Cited by 102Health Policy Implementation ScienceInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationCommunity Health and Development

Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care: lessons from the theory of communities of practice

Open access
Kislov, Roman, Harvey, Gill, Walshe, Kieran·2011·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The paper combines the analytical and instrumental perspectives on communities of practice (CoPs) to reflect on potential challenges that may arise in the process of interprofessional and inter-organisational joint working within the Collaborations for Leaderships in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs)--partnerships between the universities and National Health Service (NHS) Trusts aimed at conducting applied health research and translating its findings into day-to-day clinical practice. DISCUSSION: The paper discusses seminal theoretical literature on CoPs as well as previous empirical research on the role of these communities in healthcare collaboration, which is organised around the following three themes: knowledge sharing within and across CoPs, CoP formation and manageability, and identity building in CoPs. It argues that the multiprofessional and multi-agency nature of the CLAHRCs operating in the traditionally demarcated organisational landscape of the NHS may present formidable obstacles to knowledge sharing between various professional groupings, formation of a shared 'collaborative' identity, and the development of new communities within the CLAHRCs. To cross multiple boundaries between various professional and organisational communities and hence enable the flow of knowledge, the CLAHRCs will have to create an effective system of 'bridges' involving knowledge brokers, boundary objects, and cross-disciplinary interactions as well as address a number of issues related to professional and organisational identification. SUMMARY: The CoP approach can complement traditional 'stage-of-change' theories used in the field of implementation research and provide a basis for designing theory-informed interventions and evaluations. It can help to illuminate multiple boundaries that exist between professional and organisational groups within the CLAHRCs and suggest ways of crossing those boundaries to enable knowledge transfer and organisational learning. Achieving the aims of the CLAHRCs and producing a sustainable change in the ways applied health research is conducted and implemented may be influenced by how effectively these organisations can navigate through the multiple CoPs involved and promote the development of new multiprofessional and multi-organisational communities united by shared practice and a shared sense of belonging--an assumption that needs to be explored by further empirical research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1748-5908-6-64

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 77 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) http://www.nihr.ac.uk/infrastructure/Pages/infrastructure_clahrcs.aspx 24385272
  2. Hands DW Reflection without Rules: Economic Methodology and Contemporary Science Theory 2001 Cambridge: Cambridge University Place
  3. Pawson R Tilley N Realistic Evaluation 1997 London: SAGE Publications
  4. Øvretveit J Lomas J Davies H Powell A External Advisory Review of the LNR CLAHRC: report to the management board 2010

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kislov, R., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Kislov, Roman
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2011-06-23
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
64-64
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2122962007
Cited by
102
References
77
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
FWCI
18.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
Keywords
communities of practice, interprofessional collaboration, inter-organisational collaboration, knowledge sharing, knowledge brokers, boundary objects, organizational learning, implementation research, knowledge transfer, professional boundaries
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Diffusion of Innovation, United Kingdom, Health Services Research, Humans, Leadership, Quality of Health Care, State Medicine, Evidence-Based Medicine, Empirical Research, Community-Based Participatory Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review