Archetypes Of Practice In Knowledge Mobilisation - NCBI

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation Bookshelf Search databaseBooksAll DatabasesAssemblyBiocollectionsBioProjectBioSampleBooksClinVarConserved DomainsdbGaPdbVarGeneGenomeGEO DataSetsGEO ProfilesGTRIdentical Protein GroupsMedGenMeSHNLM CatalogNucleotideOMIMPMCProteinProtein ClustersProtein Family ModelsPubChem BioAssayPubChem CompoundPubChem SubstancePubMedSNPSRAStructureTaxonomyToolKitToolKitAllToolKitBookghSearch termSearch

• Browse Titles
• Advanced
• Help
• Disclaimer

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Davies HTO, Powell AE, Nutley SM. Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 Jun. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 3.27.)

Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study.

Show detailsHealth Services and Delivery Research, No. 3.27.Davies HTO, Powell AE, Nutley SM.Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 Jun.

• Contents

Search term < PrevNext > Chapter 6Archetypes of practice in knowledge mobilisation

Introduction

In Chapter 3 we read across 71 reviews of knowledge mobilisation, and explored the growing set of models and frameworks that have emerged, to create a conceptual map of the issues and challenges facing agencies developing knowledge mobilisation strategies. Chapter 4 provided in-depth accounts from these agencies of the strategies that they have developed, the reasons underlying these strategies, and the learning from evaluation work. Finally, Chapter 5 took a number of observations and propositions from the earlier phases of the work and tests these for wider consensus on a broader sample.

Building and integrating across the preceding three chapters, we now present some integrative observations of the knowledge mobilisation work that we have seen in our agencies and the thinking that has underpinned that work. Working inductively from our various sources of data (websites review, formal literature, grey literature, depth interviews and web survey), we have derived a number of key archetypes (eight in total) that can be seen to underpin the practices of the agencies with which we engaged.

This chapter presents an account of these archetypes, the reasoning behind them, and the potential uses to which they may be put. Workshop discussion with agencies and other interested parties late in the project suggested that these accounts may provide powerful tools to clarify and communicate agency strategies, activities and reasoning.

The nature of archetypes

Archetypes may be thought of as idealised types or configurations of agencies (i.e. not necessarily actual or real). They provide accounts of an idealised agency that can be used as interpretive heuristics, allowing us to assemble and interpret observations. ‘Idealised’ here contains no normative intent: it draws attention to the potential for creating basic building blocks from which the strategies of actual agencies may be assembled or be seen to be composed.

The focus of this study was on understanding the nature of the innovative activities in the field of knowledge mobilisation as carried out by three major types of agency: large research producers, intermediary agencies and major funders. We were not concerned to map the numbers and types of these agencies across sectors (e.g. health care or social care). Nor were we primarily interested in assessing the extent (depth and breadth) of agency activities across that landscape. To the extent that we did either of these two things it was as a means of exploring deeper processes. Our aim instead was to understand how and why innovation in knowledge mobilisation was created, underpinned and sustained.

It is important to be clear, therefore, that in creating archetypes we were not attempting to develop either a taxonomy or a classification of agencies: these are different tasks that have, in part, been addressed by others.11,25,130 In this project, we were looking deeper to try to understand the basic architecture from which agencies and their portfolio of knowledge mobilisation activities are assembled. It is to this end that we began to see in our data a number of patterns of practice – bundles of assumptions, actions, configurations and rationales – that recurred in the data. We called these repeated patterns ‘archetypes’.

The literature review work set out in Chapter 3 gave us obvious reference points for mapping agency activities and rationales. The six domains of the conceptual map, and the articulations of key debates, choices and tensions within these, provided anchor points for describing what we saw in agencies in the form of archetypes.

Eight emergent archetypes

Eight archetypes emerged inductively from our data on repeated reading of interview transcripts and an assessment of these in the light of the structured literature reviewing we had undertaken. In discussions across the research team, with our advisory board and in the participatory workshops we began to flesh out and name these archetypes.

As would be expected from archetypes, there is considerable overlap between them on many of the six domains of the conceptual map (this contrasts with, for example, a multidimensional approach to classification which would have sought discrete and mutually exclusive accounts). Indeed, some of the archetypes are so similar, differing on perhaps just one key aspect, that they form natural pairs (these are identified below):

• archetype A: producing knowledge (product push)
• archetypes B and C: brokering and intermediation (own research; wider research)
• archetype D: advocating evidence (proselytisers for an evidence-informed world)
• archetypes E and F: researching practice (research into practice; research in practice)
• archetype G: fostering networks (building on existing networks; developing new ones)
• archetype H: advancing knowledge mobilisation (building knowledge about knowledge and knowing).

