Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/14534
Record ID: 4b66b42f-852e-4c91-b4a3-fd10a7540c9c
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFarr, Michelleen
dc.contributor.authorle May, Andreeen
dc.contributor.authorWye, Lesleyen
dc.contributor.authorKothari, Anitaen
dc.contributor.authorBeckett, Kateen
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-30T23:13:42Z-
dc.date.available2022-06-30T23:13:42Z-
dc.date.issued2018en
dc.identifier.citationVol. 16en
dc.identifier.urihttps://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/14534-
dc.description.abstract"The potential use, influence and impact of health research is seldom fully realised. This stubborn problem has caused burgeoning global interest in research aiming to address the implementation 'gap' and factors inhibiting the uptake of scientific evidence. Scholars and practitioners have questioned the nature of evidence used and required for healthcare, highlighting the complex ways in which knowledge is formed, shared and modified in practice and policy. This has led to rapid expansion, expertise and innovation in the field of knowledge mobilisation and funding for experimentation into the effectiveness of different knowledge mobilisation models. One approach gaining prominence involves stakeholders (e.g. researchers, practitioners, service users, policy-makers, managers and carers) in the co-production, and application, of knowledge for practice, policy and research (frequently termed integrated knowledge translation in Canada). Its popularity stems largely from its potential to address dilemmas inherent in the implementation of knowledge generated using more reductionist methods. However, despite increasing recognition, demands for co-produced research to illustrate its worth are becoming pressing while the means to do so remain challenging. This is due not only to the diversity of approaches to co-production and their application, but also to the ways through which different stakeholders conceptualise, measure, reward and use research. While research co-production can lead to demonstrable benefits such as policy or practice change, it may also have more diffuse and subtle impact on relationships, knowledge sharing, and in engendering culture shifts and research capacity-building. These relatively intangible outcomes are harder to measure and require new emphases and tools. This opinion paper uses six Canadian and United Kingdom case studies to explore the principles and practice of co-production and illustrate how it can influence interactions between research, policy and practice, and benefit diverse stakeholders. In doing so, we identify a continuum of co-production processes. We propose and illustrate the use of a new 'social model of impact' and framework to capture multi-layered and potentially transformative impacts of co-produced research. We make recommendations for future directions in research co-production and impact measurement."en
dc.languageenen
dc.subjectResearchen
dc.subjectKnowledge translation and exchangeen
dc.subjectCase studiesen
dc.subjectResearch methodologyen
dc.titleEmbracing complexity and uncertainty to create impact : Exploring the processes and transformative potential of co-produced research through development of a social impact modelen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.catalogid15410en
dc.identifier.urlhttps://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-018-0375-0en
dc.subject.keywordnew_recorden
dc.identifier.sourceHealth research policy and systemsen
dc.date.entered2018-12-18en
Appears in Collections:Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing