The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care: lessons from the theory of communities of practice
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“there is good evidence to suggest that groups or teams of individuals have an important role in determining the uptake of new knowledge in practice.”
From PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice (2015) · cites this paper as [38]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1994) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/0002-8223(94)92216-0 · Cited by 46,726
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Bloch, M. E. F., Lave, J., & Wenger, É. (1994) · Man · doi:10.2307/2804509 · Cited by 39,362
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 35,324
(1999) · Cited by 28,356
Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity
Wenger, E. (1998) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803932 · Cited by 23,500
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/030631289019003001 · Cited by 10,847
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.40 · Cited by 8,742
Organizational Images and Member Identification
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393235 · Cited by 4,915
Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge
Wenger, É., & Snyder, W. M. (2002) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 4,769
Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems
Wenger, E. (2000) · Organization · doi:10.1177/135050840072002 · Cited by 4,274 · cited 3×
“Second, as far as the level of individual knowledge brokers is concerned, full participation in one CoP may render brokering difficult: those with multimembership seeking to coordinate across CoPs may have difficulties participating fully as members of one community if they have allegiances in another [24].”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Hands DW: Reflection without Rules: Economic Methodology and Contemporary Science Theory. 2001, Cambridge: Cambridge University Place · DOI
- Pawson R, Tilley N: Realistic Evaluation. 1997, London: SAGE Publications
- 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
Harvey, G., & Kitson, A. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0398-2 · Cited by 1,271
Self-citationKislov, R., Waterman, H. A., Harvey, G., & Boaden, R. (2014) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0166-0 · Cited by 164
Self-citationThe ‘dark side’ of knowledge brokering
Kislov, R., Wilson, P. M., & Boaden, R. (2016) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1177/1355819616653981 · Cited by 148
Self-citationEngagement in research: an innovative three-stage review of the benefits for health-care performance
Hanney, S. R., Boaz, A., Jones, T. H., & Soper, B. (2013) · Health Services and Delivery Research · doi:10.3310/hsdr01080 · Cited by 121
Raftery, J. P., Hanney, S. R., Greenhalgh, T., Glover, M. J., & Blatch-Jones, A. (2016) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta20760 · Cited by 112
Metadata
- 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)
- PMC
- PMC3130688
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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 › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › 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