BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Columba Systems Ltd//NONSGML CPNG/SpringViewer/ICal Output/3.3-
 M3//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20190610T104440Z
DTSTART:20190611T120000Z
DTEND:20190611T130000Z
SUMMARY:Centre for Primary Care Seminar – Dr Charlotte Sharp- Developing 
 products for knowledge mobilisation of healthcare research - how best to
  get them used?
UID:{http://www.columbasystems.com/customers/uom/gpp/eventid/}y1oy-jwq91y
 3s-g5spzu
DESCRIPTION:Background: The current emphasis on demonstrating academic ‘i
 mpact’ contributes to the proliferation of knowledge mobilisation (KM) p
 roducts from healthcare research (e.g. toolkits\, guidance etc)\, which 
 may be referred to as ‘boundary objects’. A research gap exists regardin
 g the motivation for their development\, development processes and the f
 actors influencing whether and how they mobilise knowledge.\n\nMethods: 
 Phase 1: Semi-structured interviews (20) + focus group (11) (academics\,
  healthcare managers\, funders) focussing on perceptions of toolkits. Ph
 ase 2: Four case studies of applied healthcare research projects develop
 ing KM products. An ethnographic approach generated data from observatio
 ns (80+ hours)\, document analysis (>150) and interviews (40). Thematic 
 analysis was inductive and deductive\, building on Phase 1 themes and de
 veloping new themes where appropriate.\n\nResults: Phase 1 saw the acade
 mic context constraining researchers’ ability to concentrate on developi
 ng KM products. Toolkits were perceived as ill-defined\, practical resou
 rces\, helping users put knowledge into practice. Participants reported 
 overwhelming cynicism towards them\, yet felt obliged to produce them. P
 hase 1 themes supported Phase 2\, where the impact agenda perpetuates KM
  product development as stand-alone interventions instead of a broader K
 M strategy. Cross case analysis revealed themes influencing the potentia
 l to move KM products from ‘designated boundary objects’ to ‘boundary ob
 jects 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) stake
 holder 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 sub
 jects.\n\nConclusion\nTo optimise the potential application of KM produc
 ts\, researchers and funders should consider the motivation for their de
 velopment. Where developing 
STATUS:TENTATIVE
TRANSP:TRANSPARENT
CLASS:PUBLIC
LOCATION:5th floor Seminar Room\, Williamson Building\, Manchester
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR