ‘For the future, letting local authorities know what the weight of the research is on that person… even just a one-off meeting with the manager at the beginning to recognise how that would be managed… it makes it personal to everyone rather than feeling the project is something separate.’ Practice mentor/manager 01, interview This was strongly echoed by experts who led other capacity building initiatives in England: ‘It's getting that buy-in right down the whole thread really, isn't it, down to line managers... buy-in across the board.’ Expert 02, focus group ‘Their line managers were asked to sort of endorse and support their application, to be involved, which they did, but that didn't follow through, not only from the line management but also from their teams. There was a total lack of interest in what they were doing.’ Expert 04, focus group Collaboration with local authority Practice Development teams for social workers and occupational therapists was also highlighted as potential good route to strengthen the integration of research into practice. These teams can help embed research thinking and processes more organically within organisations. ‘The work another [practitioner-]researcher's doing because of their knowledge of who's in the practice development team, they've been able to link up and done some work… if we knew more formally in a more structured way, what else was going on… that'd be really beneficial.’ Practice mentor/manager 01, interview Academic co-location: a conducive environment Proximity to academic environments was viewed as supporting research engagement by many award holders and programme leads. Access to university spaces, co-location opportunities, and informal networking with academics and other practitioner-researchers creates a sense of shared learning and reduces barriers between sectors. This, in turn, builds confidence and normalises research activity within practice settings. ‘it’s also been really helpful not only just to be part of [name] Partnership, but to be within a department like [name], to see what everyone else is doing and see how their things work and go to lunchtime seminars or away days … Just to be within an academic environment, I found really valuable, to really broaden my research horizons.’ Fellow 01, interview ‘they're going on the research methods module coming up at the uni, gave them a protected time that there was no negotiation, it didn't get eaten into… It's great to also develop that peer group with the other awardees. There's a group that they could share their experience and gain that support.’ Expert 02, focus group These co-location and supervision arrangements are mutually beneficial - not only for the fellowship awardees, but also for their academic supervisors and colleagues, offering academics valuable insights into the broader social care landscape and practitioners’ perspectives. ‘reinforcing the importance of undertaking research on underprivileged, marginalised people… I learned a lot from [Fellow name] in terms of knowledge.’ Supervisor 02, focus group Promoting opportunities for the wider sector A broader and more inclusive approach to advertising research opportunities is also essential. As mentioned by some participants, current advertisement of social care capacity building programmes often misses parts of the sector, such as care providers and voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) organisations. Targeted outreach can help ensure that opportunities are accessible across different roles, settings, and communities. ‘we've really seen a shift there in the last 3–4 years… now we allocate a certain number of those fellowships for social care practitioners. And really struggled to reach out to the voluntary sector and domiciliary care. I think there are areas where the reach needs to still go.’ Expert 04, focus group Clear, supportive guidance on the application process is another suggestion made by many interviewees and focus group participants. Examples of successful applications, interactive workshops, and peer support groups would all help reduce uncertainty and build confidence among those unfamiliar with research funding or fellowships. ‘A little bit more hand holding and guidance at the initial outset might be helpful.’ Applicant 01, interview ‘It would have been helpful to have a workshop with other people, with peers to actually go through it together… to understand some of the vocabulary and what means something is social care might mean something different in research.’ Applicant 02, interview Experts leading similar capacity building programmes also highlighted the value of practical and accessible learning resources, such as recorded talks, short guides, or “hints and tips” for getting started in research, which can help research feel more approachable. ‘We need to find a way as a research community, and funding bodies as well… to find a way of demystifying a little bit and decluttering it in terms of language, but also ease people in so they haven't got to expect to change the world in a two-year research project, but they can make important contributions.’ Expert 01, focus group ‘it would be really great if you had like an online learning that could consolidate the kind of hints and tips that we've been discussing today.’ Expert 05, focus group In addition, formal information and offers around practice mentorship are important for helping practitioners, as well as their managers and organisations, navigate the research journey with consistent support. ‘What would have helped me is if there's more clarity about the mentor role… maybe having a pack for mentors about this is what you can do, this is what could happen? … what the university does sometimes is… for guest lectures and things like that, it comes out as formal offers… then it keeps that communication going and they keep feeding into other meetings.’ Practice mentor/manager 01, interview Taking these lessons into account, we have identified recommendations for designing, organising and supporting fellowship-style awards as a mechanism for workforce development and building a research culture in the social care sector (see Fig. 2 ). Discussion Although dedicated funding and support for research capacity building in social care has emerged much later than in the healthcare sector, there is now clear and growing recognition of the need to invest in initiatives such as fellowship awards and research development programmes specifically targeting social care staff and researchers in the UK (NIHR, 2024 , NIHR SSCR, 2025 , Health and Care Research Wales, 2025 , Breckenridge, 2024 ). Some social care professions - such as social work and occupational therapy - have begun to require engagement with research and evidence for continued professional registration (Social Work England, 2019 , Royal College of Occupational Therapists, 2022 ). While this marks a positive step towards fostering a research culture, overall engagement with and use of research evidence in social care practice remains limited (Gray et al., 2024 ). As Woolham (2025) noted, the ‘research-practice gap’ identified 30 years ago continues to persist, despite notable improvements in access to research resources, training opportunities and support for developing and applying research in social care. This study provides insights into the role of fellowship-style awards in building research capacity through practitioner skill development and training, and its application in ‘practice-near’ research (Cooke, 2005 ). Whilst fellowships are inherently individual awards, the nested nature of the fellowships within a Research-Practice Partnership, and a wider commitment to capacity building in the sector as a whole, meant there was potential for impact at the team, organisational and sector levels. Practitioner-researchers play a crucial role as champions for evidence-informed practice. This study found that fellowship-style awards offer valuable opportunities to nurture and support the emergence of a new generation of practitioner-researchers and future leaders. As shown in Fig. 3 , beyond achieving its stated two principles (1 and 2 in Cooke ( 2005 )’s framework), these fellowships also enable two-way learning between practitioners and academic teams, reinforcing the importance of collaborative models in bridging the gap between research and practice (principle 3). Through this mutual exchange, both groups share insight and expertise, creating a form of ‘social learning’, where changes in understanding at the individual level gradually influence the wider networks and organisational cultures (Reed et al., 2010 ) (principle 4). However, our findings also raise important questions about the sustainability of practitioner-research roles (principle 5). What opportunities are available once fellowship programmes end? Can these individuals continue to develop and apply their research skills while remaining connected to frontline practice? The lack of clear career pathways that integrate practice and research presents a challenge for sustaining workforce development and research capacity. Post-fellowship support requires investment and time, yet many research capacity building initiatives are short-term and project-based. Without stronger infrastructure and long-term pathways (principle 6), there is a risk of losing the momentum gained during fellowship schemes (principle 5). In the longer term, building an evidence-based social care system requires investment in career development pathways that enable practitioners to engage with, contribute to, and even lead research (principles 5 and 6). This would strengthen the integration of research into everyday practice, enhance workforce retention, and support the professionalisation of social care roles. Another critical consideration is inclusivity. In our fellowship cohort, three out of four awardees were registered professionals or in senior roles (two social workers and one in a senior managerial role), while only one care worker was awarded a fellowship, focussed on training. Despite promotional efforts through various networks, including care providers (e.g. registered managers), the expression of interest was very limited outside of local authorities or registered professionals. This pattern reflects a wider trend in research capacity building, which has often centred on registered professionals in local government, with much of the activity concentrated on public health rather than social care, and with limited reach into the broader social care sector (Rainey et al., 2015 , Woodall et al., 2025 ). To develop research capacity across the social care sector, it is important to engage a wider range of providers, including VCSE organisations, and to demystify research for them by using accessible language, making clear links between research and practice, clarifying why research and evidence-based practice matter, and highlighting its relevance to their practice experience and needs. Building inclusivity also means recognising the diverse educational backgrounds of the workforce. Many social care staff do not hold higher education qualifications, and additional time and resources are often needed from academic supervisors to support these practitioners in developing research skills. Even experienced practitioners require substantial guidance when embarking on research. It also worth noting that not all staff need or wish to become research-practitioners. Building inclusivity into research capacity building should also include an equitable recognition of other ways to be involved in research, for example, as research advisers, sector partners, or practice-based “linking pins”, connecting research and service delivery through partnership approaches such as the living lab model (Verbeek et al., 2020 , Everink et al., 2023 ). This underscores the need for flexible and tailored pathways, including group-based awards and practitioner-researcher cohorts, as seen in initiatives such as Social Care Research in Practice Teams (SCRiPT)’s community of practice model (Woolham et al., 2025 ). A recurring concern from social care organisations and managers is how to balance support for practitioner-researchers with the immediate demands of delivering frontline services in a highly pressurised system. Middle and line managers often experience the practical