Centre for Primary Care Seminar – Dr Charlotte Sharp- Developing products for knowledge mobilisation of healthcare research - how best to get them used?
| Dates: | 11 June 2019 |
|---|
| Times: | 13:00 - 14:00 |
|---|
| What is it: | Seminar |
|---|
| Organiser: | Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health |
|---|
| Who is it for: | University staff, Current University students |
|---|
| Speaker: | Dr Charlotte Sharp |
|---|
|
Background: The current emphasis on demonstrating academic ‘impact’ contributes to the proliferation of knowledge mobilisation (KM) products from healthcare research (e.g. toolkits, guidance etc), which may be referred to as ‘boundary objects’. A research gap exists regarding the motivation for their development, development processes and the factors influencing whether and how they mobilise knowledge.
Methods: Phase 1: Semi-structured interviews (20) + focus group (11) (academics, healthcare managers, funders) focussing on perceptions of toolkits. Phase 2: Four case studies of applied healthcare research projects developing KM products. An ethnographic approach generated data from observations (80+ hours), document analysis (>150) and interviews (40). Thematic analysis was inductive and deductive, building on Phase 1 themes and developing new themes where appropriate.
Results: Phase 1 saw the academic context constraining researchers’ ability to concentrate on developing KM products. Toolkits were perceived as ill-defined, practical resources, helping users put knowledge into practice. Participants reported overwhelming cynicism towards them, yet felt obliged to produce them. Phase 1 themes supported Phase 2, where the impact agenda perpetuates KM product development as stand-alone interventions instead of a broader KM strategy. Cross case analysis revealed themes influencing the potential to move KM products from ‘designated boundary objects’ to ‘boundary objects in use’: need (ranging from unclear to identified gap), audience (ill-defined to clear), team dynamic (dysfunctional to collaborative), leadership ((dis)engaged), project management (chaotic to clear) stakeholder engagement (tokenism to co-production), and product (ill-defined to boundary object-in-use). KM products were characterised as symbolic boundary objects, used as bargaining chips with funders or research subjects.
Conclusion
To optimise the potential application of KM products, researchers and funders should consider the motivation for their development. Where developing
Speaker
Dr Charlotte Sharp
Role: Clinical Rheumatologist for Health Education England (North West)
Organisation: Alliance Manchester Business School
Travel and Contact Information
Find event
5th floor Seminar Room
Williamson Building
Manchester
