Mobilizing Research Knowledge through Social Networks.

摘要

Networks have been deemed an important knowledge mobilization (KMb) activity; however, much network research fails to acknowledge the ways that relational linkages among members mediate its work. The purpose of this study is to investigate the ways in which patterns of interaction among members of an implementation support program mediate KMb activities in support of evidence-informed policy-making. This was a bounded sample where coaches (N=6) and Mental Health Leaders (MHLs; N=31) from the first two cohorts of the program were invited to participate. This descriptive case study used a sequential, explanatory mixed methods design. Phase one of the study included a survey, administered online (response rate = 97%), that included social network and attribute-based questions. Network data were analysed at multiple levels using UCINet, and SPSS was used to conduct appropriate descriptive and inferential analyses. Phase two consisted of interviews with all five coaches, and six MHLs selected based on phase one degree centrality findings. The constant comparative method was applied to the analysis of the interviews. Each network exhibited low levels of activity and reciprocal ties, and the patterns of interaction in each focused on a subset of people. Certain individuals stood out as dominant sources of research/advice/influence. Overall, coaches received significantly more relations than MHLs; however, there were two MHLs who were often sought out more than other coaches. Attributes positively associated with indegree centrality included relational capital, level of research use, and research experience. People very rarely facilitated relationships among their otherwise unconnected colleagues, and the brokering of research knowledge appeared to focus on direct connections typically maintained through the formal program. An online forum, program coaches and resources, capacity-building activities, research literacy and community were considered facilitators of KMb, whereas organizational structure, tension among system priorities, and external groups were perceived as constraints. This study describes an innovative KMb model where formal events mattered most and the key players were not always coaches. The broader context of the program mediated KMb activities, where it was not only the people within the network, but also the resources and opportunities available within it that connected research and practice.