Cited by 26Health Policy Implementation ScienceInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Making authentic: exploring boundary objects and bricolage in knowledge mobilisation through National Health Service-university partnerships

Open access
Melville-Richards, Lucy, Rycroft-Malone, Joanne, Burton, Christopher, Wilkinson, Joyce·2020·Evidence & Policy

Abstract

Background: In healthcare, bridging the research-to-practice gap is a top priority. Knowledge mobilisation scholars suggest that this gap can be closed through collaboration between knowledge users and producers. The concept of boundary objects – shared things and ideas that enable communication – has gained popularity across various collaborative work practices, but their potential within knowledge mobilisation in health care is understudied. An ongoing challenge for designers of boundary objects is how to create objects that are valued and shared both in principle and in practice. Aims and objectives: This paper reports on a study of boundary objects used during knowledge mobilisation through NHS-university partnerships called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). The distinction is investigated between boundary objects-in-theory and boundary objects-in-use, considering whether the latter possess specific characteristics which make them more effective during knowledge mobilisation. Methods: A qualitative case study of three CLAHRCs was conducted. Twenty-one people employed as ‘boundary spanners’ were interviewed to explore whether boundary objects played a role in knowledge mobilisation. Findings: The most effective boundary objects-in-use were co-produced through a process of bricolage. These possessed high levels of meaningfulness and resonance, and reconciled multiple user perspectives. Together these properties contributed to the overall authenticity of boundary objects-in-use. Discussion and conclusion: This paper helps to explain why designated boundary objects frequently fail in practice, and why there is a need to focus on understanding boundary objects based on symbolic, rather than structural, dimensions.

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 · 10.1332/174426419x15623134271106

Cites

73 of 73 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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Melville-Richards, L. (2015) Exploring and Explaining the Role of Boundary Objects in Implementation through the National Institute of Health Research's Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (NIHR CLAHRCs) PhD Thesis Prifysgol Bangor University, http://e.bangor.ac.uk/10896/
  2. N. Oudshoorn, T. Pinch (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press ), pp 151-171.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Melville-Richards, L., Rycroft-Malone, J., Burton, C., & Wilkinson, J.
Affiliations
  • Bangor University (GB)
  • Lancaster University, UK
  • Canterbury Christ Church University (GB)
  • University of Stirling (GB)
Venue
Evidence & Policy
Published
2020-11
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
517-539
ISSN
  • 1744-2648 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-2656
OpenAlex
W2965427431
Cited by
26
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Evidence & Policy (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Bangor University Research Portal (Bangor University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
boundary objects, bricolage, knowledge mobilization, research-practice gap, boundary spanners, co-production, authenticity, health research collaboration

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