The Experts below are selected from a list of 161988 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Marion Haas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
partnerships for Knowledge Exchange in health services research policy and practice
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 2009Co-Authors: Penelope Mitchell, Jane Pirkis, Jane Hall, Marion HaasAbstract:Within the health services research community there is a growing strength of feeling that ongoing partnerships between researchers and decision-makers are critically important to effective transfer and Exchange of Knowledge generated from health services research. A body of literature is emerging around this idea that favours a particular model of partnership based on decision-maker involvement in research. This model is also gaining favour among health research funding bodies internationally. We argue that it is premature for the health services community to privilege any particular model of partnership between researchers and decision-makers. Rather a diversity of models should be conceptualized, explored in theory and practice, and evaluated. We identify seven dimensions that could be used to describe and differentiate models of partnerships for Knowledge Exchange and illustrate how these dimensions could be applied to analysing partnerships, using three case studies from recent and ongoing health services research partnerships in Australia.
-
partnerships for Knowledge Exchange in health services research policy and practice
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 2009Co-Authors: Penelope Mitchell, Jane Pirkis, Jane Hall, Marion HaasAbstract:Within the health services research community there is a growing strength of feeling that ongoing partnerships between researchers and decision-makers are critically important to effective transfer and Exchange of Knowledge generated from health services research. A body of literature is emerging around this idea that favours a particular model of partnership based on decision-maker involvement in research. This model is also gaining favour among health research funding bodies internationally. We argue that it is premature for the health services community to privilege any particular model of partnership between researchers and decision-makers. Rather a diversity of models should be conceptualized, explored in theory and practice, and evaluated. We identify seven dimensions that could be used to describe and differentiate models of partnerships for Knowledge Exchange and illustrate how these dimensions could be applied to analysing partnerships, using three case studies from recent and ongoing health serv...
Fabie Duhamel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
implementing family nursing how do we translate Knowledge into clinical practice part ii the evolution of 20 years of teaching research and practice to a center of excellence in family nursing
Journal of Family Nursing, 2010Co-Authors: Fabie DuhamelAbstract:The author’s reflections on Knowledge transfer/translation highlight the importance of the circular process between science and practice Knowledge, leading to the notion of “Knowledge Exchange.” She addresses the dilemmas of translating Knowledge into clinical practice by describing her academic contributions to Knowledge Exchange within Family Systems Nursing (FSN). Teaching and research strategies are offered that address the circularity between science and practice Knowledge. The evolution of 20 years of teaching, research, and clinical experience has resulted in the recent creation of a Center of Excellence in Family Nursing at the University of Montreal. The three main objectives of the Center uniquely focus on Knowledge Exchange by providing (a) a training context for skill development for nurses specializing in FSN, (b) a research milieu for Knowledge “creation” and Knowledge “in action” studies to further advance the practice of FSN, and (c) a family healing setting to support families who experie...
-
implementing family nursing how do we translate Knowledge into clinical practice part ii the evolution of 20 years of teaching research and practice to a center of excellence in family nursing
Journal of Family Nursing, 2010Co-Authors: Fabie DuhamelAbstract:The author's reflections on Knowledge transfer/translation highlight the importance of the circular process between science and practice Knowledge, leading to the notion of "Knowledge Exchange." She addresses the dilemmas of translating Knowledge into clinical practice by describing her academic contributions to Knowledge Exchange within Family Systems Nursing (FSN). Teaching and research strategies are offered that address the circularity between science and practice Knowledge. The evolution of 20 years of teaching, research, and clinical experience has resulted in the recent creation of a Center of Excellence in Family Nursing at the University of Montreal. The three main objectives of the Center uniquely focus on Knowledge Exchange by providing (a) a training context for skill development for nurses specializing in FSN, (b) a research milieu for Knowledge "creation" and Knowledge "in action" studies to further advance the practice of FSN, and (c) a family healing setting to support families who experience difficulty coping with health issues.
