Introduction to the special issue: Translational research in the work and family field of study

Over the past few decades, scholars trained in a range of disciplines have begun to frame some of their applied research as translational research. For instance, from 2010 to 2018, more than 32,000 articles were published in journals included in the Scopus database that addressed some aspect of translational research. While the far majority of these articles was associated with the fields of medicine and health-relevant sciences (such as bio-chemistry), more than 1,000 articles published during that time period are indexed as being associated with social sciences.

The 2018 conference of the Work and Family Researchers Network (WFRN) focused on the theme of translational research. The articles included in this special issue share research presented during some of the many exemplary conference sessions. As a collection, these articles provide inspiration about possible new ways to conduct research activities and to work with collaborators who may be able to contribute to different research activities, and who should have access both to the data as well as to the findings.

Translational research refers to one type of applied research that leads to evidence-informed practice. According to Brekke, Ell, and Palinkas (2007), this approach attempts to leverage practice and policy-making wisdom to inform research; accelerate the adoption of evidence-based practice; and extend the research process to include the examination of factors that affect the implementation of evidence-based practice, as well as the adaptations of those practices to fit different contexts. While the definitions of translational research vary (see Rubio et al., 2010; Woolf, Purnell, & Simon, 2016), descriptions of translational research tend to stress two aspects of the research process: (1) sharing research findings with members of groups who can use the insights and evidence in their own work, and (2) considering options for establishing meaningful relationships with end-users and intermediaries who need to have access to relevant research information if they are going to improve policy and practice (Tseng, 2012).

The field of work and family research has strong roots in applied research, some of which aligns well with the focus of translational research studies that have practice/policy relevance (for example, Lareau, 2011; Waldfogel, 2003). Indeed, it is possible to trace linkages between the studies of some leading work and family researchers to the adoption of new public or workplace policies, such as paid family leave, (for example, Rossin-Slater, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2013), predictable scheduling (for example, Williams, Lambert, & Kesavan, 2018), and workplace flexibility (see Christensen & Schneider, 2010).

In the context of research, the term end-users refers to those who can put evidence-based information to use; that is, end-users have the authority and discretion to connect relevant research information to decisions that they make about their own work or work experiences. For the work-family field of study, the group of end-users includes: employers (e.g. managers, supervisors), employees, policy-makers, public administrators, associations such as unions, and community organizations/service providers (for example, case managers for elder care). Sometimes, it is possible for scholars to connect directly with at least some end-users; however, it is usually difficult for researchers to interact directly with large numbers of end-users on a regular basis. Therefore, experienced researchers might use the strategy of contacting intermediary groups and associations that have relationships with end-users. For the purposes of this introduction, we use the language of intermediary organizations to refer to individuals and organizations that have trusted relationships with end-users and who can assume the role of sharing research information to the end-users. Intermediaries understand the priorities of the end-users and they comfortably speak the language(s) of the end-users. Intermediaries can, therefore, function effectively as a bridge between researchers and end-users, brokering effective ideas and sharing information (see discussion in Woolf et al., 2016). Researchers who apply the principles of translational research to their own studies often try to bring both end-users and intermediaries into the research design, data collection, interpretation, and dissemination.

The knowledge mobilization frameworks articulated by Mosher, Anucha, Appiah, and Levesque (2014) help to identify at least three models of working relationships between researchers and end-users/ intermediary groups.

1. The first model is the capacity building model which focuses on the ways that the relationships can extend the knowledge and understanding of both the researchers and the intermediary groups (for example see Wethington et al., 2007). Working with intermediaries might help researchers to understand the perspectives and priorities of end-users (and then to use these insights to guide research questions and study designs). In addition, the capacity building model can help intermediary groups to deepen their ability to interpret the implications of research findings. The capacity building model places a priority on adopting goals for research activities and research relationships that include learning objectives for each of the participating partners. This model urges researchers to accept the responsibility for helping partners to develop a deeper understanding about different aspects of research activities. For instance, researchers might share with end-users a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of using standardized measures for any post-study data collection that the end-users might conduct. In parallel fashion, the researchers might also ask end-users to help them understand the thinking and goal setting of end-users and to develop better communication strategies that might accelerate the adoption of evidence-informed practice once the study has been completed.