challenges most acutely, as they must accommodate practitioners working part-time in practice or taking short-term leave to undertake fellowships – pressures that can be perceived as disruptive. For fellowships to be sustainable, they require the buy-in and sufficient ring-fenced funding to enable backfill or ensure continuity of staff levels, so that the rest of the team also feel supported. However, persistent challenges in the recruitment to part time and/or fixed term roles compound these challenges. These challenges add to a broader concern that fellowship awards may act as a ‘stepping stone’ out of practice, rather than a bridge between practice and research. While we cannot claim our fellowship cases are representative, and there are certainly examples where practitioners have moved away from frontline roles after engaging in research, the Kent Research Partnership fellowship cases suggest a more positive pattern. All four fellows returned to frontline roles following their fellowships, motivated by a belief in the unique value they bring as practitioner-researchers. Their experiences highlight the potential of fellowships not as exits from practice, but as mechanisms for embedding research capacity within the workforce. Even if some fellows were to leave practice, the embedding of research capacity into practice would still occur, making it a worthwhile investment for organisations and managers, who should actively encourage staff to develop. Therefore, supporting practitioner-researcher fellowships is not only about workforce development and research capacity building, but also about retaining and sustaining the sector’s future. Nonetheless, encouraging social care organisations to recognise the value of research training and fellowships remains a key challenge. Evidence of tangible benefits, such as practitioner-research contributing to CQC assessments, may increase the value of these roles to organisations. Further work is needed to identify effective ways of promoting the value of research training with social care organisations, managers and staff. Finally, while practitioner-research fellowships are an important first step in building research capacity, our findings highlight that the broader infrastructure in social care remains underdeveloped to fully support practitioner-researchers. Key gaps include financial resources, research and development support structures, ethics and research governance committees who understand and are supportive of social care practitioner-led research, and embedded roles such as research champions, researcher-in-residence and linking pins that can facilitate evidence use and capacity building within organisations (Ruiz-Burga et al., 2025 , Everink et al., 2023 , Verbeek et al., 2020 ). Addressing these systemic barriers is essential if research training and fellowships are to deliver lasting impact at sector level. Moreover, the success of the fellowships was closely tied to other principles and mechanisms for building research capacity, such as the partnership’s sustainability and infrastructure, highlighting that fellowship-style awards are more difficult to sustain in isolation, and work best when embedded within a wider Research-Practice Partnership. Declarations Funding. This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under the Health and Social Care Delivery Research (HSDR) programme (NIHR131373). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Acknowledgements. We would like to thank all participants of the study, including fellows, applicants, mentors, line managers and experts by experience involved in the Kent Research Partnership fellowship scheme, as well as experts who lead and support social care practitioner awards and capacity building programmes in other regions in England. We acknowledge the support of the wider study team and members from the lived experience working group of the Kent Research Partnership. Special appreciation to Liz Jones (National Care Forum), Susan Allcock (Expert by Experience) and John Potts (Expert by Experience) for reviewing this manuscript. References Abrahamson, V., Hashem, F., Fournel, S., Thornton, C., Zhang, W., Trapp, O., Mikelyte, R., Jones, L. & Towers, A.-M. In submission. Using communities of practice in adult social care to build research capacity and foster best practice: a qualitative evaluation. NIHR Open Research . Akudjedu, T.N., Reeve, R., Eaton, J., Costigan, C., Burnett, C., Barnsley, H., McNair, H. & Simcock, I.C. 2025. Research and fellowship funding perspectives: A collective NIHR experience of a community of pre- and post-doctoral radiographers. Radiography, 31 , 102880. Ashworth, C. & Burke, N. 2023. Striking ethical balances: the contribution of ‘insider’practitioner–academic social work research in England. The British journal of social work, 53 , 3456-3470. Boaz, A., Goodenough, B., Hanney, S. & Soper, B. 2024. If health organisations and staff engage in research, does healthcare improve? Strengthening the evidence base through systematic reviews. Health Research Policy and Systems, 22 , 113. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11 , 589-597. Breckenridge, J. 2024. Respectful, responsive and relational: a mixed-methods qualitative study on how to define, evidence and improve social care in Scotland. Scottish Government Social Research Report. Edinburgh. Cooke, J. 2005. A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care. BMC Family practice, 6 , 44. Cooke, J., Gardois, P. & Booth, A. 2018. Uncovering the mechanisms of research capacity development in health and social care: a realist synthesis. Health research policy and systems, 16 , 93. CQC. 2025. Kent County Council: local authority assessment [Online]. Available: https://www.cqc.org.uk/care-services/local-authority-assessment-reports/kent-0525 [Accessed]. Everink, I., Urlings, J., Griffiths, A., Verbeek, H., Haunch, K., Spilsbury, K., Hamers, J. & Devi, R. 2023. Bridging the gap between science and care: a qualitative exploration of the role of the Scientific Linking Pin researcher working in research and practice partnerships. Journal of Long-Term Care . Gray, K., Dibsdall, L., Sumpter, L., Cameron, A., Willis, P., Symonds, J., Jones, M., McLeod, H., Macdonald, G. & Cabral, C. 2024. ‘Shooting in the dark’: implications of the research–practice gap for enhancing research use in adult social care. Evidence & Policy, 20 , 440-459. Hardwick, L. & Worsley, A. 2011. The Invisibility of Practitioner Research. Practice, 23 , 135-146. Hashem, F., Zhang, W., Mikelyte, R., Rajan-Rankin, S., Porumb, E., Trapp, O. & Towers, A.-M. 2024. Our approach to developing communities of practice to foster research capacities for the adult social care workforce. NIHR open research, 3 , 43. Health and Care Research Wales. 2025. Personal awards [Online]. Available: https://healthandcareresearchwales.org/faculty/personal-awards [Accessed 01 August 2025]. Keemink, J.R., Hotham, S., Zhang, W., Mikelyte, R., Smith, N., Hashem, F., Walton, G., Charles, A. & Towers, A.-M. 2025. Increasing research capacity in adult social care: a research capacity-building partnership in Kent and its theory of change. NIHR Open Research, 5 , 45. Kendrick, H., Towers, A., Hotham, S. & Keemink, J.R. 2025. Engaging in research and practice collaborations: lessons from six adult social care capacity building partnerships. Canterbury: University of Kent. Lizarondo, L., McArthur, A., Lockwood, C. & Munn, Z. 2021. Facilitation of evidence implementation within a clinical fellowship program: a mixed methods study. JBI Evidence Implementation, 19 , 130-141. NIHR. 2024. Research career development funding programmes [Online]. Available: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/career-development/research-career-funding-programmes [Accessed 01 August 2025]. NIHR SSCR. 2025. Career Development opportunities [Online]. Available: https://sscr.nihr.ac.uk/career-development/social-care-research-career-opportunities/ [Accessed 01 August 2025]. Peckham, S., Zhang, W., Eida, T., Hashem, F. & Kendall, S. 2023. Research engagement and research capacity building: a priority for healthcare organisations in the UK. Journal of health organization and management, 37 , 343-359. Rainey, C., Woolham, J. & Stevens, M. 2015. Research capacity, knowledge, skills and use in Councils with Adult Social Care Responsibilities: Findings from an online survey of research active Local Government staff. Reed, M.S., Evely, A.C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J., Parrish, B., Prell, C. & Raymond, C. 2010. What is social learning? Ecology and society, 15. Ried, K., Farmer, E.A. & Weston, K.M. 2007. Bursaries, writing grants and fellowships: a strategy to develop research capacity in primary health care. BMC Family Practice, 8 , 19. Royal College of Occupational Therapists. 2022. Career Development Framework: Guiding Principles for Occupational Therapy [Online]. Available: https://www.rcot.co.uk/explore-resources/rcot-publications/career-development [Accessed 30 July 2025]. Ruiz-Burga, E., Flowers, P., Fry, Z., Slator, M., Hague, L., Green, M., Gordon, A.L., Towers, A.-M., Knapp, M., Surr, C. & Shallcross, L. 2025. New horizons in improving research capacity in English care homes for older adults. Age and Ageing, 54. Smith, N., Charles, A., Abrahamson, V., Mikelyte, R., Trapp, O., Zhang, W., Hashem, F., Potts, J., Walton, G. & Towers, A.-M. In submission. Facilitators and challenges to implementing a researcher-in-residence model to build research capacity in adult social care. Health Research Policy and System . Social Work England. 2019. Professional standards [Online]. Available: https://www.socialworkengland.org.uk/standards/professional-standards/ [Accessed 23 July 2025]. Verbeek, H., Zwakhalen, S.M.G., Schols, J.M.G.A., Kempen, G.I.J.M. & Hamers, J.P.H. 2020. The Living Lab in Ageing and Long-Term Care: A Sustainable Model for Translational Research Improving Quality of Life, Quality of Care and Quality of Work. The Journal of nutrition, health and aging, 24 , 43-47. Wakefield, J., Lavender, S., Nixon, K., Hornby, S., Dobel-Ober, D., Lambley-Burke, R., Spolander, G., Bonner, P., Mallen, C. & Campbel, P. 2022. Social work and social care: Mapping workforce engagement, relevance, experience and interest in research. The British Journal of Social Work, 52 , 2291-2311. Woodall, J., Bracewell, C., Passey, A., Start, S. & South, J. 2025. Exploring research capacity and capability in a local authority: qualitative insights from leaders and staff. BMC Public Health, 25 , 2461. Woolham, J., Connell, T., Metcalf, C., Swinson, T., Tooke, S., Buswell, M., Efstathopoulou, L., Lynch, J., Mioshi, E., O’Brien, L., Warmoth, K. & Almack, K. 2025. Practitioners as researchers – experiences of four people working in hybrid roles in two local authorities and a university. Social Work Education , 1-19. Young, A.F. 2004. Becoming a practitioner-researcher: A personal journey. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67 , 369-371. