Balancing exploration and exploitation in transferring research into practice: a comparison of five knowledge translation entity archetypes

Implementation Science

Girts Racko¹  Karl Prince²  Michael Barrett²  Eivor Oborn¹ 

[1] Warwick Business School, The University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK;Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1AG, UK

关键词: Innovation;    Absorptive capacity;    Research implementation;    Collaboration;    Ambidexterity;    Exploitation;    Exploration;    Knowledge translation;   

Others  :  813364
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-8-104

 received in 2013-04-22, accepted in 2013-08-22,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Translating knowledge from research into clinical practice has emerged as a practice of increasing importance. This has led to the creation of new organizational entities designed to bridge knowledge between research and practice. Within the UK, the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) have been introduced to ensure that emphasis is placed in ensuring research is more effectively translated and implemented in clinical practice. Knowledge translation (KT) can be accomplished in various ways and is affected by the structures, activities, and coordination practices of organizations. We draw on concepts in the innovation literature—namely exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity—to examine these structures and activities as well as the ensuing tensions between research and implementation.

Methods

Using a qualitative research approach, the study was based on 106 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with the directors, theme leads and managers, key professionals involved in research and implementation in nine CLAHRCs. Data was also collected from intensive focus group workshops.

Results

In this article we develop five archetypes for organizing KT. The results show how the various CLAHRC entities work through partnerships to create explorative research and deliver exploitative implementation. The different archetypes highlight a range of structures that can achieve ambidextrous balance as they organize activity and coordinate practice on a continuum of exploration and exploitation.

