Leadership in complex networks: the importance of network position and strategic action in a translational cancer research network

Implementation Science

Jeffrey Braithwaite²  Peter Carswell³  Janice Wiley²  Frances C Cunningham¹  Janet C Long² 

[1] Centre for Primary Health Care Systems Research, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia;Centre for Clinical Governance Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Level 1, AGSM Building, Kensington, Australia;School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

关键词: Research;    Key players;    Brokerage;    Centrality;    Health sector;    Leadership;    Network analysis;   

Others  :  811008
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-8-122

 received in 2013-05-06, accepted in 2013-10-03,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Leadership behaviour in complex networks is under-researched, and little has been written concerning leadership of translational research networks (TRNs) that take discoveries made ‘at the bench’ and translate them into practices used ‘at the bedside.’ Understanding leaders’ opportunities and behaviours within TRNs working to solve this key problem in implementing evidence into clinical practice is therefore important. This study explored the network position of governing body members and perceptions of their role in a new TRN in Sydney, Australia. The paper asks three questions: Firstly, do the formal, mandated leaders of this TRN hold key positions of centrality or brokerage in the informal social network of collaborative ties? Secondly, if so, do they recognise the leadership opportunities that their network positions afford them? Thirdly, what activities associated with these key roles do they believe will maximise the TRN’s success?

Methods

Semi-structured interviews of all 14 governing body members conducted in early 2012 explored perceptions of their roles and sought comments on a list of activities drawn from review of successful transdisciplinary collaboratives combined with central and brokerage roles. An on-line, whole network survey of all 68 TRN members sought to understand and map existing collaborative connections. Leaders’ positions in the network were assessed using UCInet, and graphs were generated in NetDraw.

Results

Social network analysis identified that governing body members had high centrality and high brokerage potential in the informal network of work-related ties. Interviews showed perceived challenges including ‘silos’ and the mismatch between academic and clinical goals of research. Governing body members recognised their central positions, which would facilitate the leadership roles of leading, making decisions, and providing expert advice necessary for the co-ordination of effort and relevant input across domains. Brokerage potential was recognised in their clearly understood role of representing a specialty, campus or research group on the governing body to provide strategic linkages. Facilitation, mentoring and resolving conflicts within more localised project teams were spoken of as something ‘we do all the time anyway,’ as well as something they would do if called upon. These leadership roles are all linked with successful collaborative endeavours in other fields.