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 24 Feb, 2026 Read the published version in The British Journal of Social Work → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7759522","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":523376874,"identity":"59b33a9e-266b-4157-af2f-9f5441636b61","order_by":0,"name":"Wenjing Zhang","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1810-791X","institution":"King’s College London","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wenjing","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":523376875,"identity":"93769a07-4946-48a3-a108-4afe2906591c","order_by":1,"name":"Ann-Marie Towers","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3597-1061","institution":"King’s College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ann-Marie","middleName":"","lastName":"Towers","suffix":""},{"id":523376876,"identity":"22373f8f-b0a4-4b53-80a8-b1f3b6a14d7b","order_by":2,"name":"Alison Charles","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5454-7410","institution":"University of Kent","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alison","middleName":"","lastName":"Charles","suffix":""},{"id":523376877,"identity":"0d7b4daa-4d32-49c3-9d95-bd2e83a04344","order_by":3,"name":"Olivia Trapp","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9236-231X","institution":"Kent County Council","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Olivia","middleName":"","lastName":"Trapp","suffix":""},{"id":523376878,"identity":"353c7b99-2279-4820-9021-4636a9cc8395","order_by":4,"name":"Vanessa Abrahamson","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1169-9457","institution":"University of Kent","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Vanessa","middleName":"","lastName":"Abrahamson","suffix":""},{"id":523376879,"identity":"3a9e72de-afe3-4d1c-b86c-1fd9bdc96abc","order_by":5,"name":"Stephen Allan","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1208-9837","institution":"University of Kent","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Stephen","middleName":"","lastName":"Allan","suffix":""},{"id":523376880,"identity":"901f004b-5a4f-468c-916d-c213589ac94c","order_by":6,"name":"Nick Smith","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9793-6988","institution":"University of Kent","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nick","middleName":"","lastName":"Smith","suffix":""},{"id":523376881,"identity":"3adccdd9-ed67-41f1-9b43-397bf250cff4","order_by":7,"name":"Ferhana Hashem","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2544-1350","institution":"University of Kent","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ferhana","middleName":"","lastName":"Hashem","suffix":""},{"id":523376882,"identity":"a16c0698-60f3-4679-8664-65895b579a90","order_by":8,"name":"Rasa Mikelyte","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2772-8240","institution":"University of Kent","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rasa","middleName":"","lastName":"Mikelyte","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-01 12:36:53","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7759522/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7759522/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcag014","type":"published","date":"2026-02-25T00:00:00+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":92697957,"identity":"ed8a522a-de25-4b5f-a82e-aec78339a24a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-03 07:24:20","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":561721,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"KRPFellowshippaperFULLmanuscriptnonanonymised.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7759522/v1/be831b89e808e13c4ebf8ec0.docx"},{"id":92697942,"identity":"5c8d5c4d-e0c4-437c-abb2-d37ac495c342","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-03 07:24:19","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs7759522.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7759522/v1/129b15b4eaacd76b8667bc69.json"},{"id":92697954,"identity":"7ef701b3-7ee5-448e-961b-a0bbc6c01694","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-03 07:24:20","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":107678,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs77595220enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7759522/v1/8d76377054f8eea2a6631a25.xml"},{"id":92697956,"identity":"060d3412-242d-44ee-92a0-4f32084093bd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-03 07:24:20","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":71296,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7759522/v1/acdae2d0880fe01983b60f1d.png"},{"id":92697951,"identity":"06e7ae98-f31e-41b5-b398-d3480a603e60","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-03 07:24:20","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":112086,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7759522/v1/6b2d583a194e7e297e4d64cb.png"},{"id":92698132,"identity":"d3d19f5b-92b1-4cc9-8532-0ff63e775076","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-03 07:32:20","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":257294,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7759522/v1/8b273f66c142b7b68ed8125b.png"},{"id":92697953,"identity":"f1d851fb-9823-44e3-8dce-d5d1c6f91acd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-03 07:24:20","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":36463,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7759522/v1/8dd3ab66c3a64c2788f953ea.png"},{"id":92697916,"identity":"d6836327-f2f9-47eb-9634-4dcd179cd098","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-03 07:24:19","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":38735,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7759522/v1/e532221226a6e52e385022ca.png"},{"id":92697955,"identity":"687544fb-b4c2-4ab1-8ef9-b88060de6014","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-03 07:24:20","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":70559,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7759522/v1/9e89eed9fbe44653e1352699.png"},{"id":92698133,"identity":"e631e962-e2a5-4045-813e-ea8ad7ed7cf2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-03 07:32:20","extension":"xml","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":103315,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs77595220structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7759522/v1/86edca6fced60302234e8bbe.xml"},{"id":92697960,"identity":"913f318e-1c3a-44cb-824d-7f400d9aad37","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-03 07:24:21","extension":"html","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":114840,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7759522/v1/94bd8182afc456e099f78b10.html"},{"id":92698131,"identity":"0006adaf-dd9a-4e91-b423-675684dbea99","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-03 07:32:20","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":71296,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSix principles of Cooke (2005)’s research capacity building framework\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1CookesRCBprinciplesBW.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7759522/v1/64e8c126939ab67c04a8f0eb.png"},{"id":92697950,"identity":"76c50835-64ae-4ac4-80c5-95e21c1b3149","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-03 07:24:20","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":430047,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRecommendations for social care research fellowship schemes\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2KRPfellowshiprecommendationsdiagram.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7759522/v1/45054e745396d85f309da03b.png"},{"id":92697920,"identity":"f7e6566e-2e5d-44dc-a589-c48ccf571016","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-03 07:24:19","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":386617,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFellowship-style awards mapped on principles of Cooke (2005)’s research capacity building framework\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.Fellowshipstyleawardsmappedonprinciplesofresearchcapacitybuildingframework.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7759522/v1/02208fd67087f495d9f3a304.png"},{"id":107342379,"identity":"1a6214c5-3fd0-49d3-99c2-4abf1f49a5b5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-20 14:35:31","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1199438,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7759522/v1/5baa97af-1f06-4485-93c0-bea58bde2d11.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eResearch and training fellowships as a mechanism for building research capacity in social care: an evaluation of a capacity-building programme in England\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Teaser Text","content":"\u003cp\u003eSocial work and social care practice should be informed by high quality research evidence on the topics that matter most for policy and practice. It is therefore imperative to support and engage the workforce in using and shaping research. Research Fellowships fund and support individuals to undertake practice-relevant research. Evidence from healthcare suggests this approach can improve research engagement and use, as practitioners are well-placed to identify useful studies and promote research among peers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne Practice-Research Partnership funded four individuals in diverse roles as Research and Training Fellows to explore this model in social care. One Fellow focused on training to build confidence and skills, while the others conducted their own research alongside formal and informal learning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe interviewed Fellows, applicants, mentors, supervisors, and sector experts to assess the programme\u0026rsquo;s impact. Findings highlighted the importance of strong support during the application process and throughout the programme. Fellows faced challenges such as time constraints, emotional demands, and boundary-setting, but gained confidence, skills, and career development. Their involvement also helped foster a research-positive culture within their teams.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture programmes should engage managers at all levels and ensure opportunities are inclusive, accessible, and relevant across the breadth of social care roles and organisations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eBuilding research capacity amongst health and social care staff is fundamental to advancing evidence-based care practice (Cooke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). However, in the UK, research capacity building in social care has only recently gained attention and dedicated funding, significantly later than comparable initiatives in the healthcare sector (Peckham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e, Gray et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Social work and social care practitioners often have limited involvement in research or the application of evidence-based practice (Ashworth and Burke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). For example, a survey conducted by Wakefield et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) with a range of social work and care staff found that only 10% reported involvement in research, alongside low levels of confidence and knowledge across key research skills, with identified barriers including uncertainty about where or how to begin, limited time and capacity, and lack of clarity about the impact of research on practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecognising the need to build research capacity and foster a research culture in social care, the NIHR funded six social care capacity building partnerships across England in 2021 (Kendrick et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The Kent Partnership was one of these initiatives. It brought together regional and national stakeholders, including representatives from local authorities, social care providers, sector support organisations, universities and experts by experience. The partnership aimed to improve care quality by investing in and valuing the social care workforce and promoting a positive research culture and evidence-based practice. Following the six research capacity building principles outlined by Cooke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), the partnership applied multiple mechanisms to build research capacity in adult social care in Kent, such as communities of practice, researchers in residence, research and training fellowships, access to research evidence, and a lived experience working group (Hashem et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e, Keemink et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e, Smith et al., In submission, Abrahamson et al., In submission).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis paper focuses on one of these key mechanisms: funding and supporting social care staff to undertake research and/or training fellowships. This aligns closely to Cooke’s first and second principles of research capacity building: (1) Developing appropriate skills and confidence, through training and creating opportunities to apply skills and (2) Supporting research ‘close to practice’ (Cooke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Fellowships were designed to help social care practitioners develop research skills and experience through tailored support and the opportunity to carry out a small-scale research project on a priority topic for adult social care (Hashem et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). They also aimed to nurture a new generation of practitioner-researchers within the social care sector.