使真实:探索边界对象和拼凑知识动员通过国家卫生服务-大学伙伴关系

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Lucy Melville-Richards, J. Rycroft-Malone, C. Burton, Joyce E. Wilkinson
{"title":"使真实:探索边界对象和拼凑知识动员通过国家卫生服务-大学伙伴关系","authors":"Lucy Melville-Richards, J. Rycroft-Malone, C. Burton, Joyce E. Wilkinson","doi":"10.1332/174426419X15623134271106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In healthcare, bridging the research-to-practice gap is a top priority. Knowledge mobilisation scholars suggest that this gap can be closed through collaboration between knowledge users and producers. The concept of boundary objects – shared things and ideas that enable communication – has gained popularity across various collaborative work practices, but their potential within knowledge mobilisation in health care is understudied. An ongoing challenge for designers of boundary objects is how to create objects that are valued and shared both in principle and in practice.\r\n\r\nAims and objectives: This paper reports on a study of boundary objects used during knowledge mobilisation through NHS-university partnerships called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). The distinction is investigated between boundary objects-in-theory and boundary objects-in-use, considering whether the latter possess specific characteristics which make them more effective during knowledge mobilisation.\r\n\r\nMethods: A qualitative case study of three CLAHRCs was conducted. Twenty-one people employed as ‘boundary spanners’ were interviewed to explore whether boundary objects played a role in knowledge mobilisation.\r\n\r\nFindings: The most effective boundary objects-in-use were co-produced through a process of bricolage. These possessed high levels of meaningfulness and resonance, and reconciled multiple user perspectives. Together these properties contributed to the overall authenticity of boundary objects-in-use.\r\n\r\nDiscussion and conclusion: This paper helps to explain why designated boundary objects frequently fail in practice, and why there is a need to focus on understanding boundary objects based on symbolic, rather than structural, dimensions.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"517-539"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making authentic: exploring boundary objects and bricolage in knowledge mobilisation through National Health Service-university partnerships\",\"authors\":\"Lucy Melville-Richards, J. Rycroft-Malone, C. Burton, Joyce E. Wilkinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/174426419X15623134271106\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: In healthcare, bridging the research-to-practice gap is a top priority. Knowledge mobilisation scholars suggest that this gap can be closed through collaboration between knowledge users and producers. The concept of boundary objects – shared things and ideas that enable communication – has gained popularity across various collaborative work practices, but their potential within knowledge mobilisation in health care is understudied. An ongoing challenge for designers of boundary objects is how to create objects that are valued and shared both in principle and in practice.\\r\\n\\r\\nAims and objectives: This paper reports on a study of boundary objects used during knowledge mobilisation through NHS-university partnerships called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). The distinction is investigated between boundary objects-in-theory and boundary objects-in-use, considering whether the latter possess specific characteristics which make them more effective during knowledge mobilisation.\\r\\n\\r\\nMethods: A qualitative case study of three CLAHRCs was conducted. Twenty-one people employed as ‘boundary spanners’ were interviewed to explore whether boundary objects played a role in knowledge mobilisation.\\r\\n\\r\\nFindings: The most effective boundary objects-in-use were co-produced through a process of bricolage. These possessed high levels of meaningfulness and resonance, and reconciled multiple user perspectives. Together these properties contributed to the overall authenticity of boundary objects-in-use.\\r\\n\\r\\nDiscussion and conclusion: This paper helps to explain why designated boundary objects frequently fail in practice, and why there is a need to focus on understanding boundary objects based on symbolic, rather than structural, dimensions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"517-539\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419X15623134271106\",\"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/10.1332/174426419X15623134271106","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: 8

摘要

背景:在医疗保健领域,弥合研究与实践之间的差距是当务之急。知识动员学者认为,可以通过知识使用者和生产者之间的合作来缩小这一差距。边界对象的概念——能够进行交流的共享事物和想法——在各种协作工作实践中越来越受欢迎,但它们在医疗保健知识动员中的潜力却没有得到充分研究。边界对象设计者面临的一个持续挑战是如何创建原则上和实践中都有价值和共享的对象。目的和目的:本文报告了一项关于通过NHS大学合作伙伴关系在知识动员过程中使用的边界对象的研究,该合作伙伴关系名为“应用健康研究和护理领导力合作”(CLAHRC)。研究了理论上的边界对象和使用中的边界对象之间的区别,考虑到后者是否具有使其在知识调动过程中更有效的特定特征。方法:对3例CLAHRC进行定性病例研究。21名被雇佣为“边界扳手”的人接受了采访,以探讨边界物体是否在知识动员中发挥了作用。研究结果:使用中最有效的边界物体是通过拼凑过程共同产生的。这些具有高度的意义和共鸣,并调和了多个用户视角。这些特性加在一起有助于使用边界对象的整体真实性。讨论和结论:本文有助于解释为什么指定的边界对象在实践中经常失败,以及为什么需要专注于基于符号而非结构维度来理解边界对象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Making authentic: exploring boundary objects and bricolage in knowledge mobilisation through National Health Service-university partnerships
Background: In healthcare, bridging the research-to-practice gap is a top priority. Knowledge mobilisation scholars suggest that this gap can be closed through collaboration between knowledge users and producers. The concept of boundary objects – shared things and ideas that enable communication – has gained popularity across various collaborative work practices, but their potential within knowledge mobilisation in health care is understudied. An ongoing challenge for designers of boundary objects is how to create objects that are valued and shared both in principle and in practice. Aims and objectives: This paper reports on a study of boundary objects used during knowledge mobilisation through NHS-university partnerships called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). The distinction is investigated between boundary objects-in-theory and boundary objects-in-use, considering whether the latter possess specific characteristics which make them more effective during knowledge mobilisation. Methods: A qualitative case study of three CLAHRCs was conducted. Twenty-one people employed as ‘boundary spanners’ were interviewed to explore whether boundary objects played a role in knowledge mobilisation. Findings: The most effective boundary objects-in-use were co-produced through a process of bricolage. These possessed high levels of meaningfulness and resonance, and reconciled multiple user perspectives. Together these properties contributed to the overall authenticity of boundary objects-in-use. Discussion and conclusion: This paper helps to explain why designated boundary objects frequently fail in practice, and why there is a need to focus on understanding boundary objects based on symbolic, rather than structural, dimensions.
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