No abstract

Organisational culture and quality of health care

No abstract

'Knowledge transfer' has become established as shorthand for a wide variety of activities linking the production of academic knowledge to the potential use of such knowledge in non-academic environments. While welcoming the attention now being paid to non-academic applications of social research, we contend that terms such as knowledge transfer (and its subordinate sibling, knowledge translation) misrepresent the tasks that they seek to support. By articulating the complex and contested nature of applied social research, and then highlighting the social and contextual complexities of its use, we can see that other terms may serve us better. Following from this analysis, we suggest that 'knowledge interaction' might more appropriately describe the messy engagement of multiple players with diverse sources of knowledge, and that 'knowledge intermediation' might begin to articulate some of the managed processes by which knowledge interaction can be promoted. While it might be hard to shift the terminology of knowledge transfer in the short term, awareness of its shortcomings can enhance understanding about how social research can have wider impacts.

BackgroundThe past two decades have seen rich conceptual development and a wide variety of practical initiatives around research use or ‘knowledge mobilisation’, but so far there has been little systematic effort to map, conceptualise and learn from these initiatives, or to investigate the degree to which they are underpinned by contemporary thinking as set out in the literature. This gap is particularly apparent when looking at knowledge mobilisation at the ‘macro’ level, that is the strategies and activities of major research funders, major research producers and key research ‘intermediaries’.Aims and objectivesThe study had three key objectives with associated research questions: to map the knowledge mobilisation landscape in health care (in the UK and internationally) and in social care and education within the UK; to understand the models, theories and frameworks that underpin the approaches to knowledge mobilisation; and to learn from the success or otherwise of the strategies and approaches in use.MethodsThe study was multimethod and multiphased, with considerable interactivity between the different strands. Data were collected through a review of 71 published reviews on knowledge mobilisation; website review of the knowledge mobilisation activities of 186 agencies; in-depth interviews (n = 52) with key individuals in agencies; a web survey (response rate 57%;n = 106); and two stakeholder workshops (at months 6 and 16).FindingsWe identified a wide range of models, theories and frameworks used to describe knowledge mobilisation and created a conceptual map that highlights six domains of thinking and debate in the literature. The interview and survey data showed three broad, overlapping roles undertaken by agencies: developing and sharing research-based products; emphasising brokering; and focusing on implementation. The knowledge mobilisation approaches in use had been shaped by many factors but there was only limited use of the models, theories and frameworks from the literature. Participants saw formal evaluation of knowledge mobilisation activities as important but highly challenging. Rich formative experience was described but formal evaluation was relatively rare. Few agencies involved service users or members of the public in knowledge mobilisation activities. Working inductively from the study data we derived eight key archetypes or ‘bundles of knowledge mobilisation activities’ that could be used by agencies to explore their knowledge mobilisation activities, future strategies and stakeholder perspectives.ConclusionsKnowledge mobilisation could be enhanced by providing support to enable cross-sector and interagency learning, reflection on the conceptual basis of approaches and increased evaluation of knowledge mobilisation activities. Further research is needed to evaluate approaches to assessing research use and impact, on systems approaches to knowledge mobilisation, on sustaining and scaling-up approaches, and on applying a wider range of literatures to knowledge mobilisation. Further research would also be useful on the knowledge mobilisation archetypes and how they can work in complementary ways.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Social science research undoubtedly does impact on public policy and practice but such non-academic impacts are rarely amenable to precise, quantitative metrics. In the interests of accountability, it is however possible to find proxy indicators of connectivity with research users and these may form steps toward impacts. Understanding these connections can lead to a deeper appreciation of the factors that shape the processes leading to research uptake. This study adopted a detailed and largely qualitative approach to identify the flows of knowledge, expertise and influence that take place during the process of knowledge transfer in order to trial a method for assessing policy and practice impacts from social science research. As a corollary to this assessment, the study further identified five factors that can influence and enhance the process of knowledge exchange between researchers and users.

No abstract

The study reveals that NMs are only involved in evidence-based practice implementation in a passive role, not the full engagement described in the literature as being necessary. This study adds previously lacking detail of the roles of NMs. It elucidates why exhortations to NMs to become more involved in evidence-based practice implementation are ineffective without action to address the problems identified.