2. The second model is the collaboration model. According to this model, research designs are co-created by researchers and end-users/members of intermediary groups. This co-creation helps to ensure that study designs will not only meet the traditional standards of research but will also focus on the needs of end-users. The effectiveness of the collaborative model depends on researchers’ willingness to invest the time necessary to establish relationships and build trust with their partners so that the inevitable logistical challenges which emerge can be addressed in ways that minimize negative consequences for the research. The success of the collaboration model reflects the extent to which each of the collaborators is able to take the perspective of the ‘other’. In the best of circumstances, the priority goals and objectives of both the researchers and the partners are met (see discussions in Belza, Altpeter, Smith, & Ory, 2017; Goering, Butterill, Jacobson, & Sturtevant, 2003). The collaboration model effectively establishes a bilateral approach to research, connecting academic researchers with an intermediary or end-user who work together, often from the very beginning of a research project (including the identification of a problem to be studied and a research design that suits the needs of both parties).

3. The third model, the coalition model, starts with an end goal associated with a solution to or mitigation of an identified problem. The academic researcher(s) becomes one of many stakeholders who are brought together to achieve the goal. The coalition model is premised on the assumption that many different stakeholders are needed to bring about social change (see Cutcher-Gershenfeld et al., 2017). By participating in (or even forming) a coalition, academics can deepen their understanding of the interests of stakeholder groups. In some cases, coalition members may eventually co-design a research project.

We recognize that researchers may face a number of challenges if they adopt the translational research approach to their work and family studies. Some scholars might consider translational research to be difficult, because they may need to find ways to share the opportunities and the privileges associated with articulating the research questions. Furthermore, research conducted with an end-user/intermediary partner often raises questions about data ownership and permissions needed for different dissemination activities.

Fortunately, in the work-family area of study, there are many structures that can help support work and family researchers who want to design studies which have the potential to inform practice and to fundamentally change the ways that research relationships are formed and maintained. We want to recognize the forward-orientation of the editorial board of this journal, Community, Work and Family. From its founding by Dr. Suzan Lewis and Dr. Carolyn Kagan to the current vision expressed by Dr. Laura den Dulk, this journal has encouraged researchers who have conducted translational research (as well as other research approaches) to submit manuscripts for review. Of course, the work and family field is also blessed with the establishment of a number of centers and associations that bring researchers together to discuss their work. Some of these groups have effectively established enduring partnerships with end-users and intermediaries.

In this special issue, we are pleased to be able to include three articles that provide examples of translational research relevant to employers as end-users. They illustrate how employers and intermediaries, such as industry associations/unions, can use research to make evidence-based decisions. One of the articles reflects on the processes associated with conducting translational research in partnership with an end-user. Two of the articles shift our attention to policy-makers as end-users. Both of these consider different aspects of paid leave policies implemented at the state level in the United States. The two remaining articles direct our attention to some of the incentives that are embedded in recognition and rewards for excellence in scholarship; that is, incentives that might further encourage work and family scholars to consider incorporating some of the principles of translational research into their investigations.

The article ‘Crossover of Resources and Well-being within Employee-Partner Dyads: Through Increased Schedule Control,’ authored by Lee, Lawson, and Damaske, discusses some of the complex relationships between partners’ work experiences (in this case, schedule control) and stress levels. The findings of this study reminds us that that the practices of one employer (an end-user of research information) may affect not only of the experiences of their own employees but may also have an impact on their partners’ experiences (that is, people who work at other organizations).

Kaduk, Genadek, Kelly and Moen compare outcomes associated with flexible work schedules/work-at-home arrangements that employees voluntarily chose with work schedules/work-at-home arrangements choices that were not voluntarily chosen. As they adopt policies and practices related to flexible work arrangements, employers should find the findings of this investigation, discussed in the article ‘Involuntary vs. Voluntary Flexible work: Insights for Scholars and Stakeholders’ quite helpful.

Barcus, Tigges, and Kim share findings from their study in the article, ‘Time to Care: Socioeconomic, Family, and Workplace Factors in Men and Women’s Parental Leave Use.’ This study identifies specific factors that affect the duration of time that parents take for parental leave, paying particular attention to gender differences. It was conducted in partnership with a municipality that employs people working in different types of public sector jobs. The authors present a convincing case for collaborative, translational research which can augment the application of the findings.

