集体知识代理:嵌入式团队的模型与影响

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
L. Wye, H. Cramer, K. Beckett, M. Farr, A. May, J. Carey, Rebecca S. Robinson, Rachel Anthwal, James Rooney, H. Baxter
{"title":"集体知识代理:嵌入式团队的模型与影响","authors":"L. Wye, H. Cramer, K. Beckett, M. Farr, A. May, J. Carey, Rebecca S. Robinson, Rachel Anthwal, James Rooney, H. Baxter","doi":"10.1332/174426419X15468577044957","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:The Bristol Knowledge Mobilisation (KM) Team was an unusual collective brokering model, consisting of a multi-professional team of four managers and three academics embedded in both local healthcare policymaking (aka commissioning) and academic primary care.\n Aims and objectives:They aimed to encourage ‘research-informed commissioning’ and ‘commissioning-informed research’. This paper covers context, structure, processes, advantages, challenges and impact. Methods:Data sources from brokers\n included personal logs, reflective essays, exit interviews and a team workshop. These were analysed inductively using constant comparison. To obtain critical distance, three external evaluations were conducted, using interviews, observations and documentation. Findings:Stable,\n solvent organisations; senior involvement with good inter-professional relationships; secure funding; and networks of engaged allies in host organisations supported the brokers. Essential elements were two-way embedding, ‘buddying up’, team leadership, brokers’ interpersonal\n skills, and two-year, part-time contracts. By working collectively, the brokers fostered cross-community interactions and modelled collaborative behaviour, drawing on each other’s ‘insider’ knowledge, networks and experience. Challenges included too many taskmasters, unrealistic\n expectations and work overload. However, team-brokering provided a safe space to be vulnerable, share learning, and build confidence. As host organisations benefitted most from embedded brokers, both communities noted changes in attitude, knowledge, skills and confidence. The team were more\n successful in fostering ‘commissioning-informed research’ with co-produced research grants than ‘research-informed commissioning’. Discussion and conclusions:Although still difficult, the collective support and comradery of an embedded, two-way, multi-professional\n team made encouraging interactions, and therefore brokering, easier. A team approach modelled collaborative behaviour and created a critical mass to affect cultural change.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Collective knowledge brokering: the model and impact of an embedded team\",\"authors\":\"L. Wye, H. Cramer, K. Beckett, M. Farr, A. May, J. Carey, Rebecca S. Robinson, Rachel Anthwal, James Rooney, H. Baxter\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/174426419X15468577044957\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background:The Bristol Knowledge Mobilisation (KM) Team was an unusual collective brokering model, consisting of a multi-professional team of four managers and three academics embedded in both local healthcare policymaking (aka commissioning) and academic primary care.\\n Aims and objectives:They aimed to encourage ‘research-informed commissioning’ and ‘commissioning-informed research’. This paper covers context, structure, processes, advantages, challenges and impact. Methods:Data sources from brokers\\n included personal logs, reflective essays, exit interviews and a team workshop. These were analysed inductively using constant comparison. To obtain critical distance, three external evaluations were conducted, using interviews, observations and documentation. Findings:Stable,\\n solvent organisations; senior involvement with good inter-professional relationships; secure funding; and networks of engaged allies in host organisations supported the brokers. Essential elements were two-way embedding, ‘buddying up’, team leadership, brokers’ interpersonal\\n skills, and two-year, part-time contracts. By working collectively, the brokers fostered cross-community interactions and modelled collaborative behaviour, drawing on each other’s ‘insider’ knowledge, networks and experience. Challenges included too many taskmasters, unrealistic\\n expectations and work overload. However, team-brokering provided a safe space to be vulnerable, share learning, and build confidence. As host organisations benefitted most from embedded brokers, both communities noted changes in attitude, knowledge, skills and confidence. The team were more\\n successful in fostering ‘commissioning-informed research’ with co-produced research grants than ‘research-informed commissioning’. Discussion and conclusions:Although still difficult, the collective support and comradery of an embedded, two-way, multi-professional\\n team made encouraging interactions, and therefore brokering, easier. A team approach modelled collaborative behaviour and created a critical mass to affect cultural change.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419X15468577044957\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419X15468577044957","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: 12

摘要

背景:布里斯托尔知识动员(KM)团队是一个不寻常的集体经纪模式,由四名经理和三名学者组成的多专业团队组成,他们参与了当地医疗保健政策制定(又名委托)和学术初级保健。目的和目标:他们旨在鼓励“研究知情委托”和“委托知情研究”。本文涵盖了背景、结构、过程、优势、挑战和影响。方法:数据来源包括经纪人个人日志、反思文章、离职访谈和团队研讨会。这些都是用常数比较归纳分析。为了取得临界距离,利用访谈、观察和文件进行了三次外部评价。研究发现:稳定、有偿付能力的组织;具有良好的跨专业关系;获得融资;在东道国组织中参与的盟友网络支持这些经纪人。基本要素是双向嵌入、“结交”、团队领导、经纪人的人际交往能力,以及两年的兼职合同。通过集体工作,经纪人促进了跨社区的互动,并模仿了合作行为,利用了彼此的“内部”知识、网络和经验。挑战包括太多的监工、不切实际的期望和超负荷的工作。然而,团队中介提供了一个安全的空间,让人们可以暴露自己的弱点,分享学习,建立信心。由于东道国机构从嵌入式经纪人中获益最多,两个社区都注意到态度、知识、技能和信心的变化。与“研究知情的委托”相比,该团队在通过共同生产的研究资助促进“委托知情的研究”方面更成功。讨论和结论:尽管仍然困难,但嵌入式、双向、多专业团队的集体支持和同志情谊使令人鼓舞的互动变得更加容易。团队方法模拟了协作行为,并创造了影响文化变革的临界质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Collective knowledge brokering: the model and impact of an embedded team
Background:The Bristol Knowledge Mobilisation (KM) Team was an unusual collective brokering model, consisting of a multi-professional team of four managers and three academics embedded in both local healthcare policymaking (aka commissioning) and academic primary care. Aims and objectives:They aimed to encourage ‘research-informed commissioning’ and ‘commissioning-informed research’. This paper covers context, structure, processes, advantages, challenges and impact. Methods:Data sources from brokers included personal logs, reflective essays, exit interviews and a team workshop. These were analysed inductively using constant comparison. To obtain critical distance, three external evaluations were conducted, using interviews, observations and documentation. Findings:Stable, solvent organisations; senior involvement with good inter-professional relationships; secure funding; and networks of engaged allies in host organisations supported the brokers. Essential elements were two-way embedding, ‘buddying up’, team leadership, brokers’ interpersonal skills, and two-year, part-time contracts. By working collectively, the brokers fostered cross-community interactions and modelled collaborative behaviour, drawing on each other’s ‘insider’ knowledge, networks and experience. Challenges included too many taskmasters, unrealistic expectations and work overload. However, team-brokering provided a safe space to be vulnerable, share learning, and build confidence. As host organisations benefitted most from embedded brokers, both communities noted changes in attitude, knowledge, skills and confidence. The team were more successful in fostering ‘commissioning-informed research’ with co-produced research grants than ‘research-informed commissioning’. Discussion and conclusions:Although still difficult, the collective support and comradery of an embedded, two-way, multi-professional team made encouraging interactions, and therefore brokering, easier. A team approach modelled collaborative behaviour and created a critical mass to affect cultural change.
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
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