Each of these archetypes is summarised in Table 22 using the six conceptual map domains; and each is now elaborated a little further. In reading these archetype accounts it should be borne in mind that we are not asserting that any given agency would necessarily match the archetype described: all actual agencies are likely to be a complex and shifting mix of these archetype underpinnings.

TABLE 22

Emerging archetypes of knowledge mobilisation approaches

Archetype A: producing knowledge

As Chapter 4 demonstrated, many of the agencies we engaged with emphasised the production of research-based knowledge ‘products’. These included systematic reviews, research summaries, ‘mythbusters’, web portals and the like. Even when agencies saw the importance of more interactive and socially situated approaches, they frequently experienced a pull back to knowledge production, collation and synthesis activities. Such approaches emphasise the value of explicit and codified knowledge, and naturally lead to distinct sets of activities and investments that enable the production process (see Table 22). Thus, the idea of archetype A (produce and share) emerged naturally from our data and could be seen to underpin – explicitly or implicitly – many agency strategies.

Archetypes B and C: brokering and intermediation (own research; wider research)

The rise of more interactive and relational models for research use has been mirrored by changes in the emphasis of agencies in how they seek to share research. Many have sought to go beyond ‘produce and share’ to create more interactive spaces where different kinds of knowledge and expertise can interact, be exchanged, be integrated and/or be transformed. Such approaches may have some inevitable ‘push’ but also seek to create ‘pull’, and are clearly informed by the ideas of ‘linkage and exchange’ (see Table 22).

Two different kinds of emphases were seen here in our data. First, activities that sought to broker (primarily) new and local research to a wide variety of stakeholders (often with an emphasis on policy-makers). Such actions were thus often focused on the flow of new research and its promulgation. Second, activities that sought to embrace the wider bodies of research available on any given issue; work that focused on the stocks of existing research-based data, whether locally produced or distal in time and place. These observations gave rise to a pair of archetypes, archetypes B and C, which reflect brokering agency activities focused on the new and the local or much more widely cast.

Archetype D: advocating evidence (proselytisers for an evidence-informed world)

As linkage and exchange has become mainstream, and knowledge application and use is seen as heavily contextual, problem-driven and socially situated, so systems thinking has come to permeate some of the discourses underpinning knowledge mobilisation. Evidence advocates proselytise for a greater role for research-based knowledge, and seek the necessary infrastructural, organisational and cultural changes that might facilitate that role. In this way of thinking, interaction is central, use of research may be as much conceptual (‘enlightenment’) as instrumental, and shaping the wider context becomes a central focus (see Table 22). Archetype D, therefore, represents this aspect of agency work around creating the right knowledge context that is properly cognisant of the social and organisational complexity of the arena where influence is sought.

Archetypes E and F: researching practice (research into practice; research in practice)

Many of the agencies with which we engaged emphasised the need to ‘roll up the sleeves’ and provide hands-on support for local implementation, developing networks and building local absorptive capacities. Such work emphasises different aspects of the conceptual map (see Table 22) and ‘resolves’ key tensions in particular ways. Again, here we could discern two rather different emphases that make up archetypes E and F. First, an emphasis on improving practice through the application of research knowledge produced outside the organisation where change is being sought (archetype E). Often, such approaches emphasise more explicit knowledge and ideas of knowledge transfer, but the adaption and adoption of that knowledge may still include consideration of local understandings and contingencies. The second emphasis (archetype F) highlights local learning and absorptive capacity development, as well as locally produced, often co-produced, research knowledge. Both of these archetypes blur the distinction between the roles of a knowledge mobilising agency and the normal functions of a service delivery organisation, such as organisation development, service improvement and organisational learning.

Archetype G: fostering networks (existing or new)

As our review of reviews showed, understanding has grown of the socially situated way in which research contributes to knowledge, is melded with existing tacit knowledge, is moulded by an understanding of local preoccupations and contingencies, and is actioned in complex and ‘political’ environments. In response to these perspectives on situated knowing, agencies have often sought to create, develop or mould collaborations and network that shape and share expertise, and to increase the role that research-based knowledge can play in these networks. Archetype G, therefore, highlights the assumptions and preoccupations that go into this kind of work (see Table 22).

Archetype H: advancing knowledge mobilisation (building knowledge about knowledge and knowing)

Addressing the irony that much of the practice in knowledge mobilisation is not yet underpinned by either a coherent body of theorising or extensive empirical evaluation, some agency work is aimed at addressing these deficiencies and lacunae. Archetype H, therefore, addresses those aspects of knowledge mobilisation practice that are about refining the field, building shared understanding and committing to further empirical study. This archetype reflects a reflexive application of ‘knowledge about knowing’ to the knowledge mobilisation field.

