Using Logic Analysis to Evaluate Knowledge Transfer Initiatives: The Case of the Research Collective on the Organization of Primary Care Services.

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Astrid Brousselle, Damien Contandriopoulos, Marc Lemire
{"title":"Using Logic Analysis to Evaluate Knowledge Transfer Initiatives: The Case of the Research Collective on the Organization of Primary Care Services.","authors":"Astrid Brousselle, Damien Contandriopoulos, Marc Lemire","doi":"10.1177/1356389008101967","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Models that shift more responsibility onto researchers for the process of incorporating research results into decision-making have greatly gained in popularity during the past two decades. This shift has created a new area of research to identify the best ways to transfer academic results into the organizational and political arenas. However, evaluating the utilization of information coming out of a knowledge transfer (KT) initiative remains an enormous challenge. This article demonstrates how logic analysis has proven to be a useful evaluation method to assess the utilization potential of KT initiatives. We present the case of the evaluation of the Research Collective on the Organization of Primary Care Services, an innovative experiment in knowledge synthesis and transfer. The conclusions focus not only on the utilization potential of results coming out of the Research Collective, but also on the theoretical framework used, in order to facilitate its application to the evaluation of other knowledge transfer initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":47511,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation","volume":"15 2","pages":"165-183"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2009-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3610640/pdf/nihms2546.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389008101967","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Models that shift more responsibility onto researchers for the process of incorporating research results into decision-making have greatly gained in popularity during the past two decades. This shift has created a new area of research to identify the best ways to transfer academic results into the organizational and political arenas. However, evaluating the utilization of information coming out of a knowledge transfer (KT) initiative remains an enormous challenge. This article demonstrates how logic analysis has proven to be a useful evaluation method to assess the utilization potential of KT initiatives. We present the case of the evaluation of the Research Collective on the Organization of Primary Care Services, an innovative experiment in knowledge synthesis and transfer. The conclusions focus not only on the utilization potential of results coming out of the Research Collective, but also on the theoretical framework used, in order to facilitate its application to the evaluation of other knowledge transfer initiatives.

运用逻辑分析评估知识转移行动:以基层医疗服务组织研究团体为例。
在过去的二十年中,将更多的责任转移到研究人员身上,将研究结果纳入决策过程的模型已经大大流行起来。这种转变创造了一个新的研究领域,以确定将学术成果转移到组织和政治领域的最佳方式。然而,评估来自知识转移(KT)计划的信息的利用仍然是一个巨大的挑战。本文演示了逻辑分析是如何被证明是一种有用的评估方法来评估KT计划的利用潜力。我们提出了对初级保健服务组织的研究集体评估的案例,这是一个知识综合和转移的创新实验。这些结论不仅关注了研究集体结果的利用潜力,而且还关注了所使用的理论框架,以便将其应用于其他知识转移计划的评估。
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
Evaluation
Evaluation SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
25.00%
发文量
35
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信