Penelope Mitchell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
partnerships for Knowledge Exchange in health services research policy and practice
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 2009Co-Authors: Penelope Mitchell, Jane Pirkis, Jane Hall, Marion HaasAbstract:Within the health services research community there is a growing strength of feeling that ongoing partnerships between researchers and decision-makers are critically important to effective transfer and Exchange of Knowledge generated from health services research. A body of literature is emerging around this idea that favours a particular model of partnership based on decision-maker involvement in research. This model is also gaining favour among health research funding bodies internationally. We argue that it is premature for the health services community to privilege any particular model of partnership between researchers and decision-makers. Rather a diversity of models should be conceptualized, explored in theory and practice, and evaluated. We identify seven dimensions that could be used to describe and differentiate models of partnerships for Knowledge Exchange and illustrate how these dimensions could be applied to analysing partnerships, using three case studies from recent and ongoing health services research partnerships in Australia.
-
partnerships for Knowledge Exchange in health services research policy and practice
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 2009Co-Authors: Penelope Mitchell, Jane Pirkis, Jane Hall, Marion HaasAbstract:Within the health services research community there is a growing strength of feeling that ongoing partnerships between researchers and decision-makers are critically important to effective transfer and Exchange of Knowledge generated from health services research. A body of literature is emerging around this idea that favours a particular model of partnership based on decision-maker involvement in research. This model is also gaining favour among health research funding bodies internationally. We argue that it is premature for the health services community to privilege any particular model of partnership between researchers and decision-makers. Rather a diversity of models should be conceptualized, explored in theory and practice, and evaluated. We identify seven dimensions that could be used to describe and differentiate models of partnerships for Knowledge Exchange and illustrate how these dimensions could be applied to analysing partnerships, using three case studies from recent and ongoing health serv...
Mingfeng Lin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
do incentive hierarchies induce user effort evidence from an online Knowledge Exchange
Information Systems Research, 2016Co-Authors: Paulo Goes, Chenhui Guo, Mingfeng LinAbstract:To motivate user contributions, user-generated content sites routinely deploy incentive hierarchies, where users achieve increasingly higher statuses in the community after achieving increasingly more difficult goals. Yet the existing empirical literature remains largely unclear whether such hierarchies are indeed effective in inducing user contributions. We gather data from a large online crowd-based Knowledge Exchange to answer this question, and draw on goal setting and status hierarchy theories to study users’ contributions before and after they reach consecutive ranks on a vertical incentive hierarchy. We find evidence that even though these glory-based incentives may motivate users to contribute more before the goals are reached, user contribution levels drop significantly after that. The positive effect on user contribution appears only temporary. Moreover, such impacts are increasingly smaller for higher ranks. Our results highlight some unintended and heretofore undocumented effects of incentive ...
-
do incentive hierarchies induce user effort evidence from an online Knowledge Exchange
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Paulo Goes, Chenhui Guo, Mingfeng LinAbstract:To motivate user contributions, UGC (User-generated content) websites routinely deploy incentive hierarchies, where users achieve increasingly higher statuses in the community after achieving increasingly more difficult goals. Yet the existing empirical literature remains largely unclear whether such hierarchies are indeed effective in inducing user contributions. We gather data from a large online crowd-based Knowledge Exchange to answer this question, and draw on goal setting and status hierarchy theories to study users’ contributions before and after they reach consecutive ranks on a vertical incentive hierarchy. We find evidence that even though these “glory”-based incentives may motivate users to contribute more before the goals are reached, user contribution levels drop significantly after that. The positive effect on user contribution appears only temporary. Moreover, such impacts are increasingly smaller for higher ranks. Our results highlight some unintended and heretofore undocumented effects of incentive hierarchies, and have important implications for business models that rely on user contributions, such as Knowledge Exchange and crowdsourcing, as well as the broader phenomenon of “gamification” in other contexts.