Houlfort, LeFrancois, Bernstein, Gravel, Blanchette-Luong, and Messing discuss their experiences when they conducted a collaborative translational research at the workplace. In ‘Bridging between Academia and the Workplace: Lessons Learned about Translational Research on Work-Family Balance,’ the authors reflect on the ways that they developed and maintained a research partnership with a union at a Canadian transportation company. Researchers will benefit from the lessons learned by Houlfort et al. about collaborative research.

In ‘Paid Family Leave: Supporting Work Attachment among Lower Income Mothers,’ Winston, Coombs, Bennet, Antelo, Landers, and Abbott present the findings of a qualitative study that examined the facilitators or impediments to lower-income mothers returning to work after childbirth and the role that Paid Family Leave (PFL) played in their decisions. They focus on those states in the U.S. that have paid family leave policies. The authors note the importance of the income support among those who returned to work. Furthermore, Winston et al. remind us that evidence about paid leaves is not only important for policy-makers and for employers, but also for service providers in the community (for example, child care providers) who can also help low-income parents with their transition back to work.

The research article, ‘Understanding Parental Leave Experiences: Connecting the Dots with a Multi-Methods Approach,’ is authored by Goodman, Richardson, Steeves-Reece, Dumet Poma, Plumb, Wray, and Hurtaldo. This team designed a partnership study with a large public sector employer as a way to foster the implementation of employer-provided policies that would ‘ … help to ensure equitable distribution of the benefits of paid leave policies.’

Hill, Bryce, Loderup, Brown-Hamlett, LeBaron, and Allsop conducted a rigorous quantitative and qualitative study to identify individuals who have had an impact on the work and family field of study. In their article, ‘Identifying Extraordinary Contributors to Work and Family Research: Eight Modalities of Excellence,’ this team considers a range of indicators of impact. They suggest that excellence in work and family research often reflects some of the fundamental tenets of translational research which has the capacity to connect with the priorities of end-users and intermediaries.

The final article is authored by Cano and Chu who analyzed the content of 46 articles nominated for Rosabeth Moss Kanter Award. In ‘Translational Research: Implications for the Study of Work and Family,’ Cano and Chu report that over half of the articles reviewed included indicators of translational research. The article heightens our awareness about ways that the standards of excellence adopted by the founders of the Rosabeth Moss Kanter Award may be a source of encouragement to those researchers who are committed to rigorous, translational research studies.

We feel that this collection of articles provides inspiration for research designs that contribute to evidence-based public policy and evidence-based employer policies and practices.

As sociologist Matilda White Riley said decades ago, it is common for social institutions, including workplaces and policy-making making bodies, to adopt innovations slowly even after a need or demand is identified. Riley referred to this slow process of change as structural lag (Riley, Kahn, Foner, & Mack, 1994). The articles in this special issue remind us that translational research which has been thoughtfully designed has the potential to reduce the lag time and accelerate positive change.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes

Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes, PhD is a Professor and Associate Dean at the Boston College School of Social Work. From 2005 to 2015, she co-founded and served as Director of the Sloan Center on Aging & Work at Boston College. She founded the Sloan Work and Family Research Network in 1997 which has evolved into the Work and Family Researchers Network, a multi-disciplinary research association for scholars studying a range of work-family issues. She received the Work-Life Legacy Award from the Families and Work Institute in 2007 and the Inaugural Lifetime Achievement Award from the Work and Family Researchers Network in 2018. In 2018, she was elected to the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare.

Kathleen Christensen

Kathleen Christensen, PhD, directs the Working Longer program at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation which was designed to deepen scholarly and public understanding of the aging of the US workforce. Dr Christensen established and spearheaded what would become its Workplace, Work Force and Working Families program. Under her leadership, the foundation has been credited with pioneering the field of work-family research and helping create a national movement to create more flexible workplaces that effectively meet the needs of employees while also supporting business productivity. Recognized for her expertise on work-family issues and workplace flexibility, Dr Christensen planned and participated in the 2010 White House Forum on Workplace Flexibility, as well as the 2014 White House Summit on Working Families.