Performing collaborative research: a dramaturgical reflection on an institutional knowledge brokering service in the North East of England.
Academies and Institutes
Administrative Personnel
Anthropology, Cultural
Biomedical Research
Communication
Cooperative Behavior
Decision Making
Delivery of Health Care
England
Health Personnel
Health Policy
Health Resources
Humans
Knowledge
Public Health
Research Personnel
Translational Research, Biomedical
Universities
Goffman
Institutional knowledge brokering
auto-ethnography
public health
Journal
Health research policy and systems
ISSN: 1478-4505
Titre abrégé: Health Res Policy Syst
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 May 2019
08 May 2019
Historique:
received:
12
08
2018
accepted:
02
04
2019
entrez:
10
5
2019
pubmed:
10
5
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To increase the uptake of research evidence in practice, responsive research services have been developed within universities that broker access to academic expertise for practitioners and decision-makers. However, there has been little examination of the process of knowledge brokering within these services. This paper reflects on this process within the AskFuse service, which was launched in June 2013 by Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, in North East England. The paper outlines the challenges and opportunities faced by both academics and health practitioners collaborating through the service. The authors reflected on conversations between the AskFuse Research Manager and policy and practice partners accessing the service between June 2013 and March 2017. Summary notes of these conversations, including emails and documents relating to over 240 enquiries, have been analysed using an auto-ethnographic approach. We identified five challenges to knowledge brokering in an institutional service, namely length of brokerage time required, limits to collaboration, lack of resources, brokering research in a changing system, and multiple types of knowledge. To understand and overcome some of the identified challenges, we employ Goffman's dramaturgical perspective and argue for making better use of the distinction between front and back stages in the knowledge brokering process. We emphasise the importance of back stages for defusing destructive information that could discredit collaborative performances.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To increase the uptake of research evidence in practice, responsive research services have been developed within universities that broker access to academic expertise for practitioners and decision-makers. However, there has been little examination of the process of knowledge brokering within these services. This paper reflects on this process within the AskFuse service, which was launched in June 2013 by Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, in North East England. The paper outlines the challenges and opportunities faced by both academics and health practitioners collaborating through the service.
METHODS
METHODS
The authors reflected on conversations between the AskFuse Research Manager and policy and practice partners accessing the service between June 2013 and March 2017. Summary notes of these conversations, including emails and documents relating to over 240 enquiries, have been analysed using an auto-ethnographic approach.
FINDINGS
RESULTS
We identified five challenges to knowledge brokering in an institutional service, namely length of brokerage time required, limits to collaboration, lack of resources, brokering research in a changing system, and multiple types of knowledge.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
To understand and overcome some of the identified challenges, we employ Goffman's dramaturgical perspective and argue for making better use of the distinction between front and back stages in the knowledge brokering process. We emphasise the importance of back stages for defusing destructive information that could discredit collaborative performances.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31068186
doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0449-7
pii: 10.1186/s12961-019-0449-7
pmc: PMC6507129
doi:
Types de publication
Letter
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
49Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
J R Soc Med. 2011 Dec;104(12):501-9
pubmed: 22179293
PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e32665
pubmed: 22403693
Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7:39
pubmed: 22531033
Implement Sci. 2012 May 31;7:50
pubmed: 22651257
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Aug 03;12:114
pubmed: 22862833
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012 Oct;17(4):219-26
pubmed: 23038708
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Jan 03;14:2
pubmed: 24383766
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014 Jan;30(1):20-7
pubmed: 24451157
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Apr;130:225-33
pubmed: 25721334
BMC Med. 2015 Dec 17;13:301
pubmed: 26675206
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2017 Apr;22(2):107-112
pubmed: 28429974