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractitioner-led research is essential to the development and improvement of the care sector and supporting workforce development (Young, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e, Boaz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Practitioner researchers play a key role in translating abstract concepts into rights-related, person-centred outcomes, ultimately contributing to evidence- and knowledge- informed practice (James et al 2023). Research fellowships are an established pathway in healthcare for individuals to combine practice-relevant research with personal and career development (Akudjedu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e, Ried et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). These clinical research fellowships have been shown to support evidence implementation within organisations and help develop future research leaders across healthcare professions (Lizarondo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e, Akudjedu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Although practitioner research in social work and social care has long struggled to emerge from a state of near ‘invisibility’ (Hardwick and Worsley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), the fellowship model is now beginning to gain traction within the social care sector, particularly through initiatives such as the six aforementioned NIHR Social Care Capacity Building Partnerships, the NIHR Academy, national capacity building opportunities supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaborations, and NIHR School for Social Care Research (SSCR) Career Development Awards (NIHR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e, NIHR SSCR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e This study evaluates the Kent Research Partnership fellowship programme, assessing its impact on building research capacity at individual, team, organisational and sector levels within adult social care. It also seeks to identify lessons for designing, organising and supporting fellowship-style awards and practitioner-researchers as a mechanism for developing the workforce and fostering research culture in the social care sector.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eResearch and training fellowships\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs part of the Kent Research Partnership, four research and/or training fellowships were awarded to social care practitioners through two rounds of competitive funding. The partnership provided pre-submission support to all practitioners who showed interest, and nine were supported some way through the development process. The first round resulted in the selection of two fellows from three submissions. The second round led to the selection of three fellows from four submissions; however, one withdrew before the fellowship commenced. Fellowships were awarded approximately £90,000, £80,000, £30,000 and £15,000, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree of the fellowships involved both primary research projects and research training, while one focused exclusively on training. The three project research topics were: factors affecting burnout in social workers, barriers and enablers influencing employment for people with multiple sclerosis, and ways to better support neurodivergent social workers. The fellows were all women, three White and one of mixed ethnicity. They came from diverse professional backgrounds, including two social workers, one Chief Executive Officer of a user-led disability organisation, and one care worker from a domiciliary care agency. The duration of the fellowships ranged from 15 to 25 months, with one fellow undertaking the programme full-time and three on a part-time basis while remaining in practice posts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvaluation\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis evaluation is a multi-method qualitative study, incorporating interviews, focus groups and document analysis. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, we conducted ten in-depth interviews with award holders, applicants, mentors, line managers and people with lived experience of social care services who also advised on fellowships and/or reviewed applications, as well as focus groups with academic supervisors of Kent Research Partnership-funded fellows and experts (either from academia or social work professional organisation) leading similar capacity-building fellowship programmes across England. We also reviewed interim and final progress reports from award holders as part of the document analysis, to complement to their interview data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRole\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterviews\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractitioner-research fellows\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial worker (n = 2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCare worker (n = 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eChief Executive Officer of a user-led disability organisation (n = 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFellowship applicants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOccupational Therapist manager (n = 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDirector \u0026amp; Registered Manager of a care organisation providing both residential care homes and supported living (n = 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractice mentor / line manager of fellows\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial work practice development manager (n = 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDomiciliary care agency manager (n = 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExperts by experience\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFamily carer (n = 2)*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFocus group\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcademic supervisors of fellows\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcademics (n = 4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFocus group\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExperts who fund, oversee and support practitioner research fellowship schemes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcademic leads overseeing different fellowship schemes, based at different Universities in England (n = 5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial work professional organisation representative (n = 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eNotes: * Both are family carers; one is also a care home manager.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe interviews and focus groups were conducted from January – May 2025. At the time of the interview, all fellows were in the final six months of their fellowship but had not yet completed them. Interviews lasted between 30 and 70 minutes and were conducted either in-person or online, based on participants’ preferences. Focus groups were held online via Microsoft Teams and lasted less than 90 minutes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e This study was granted ethical approval from the University of Kent on 10/10/2022 (Reference number 0708). All participants provided informed consent prior to taking part in interviews and focus groups. To ensure confidentiality - particularly given the small scale of the programme and the public availability of information about the associated awards - interviewees were given the opportunity to review their transcripts and withdraw any sections. Academic supervisors were also offered the chance to review quotes attributed to them before inclusion in this manuscript (and nothing was retracted). All data have been anonymised, with names and organisations replaced by participant codes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterview and focus group recordings were transcribed and analysed using reflective thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) to identify and interpret patterns of shared topics in the data. Using NVivo 14, WZ inductively coded five of the ten interview transcripts, developing a set of initial codes and themes. AMT reviewed the draft codebook, and WZ and AMT discussed and agreed on the coding structure and identified key themes. WZ then completed the coding of the remaining interviews using the agreed coding structure. Further team discussions were held to review the updated codebook and incorporate the analysis of focus group and documentary data. Key findings from the interviews were presented to the expert focus group prior to their session, to inform and guide the discussion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition to interviewing two family carers who supported fellows and/or involved in the fellowship selection panels, two people with lived experience of social care services reviewed early drafts of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Findings","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe following sections present findings under three themes: challenges and support social care practitioners and practitioner-researchers had in applying for and undertaking research and training fellowships; the key impacts of the fellowships on research capacity building in social care, as well as on practice and policy; and suggestions on strengthening research opportunities for social care practitioners through fellowship-style awards.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003e1. Undertaking and applying for fellowships: challenges and support\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis evaluation identified practical, emotional and system level challenges faced by social care practitioners in applying for and undertaking fellowships, as well as the importance of different types of support that applicants and fellows benefited from.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNavigating the application process\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral challenges were identified by fellows and applicants in understanding and navigating the fellowship application process, particularly as most of them were new to research. For example, despite efforts to streamline and simplify the application forms for social care practitioners, some fellows and applicants found the application forms complex, the academic language inaccessible, and designing a training plan difficult.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘The biggest challenge for me was actually completing the application... I can get the concept and I knew what I wanted to do… but actually having to break it down into components of sort of how long this might take or what reason, what literature research should be done around this to support that hypothesis… how you would use the hours that were available within the fellowship, and the finance that was available and how you break that up and actually use all of that was quite complicated and quite an alien thing for me.’