Facilitating knowledge transfer during Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout: an examination of 'Functional Dialogues' as an approach to bridge the evidence-policy gap.

IF 2.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Katie Attwell, Tauel Harper, Samantha J Carlson, Jordan Tchilingirian, Darren Westphal, Christopher C Blyth
{"title":"Facilitating knowledge transfer during Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout: an examination of 'Functional Dialogues' as an approach to bridge the evidence-policy gap.","authors":"Katie Attwell, Tauel Harper, Samantha J Carlson, Jordan Tchilingirian, Darren Westphal, Christopher C Blyth","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Our interdisciplinary team initiated a project to inform the COVID-19 vaccination programme. We developed a novel research co-creation approach to share emerging findings with government.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>We critically assess the 'Functional Dialogue' (FD) programme for future research translation practices in time-limited policy-making scenarios. We identify what factors helped us to put the FDs together and consider their effects on all aspects of the research programme. We draw out key moments of impact, weaknesses and challenges and identify how future FDs might be enhanced.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between January 2021 and June 2022, we conducted 14 FDs with state and federal government, exploring attendees' attitudes, beliefs, experiences, roles and observations regarding our research. FDs and research team debriefs were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>FD processes proved invaluable to the timeliness, impact and flow of our research project by creating systems that helped to bridge the evidence-policy gap. Relationships and reciprocity helped, but other professional commitments of our government partners posed challenges and produced fluctuating engagement. FDs built the capacity of the research team, strengthening communication skills and creating opportunities to contribute to pandemic policies.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>We struggled to quantify the impact of FDs on policy decisions due to the ethical requirements of academic research, barriers for policy makers in isolating and/or acknowledging impact, and the collaborative nature of dialogue. Nevertheless, the structures of knowledge transfer that we foresaw as necessary to ensure impact became the central plank of the project's broader success.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"324-346"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000038","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Our interdisciplinary team initiated a project to inform the COVID-19 vaccination programme. We developed a novel research co-creation approach to share emerging findings with government.

Aims and objectives: We critically assess the 'Functional Dialogue' (FD) programme for future research translation practices in time-limited policy-making scenarios. We identify what factors helped us to put the FDs together and consider their effects on all aspects of the research programme. We draw out key moments of impact, weaknesses and challenges and identify how future FDs might be enhanced.

Methods: Between January 2021 and June 2022, we conducted 14 FDs with state and federal government, exploring attendees' attitudes, beliefs, experiences, roles and observations regarding our research. FDs and research team debriefs were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

Findings: FD processes proved invaluable to the timeliness, impact and flow of our research project by creating systems that helped to bridge the evidence-policy gap. Relationships and reciprocity helped, but other professional commitments of our government partners posed challenges and produced fluctuating engagement. FDs built the capacity of the research team, strengthening communication skills and creating opportunities to contribute to pandemic policies.

Discussion and conclusion: We struggled to quantify the impact of FDs on policy decisions due to the ethical requirements of academic research, barriers for policy makers in isolating and/or acknowledging impact, and the collaborative nature of dialogue. Nevertheless, the structures of knowledge transfer that we foresaw as necessary to ensure impact became the central plank of the project's broader success.

在澳大利亚COVID-19疫苗推广期间促进知识转移:对“功能对话”作为弥合证据-政策差距方法的研究
背景:我们的跨学科团队启动了一个项目,为COVID-19疫苗接种规划提供信息。我们开发了一种新颖的研究共同创造方法,与政府分享新发现。目的和目标:我们批判性地评估“功能对话”(FD)计划,以便在有限的时间内制定政策的情况下进行未来的研究翻译实践。我们确定哪些因素帮助我们将fd放在一起,并考虑它们对研究计划各个方面的影响。我们列出了影响的关键时刻、弱点和挑战,并确定如何加强未来的fd。方法:在2021年1月至2022年6月期间,我们与州和联邦政府进行了14次fd,探讨参与者对我们研究的态度、信念、经历、角色和观察。fd和研究小组的汇报被录音、转录并按主题进行分析。结果:FD流程通过创建有助于弥合证据与政策差距的系统,证明了其对我们研究项目的及时性、影响力和流动性的宝贵价值。关系和互惠有所帮助,但我们的政府合作伙伴的其他专业承诺带来了挑战,并产生了波动的参与。FDs建立了研究小组的能力,加强了沟通技巧,并创造了为大流行病政策作出贡献的机会。讨论和结论:由于学术研究的伦理要求,政策制定者在孤立和/或承认影响方面的障碍,以及对话的协作性质,我们努力量化fd对政策决策的影响。然而,我们所预见的确保影响的必要的知识转移结构成为了项目更广泛成功的核心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信