How can we establish more successful knowledge networks in developing countries? Lessons learnt from knowledge networks in Iran

Health Research Policy and Systems

Sima Amrolalaei²  Ali Alami¹  Reza Majdzadeh³  Bahareh Yazdizadeh² 

[1] Department of Health, School of Public Health; Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Gonabad University of Medical Sciences, Gonabad, Iran;Knowledge Utilization Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Science, No 1547, North Karegar St, Enghelab Ave, Tehran, Iran;Knowledge Utilization Research Center; Epidemiology and Biostatistics Department, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran

关键词: Iran;    Health management organization;    Evaluation;    Knowledge network;   

Others  :  1177315
DOI  :  10.1186/1478-4505-12-63

 received in 2014-03-05, accepted in 2014-10-25,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Formal knowledge networks are considered among the solutions for strengthening knowledge translation and one of the elements of innovative systems in developing and developed countries. In the year 2000, knowledge networks were established in Iran’s health system to organize, lead, empower, and coordinate efforts made by health-related research centers in the country. Since the assessment of a knowledge network is one of the main requirements for its success, the current study was designed in two qualitative and quantitative sections to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the established knowledge networks and to assess their efficiency.

Methods

In the qualitative section, semi-structured, in-depth interviews were held with network directors and secretaries. The interviews were analyzed through the framework approach. To analyze effectiveness, social network analysis approach was used. That is, by considering the networks’ research council members as ‘nodes’, and the numbers of their joint articles - before and after the network establishments - as ‘relations or ties’, indices of density, clique, and centrality were calculated for each network. In the qualitative section, non-transparency of management, lack of goals, administrative problems were among the most prevalent issues observed.

Results

Currently, the most important challenges are the policies related to them and their management. In the quantitative section, we observed that density and clique indices had risen for some networks; however, the centrality index for the same networks was not as high. Consequently the attribution of density and clique indices to these networks was not possible.

Conclusion

Therefore, consolidating and revising policies relevant to the networks and preparing a guide for establishing managing networks could prove helpful. To develop knowledge and technology in a country, networks need to solve the problems they face in management and governance. That is, the first step towards the realization of true knowledge networks in health system.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Yazdizadeh et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Creech H: Strategic Intentions: Principles for Sustainable Development Knowledge Network. In IISD Working Paper. Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development; 2001.
• [2]Mendizabal E: Understanding Networks:The Functions of Research Policy Networks. UK: Overseas Development Institute; 2006.
• [3]Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham I: Knowledge dissemination and exchange of knowledge. In Knowledge Translation in Health Care: Moving from Evidence to Practice. Canada: Wiley- Blackwell; 2009:238.
• [4]Luijendijk J, Mejia-Velez D: Knowledge networks for capacity building: A tool for achieving the MDGs?. Delft, the Netherlands: Workshop Proceedings on Design and Implementation of Capacity Development, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education; 2005.
• [5]Ng SM, Weindling AM: The impact of networks on clinical trials in the United Kingdom. Trials 2009, 10:100. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Moin M, Mahmoudi M, Rezaei N: Scientific output of Iran at the threshold of the 21st century. Scientometrics 2005, 62(2):239-248.
• [7]Archambault E: 30 Years in Science, Secular Movement in Knowledge Creation. Canada and USA: Science Metrix; 2010.
• [8]Larijani B, Majdzadeh R, Delavari AR, Rajabi F, Khatibzadeh S, Esmailzadeh H, Lankarani KB: Iran’s Health Innovation and Science Development Plan by 2025. Iranian J Publ Health 2009, 38:13-16.
• [9]Hendrickson L, Balaguer A, Ballantyne D, Baranyai K, Collins R, Drake P, Josipovic G, Marshall M, Still B, Talbot L, Verey B: Australian Innovation System Report 2011. Australia: Australian Goverment, Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research; 2011.
• [10]Creech H, Ramji A: Knowledge Networks: Guidelines for Assessment. Canada: Heather Creech, Director Knowledge Communications; 2004.
• [11]Prell CH, Hubacek K, Reed M: Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 2009, 22(6):501-518.
• [12]Huppé G, Creech H, Knoblauch D: The Frontiers of Networked Governance. In IISD report. Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development; 2012.
• [13]Everett GM, Borgatti PS: Extending Centralit. Models and methods in social network analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005:57-76.
• [14]Pryke S: Social Network Analysis in Construction. England: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.
• [15]Kuafman M: Analyzing the Social Web. United States of America: Elsevier Inc; 2013.
• [16]Hanneman AR, Riddle M: Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California; 2005.
• [17]Yousefi-Nooraie R, Akbari-Kamrani M, Hanneman AR, Etemadi A: Association between co-authorship network and scientific productivity and impact indicators in academic medical research centers: a case study in Iran. Health Res Policy Syst 2008, 6:9. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Foundation (CHSRF), C.H.S.R: Network Notes ll: Knowledge Networks. Canada: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation;
• [19]Creech H: Form follows Function: Management and goverment of a formal knowledge network. Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development; 2001.
• [20]Governance: Structure and process for decision-making and accountability, International Institute for ustainable Development. 2012. Available from: http://www.iisd.org/networks/gov/ webcite
• [21]Network Notes IV Governing Sideways:Guidelines to Network Governance, Canadian Health Services Research. Canada: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/Libraries/Network_Notes_ENGLISH/Network_Notes_IV_%E2%80%93_Governing_Sideways_Guidelines_to_Network_Governance.sflb.ashx webcite
• [22]Creech H: Measuring while you manage: planning, monitoring and evaluation knowledge networks. Canada: International Institute of Sustainable Development; 2001.
• [23]Provan KG, Milward HB: Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks. Public Administration Review 2002, 61(4):414-423.
• [24]Conklin J, Stolee P: A model for evaluating knowledge exchange in a network contxt. CJNR 2008, 40(2):116-124.
• [25]Mendizabal E: Understanding Networks: The Functions of Research Policy Networks. London, U.K: Working Paper 271. Overseas Development Institute; 2006.
• [26]Wixted B, Holbrook A: Conceptual Issues in the Evaluation of Formal Research Networks. Canada: Simon Fraser University; 2008.
• [27]Buxton MJ, Hanney S: [Developing and applying the Payback Framework to assess the socioeconomicimpact of health research]. Med Clin (Barc) 2008, 131(Suppl 5):36-41.
• [28]Yazdizadeh B, Majdzadeh R, Salmasian H: Systematic review of methods for evaluating healthcare research economic impact. Health Res Policy Syst 2010., 8(6) http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/8/1/6 webcite
• [29]Wooding S, Hanney S, Buxton M, Grant J: Payback arising from research funding: evaluation of the Arthritis Research Campaign. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005, 44(9):1145-1156.
• [30]Intarakumnerd P, Chairatana P, Tangchitpiboob T: National Innovation System in Less Successful Developing Countries:The case of Thailand. Research Policy 2002, 31:1445-1457.
• [31]Dutta S: The Global Innovation Index: stronger innovation linkage for global growth. France: INSEAD and WIPO; 2012.