\u003c/em\u003e Applicant 01, interview\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSupport for practitioners new to research and academic work was considered crucial from the pre-application stage onward. Fellows and applicants found the tailored support they received during the application process, especially from the researchers in residence (RiRs, three academic research fellows with practice experience and one local authority-based Research Practitioner (Smith et al., In submission)) and their academic supervisors, played a crucial role in addressing these barriers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e“[RiR names] were my first links into [partnership name]… meeting them and talking to them one-to-one has been really useful during the application process… they have given me lots of ideas, lots of feedback, and lots of encouragement. I think that encouragement really helped… they were kind of willing me on and on my side, which was very useful because without that, I probably would have gone, ‘No, I haven't got time for this.’” Fellow 03, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExperts from other fellowship programmes also emphasised the importance of this kind of early and sustained support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e“helping them pre-application, explaining what the expectation was, and then also I kind of gave them a bit of support with the application itself... encourage those without that research experience to actually apply.” Expert 02, focus group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eManaging practical and emotional challenges\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTime constraints and competing priorities also emerged as a significant challenge, particularly for part-time fellows and applicants who were balancing the fellowship alongside existing professional and personal responsibilities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘Initially I found it challenging to adjust to this new role and to manage my time between tasks appropriately. Another issue we have found is when we have high volumes of staff sickness or holiday, the clients take priority, so fellowship tasks may be delayed or postponed.’ Fellow 04, interim report\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address this, fellows were supported in setting boundaries around their time commitments. In some cases, members of the supervision/support team facilitated difficult conversations with line managers or other stakeholders to ensure fellows used their protected fellowship time, as planned.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘My managers thought I would still be available on [fellowship days]… I had those conversations with my supervisor and she said, you really need to have a boundary, otherwise this will never work… I made a meeting with my manager and I said this is the boundaries - I'm not available on [fellowship days] and if there's any work that needs doing, that needs to be done by somebody else.’ Fellow 02, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFellows also experienced emotional challenges. For many practitioner-researchers, their research passion and commitment were often deeply rooted in personal and professional experiences, which strongly influenced their choice of research topics. While this connection was a source of motivation, it also contributed to emotional strain, as conducting research closely tied to personal experience can be particularly demanding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘Fellows have chosen something that’s quite close to our own experiences… I had to talk to [supervisor’s name], “Is this me seeing this because it’s what I’ve experienced as a practitioner, or is it actually there?” so there was that kind of worry that my own experiences were colouring not only how I was coping with the interviews, but how I was actually analysing the data.’\u003c/em\u003e Fellow 01, interview\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNegotiating system level challenges\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite partnership working between social care organisations and the University, some fellows felt unsupported by their employers. Research culture is still developing in social care and middle-managers (those line managing the award holders) sometimes appeared disengaged. Lack of institutional backing created barriers to participation and progression.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘I find it sad at the times we're in now where training and research is not seen as that path… I would love for practitioners to see it as their right, and our responsibility as an authority to make sure they get it and it's protected.’ Practice mentor/manager 01, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e A shared challenge identified by our fellows and their supervisors was research infrastructure, particularly lengthy and complex ethical approval processes. Substantial time was required from both academic supervisors and fellows to navigate these processes, reflecting the limited infrastructure and lack of organisational understanding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘[Fellow name] was also very unlucky in university ethics to get the most pedantic review I've had… That's the point the supporter can step in and say, we have experience to know how to respond to these comments to the confidence to say no back to someone and say I think you're wrong here.’ Supervisor 03, focus group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eChallenges with ethics applications and governance approvals from local authorities for practitioner-led projects were not specific to the Kent Research Partnership. Experts from other capacity-building programmes noted similar challenges:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘For our practitioner researchers, three of them needed HRA [Health Research Authority] ethics for the small Masters-level research projects… Local authorities tended not to trust the HRA and university approvals so… started asking questions and demanding changes that would have meant going back to the other ethics approvals to ask for amendments.’ Expert 04, focus group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003e2. The impact of Fellowships on individuals and organisations\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis evaluation identified a range of individual, team, and sector-wide benefits of the research fellowships for social care practitioners.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImpact on professional roles and practice\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNotably, fellows reported enhanced confidence and credibility in their professional roles, both within their organisations and in wider stakeholder interactions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e“For my own development, to make me more credible in my field… I think it will give me much more credibility once it's complete, if I can get it published.” Fellow 03, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e“I've learnt what I am capable of and what I could push towards. It's opened doors for me that I didn't think I could do, and I think it shows a lot about my potential... My confidence has increased so much because of the fellowship.” Fellow 02, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis was also observed by applicants and echoed by people with lived experience, who similarly experienced a strengthened sense of legitimacy and engagement within the research process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e“It really does give so much credibility and impact, not only for your own organisation but for the wider social care… It's that kind of power… rather than just kind of kicking words around, you can actually say to somebody the research shows.” Applicant 02, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘It's given me the sense that I do know what 90% of the time what I'm talking about… especially [fellow name]’s research was a care management one, I felt important to be able to share the view of people working with those care managers.’ Expert by experience 02, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother achievement was the tangible impact that practitioner-researchers can make on both practice and policy within a relatively short timeframe. Several fellows were able to contribute directly to service and management improvements, with their research informing changes at local and organisational levels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘I think [this fellowship]'s had an impact on others as well, particularly in my teams, because I was able to give presentations and talk about [the programme] and also the research that I was doing and neurodiversity and create that awareness.’ Fellow 02, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheir involvement often led to increased recognition, resulting in greater access to resources, invitations to contribute to discussions with local authorities, policymakers, and cross-departmental teams, thereby amplifying their influence and extending the reach of their work. Some benefits were already evident at an organisational level, for example, one fellow’s research project was featured and praised in the Care Quality Commission (CQC) report for the partner local authority (CQC, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘Use research skills in the workplace to support social care practice. Over the past few months we have been doing this more and more so I feel this has been achieved and will continue to grow with time.’ Fellow 04, interim report\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘Nationally, a white paper has just been released… about connect to employment about their push to get people with disabilities long term health conditions and mental health issues into employment… I have been in touch with the [names] Councils. And I am hoping that I will be able to join their steering group to talk about it… that feels like an opportunity I might not have had before.’ Fellow 03, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Finally, the fellowships played a role in driving culture change in social care. Participants became vocal advocates for the value of evidence-informed practice, workforce development, and professional training. Their contributions underscored the importance of embedding research into the fabric of social care, linking this to wider efforts around professionalising the sector.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘As part of the prep for the fellowship, we were facing really challenging times with recruitment… So we started to look at a lot of that data as an organisation… it's made us look recruitment probably in a more scientific way, which… we were doing probably anecdotally previously, now part of my board reports every month… Research is really important… for all of the reasons we've talked about: professionalising, recognising social care as a profession and the complexities of the people we support, the complexities of the staffing requirements and the training needs.’ Applicant 02, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLearning research skills\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnsurprisingly, participants reported significant improvements in their research literacy and methodological understanding. Access to formal training, supervision, and peer learning environments strengthened their competencies in research design, data analysis, and ethical governance. It is worth noting the predominantly qualitative focus of the research and training undertook by our four fellows; yet, one attended quantitative research training and others expressed interest in further developing in quantitative analysis in the future.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘I think the confidence [Fellow name] had in that knowledge, when we had a meeting with the commissioners, was really good… it was obviously the most important bit they were interested in… wasn’t a specific person or an outcome for a specific person, it’s more about the data.’ Practice mentor/manager 02, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eKnowledge mobilisation activities (e.g. presenting at conferences and events) not only developed their dissemination and communication skills but also expanded their professional networks. These platforms facilitated cross-sector collaboration and encouraged ongoing involvement in research beyond the fellowship period.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘I did present at conferences, these were still national conferences like the British Association of Social Workers… presenting to people that are of like huge calibre, within my world, within social work.’ Fellow 01, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWidening career horizons and aspirations\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCareer development was another important outcome. The fellowship experience broadened career horizons for practitioners and, on occasion, their managers and practice mentors, equipping them with transferrable research skills that opened new pathways within and beyond social care. Fellows also became visible role models within their organisations, inspiring colleagues and advocating for greater research engagement across the sector.