Using communities of practice in adult social care to build research capacity and foster best practice: a qualitative evaluation

Background Communities of Practice (CoPs) are recognised as shared learning spaces that situate learning, deepen knowledge, and facilitate the exchange of expertise within a specific domain. While CoPs often emerge organically, they have been widely adopted across health, social care, and education. However, their civic potential, particularly in enabling people with lived experience of social care to collaborate with practitioners to shape practice and drive meaningful change, remains underexplored. The Kent Research Partnership, South-East England (2021-5), aimed to build research capacity in adult social care. As part of its workstreams two CoPs were co-designed with informal carers and people who draw on care and support. The themes (‘Complex needs’ and ‘Workforce’) were co-developed by a prioritisation exercise. Each CoP had monthly online sessions with invited speakers and facilitated discussions. Participants included informal carers, people who draw on care/support, social care practitioners, researchers, and other people interested in the sector. This study aimed to evaluate the CoPs and their contribution to research capacity building in Kent. Method Using a pragmatic approach, 21 participants were purposively selected and interviewed (Jan-Feb 2025), 16 online and five in-person. Interviews were transcribed and analysed in NVivo using reflexive thematic analysis with an inductive–deductive coding approach. Two researchers independently coded initial transcripts, iteratively refining codes and developing themes, supported by reflective notes and an audit trail. Themes were then mapped onto Cooke’s framework for research capacity building. Results Reflexive thematic analysis generated three key themes: fostering an inclusive and collaborative learning environment; enabling shared learning within and beyond the CoPs; and generating shared impact through influence on policy and practice. These findings were mapped against Cooke’s (2005) framework for building research capacity. Conclusions Participants valued the inclusive and safe learning space, which supported mutual reflection and knowledge exchange. Relationships across roles helped bridge siloed thinking, validate research ideas, and extend learning beyond the CoPs. Time constraints and organisational culture limited frontline social worker participation, despite a recognised need for innovation. Networking was a prominent outcome, generating new knowledge-exchange collaborations. Future research should examine how CoPs can be embedded within organisational systems and how their contributions to practice and policy can be evidenced. Implications for social work practice include protecting time for collaborative learning, strengthening senior leadership support, and harnessing CoPs to integrate research-informed approaches into day-to-day practice.