Increasing research impact through partnerships: Evidence from outside health care

Abstract

There is growing interest in using closer partnerships between researchers and research users to increase the appropriate application of research evidence in policy and practice. While this supplement reports and assesses a number of these initiatives in health care, this article reviews the evidence in support of partnerships from elsewhere. Drawing on a substantial cross-sector review of research impact initiatives, we extract lessons for health care from partnership evaluations in social care, education and criminal justice services. A reasonable and robust evidence base supports the use of partnerships as one means of increasing research uptake. Although requiring substantial investments of time, resources and commitment, and suffering from a number of possible pitfalls, we conclude that such partnerships offer great potential for increasing research use.

Collective action for knowledge mobilisation: a realist evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care

“…The way in which concepts such as these might transfer to a 'constellation of interconnected practices' 122 such as CLAHRCs, is in their potential to explain how these networks evolve and then sustain themselves (or not). Walter et al 123 observed that sustainable partnerships provide the conditions that allow researchers to better support users to test and implement research findings and encourage collaborative reflection beyond the knowledge production process and on to research use processes.…”

Indicators at the interface: managing policymaker-researcher collaboration

“…Professional differences between researchers and decision-makers or community-based partners challenge the partnership process throughout all stages of its existence (Elliott & Popay, 2000;Lomas, 2000;Innvaer et al, 2002;Gaskill et al, 2003;Ross et al, 2003;Walter et al, 2003). For example, researchers focus on clearly defined questions that are appropriately narrow for rigorous study; in comparison, decision-makers must address an entire problem with all of its complexities (Frenk, 1992).…”

“…Decisionmakers, on the other hand, must weigh and synthesize information from a variety of researchers, and combine that with the perspectives and needs of related policies in other ministries, task force recommendations, current directives of their own Minister, and competing pressures from advocacy groups, to name a few of the considerations that go into defining a policy-related problem and determining its solution. Adding to this are the competing goals and agendas that both groups bring to a partnership (Gaskill et al, 2003;Walter et al, 2003). Also, partners often have different perceptions about the nature of the final product of a partnership initiative; for researchers, the product is the published article while for others, research continues until it has influenced a decision (Frenk, 1992).…”

A critical second look at integrated knowledge translation

“…The push for IKT continues to be prominent across multiple disciplines and sectors, such as education and social services [6]. IKT approaches can take the form of mandated or voluntary partnerships, or they can be formalized in institutional contracts (e.g., embedded research units in policy/practice departments).…”

“…Effective IKT can be achieved by early engagement of the users in the research process (not just at the dissemination stage [13]); such processes can be supported by financial incentives [12]. As well, successful IKT initiatives can encourage research users to pilot and implement research findings, and provide the means by which to collaboratively reflect on the implementation process as a way to support organizational-level learning and systemic organizational change [6]. Denis & Lomas [14, p. S2:4] noted that "collaborative research clearly has multiple objectives and meaning in the eyes of those engaged in such partnership" but the overriding aim of IKT is the use of research findings in practice or policy decisions.…”