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘What this has given me is like practitioner-led research, that is my edge, that is what I want to do… I’ve had two years pure research, now I’m going to go back to practice, but hopefully keep that academic side of it through qualifying as a practice educator.’ Fellow 01, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘I wouldn't want to leave practice… That's not to say that a PhD or DLAF [Doctorate Local Authority Fellowship] takes you away from practice. I think it could only motivate and encourage you within your role.’ Fellow 02, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘[being a mentor] has made me feel confident in thinking about what my role is and thinking how it fits to research and thinking broader than the local authority.’ Practice mentor/manager 01, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll award holders from this programme had returned to social care practice, with plans to champion and contribute to social care research in different roles/capacities. They recognised the unique value they bring as practitioner-researchers, distinguishing this from transitioning fully into academic roles. Some also realised that leading research is not for them, but remain committed to contributing to social care research through advisory roles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘[Fellow name] does not see herself as changing careers… One thing she's learnt is that she doesn't want to be a researcher… “It's just not for me, in terms of being a dedicated researcher, but … think about how my knowledge, experience, and also my links to research… fit into what [I] do.... perhaps taking on [a research] advisory role?” And I know she has.’ Supervisor 03, focus group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘We had many meetings with [fellow name] about her leaving, at least temporarily… practice… But what happened over that time is that she kind of grew in, “oh, I understand that my USP [Unique Selling Point] is being a practitioner-researcher”’ Supervisor 01, focus group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003e3. Strengthening research opportunities for social care practitioners\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis evaluation identified pertinent points of learning for future fellowship schemes including the importance of support from senior and middle management, being embedded into an academic environment and suggestions for drawing in the wider social care sector outside of local authorities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBuy-in from senior and middle managers\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe interview and focus group data emphasised that support from senior leaders, managers and peers was necessary but not sufficient for developing a research culture in social care. For practitioners to realistically access and participate in research opportunities, middle managers were key. This group play a pivotal role in managing team time and resources, and their encouragement (or lack of) can be a deciding factor for potential applicants.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘My advice would be to make sure you have the buy-in from all your colleagues and make sure that they really understand the importance of being able to put the time to it that you need.’ Fellow 03, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘For the future, letting local authorities know what the weight of the research is on that person… even just a one-off meeting with the manager at the beginning to recognise how that would be managed… it makes it personal to everyone rather than feeling the project is something separate.’ Practice mentor/manager 01, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis was strongly echoed by experts who led other capacity building initiatives in England:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘It's getting that buy-in right down the whole thread really, isn't it, down to line managers... buy-in across the board.’ Expert 02, focus group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘Their line managers were asked to sort of endorse and support their application, to be involved, which they did, but that didn't follow through, not only from the line management but also from their teams. There was a total lack of interest in what they were doing.’ Expert 04, focus group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Collaboration with local authority Practice Development teams for social workers and occupational therapists was also highlighted as potential good route to strengthen the integration of research into practice. These teams can help embed research thinking and processes more organically within organisations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘The work another [practitioner-]researcher's doing because of their knowledge of who's in the practice development team, they've been able to link up and done some work… if we knew more formally in a more structured way, what else was going on… that'd be really beneficial.’ Practice mentor/manager 01, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcademic co-location: a conducive environment\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eProximity to academic environments was viewed as supporting research engagement by many award holders and programme leads. Access to university spaces, co-location opportunities, and informal networking with academics and other practitioner-researchers creates a sense of shared learning and reduces barriers between sectors. This, in turn, builds confidence and normalises research activity within practice settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘it’s also been really helpful not only just to be part of [name] Partnership, but to be within a department like [name], to see what everyone else is doing and see how their things work and go to lunchtime seminars or away days … Just to be within an academic environment, I found really valuable, to really broaden my research horizons.’ Fellow 01, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘they're going on the research methods module coming up at the uni, gave them a protected time that there was no negotiation, it didn't get eaten into… It's great to also develop that peer group with the other awardees. There's a group that they could share their experience and gain that support.’ Expert 02, focus group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese co-location and supervision arrangements are mutually beneficial - not only for the fellowship awardees, but also for their academic supervisors and colleagues, offering academics valuable insights into the broader social care landscape and practitioners’ perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘reinforcing the importance of undertaking research on underprivileged, marginalised people… I learned a lot from [Fellow name] in terms of knowledge.’ Supervisor 02, focus group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePromoting opportunities for the wider sector\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA broader and more inclusive approach to advertising research opportunities is also essential. As mentioned by some participants, current advertisement of social care capacity building programmes often misses parts of the sector, such as care providers and voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) organisations. Targeted outreach can help ensure that opportunities are accessible across different roles, settings, and communities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘we've really seen a shift there in the last 3–4 years… now we allocate a certain number of those fellowships for social care practitioners. And really struggled to reach out to the voluntary sector and domiciliary care. I think there are areas where the reach needs to still go.’ Expert 04, focus group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eClear, supportive guidance on the application process is another suggestion made by many interviewees and focus group participants. Examples of successful applications, interactive workshops, and peer support groups would all help reduce uncertainty and build confidence among those unfamiliar with research funding or fellowships.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘A little bit more hand holding and guidance at the initial outset might be helpful.’ Applicant 01, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e ‘It would have been helpful to have a workshop with other people, with peers to actually go through it together… to understand some of the vocabulary and what means something is social care might mean something different in research.’ Applicant 02, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExperts leading similar capacity building programmes also highlighted the value of practical and accessible learning resources, such as recorded talks, short guides, or “hints and tips” for getting started in research, which can help research feel more approachable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘We need to find a way as a research community, and funding bodies as well… to find a way of demystifying a little bit and decluttering it in terms of language, but also ease people in so they haven't got to expect to change the world in a two-year research project, but they can make important contributions.’ Expert 01, focus group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘it would be really great if you had like an online learning that could consolidate the kind of hints and tips that we've been discussing today.’ Expert 05, focus group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, formal information and offers around practice mentorship are important for helping practitioners, as well as their managers and organisations, navigate the research journey with consistent support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e‘What would have helped me is if there's more clarity about the mentor role… maybe having a pack for mentors about this is what you can do, this is what could happen? … what the university does sometimes is… for guest lectures and things like that, it comes out as formal offers… then it keeps that communication going and they keep feeding into other meetings.’ Practice mentor/manager 01, interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTaking these lessons into account, we have identified recommendations for designing, organising and supporting fellowship-style awards as a mechanism for workforce development and building a research culture in the social care sector (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAlthough dedicated funding and support for research capacity building in social care has emerged much later than in the healthcare sector, there is now clear and growing recognition of the need to invest in initiatives such as fellowship awards and research development programmes specifically targeting social care staff and researchers in the UK (NIHR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e, NIHR SSCR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e, Health and Care Research Wales, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e, Breckenridge, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Some social care professions - such as social work and occupational therapy - have begun to require engagement with research and evidence for continued professional registration (Social Work England, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e, Royal College of Occupational Therapists, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). While this marks a positive step towards fostering a research culture, overall engagement with and use of research evidence in social care practice remains limited (Gray et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). As Woolham (2025) noted, the \u0026lsquo;research-practice gap\u0026rsquo; identified 30 years ago continues to persist, despite notable improvements in access to research resources, training opportunities and support for developing and applying research in social care.