Conclusion

This work suggests that KT entities aim to reach their goals through a balance between exploration and exploitation in the support of generating new research and ensuring knowledge implementation. We highlight different organizational archetypes that support various ways to maintain ambidexterity, where both exploration and exploitation are supported in an attempt to narrow the knowledge gaps. The KT entity archetypes offer insights on strategies in structuring collaboration to facilitate an effective balance of exploration and exploitation learning in the KT process.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Oborn et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cooksey D: A review of UK health research funding. London: Stationery Office; 2006.
• [2]Lomas J: Using ‘linkage and exchange’ to move research into policy at a Canadian Foundation. Health Aff 2000, 19:236-240.
• [3]Eccles MP, Armstrong D, Baker R, Cleary K, Davies H, Davies S, Glasziou P, Ilott I, Kinmonth A-L, Leng G, Logan S, Marteau T, Michie S, Rogers H, Rycroft-Malone J, Sibbald B: An implementation research agenda. Implement Sci 2009, 4:18. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Grimshaw JM, Santesso N, Cumpston M, Mayhew A, McGowan J: Knowledge for knowledge translation: the role of the Cochrane Collaboration. J Contin Educ Heal Prof 2006, 26:55-62.
• [5]Lencucha R, Kothari A, Hamel N: Extending collaborations for knowledge translation: lessons from the community-based participatory research literature. Evidence & Policy 2010, 6:61-75.
• [6]Rycroft-Malone J, Wilkinson JE, Burton CR, Andrews G, Ariss S, Baker R, Dopson S, Graham I, Harvey G, Martin G: Implementing health research through academic and clinical partnerships: a realistic evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). Implement Sci 2011, 6:74. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Chambers D, Wilson PM, Thompson CA, Hanbury A, Farley K, Light K: Maximizing the impact of systematic reviews in health care decision making: a systematic scoping review of knowledge-translation resources. Milbank Q 2011, 89:131-156.
• [8]NIHR CLAHRC for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. [http://www.clahrc-cp.nihr.ac.uk/about-us webcite]
• [9]NHS Confederation NIHR CLAHRCs. [http://www.nhsconfed.org/Networks/research/Pages/CLAHRCs.aspx webcite]
• [10]Hack TF, Ruether JD, Weir LM, Grenier D, Degner LF: Study protocol: addressing evidence and context to facilitate transfer and uptake of consultation recording use in oncology: a knowledge translation implementation study. Implement Sci 2011, 6:20. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Browman GP: Challenges in knowledge translation: the early years of Cancer Care Ontario’s Program in Evidence-based Care. Curr Oncol 2012, 19:27.
• [12]Chamberlain P, Brown CH, Saldana L: Observational measure of implementation progress in community based settings: The Stages of implementation completion (SIC). Implement Sci 2011, 6:1-8. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Stevens A: Telling policy stories: an ethnographic study of the use of evidence in policy-making in the UK. J Soc Policy 2011, 40:237-255.
• [14]Kok MO, Vaandrager L, Bal R, Schuit J: Practitioner opinions on health promotion interventions that work: opening the ‘black box’ of a linear evidence-based approach. Soc Sci Med 2012, 74:715-723.
• [15]Green C, Maclure M, Fortin P, Ramsay C, Aaserud M, Bardal S: Policies that restrict reimbursement on some drugs to ensure better use in health care. Online: Cochrane Summaries Published; 2010.
• [16]McGivern G, Dopson S: Inter-epistemic power and transforming knowledge objects in a biomedical network. Organ Stud 2010, 31:1667-1686.
• [17]Harvey G, Fitzgerald L, Fielden S, McBride A, Waterman H, Bamford D, Kislov R, Boaden R: The NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Greater Manchester: combining empirical, theoretical and experiential evidence to design and evaluate a large-scale implementation strategy. Implement Sci 2011, 6:96. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Baker R, Robertson N, Rogers S, Davies M, Brunskill N, Khunti K, Steiner M, Williams M, Sinfield P: The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland (LNR): a programme protocol. Implement Sci 2009, 4:72. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Currie G, Lockett A, Suhomlinova O: The institutionalization of distributed leadership: a ‘Catch-22’ in English public services. Hum Relat 2009, 62:1735-1761.
• [20]Aristidou A: Reconceptualizing knowledge coordination in service settings: the case of a mental health setting. 2012. [Annual Conference of the Academy of Management, Health Care Division]
• [21]Currie G, Fitzgerald L, Keen J, McBride A, Martin G, Rowley E, Waterman H: An organizational behaviour perspective upon CLAHRCs (Collaboratives for Leadership in Health Research and Care): Mediating institutional challenges through change agency. 2010. [Organizational Behaviour in Health Care Conference]
• [22]Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L, Wood M, Hawkins C: The nonspread of innovations: the mediating role of professionals. Acad Manage J 2005, 48:117-134.
• [23]Kontos PC, Poland BD: Mapping new theoretical and methodological terrain for knowledge translation: contributions from critical realism and the arts. Implement Sci 2009, 4:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Rowley E, Morriss R, Currie G, Schneider J: Research into practice: collaboration for leadership in applied health research and care (CLAHRC) for Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire (NDL). Implement Sci 2012, 7:40. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Kislov R, Harvey G, Walshe K: Collaborations for leadership in applied health research and care: lessons from the theory of communities of practice. Implement Sci 2011, 6:64. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Dopson S, FitzGerald L, Ferlie E, Gabbay J, Locock L: No magic targets! Changing clinical practice to become more evidence based. Health Care Manage Rev 2002, 27:35-47.
• [27]Innvær S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A: Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002, 7:239-244.
• [28]Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S: The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PloS One 2011, 6:e21704.
• [29]Oborn E: Facilitating implementation of the translational research pipeline in neurological rehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol 2012, 25:676-681.
• [30]Oborn E, Dawson S: Knowledge and practice in multidisciplinary teams: struggle, accommodation and privilege. Hum Relat 2010, 63:1835-1857.
• [31]Swan J, Bresnen M, Newell S, Robertson M: The object of knowledge: the role of objects in biomedical innovation. Hum Relat 2007, 60:1809-1837.
• [32]Grol RP, Bosch MC, Hulscher ME, Eccles MP, Wensing M: Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q 2007, 85:93-138.
