From dissemination to engagement: learning over time from a national research intermediary centre (Four Fs)

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
T. Lamont, E. Maxwell
{"title":"From dissemination to engagement: learning over time from a national research intermediary centre (Four Fs)","authors":"T. Lamont, E. Maxwell","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16323393555059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: There has been little applied learning from organisations engaged in making evidence useful for decision makers. More focus has been given either to the work of individuals as knowledge brokers or to theoretical frameworks on embedding evidence. More intelligence is needed on the practice of knowledge intermediation.Aims and objectives: This paper describes the evolution of approaches by one UK Centre to promote and embed evidence in health and care services. This is not a formal evaluation, given the lack of critical distance by authors who led work at the Centre, but a reflective analysis which may be helpful for other evidence intermediary bodies.Conclusions: We analyse the founding conditions and theoretical context at the start of our activity and describe four activities we developed over time. These were filter (screening research for relevance and quality); forge (engaging stakeholders in interpreting evidence); fuse (knowledge brokering with hybrid teams); and fulfil (sustained interaction with implementation partners). We reflect on the tensions between rigour and relevance in the evidence we shared and the way in which our approaches evolved from a programme of evidence outputs to greater focus on sustained engagement and deliberative activities to make sense of evidence and reach wider audiences. Over the lifetime of the Centre, we moved from linear and relational modes towards systems type approaches to embed and mobilise evidence.Key messagesThere is little shared learning on the practice of evidence use by knowledge intermediaries.Our account of a national evidence centre for health decision makers shows the shift towards more engaged and embedded approaches.We identify four central activities – filter, forge, fuse and fulfil – and how they evolved over time.We note the value of sustained engagement with stakeholders in shaping new evidence narratives relevant to practice.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16323393555059","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: 1

Abstract

Background: There has been little applied learning from organisations engaged in making evidence useful for decision makers. More focus has been given either to the work of individuals as knowledge brokers or to theoretical frameworks on embedding evidence. More intelligence is needed on the practice of knowledge intermediation.Aims and objectives: This paper describes the evolution of approaches by one UK Centre to promote and embed evidence in health and care services. This is not a formal evaluation, given the lack of critical distance by authors who led work at the Centre, but a reflective analysis which may be helpful for other evidence intermediary bodies.Conclusions: We analyse the founding conditions and theoretical context at the start of our activity and describe four activities we developed over time. These were filter (screening research for relevance and quality); forge (engaging stakeholders in interpreting evidence); fuse (knowledge brokering with hybrid teams); and fulfil (sustained interaction with implementation partners). We reflect on the tensions between rigour and relevance in the evidence we shared and the way in which our approaches evolved from a programme of evidence outputs to greater focus on sustained engagement and deliberative activities to make sense of evidence and reach wider audiences. Over the lifetime of the Centre, we moved from linear and relational modes towards systems type approaches to embed and mobilise evidence.Key messagesThere is little shared learning on the practice of evidence use by knowledge intermediaries.Our account of a national evidence centre for health decision makers shows the shift towards more engaged and embedded approaches.We identify four central activities – filter, forge, fuse and fulfil – and how they evolved over time.We note the value of sustained engagement with stakeholders in shaping new evidence narratives relevant to practice.
从传播到参与:从国家研究中介中心的长期学习(四个f)
背景:在为决策者提供有用证据的组织中,很少有应用学习。更多的焦点要么是个人作为知识经纪人的工作,要么是嵌入证据的理论框架。知识中介的实践需要更多的智慧。目的和目标:本文描述了一个英国中心促进和嵌入证据的卫生和保健服务方法的演变。这不是一项正式的评估,因为在中心领导工作的作者缺乏临界距离,而是一项可能对其他证据中介机构有所帮助的反思分析。结论:我们在活动开始时分析了创始条件和理论背景,并描述了我们随着时间发展的四项活动。它们是过滤器(筛选相关性和质量的研究);伪造(让利益相关者参与解释证据);Fuse(混合团队的知识中介);并履行(与执行伙伴的持续互动)。我们反思了我们分享的证据的严谨性和相关性之间的紧张关系,以及我们的方法如何从一个证据产出计划演变为更加注重持续参与和审议活动,以理解证据并影响更广泛的受众。在该中心的生命周期中,我们从线性和关系模式转向了嵌入和动员证据的系统型方法。关键信息关于知识中介使用证据的实践,几乎没有共同的学习。我们对国家卫生决策者证据中心的描述显示了向更多参与和嵌入方法的转变。我们确定了四个核心活动——过滤、锻造、融合和实现——以及它们是如何随着时间的推移而演变的。我们注意到与利益相关者持续接触在形成与实践相关的新证据叙述方面的价值。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信