Search results1 – 2 of 2
The purpose of this paper is to examine how knowledge exchange between academics and clinicians in Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care…
The purpose of this paper is to examine how knowledge exchange between academics and clinicians in Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) is influenced by their social position based on their symbolic and social capitals, that is, their personal professional status and connections to high-status professional peers, knowledge brokers, and unfamiliar professional peers.
Using an online survey, the author triangulates the cross-sectional measurement of the effects of academic and clinicians’ social position in the initial and later phases of CLAHRCs with the longitudinal measurement of these effects over a two-year period.
First, academics and clinicians with a higher personal professional status are more likely to develop joint networks and decision making both in the early and later phases of a CLAHRC. Second, academics and clinicians who are more connected to higher status occupational peers are more likely to develop joint networks in the early phase of a knowledge exchange partnership but are less likely to become engaged in joint networks over time. Third, involvement of knowledge brokers in the networks of academics and clinicians is likely to facilitate their inter-professional networking only in the later partnership phase.
Academics and clinicians’ capitals have a distinctive influence on knowledge exchange in the early and later phases of CLAHRCs and on a change in knowledge exchange over a two-year period.
Prior research on CLAHRCs has examined how knowledge exchange between academics and clinicians can be encouraged by the creation of shared governance mechanisms. The author advances this research by highlighting the role of their social position in facilitating knowledge exchange.
The authors draw selectively on theories of learning and knowledge, which currently have received little attention from knowledge translation (KT) researchers, and suggest…
The authors draw selectively on theories of learning and knowledge, which currently have received little attention from knowledge translation (KT) researchers, and suggest how they might usefully inform future development of the KT literature. The purpose of this paper is to provide conceptual tools and strategies for the growing number of managers, clinicians and decision makers navigating this arena.
The authors conducted a narrative review to synthesise two streams of literature and examine evolving conceptual landscape concerning knowledge translation over the previous three decades. Conceptual mapping was used iteratively to develop and synthesise the literature. Iterative feedback from relevant research and practice stakeholder groups was used to focus and strengthen the review.
KT has been conceptualised along three competing frames; one focusing on linear (largely unidirectional) transfer of knowledge; one focusing on KT as a social process; and another that seeks to more fully incorporate contextual issues in understanding research implementation. Three overlapping themes are found in the management literature that inform these debates in the health literature, namely knowledge boundaries, organisational learning and absorptive capacity. Literature on knowledge boundaries problematizes the nature of boundaries and the stickiness of knowledge. Organisational learning conceptualises the need for organisational wide systems to facilitate learning processes; it also draws on a more expansive view of knowledge. Absorptive capacity focuses at the firm level on the role of developing organisational capabilities that enable the identification, assimilation and use of new knowledge to enable innovation.
The paper highlights the need to consider KT processes at multiple levels, including individual, organisational and strategic levels. These are important not only for research but also have practical implications for individuals and organisations involved in KT processes.
This review summarises and integrates two largely separate literature streams on knowledge translation – namely health services research and management scholarship. In addition to outlining and organising the conceptual landscape around knowledge transfer, the paper contributes by highlighting how management literature on knowledge and learning theories might inform health services research on knowledge translation.