Partnership experiences: Involving decision-makers in the research process

Ross, Suzanne; Lavis, John N.; Rodríguez, Charo; Woodside, Jennifer M.; Denis, Jean‐Louis

doi:10.1258/135581903322405144

Cited by 158 publications

(201 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

195

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…81 The evidence in this review indicates that communication between collaborators is a significant factor for collaboration success, supported by internal and external communication channels and multiple communication strategies. Physical proximity of team members and the level of technical communication strategies employed within the collaboration are also important for communication.…”

Section: Communicationmentioning

confidence: 89%

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

Rycroft‐Malone

Burton

Wilkinson

et al. 2015

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe establishment of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) was the culmination of a number of policy initiatives to bridge the gap between evidence and practice. CLAHRCs were created and funded to facilitate development of partnerships and connect the worlds of academia and practice in an effort to improve patient outcomes through the conduct and application of applied health research.ObjectivesOur starting point was to test the theory that bringing higher education institutions and health-care organisations closer together catalyses knowledge mobilisation. The overall purpose was to develop explanatory theory regarding implementation through CLAHRCs and answer the question ‘what works, for whom, why and in what circumstances?’. The study objectives focused on identifying and tracking implementation mechanisms and processes over time; determining what influences whether or not and how research is used in CLAHRCs; investigating the role played by boundary objects in the success or failure of implementation; and determining whether or not and how CLAHRCs develop and sustain interactions and communities of practice.MethodsThis study was a longitudinal realist evaluation using multiple qualitative case studies, incorporating stakeholder engagement and formative feedback. Three CLAHRCs were studied in depth over four rounds of data collection through a process of hypothesis generation, refining, testing and programme theory specification. Data collection included interviews, observation, documents, feedback sessions and an interpretive forum.FindingsKnowledge mobilisation in CLAHRCs was a function of a number of interconnected issues that provided more or less conducive conditions for collective action. The potential of CLAHRCs to close the metaphorical ‘know–do’ gap was dependent on historical regional relationships, their approach to engaging different communities, their architectures, what priorities were set and how, and providing additional resources for implementation, including investment in roles and activities to bridge and broker boundaries. Additionally, we observed a balance towards conducting research rather than implementing it. Key mechanisms of interpretations of collaborative action, opportunities for connectivity, facilitation, motivation, review and reflection, and unlocking barriers/releasing potential were important to the processes and outcomes of CLAHRCs. These mechanisms operated in different contexts including stakeholders’ positioning, or ‘where they were coming from’, governance arrangements, availability of resources, competing drivers, receptiveness to learning and evaluation, and alignment of structures, positions and resources. Preceding conditions influenced the course and journey of the CLAHRCs in a path-dependent way. We observed them evolving over time and their development led to the accumulation of different types of impacts, from those that were conceptual to, later in their life cycle, those that were more direct.ConclusionsMost studies of implementation focus on researching one-off projects, so a strength of this study was in researching a systems approach to knowledge mobilisation over time. Although CLAHRC-like approaches show promise, realising their full potential will require a longer and more sustained focus on relationship building, resource allocation and, in some cases, culture change. This reinforces the point that research implementation within a CLAHRC model is a long-term investment and one that is set within a life cycle of organisational collaboration.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

Section: Communicationmentioning

confidence: 89%

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

Rycroft‐Malone

Burton

Wilkinson

et al. 2015

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Partners involved in a variety of collaborations have reported key features of successful collaborations based on their experiences. A common suggestion is to ensure that partners have been involved in the research process at an early stage to reflect respectful engagement of partners (Reback et al, 2002;Ross et al, 2003;Jansson et al, 2009). As one moves into the research process, nurturing constant communication is seen as vital to understanding each other's needs and priorities (Reback et al, 2002;Denis et al, 2003;Golden-Biddle et al, 2003).…”

Section: Research Partnerships: Drawing From the Broader Collaboratiomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A common suggestion is to ensure that partners have been involved in the research process at an early stage to reflect respectful engagement of partners (Reback et al, 2002;Ross et al, 2003;Jansson et al, 2009). As one moves into the research process, nurturing constant communication is seen as vital to understanding each other's needs and priorities (Reback et al, 2002;Denis et al, 2003;Golden-Biddle et al, 2003). As well, maintaining equality among collaborators, both in terms of the research process but also in terms of the research products, has also been seen as important (LeGris et al, 2000;Reback et al, 2002).…”

Section: Research Partnerships: Drawing From the Broader Collaboratiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Indicators at the interface: managing policymaker-researcher collaboration

Kothari

MacLean

Edwards

et al. 2011

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The knowledge transfer literature encourages partnerships between researchers and policymakers for the purposes of policy-relevant knowledge creation. Consequently, research findings are more likely to be used by policymakers during policy development. This paper presents a set of practice-based indicators that can be used to manage the collaborative knowledge creation process or assess the performance of a partnership between researchers and policymakers. Indicators for partnership success were developed from 16 qualitative interviews with health policymakers and researchers involved with eight research transfer partnerships with government. These process and outcomes indicators were refined through a focus group. Resulting qualitative and quantitative indicators were judged to be clear, relevant, credible, and feasible. New findings included the need to have different indicators to evaluate new vs mature partnerships, as well as specific indicators common to researcher-policymaker partnerships in general.

show abstract

“…Faced with a future population with chronic, complex health conditions, a large proportion of which will be seniors, combined with the opportunities offered by new technologies, practitioners, administrators and policymakers are looking to (or are expected to look to) research-derived knowledge as one critical source of evidence in their decisionmaking processes. Although there are many approaches to how IKT might be operationalized [2], the general assumption is that collaborative research will engage, from its early stages, the so-called "knowledge user" and address questions that are of concern to them. As described by Graham and Tetroe, IKT "…involves collaboration between researchers and research users in the research process including the shaping of the research questions, deciding the methodology, involvement in the data collection and tools development, interpreting the findings and helping disseminating the research results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Across these models is a common underlying need for sustained partnerships based on the "two-communities" theory [7], which suggests that researchers and users of research (policymakers, managers, practitioners) come from distinct worlds with different cultures, values, timelines, goals and rewards [8]. IKT, or close interactions involving the researcher and research user during knowledge generation and application, is positioned as the bridge across these two worlds [1], leading to: research questions that are more practice or policy relevant; findings that are easier to adapt because they meet a knowledge-practice gap; the creation of a ready audience for implementation strategies; and an increased understanding of each other's roles (and worlds) [2,[9][10][11][12]. Benefits resulting from IKT have also been found to extend beyond the lifetime of the research project [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical second look at integrated knowledge translation

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) requires active collaboration between researchers and the ultimate users of knowledge throughout a research process, and is being aggressively positioned as an essential strategy to address the problem of underutilization of research-derived knowledge. The purpose of this commentary is to assist potential "knowledge users", particularly those working in policy or service settings, by highlighting some of the more nuanced benefits of the IKT model, as well as some of its potential costs. Actionable outcomes may not be immediately (or ever) forthcoming, but the process of collaboration can result in group-level identity transformation that permits access to different professional perspectives as well as, we suggest, added organizational and social value. As well, the IKT approach provides space for the re-balancing of what is considered "expertise". We offer this paper to help practitioners, administrators and policymakers more realistically assess the potential benefits and costs of engaging in IKT-oriented research.3

show abstract

Partnership experiences: Involving decision-makers in the research process

Cited by 158 publications

References 15 publications

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

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

Indicators at the interface: managing policymaker-researcher collaboration

A critical second look at integrated knowledge translation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About