Accepted author manuscript, 464 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Making authentic
T2 - exploring boundary objects and bricolage in knowledge mobilisation through National Health Service-university partnerships
AU - Melville-Richards, Lucy
AU - Rycroft-Malone, Joanne
AU - Burton, Christopher
AU - Wilkinson, Joyce
PY - 2020/11/1
Y1 - 2020/11/1
N2 - Background: In healthcare, bridging the research-to-practice gap is a top priority. Knowledge mobilisation scholars suggest that this gap can be closed through collaboration between knowledge users and producers. The concept of boundary objects ‐ shared things and ideas that enable communication ‐ has gained popularity across various collaborative work practices, but their potential within knowledge mobilisation in health care is understudied. An ongoing challenge for designers of boundary objects is how to create objects that are valued and shared both in principle and in practice.Aims and objectives: This paper reports on a study of boundary objects used during knowledge mobilisation through NHS-university partnerships called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). The distinction is investigated between boundary objects-in-theory and boundary objects-in-use, considering whether the latter possess specific characteristics which make them more effective during knowledge mobilisation.Methods: A qualitative case study of three CLAHRCs was conducted. Twenty-one people employed as ‘boundary spanners’ were interviewed to explore whether boundary objects played a role in knowledge mobilisation.Findings: The most effective boundary objects-in-use were co-produced through a process of bricolage. These possessed high levels of meaningfulness and resonance, and reconciled multiple user perspectives. Together these properties contributed to the overall authenticity of boundary objects-in-use.Discussion and conclusion: This paper helps to explain why designated boundary objects frequently fail in practice, and why there is a need to focus on understanding boundary objects based on symbolic, rather than structural, dimensions.
AB - Background: In healthcare, bridging the research-to-practice gap is a top priority. Knowledge mobilisation scholars suggest that this gap can be closed through collaboration between knowledge users and producers. The concept of boundary objects ‐ shared things and ideas that enable communication ‐ has gained popularity across various collaborative work practices, but their potential within knowledge mobilisation in health care is understudied. An ongoing challenge for designers of boundary objects is how to create objects that are valued and shared both in principle and in practice.Aims and objectives: This paper reports on a study of boundary objects used during knowledge mobilisation through NHS-university partnerships called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). The distinction is investigated between boundary objects-in-theory and boundary objects-in-use, considering whether the latter possess specific characteristics which make them more effective during knowledge mobilisation.Methods: A qualitative case study of three CLAHRCs was conducted. Twenty-one people employed as ‘boundary spanners’ were interviewed to explore whether boundary objects played a role in knowledge mobilisation.Findings: The most effective boundary objects-in-use were co-produced through a process of bricolage. These possessed high levels of meaningfulness and resonance, and reconciled multiple user perspectives. Together these properties contributed to the overall authenticity of boundary objects-in-use.Discussion and conclusion: This paper helps to explain why designated boundary objects frequently fail in practice, and why there is a need to focus on understanding boundary objects based on symbolic, rather than structural, dimensions.
KW - Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
U2 - 10.1332/174426419x15623134271106
DO - 10.1332/174426419x15623134271106
M3 - Journal article
VL - 16
SP - 517
EP - 539
JO - Evidence and Policy : A Journal of Research Debate and Practice
JF - Evidence and Policy : A Journal of Research Debate and Practice
SN - 1744-2648
IS - 4
ER -