Discussion

The eight archetypes identified and outlined above and in Table 22 are presented as one way of understanding the preoccupations and emphases that we saw across different agencies in the field. We do not intend these accounts to be seen as definitive or – worse – as classification categories into which actual agencies can be slotted. Our aim was to show the breadth of knowledge mobilisation approaches observed, not to map individual agencies on to particular archetypes. Thus, our archetypes are idealised types that (may) help to explain the diversity and dynamics of knowledge mobilisation in practice. Real organisations rarely display all of the features of ideal types like our archetypes: instead, they are much more likely to show different features to varying degrees.196

In producing these accounts we neither make nor imply any normative intent. We would resist attempts to create hierarchies of these accounts, or attempts to suggest which are best or better, even if such suggestions were made heavily contingent. The patterns of practice contained in the archetypes present different challenges, have different strengths and are likely to be appropriate in different contexts.196 As constructed, the archetypes are intended as descriptive and interpretive heuristics. In common with the recent use of archetypes to illuminate knowledge translation practices in the nine first-round CLAHRCs,196 their merit lies in their capacity to aid transparency, and to reveal deeper strands of thinking that, consciously or otherwise, underpin agency activities.197 We also hope that these archetypes will stimulate communication and debate around agency orientations, design, strategies and priorities. It is our belief that finding ways to make explicit what is often tacit about knowledge mobilisation will aid both theory and practice.

A degree of respondent validation of these archetypes is both possible and desirable, but was beyond the scope of this project. For example, there are risks that we may have been too swayed by a theoretical literature that was, to some extent, sidelined by many of the agencies we spoke with. Nonetheless, as currently presented, the archetypes do have the merits of being both theoretically informed and strongly empirically driven.197

The archetypes can be used to explore the existing mix of activities in any agency, or indeed across a mix of agencies. Such an analysis could be extended longitudinally, to examine changes over time and the reasons for these. In addition, it would be possible to explore with agencies the degree of coherence or incongruence across the archetypes, and the implications of these for agency activities, future strategies and stakeholder perspectives. Participants at the second workshop suggested that none of the archetypes were inherently in conflict with each other but that there might be resource issues and challenges in reconciling competing priorities (e.g. if some archetypes/activities were seen as higher status).

This project had a particular and determined focus on agencies, partly because of the historical neglect of considerations of actions in these contexts, and partly because our view is that it is (for now) the energies and ingenuity of agency activity that will drive better sharing of research. However, this agency perspective also has limitations in that it addresses the interests and concerns of only one set of actors in the system (agencies of the types that we reviewed: producers; intermediaries and funders). This leaves unaddressed an analysis of the system-wide risks and missed opportunities. An emphasis on agencies, for example, can obscure the need for an interagency and system-wide focus. It may underplay the importance and dynamics of service delivery organisation design, staffing, training, regulation, etc. It also leaves somewhat sidelined any analysis of the research infrastructure and its fitness for purpose.198 In addition, broader political concerns and the role of the media are, similarly, not fully visible in the archetypes.

Notwithstanding these concerns, it is our belief that these archetypes are underpinned by an empirical reality as described in earlier chapters. As a result they have an inherent validity and can help us to make sense of the complex and diverse agency accounts set out in Chapter 4. Further elaboration is desirable, with one key area to be addressed being the nature of ‘success’ within the terms of each of the archetypes described.

Finally, in developing the archetypes as communicative or analytic tools for agencies, some translational work may be required to aid intelligibility and acceptability. A recurrent theme from our fieldwork was the somewhat limited connect between a burgeoning and increasingly sophisticated literature and the growing pragmatism and experientially led nature of agency strategies and actions. We have no wish to contribute to this gulf but seek ways to bridge it. Careful reframing and rephrasing of the archetypes may be required before they can become effective tools for agencies.

Concluding remarks

The emergence of archetypes from across our data gathering provided a new and unexpected perspective on the role and work of knowledge mobilising agencies. These help to bridge the theoretical concerns of Chapter 3 and the empirical realities exposed in Chapters 4 and 5. The following, concluding chapter of this report aims to further integrate the findings from the project as a whole, and to draw out some of their implications.

Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2015. This work was produced by Davies et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

Bookshelf ID: NBK299392Contents< PrevNext > Share

Views

• PubReader
• Print View
• Cite this PageDavies HTO, Powell AE, Nutley SM. Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 Jun. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 3.27.) Chapter 6, Archetypes of practice in knowledge mobilisation.
• PDF version of this title (1.6M)

In this Page

• Introduction
• The nature of archetypes
• Eight emergent archetypes
• Discussion
• Concluding remarks

Other titles in this collection

• Health Services and Delivery Research

Recent Activity

ClearTurn OffTurn On

• Archetypes of practice in knowledge mobilisation - Mobilising knowledge to impro...Archetypes of practice in knowledge mobilisation - Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more... Follow NCBI Twitter Facebook LinkedIn GitHub NCBI Insights Blog

Connect with NLM

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Youtube

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• NLM
• NIH
• HHS
• USA.gov