Mark Reed - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
five principles for the practice of Knowledge Exchange in environmental management
Journal of Environmental Management, 2014Co-Authors: Mark Reed, Ioan Fazey, Anna Evely, Lindsay C Stringer, Joanneke KruijsenAbstract:This paper outlines five principles for effective practice of Knowledge Exchange, which when applied, have the potential to significantly enhance the impact of environmental management research, policy and practice. The paper is based on an empirical analysis of interviews with 32 researchers and stakeholders across 13 environmental management research projects, each of which included elements of Knowledge co-creation and sharing in their design. The projects focused on a range of upland and catchment management issues across the UK, and included Research Council, Government and NGO funded projects. Preliminary findings were discussed with Knowledge Exchange professionals and academic experts to ensure the emerging principles were as broadly applicable as possible across multiple disciplines. The principles suggest that: Knowledge Exchange needs to be designed into research; the needs of likely research users and other stakeholders should be systematically represented in the research where possible; and long-term relationships must be built on trust and two-way dialogue between researchers and stakeholders in order to ensure effective co-generation of new Knowledge. We found that the delivery of tangible benefits early on in the research process helps to ensure continued motivation and engagement of likely research users. Knowledge Exchange is a flexible process that must be monitored, reflected on and continuously refined, and where possible, steps should be taken to ensure a legacy of ongoing Knowledge Exchange beyond initial research funding. The principles have been used to inform the design of Knowledge Exchange and stakeholder engagement guidelines for two international research programmes. They are able to assist researchers, decision-makers and other stakeholders working in contrasting environmental management settings to work together to co-produce new Knowledge, and more effectively share and apply existing Knowledge to manage environmental change.
-
evaluating Knowledge Exchange in interdisciplinary and multi stakeholder research
Global Environmental Change-human and Policy Dimensions, 2014Co-Authors: Ioan Fazey, Lukas Bunse, Joshua Msika, Maria Pinke, Katherine Preedy, Anna Evely, Emily Lambert, Emily Hastings, Sue Morris, Mark ReedAbstract:Abstract Interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research is increasingly being promoted and implemented to enhance understanding of global environment change, identify holistic policy solutions, and assist implementation. These research activities are social processes aiming to enhance the Exchange and translation of Knowledge. Emphasis on the design and management of Knowledge Exchange is increasing, but learning about how to do this better is hampered by lack of conceptual development and appropriate methods to evaluate complex and multifaceted Knowledge Exchange processes. This paper therefore develops principles for the evaluation of Knowledge Exchange in interdisciplinary, multi-stakeholder environmental change research. The paper is based on an analysis of 135 peer-reviewed evaluations of Knowledge Exchange from diverse disciplines. The results indicate strong relationships between the field of study (e.g. health care, environmental management), the way Knowledge and Knowledge Exchange were conceptualised and implemented, the approach used for the evaluation, and the outcomes being evaluated. A typology of seven Knowledge Exchange evaluations is presented to guide discussions about the underlying assumptions of different approaches to Knowledge Exchange and its evaluation. Five principles for Knowledge Exchange evaluation are also identified: (i) design for multiple end users; (ii) be explicit about why a particular approach to Knowledge Exchange is expected to deliver its outcomes; (iii) evaluate diverse outcomes; (iv) use evaluations as part of the process of delivering Knowledge Exchange; and (v) use mixed methods to evaluate Knowledge Exchange. We conclude that a catch-all approach to evaluation is neither appropriate nor desirable. Instead, approaches that focus on understanding the underlying processes of Knowledge Exchange, assess the relative contribution of other factors in shaping outcomes in addition to Knowledge Exchange, and that involve multiple stakeholders in implementing evaluations, will be the most appropriate for evaluating Knowledge Exchange in interdisciplinary global environmental change research.
-
Knowledge Exchange a review and research agenda for environmental management
Environmental Conservation, 2013Co-Authors: Ioan Fazey, Anna Evely, Mark Reed, Jeremy Phillipson, Lindsay C Stringer, Joanneke Kruijsen, Piran C L White, Andrew Newsham, Martin Cortazzi, Kirsty BlackstockAbstract:There is increasing emphasis on the need for effective ways of sharing Knowledge to enhance environmental management and sustainability. Knowledge Exchange (KE) are processes that generate, share and/or use Knowledge through various methods appropriate to the context, purpose, and participants involved. KE includes concepts such as sharing, generation, coproduction, comanagement, and brokerage of Knowledge. This paper elicits the expert Knowledge of academics involved in research and practice of KE from different disciplines and backgrounds to review research themes, identify gaps and questions, and develop a research agenda for furthering understanding about KE. Results include 80 research questions prefaced by a review of research themes. Key conclusions are: (1) there is a diverse range of questions relating to KE that require attention; (2) there is a particular need for research on understanding the process of KE and how KE can be evaluated; and (3) given the strong interdependency of research questions, an integrated approach to understanding KE is required. To improve understanding of KE, action research methodologies and embedding evaluation as a normal part of KE research and practice need to be encouraged. This will foster more adaptive approaches to learning about KE and enhance effectiveness of environmental management.