Conclusions

This paper links the empirical findings of the social network analysis with the qualitative findings of the interviews to show that the leaders’ perceptions of their roles accord with both the potential inherent in their network positions as well as actual activities known to increase the success of transdisciplinary teams. Understanding this is key to successful TRNs.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Long et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]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
• [2]Field A, Baxter K, Terry SF: From bench to practice to population health impact: barriers to realizing the public health and clinical promise of basic scientific discovery. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2011, 15:191-192.
• [3]Mathew JP, Taylor BS, Bader GD, Pyarajan S, Antoniotti M, Chinnaiyan AM, Sander C, Burakoff SJ, Mishra B: From bytes to bedside: data integration and computational biology for translational cancer research. PLoS Comput Biol 2007, 3:e12.
• [4]Tageja N: Bridging the translation gap - new hopes, new challenges. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2011, 25:163-171.
• [5]Tenenbaum JD, Whetzel PL, Anderson K, Borromeo CD, Dinov ID, Gabriel D, Kirschner B, Mirel B, Morris T, Noy N, et al.: The Biomedical Resource Ontology (BRO) to enable resource discovery in clinical and translational research. J Biomed Inf 2011, 44:137-145.
• [6]Woolf SH: The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA 2008, 299:211-213.
• [7]Zerhouni EA: Translational and clinical science: time for a new vision. N Engl J Med 2005, 353:1621-1623.
• [8]Dauphinée D, Martin JB: Breaking down the walls: thoughts on the scholarship of integration. Acad Med 2000, 75:881-886.
• [9]Goldblatt EM, Lee W-H: From bench to bedside: the growing use of translational research in cancer medicine. Am J Transl Res 2010, 2:1-18.
• [10]Cross R, Parker A: The hidden power of social networks: understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press; 2004.
• [11]Wasserman S, Faust K: Social network analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
• [12]Scott J: Social network analysis: a handbook. 2nd edition. London: Sage; 2000.
• [13]Burt RS: Brokerage and closure: an introduction to social capital. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
• [14]Coleman JS: Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 1988, 94:S95-S120.
• [15]Borgatti S: Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Comput Math Organiz Theor 2006, 12:21.
• [16]Krackhardt D, Hanson JR: Informal networks: The company behind the charts. Harvard Bus Rev 1993, 71:104-111.
• [17]Burt RS: Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 1992.
• [18]Long JC, Cunningham FC, Braithwaite J: Network structure and the role of key players in a translational cancer research network: a study protocol. BMJ Open 2012., 2doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001434
• [19]Gray B: Enhancing transdisciplinary research through collaborative leadership. Am J Prev Med 2008, 35:S124-S132.
• [20]Cross R, Borgatti S, Parker A: Making invisible work visible: using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. Calif Manage Rev 2002, 44:25-46.
• [21]Chauvet V, Chollett B, Soda G, Huault I: The contribution of network research to managerial culture and practice. Eur Manage J 2011, 29:321-334.
• [22]Balkundi P, Kilduff M: The ties that lead: a social network approach to leadership. Leadersh Q 2005, 16:941-962.
• [23]Stokols D, Misra S, Moser RP, Hall KL, Taylor BK: The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am J Prev Med 2008, 35:S96-S115.
• [24]Greenfield D, Braithwaite J, Pawsey M, Johnson B, Robinson M: Distributed leadership to mobilise capacity for accreditation research. J Health Organ Manag 2009, 23:255-267.
• [25]Bristow R: Recommendations for the future of translational radiobiology research: a Canadian perspective. Radiother Oncol 2004, 70:159-164.
• [26]Mankoff S, Brander C, Ferrone S, Marincola F: Lost in translation: obstacles to translational medicine. J Transl Med 2004, 2:14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [27]Sung NS, Crowley WF, Genel M, Salber P, Sandy L, Sherwood LM, Johnson SB, Catanese V, Tilson H, Getz K, et al.: Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA 2003, 289:1278-1287.
• [28]Carpenter S: Carving a career in translational research. Science 2007, 317:966-967.
• [29]Westfall JM, Mold J, Fagnan L: Practice-based research - “blue highways” on the NIH Roadmap. JAMA 2007, 297:403-406.
• [30]Marantz PR, Strelnick AH, Currie B, Bhalla R, Blank AE, Meissner P, Selwyn PA, Walker EA, Hsu DT, Shamoon H: Developing a multidisciplinary model of comparative effectiveness research within a clinical and translational science award. Acad Med 2011, 86:712-717.
• [31]Snow C: The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1959.
• [32]Ioannidis JP: Materializing research promises: opportunities, priorities and conflicts in translational medicine. J Transl Med 2004, 2:5-10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [33]Borgatti S, Everett MG, Freeman LC: UCInet for Windows: software for social network analysis. 6th edition. Harvard: Analytic Technologies; 2002.
• [34]Borgatti S: NetDraw: graph visualization software. Analytic Technologies: Harvard; 2002.
• [35]Long J, Cunningham FC, Braithwaite J: Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in social professional networks: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2013, 13:158. BioMed Central Full Text
• [36]Watts DJ, Strogatz SH: Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 1998, 393:440-442.
• [37]Valente TW, Pumpuang P: Identifying opinion leaders to promote behavior change. Health Educ Behav 2007, 34:881-896.
• [38]Valente TW: Network interventions. Science 2012, 337:49-53.
• [39]Gould RV, Fernandez RM: Structures of mediation: a formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociol Methodol 1989, 19:89-126.
• [40]Burt RS: Structural holes and good ideas. Am J Sociol 2004, 110:349-399.
• [41]Valente TW, Fujimoto K: Bridging: locating critical connectors in a network. Soc Networks 2010, 23:212-220.
• [42]Di Marco MK, Taylor JE, Alin P: Emergence and role of cultural boundary spanners in global engineering project networks. J Manag Eng 2010, 26:123-132.
• [43]McInnes E, Middleton S, Gardner G, Haines M, Haertsch M, Paul CL, Castaldi P: A qualitative study of stakeholder views of the conditions for and outcomes of successful clinical networks. BMC Health Serv Res 2012., 12(49) doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-49
• [44]Braithwaite J: Between group behaviour in health care: gaps, edges, boundaries, disconnections, weak ties, spaces and holes. A systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2010, 10:330. BioMed Central Full Text
• [45]Goodwin N, Perri , Peck P, Freeman T, Posaner R: Managing across diverse networks: lessons from other sectors. Report to the national coordinating centre for the NHS service delivery and organisation R&D programme. London: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; 2004.