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study provides insights into the role of fellowship-style awards in building research capacity through practitioner skill development and training, and its application in \u0026lsquo;practice-near\u0026rsquo; research (Cooke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Whilst fellowships are inherently individual awards, the nested nature of the fellowships within a Research-Practice Partnership, and a wider commitment to capacity building in the sector as a whole, meant there was potential for impact at the team, organisational and sector levels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractitioner-researchers play a crucial role as champions for evidence-informed practice. This study found that fellowship-style awards offer valuable opportunities to nurture and support the emergence of a new generation of practitioner-researchers and future leaders. As shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, beyond achieving its stated two principles (1 and 2 in Cooke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026rsquo;s framework), these fellowships also enable two-way learning between practitioners and academic teams, reinforcing the importance of collaborative models in bridging the gap between research and practice (principle 3). Through this mutual exchange, both groups share insight and expertise, creating a form of \u0026lsquo;social learning\u0026rsquo;, where changes in understanding at the individual level gradually influence the wider networks and organisational cultures (Reed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) (principle 4).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, our findings also raise important questions about the sustainability of practitioner-research roles (principle 5). What opportunities are available once fellowship programmes end? Can these individuals continue to develop and apply their research skills while remaining connected to frontline practice? The lack of clear career pathways that integrate practice and research presents a challenge for sustaining workforce development and research capacity. Post-fellowship support requires investment and time, yet many research capacity building initiatives are short-term and project-based. Without stronger infrastructure and long-term pathways (principle 6), there is a risk of losing the momentum gained during fellowship schemes (principle 5). In the longer term, building an evidence-based social care system requires investment in career development pathways that enable practitioners to engage with, contribute to, and even lead research (principles 5 and 6). This would strengthen the integration of research into everyday practice, enhance workforce retention, and support the professionalisation of social care roles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother critical consideration is inclusivity. In our fellowship cohort, three out of four awardees were registered professionals or in senior roles (two social workers and one in a senior managerial role), while only one care worker was awarded a fellowship, focussed on training. Despite promotional efforts through various networks, including care providers (e.g. registered managers), the expression of interest was very limited outside of local authorities or registered professionals. This pattern reflects a wider trend in research capacity building, which has often centred on registered professionals in local government, with much of the activity concentrated on public health rather than social care, and with limited reach into the broader social care sector (Rainey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e, Woodall et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). To develop research capacity across the social care sector, it is important to engage a wider range of providers, including VCSE organisations, and to demystify research for them by using accessible language, making clear links between research and practice, clarifying why research and evidence-based practice matter, and highlighting its relevance to their practice experience and needs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBuilding inclusivity also means recognising the diverse educational backgrounds of the workforce. Many social care staff do not hold higher education qualifications, and additional time and resources are often needed from academic supervisors to support these practitioners in developing research skills. Even experienced practitioners require substantial guidance when embarking on research. It also worth noting that not all staff need or wish to become research-practitioners. Building inclusivity into research capacity building should also include an equitable recognition of other ways to be involved in research, for example, as research advisers, sector partners, or practice-based \u0026ldquo;linking pins\u0026rdquo;, connecting research and service delivery through partnership approaches such as the living lab model (Verbeek et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, Everink et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This underscores the need for flexible and tailored pathways, including group-based awards and practitioner-researcher cohorts, as seen in initiatives such as Social Care Research in Practice Teams (SCRiPT)\u0026rsquo;s community of practice model (Woolham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA recurring concern from social care organisations and managers is how to balance support for practitioner-researchers with the immediate demands of delivering frontline services in a highly pressurised system. Middle and line managers often experience the practical challenges most acutely, as they must accommodate practitioners working part-time in practice or taking short-term leave to undertake fellowships \u0026ndash; pressures that can be perceived as disruptive. For fellowships to be sustainable, they require the buy-in and sufficient ring-fenced funding to enable backfill or ensure continuity of staff levels, so that the rest of the team also feel supported. However, persistent challenges in the recruitment to part time and/or fixed term roles compound these challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese challenges add to a broader concern that fellowship awards may act as a \u0026lsquo;stepping stone\u0026rsquo; out of practice, rather than a bridge between practice and research. While we cannot claim our fellowship cases are representative, and there are certainly examples where practitioners have moved away from frontline roles after engaging in research, the Kent Research Partnership fellowship cases suggest a more positive pattern. All four fellows returned to frontline roles following their fellowships, motivated by a belief in the unique value they bring as practitioner-researchers. Their experiences highlight the potential of fellowships not as exits from practice, but as mechanisms for embedding research capacity within the workforce. Even if some fellows were to leave practice, the embedding of research capacity into practice would still occur, making it a worthwhile investment for organisations and managers, who should actively encourage staff to develop. Therefore, supporting practitioner-researcher fellowships is not only about workforce development and research capacity building, but also about retaining and sustaining the sector\u0026rsquo;s future.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNonetheless, encouraging social care organisations to recognise the value of research training and fellowships remains a key challenge. Evidence of tangible benefits, such as practitioner-research contributing to CQC assessments, may increase the value of these roles to organisations. Further work is needed to identify effective ways of promoting the value of research training with social care organisations, managers and staff.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, while practitioner-research fellowships are an important first step in building research capacity, our findings highlight that the broader infrastructure in social care remains underdeveloped to fully support practitioner-researchers. Key gaps include financial resources, research and development support structures, ethics and research governance committees who understand and are supportive of social care practitioner-led research, and embedded roles such as research champions, researcher-in-residence and linking pins that can facilitate evidence use and capacity building within organisations (Ruiz-Burga et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e, Everink et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e, Verbeek et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Addressing these systemic barriers is essential if research training and fellowships are to deliver lasting impact at sector level. Moreover, the success of the fellowships was closely tied to other principles and mechanisms for building research capacity, such as the partnership\u0026rsquo;s sustainability and infrastructure, highlighting that fellowship-style awards are more difficult to sustain in isolation, and work best when embedded within a wider Research-Practice Partnership.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eFunding.\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under the Health and Social Care Delivery Research (HSDR) programme (NIHR131373). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements.\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe would like to thank all participants of the study, including fellows, applicants, mentors, line managers and experts by experience involved in the Kent Research Partnership fellowship scheme, as well as experts who lead and support social care practitioner awards and capacity building programmes in other regions in England. We acknowledge the support of the wider study team and members from the lived experience working group of the Kent Research Partnership. Special appreciation to Liz Jones (National Care Forum), Susan Allcock (Expert by Experience) and John Potts (Expert by Experience) for reviewing this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbrahamson, V., Hashem, F., Fournel, S., Thornton, C., Zhang, W., Trapp, O., Mikelyte, R., Jones, L. \u0026amp; Towers, A.-M. In submission. Using communities of practice in adult social care to build research capacity and foster best practice: a qualitative evaluation. \u003cem\u003eNIHR Open Research\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkudjedu, T.N., Reeve, R., Eaton, J., Costigan, C., Burnett, C., Barnsley, H., McNair, H. \u0026amp; Simcock, I.C. 2025. Research and fellowship funding perspectives: A collective NIHR experience of a community of pre- and post-doctoral radiographers. \u003cem\u003eRadiography,\u003c/em\u003e 31\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 102880.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAshworth, C. \u0026amp; Burke, N. 2023. Striking ethical balances: the contribution of \u0026lsquo;insider\u0026rsquo;practitioner\u0026ndash;academic social work research in England. \u003cem\u003eThe British journal of social work,\u003c/em\u003e 53\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 3456-3470.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoaz, A., Goodenough, B., Hanney, S. \u0026amp; Soper, B. 2024. If health organisations and staff engage in research, does healthcare improve? Strengthening the evidence base through systematic reviews. \u003cem\u003eHealth Research Policy and Systems,\u003c/em\u003e 22\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 113.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun, V. \u0026amp; Clarke, V. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health,\u003c/em\u003e 11\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 589-597.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBreckenridge, J. 2024. Respectful, responsive and relational: a mixed-methods qualitative study on how to define, evidence and improve social care in Scotland. \u003cem\u003eScottish Government Social Research Report.\u003c/em\u003e Edinburgh.