• [33]McGivern G, Ferlie E: ‘Playing Tick-Box Games: Interrelating Defences in Professional Appraisal’ Human Relations 60. 2007, 1361-1385.
• [34]Oborn E, Dawson S: Learning across communities of practice: an examination of multidisciplinary work. Br J Manag 2010, 21:843-858.
• [35]Oborn E, Barrett M, Racko G: Knowledge translation in healthcare: incorporating theories of learning and knowledge from the management literature. J Health Organ Managin press
• [36]Nutley S, Davies HT: Getting research into practice: making a reality of evidence-based practice: some lessons from the diffusion of innovations. Public Money Manage 2000, 20:35-42.
• [37]Harvey G, Jas P, Walshe K, Skelcher C: Absorptive capacity: how organizations assimilate and apply knowledge to improve performance. In Connecting Knowledge and Performance in Public Services: From Knowing to Doing. Edited by Walshe K, Harvey G, Jas P. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010:226-250.
• [38]Crilly T, Jashapara A, Ferlie E: Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation: a scoping review of the literature. Southampton: NIHR SDO; 2010.
• [39]Lyons C, Brown T, Tseng MH, Casey J, McDonald R: Evidence-based practice and research utilisation: perceived research knowledge, attitudes, practices and barriers among Australian paediatric occupational therapists. Aust Occup Ther J 2011, 58:178-186.
• [40]Lomas J: The in-between world of knowledge brokering. Br Med J 2007, 334:129.
• [41]Freeman AC, Sweeney K: Why general practitioners do not implement evidence: qualitative study. Br Med J 2001, 323:1100.
• [42]Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE: Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci 2012, 7:50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [43]Gracey F, Malley D, Oborn E, Clare I: Complex problems, expert professionals’ or ‘full partners and expert patients’?: dimensions of discourses that guide practice in long-term conditions. 2010. [Service Delivery and Organization Conference]
• [44]Beresford P: Thinking about’ mental health’: towards a social model. J Ment Health 2002, 11:581-584.
• [45]Macaulay AC, Commanda LE, Freeman WL, Gibson N, McCabe ML, Robbins CM, Twohig PL: Participatory research maximises community and lay involvement. Br Med J 1999, 319:774.
• [46]Estabrooks CA, Squires JE, Cummings GG, Birdsell JM, Norton PG: Development and assessment of the Alberta Context Tool. BMC Health Services Res 2009, 9:234. BioMed Central Full Text
• [47]Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten S, Waye-Perry B, Smith N: Designing a knowledge transfer and exchange strategy for the Alberta Depression Initiative: contributions of qualitative research with key stakeholders. Int J Ment Health Syst 2009, 3:11. BioMed Central Full Text
• [48]Grol R: Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care 2001, 39:II–46-II–54.
• [49]Trostle J, Bronfman M, Langer A: How do researchers influence decision-makers? Case studies of Mexican policies. Health Policy Plan 1999, 14:103-114.
• [50]Bowen S, Martens P: Demystifying knowledge translation: learning from the community. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005, 10:203-211.
• [51]Rogers A, Vassilev I, Sanders C, Kirk S, Chew-Graham C, Kennedy A, Protheroe J, Bower P, Blickem C, Reeves D, others: Social networks, work and network-based resources for the management of long-term conditions: a framework and study protocol for developing self-care support. Implement Sci 2011, 6:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [52]Wensing M, Oxman A, Baker R, Godycki-Cwirko M, Flottorp S, Szecsenyi J, Grimshaw J, Eccles M: Tailored implementation for chronic diseases (TICD): a project protocol. Implement Sci 2011, 6:103. BioMed Central Full Text
• [53]Department of Health: Creating Change: innovation, health and wealth one year on. 2012.
• [54]Darzi A: High quality care for all: NHS next stage review final report. Norwich: The Stationery Office; 2008.
• [55]March JG: Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 1991, 2:71-87.
• [56]Kang S, Morris SS, Snell SA: Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and value creation: extending the human resource architecture. Acad Manage Rev 2007, 32:236-256.
• [57]Cohen WM, Levinthal DA: Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Sci Q 1990, 35:128-152.
• [58]Amabile TM: How to kill creativity. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing; 1998.
• [59]Benner MJ, Tushman ML: Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Manag Rev 2003, 28:238-256.
• [60]Marabelli M, Frigerio C, Rajola F: Ambidexterity in service organizations: reference models from the banking industry. Ind Innov 2012, 19:109-126.
• [61]March JG: Continuity and change in theories of organizational action. Adm Sci Q 1996, 41:278-287.
• [62]Gupta AK, Smith KG, Shalley CE: The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad Manage J 2006, 49:693-706.
• [63]NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). [http://www.nihr.ac.uk/infrastructure/Pages/CLAHRCs.aspx webcite]
• [64]Denzin N, Lincoln Y: The landscape of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2000.
• [65]Greenwood R, Hinings CR: Organizational design types, tracks and the dynamics of strategic change. Organiz Stud 1988, 9:293-316.
• [66]Dougherty D: Reimagining the differentiation and integration of work for sustained product innovation. Organiz Sci 2001, 12:612-631.
• [67]Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA: Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manage Rev 1996, 38:8-30.
• [68]Bartlett CA, Ghoshal S: Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 1989.
• [69]Ambos TC, Mäkelä K, Birkinshaw J, D’Este P: When does university research get commercialized? creating ambidexterity in research institutions. J Manag Stud 2008, 45:1424-1447.
• [70]Denis J-L, Lamothe L, Langley A: The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Acad Manage J 2001, 44:809-837.
• [71]Versteeg M, Laurant M, Franx G, Jacobs A, Wensing M: Factors associated with the impact of quality improvement collaboratives in mental healthcare: an exploratory study. Implement Sci 2012, 7:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [72]Leana CR, Van Buren HJ: Organizational social capital and employment practices. Acad Manage Rev 1999, 24:538-555.
• [73]Ginsburg LR, Lewis S, Zackheim L, Casebeer A: Revisiting interaction in knowledge translation. Implement Sci 2007, 2:34. BioMed Central Full Text
• [74]Uzzi B: Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Adm Sci Q 1997, 42:35-67.
• [75]Parchman ML, Scoglio CM, Schumm P: Understanding the implementation of evidence-based care: a structural network approach. Implement Sci 2011, 6:14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [76]Dyer JH, Nobeoka K: Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case. Strateg Manag J 2000, 21:345-367.
• [77]Landis B, Barrett M, Oborn E: Network centrality and knowledge sharing: the role of reputations. Austin, Texas: Academy of Management Conference; August 12-16 2011.