证据:克服相互冲突的动机和时间

Gill Clough, A. Adams
{"title":"证据:克服相互冲突的动机和时间","authors":"Gill Clough, A. Adams","doi":"10.14324/RFA.04.2.07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nEvidence-based practice is increasingly important in creating effective public services through the balance of high-quality research and valid practice. Yet even when academics and practitioners work together to use evidence in practice, barriers emerge. This paper describes research into equitable knowledge exchange between academia and practice, drawing on data from 15 Evidence Cafés run across the UK with police forces, involving 378 participants, represented here with three exemplar Evidence Café case studies. Our findings reveal the differences between one-way knowledge transfer and two-way, equitable knowledge exchange, and how champions and effectively designed and implemented discussion objects can overcome challenges of conflicting motivations and timing. We conclude that there is a need to reframe knowledge exchange through the lens of ‘evidence’ and the process of equitable co-creation of new meanings.","PeriodicalId":165758,"journal":{"name":"Research for All","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence Cafés: Overcoming conflicting motivations and timings\",\"authors\":\"Gill Clough, A. Adams\",\"doi\":\"10.14324/RFA.04.2.07\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nEvidence-based practice is increasingly important in creating effective public services through the balance of high-quality research and valid practice. Yet even when academics and practitioners work together to use evidence in practice, barriers emerge. This paper describes research into equitable knowledge exchange between academia and practice, drawing on data from 15 Evidence Cafés run across the UK with police forces, involving 378 participants, represented here with three exemplar Evidence Café case studies. Our findings reveal the differences between one-way knowledge transfer and two-way, equitable knowledge exchange, and how champions and effectively designed and implemented discussion objects can overcome challenges of conflicting motivations and timing. We conclude that there is a need to reframe knowledge exchange through the lens of ‘evidence’ and the process of equitable co-creation of new meanings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":165758,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research for All\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research for All\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14324/RFA.04.2.07\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research for All","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14324/RFA.04.2.07","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

通过平衡高质量的研究和有效的实践,循证实践在创造有效的公共服务方面日益重要。然而,即使学术界和实践者共同努力在实践中使用证据,也会出现障碍。本文描述了学术界和实践之间公平知识交换的研究,利用了来自英国各地与警察一起运行的15个证据交换项目的数据,涉及378名参与者,这里有三个典型的证据交换案例研究。我们的研究结果揭示了单向知识转移和双向、公平的知识交换之间的差异,以及倡导者和有效设计和实施的讨论对象如何克服动机和时间冲突的挑战。我们的结论是,有必要通过“证据”和公平共同创造新意义的过程来重新构建知识交流。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evidence Cafés: Overcoming conflicting motivations and timings
Evidence-based practice is increasingly important in creating effective public services through the balance of high-quality research and valid practice. Yet even when academics and practitioners work together to use evidence in practice, barriers emerge. This paper describes research into equitable knowledge exchange between academia and practice, drawing on data from 15 Evidence Cafés run across the UK with police forces, involving 378 participants, represented here with three exemplar Evidence Café case studies. Our findings reveal the differences between one-way knowledge transfer and two-way, equitable knowledge exchange, and how champions and effectively designed and implemented discussion objects can overcome challenges of conflicting motivations and timing. We conclude that there is a need to reframe knowledge exchange through the lens of ‘evidence’ and the process of equitable co-creation of new meanings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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