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCooke, J. 2005. A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care. \u003cem\u003eBMC Family practice,\u003c/em\u003e 6\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 44.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCooke, J., Gardois, P. \u0026amp; Booth, A. 2018. Uncovering the mechanisms of research capacity development in health and social care: a realist synthesis. \u003cem\u003eHealth research policy and systems,\u003c/em\u003e 16\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 93.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCQC. 2025. \u003cem\u003eKent County Council: local authority assessment \u003c/em\u003e[Online]. Available: https://www.cqc.org.uk/care-services/local-authority-assessment-reports/kent-0525 [Accessed].\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEverink, I., Urlings, J., Griffiths, A., Verbeek, H., Haunch, K., Spilsbury, K., Hamers, J. \u0026amp; Devi, R. 2023. Bridging the gap between science and care: a qualitative exploration of the role of the Scientific Linking Pin researcher working in research and practice partnerships. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Long-Term Care\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGray, K., Dibsdall, L., Sumpter, L., Cameron, A., Willis, P., Symonds, J., Jones, M., McLeod, H., Macdonald, G. \u0026amp; Cabral, C. 2024. \u0026lsquo;Shooting in the dark\u0026rsquo;: implications of the research\u0026ndash;practice gap for enhancing research use in adult social care. \u003cem\u003eEvidence \u0026amp; Policy,\u003c/em\u003e 20\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 440-459.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHardwick, L. \u0026amp; Worsley, A. 2011. The Invisibility of Practitioner Research. \u003cem\u003ePractice,\u003c/em\u003e 23\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 135-146.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHashem, F., Zhang, W., Mikelyte, R., Rajan-Rankin, S., Porumb, E., Trapp, O. \u0026amp; Towers, A.-M. 2024. Our approach to developing communities of practice to foster research capacities for the adult social care workforce. \u003cem\u003eNIHR open research,\u003c/em\u003e 3\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 43.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHealth and Care Research Wales. 2025. \u003cem\u003ePersonal awards \u003c/em\u003e[Online]. Available: https://healthandcareresearchwales.org/faculty/personal-awards [Accessed 01 August 2025].\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKeemink, J.R., Hotham, S., Zhang, W., Mikelyte, R., Smith, N., Hashem, F., Walton, G., Charles, A. \u0026amp; Towers, A.-M. 2025. Increasing research capacity in adult social care: a research capacity-building partnership in Kent and its theory of change. \u003cem\u003eNIHR Open Research,\u003c/em\u003e 5\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 45.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKendrick, H., Towers, A., Hotham, S. \u0026amp; Keemink, J.R. 2025. Engaging in research and practice collaborations: lessons from six adult social care capacity building partnerships. Canterbury: University of Kent.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLizarondo, L., McArthur, A., Lockwood, C. \u0026amp; Munn, Z. 2021. Facilitation of evidence implementation within a clinical fellowship program: a mixed methods study. \u003cem\u003eJBI Evidence Implementation,\u003c/em\u003e 19\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 130-141.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNIHR. 2024. \u003cem\u003eResearch career development funding programmes \u003c/em\u003e[Online]. Available: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/career-development/research-career-funding-programmes [Accessed 01 August 2025].\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNIHR SSCR. 2025. \u003cem\u003eCareer Development opportunities \u003c/em\u003e[Online]. Available: https://sscr.nihr.ac.uk/career-development/social-care-research-career-opportunities/ [Accessed 01 August 2025].\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeckham, S., Zhang, W., Eida, T., Hashem, F. \u0026amp; Kendall, S. 2023. Research engagement and research capacity building: a priority for healthcare organisations in the UK. \u003cem\u003eJournal of health organization and management,\u003c/em\u003e 37\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 343-359.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRainey, C., Woolham, J. \u0026amp; Stevens, M. 2015. Research capacity, knowledge, skills and use in Councils with Adult Social Care Responsibilities: Findings from an online survey of research active Local Government staff.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReed, M.S., Evely, A.C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J., Parrish, B., Prell, C. \u0026amp; Raymond, C. 2010. What is social learning? \u003cem\u003eEcology and society,\u003c/em\u003e 15.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRied, K., Farmer, E.A. \u0026amp; Weston, K.M. 2007. Bursaries, writing grants and fellowships: a strategy to develop research capacity in primary health care. \u003cem\u003eBMC Family Practice,\u003c/em\u003e 8\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoyal College of Occupational Therapists. 2022. \u003cem\u003eCareer Development Framework: Guiding Principles for Occupational Therapy \u003c/em\u003e[Online]. Available: https://www.rcot.co.uk/explore-resources/rcot-publications/career-development [Accessed 30 July 2025].\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuiz-Burga, E., Flowers, P., Fry, Z., Slator, M., Hague, L., Green, M., Gordon, A.L., Towers, A.-M., Knapp, M., Surr, C. \u0026amp; Shallcross, L. 2025. New horizons in improving research capacity in English care homes for older adults. \u003cem\u003eAge and Ageing,\u003c/em\u003e 54.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, N., Charles, A., Abrahamson, V., Mikelyte, R., Trapp, O., Zhang, W., Hashem, F., Potts, J., Walton, G. \u0026amp; Towers, A.-M. In submission. Facilitators and challenges to implementing a researcher-in-residence model to build research capacity in adult social care. \u003cem\u003eHealth Research Policy and System\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSocial Work England. 2019. \u003cem\u003eProfessional standards \u003c/em\u003e[Online]. Available: https://www.socialworkengland.org.uk/standards/professional-standards/ [Accessed 23 July 2025].\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVerbeek, H., Zwakhalen, S.M.G., Schols, J.M.G.A., Kempen, G.I.J.M. \u0026amp; Hamers, J.P.H. 2020. The Living Lab in Ageing and Long-Term Care: A Sustainable Model for Translational Research Improving Quality of Life, Quality of Care and Quality of Work. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of nutrition, health and aging,\u003c/em\u003e 24\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 43-47.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWakefield, J., Lavender, S., Nixon, K., Hornby, S., Dobel-Ober, D., Lambley-Burke, R., Spolander, G., Bonner, P., Mallen, C. \u0026amp; Campbel, P. 2022. Social work and social care: Mapping workforce engagement, relevance, experience and interest in research. \u003cem\u003eThe British Journal of Social Work,\u003c/em\u003e 52\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 2291-2311.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoodall, J., Bracewell, C., Passey, A., Start, S. \u0026amp; South, J. 2025. Exploring research capacity and capability in a local authority: qualitative insights from leaders and staff. \u003cem\u003eBMC Public Health,\u003c/em\u003e 25\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 2461.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoolham, J., Connell, T., Metcalf, C., Swinson, T., Tooke, S., Buswell, M., Efstathopoulou, L., Lynch, J., Mioshi, E., O\u0026rsquo;Brien, L., Warmoth, K. \u0026amp; Almack, K. 2025. Practitioners as researchers \u0026ndash; experiences of four people working in hybrid roles in two local authorities and a university. \u003cem\u003eSocial Work Education\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 1-19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYoung, A.F. 2004. Becoming a practitioner-researcher: A personal journey. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Occupational Therapy,\u003c/em\u003e 67\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 369-371.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[{"identity":"fb073467-6ab6-475d-9cc5-f9fded277a2c","identifier":"10.13039/501100000272","name":"National Institute for Health Research","awardNumber":"This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under the Health and Social Care Delivery Research (HSDR) programme (NIHR131373). ","order_by":0}],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"University of Kent","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"fellowship, practitioner research, professional development, research capacity building, social care, social work","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7759522/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7759522/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eResearch capacity building in social care has received increased attention and dedicated funding in recent years, yet opportunities for practitioners to engage with research or apply evidence-based practice remain limited. This paper evaluates one mechanism for developing capacity through a research-practice partnership: funding and supporting social care staff to undertake practitioner-research fellowships.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis qualitative study incorporated interviews with fellows, applicants, mentors, line managers, and experts by experience; focus groups with academic supervisors and programme leads; and reviews of progress reports. Using thematic analysis, it identified three themes: challenges in applying for and undertaking fellowships and partnership support that helped address them; the impacts of fellowships on social care practitioners and organisations; and lessons learned at individual, team and system levels, including the importance of engaging middle managers, creating a supportive academic environment, and widening access across a diverse social care workforce.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough research capacity building in social care remains in its infancy, fellowships provide valuable opportunities to nurture practitioner-researchers and foster a research culture. They enable two-way learning between practice and academia, bridging the research\u0026ndash;practice gap. However, questions remain around sustainability, inclusivity, and long-term pathways for practitioner-researchers, highlighting the need for continued investment, infrastructure, and flexible models of support.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Research and training fellowships as a mechanism for building research capacity in social care: an evaluation of a capacity-building programme in England","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-03 07:24:13","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7759522/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"45eac519-59ca-4cc6-a85b-508c45d35fec","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 3rd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":55633902,"name":"Social Work"},{"id":55633903,"name":"Social Policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-20T14:35:25+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7759522","link":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcag014","journal":{"identity":"the-british-journal-of-social-work","isVorOnly":true,"title":"The British Journal of Social Work"},"publishedOn":"2026-02-25 00:00:00","publishedOnDateReadable":"February 25th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-03 07:24:13","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1093/bjsw/bcag014","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcag014","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7759522","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7759522","identity":"rs-7759522","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}