week 8 8055

Connecting Research to Action: Perspectives on Research Utilisation

Mel Gray1,*, Elaine Sharland2, Milena Heinsch1, and Leanne Schubert1

1University of Newcastle, School of Humanities and Social Science, New South Wales 2308,

Australia 2University of Sussex, School of Education and Social Work, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QQ, UK

*Correspondence to Mel Gray, University of Newcastle, School of Humanities and Social Science, New South Wales 2308, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

In contemporary knowledge societies, scientific research has been emphasised as a key

component of effective and accountable service provision. This paper examines common-

alities and distinctions between two discourses of research utilisation: ‘evidence-based

practice’ (EBP) and ‘knowledge production/utilisation’ (KPU)—the former more promin-

ent in informingthesocialworkcanon, the latterwith somepotential to doso. Specifically,

it considers how and where these discourses are now coming together, through a focus on

‘knowledge mobilisation’, ‘implementation’ and ‘innovation’, and a shared emphasis on

the role of organisations in bridging the gap between research and action. It hopes to con-

tribute to the movement towards greater research use in social work and enhance under-

standing of the mechanisms by which research is connected to action.

Keywords: EBP, knowledge production, knowledge utilisation, research utilisation/use,

implementation, dissemination

Accepted: June 2014

Introduction

When it comes to considering research utilisation, in the main, social work has been more informed by the discourse of evidence-based practice (hereafter EBP) and less by that from the related interdisciplinary field of knowledge production/utilisation (hereafter KPU). Research utilisation is broadly con- cerned with the interrelated processes of forging the connection between

# The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of

The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved.

British Journal of Social Work (2015) 45, 1952–1967 doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcu089 Advance Access publication August 21, 2014

research, policy and practice, and how the components, participants, mech- anisms, contexts and outcomes are conceptualised, theorised, modelled, measured and so on. In some senses, the study of research utilisation is still in its infancy. There is relatively little empirical work that evaluates how effectively research utilisation strategies achieve tangible change; most is small-scale and qualitative, and examines stakeholder accounts rather than actions or impacts (Stevens et al., 2009). In other senses, the field is not new. It emerges from a wide spectrum of disciplines, including health, man- agement science, education, information science, sociology, geography and social work, and is far from homogenous. Terminologies used frequently intersect and confuse, with the same terms used to convey different meanings, or different terms to convey the same. Usages within the same discourse have also shifted over time, some incidentally and some through debate. Expo- nents and critics of EBP alike, for example, have argued about its distinction from, or identity with, ‘evidence-informed’ or ‘evidence-guided’ practice. Within KPU discourse, writers commonly speak interchangeably of produc- tion and utilisation, or use other terms altogether (Backer, 1991; Estabrooks et al., 2006, 2008; Knott and Wildavsky, 1980). Graham et al. (2006) attempted to distinguish between knowledge translation, knowledge transfer, dissemin- ation, knowledge exchange and research diffusion; Eccles et al. (2009) referred to implementation science, and Cooper and Levin (2010) to knowledge mobil- isation and innovation.

Given this hybridity, for this discussion, we clarify and keep consistent our use of terms, albeit these do not always correspond with the authors’ original. We use research utilisation as the umbrella term to encompass the discourses of EBP and KPU, since, regardless of nomenclature, in essence all these authors use these terms to discuss how research-based knowledge travels to and leads to change in the fields for which it is intended. Importantly, both knowledge (as used in KPU discourse) and evidence (as used in EBP) mean research-based or empirical knowledge. Our discussion touches upon the weight accorded by each discourse to practitioner, user, organisational and contextual knowledges brought to professional practice (Morago, 2010) but our primary focus is on research and its connection to practice. So, by knowledge production, we mean the activity of generating empirical research findings; by knowledge transfer, we mean the movement of research knowledge or evidence from one place to another; knowledge translation refers to the mediating interventions to shape knowledge products to enhance their accessibility, relevance or usability in practice; by knowledge use or utilisation, we mean the tangible ways in which knowledge is taken up, adopted, implemented and used in practice. We speak generically of the ‘connection between research and action’, where we wish to convey both linear and non-linear research-to-action approaches and, following Graham et al. (2006), we refer to ‘action’, since this expression can encompass utilisation at individual, interpersonal and organisational levels. Looking

Connecting Research to Action 1953

ahead, attention to ‘action’ may encourage exploration of what is done, not just what is said.

Within the literature, two mainly distinct discourses can be discerned: ‘EBP’ and what we can best describe as ‘KPU’. These discourses are not her- metically separate but, we argue, can and should be distinguished. To do so, inevitably we polarise somewhat at first, introducing more nuance as we discuss their increasing points of convergence. We begin by setting each dis- course in context of the ‘two communities’ who respectively produce and use research. We propose that, as each discourse considers the two communities, in combination they envisage four worlds. To show this, we examine the established characteristics of each discourse, highlighting key features in their distinctive treatments of the research-to-action process. We then turn to more recent developments that appear to be bringing about some conver- gence between them, towards bridging or even dissolving the research/prac- tice gap, placing particular emphasis on the role of organisations in bringing about innovation and change. Finally, we consider the implications for social work, in particular the benefits of extending beyond the discourse of EBP to engage with wider developments in the research utilisation field.

Two communities, two discourses, four worlds Two communities theory

Repeated claims are well recognised, on the one hand that practitioners make too little use of research (De Goede et al., 2012; Hanney et al., 2003; Landry et al., 2007) and on the other that researchers pay insufficient attention to making their findings known, useful and usable (Cooper and Levin, 2010; Nutley et al., 2007). When addressing this challenge, the research utilisation literature frequently envisages two communities or cultures: those who gen- erate research and those who might use it.

The ‘two communities’ theory (Caplan, 1979; Wingens, 1990), emerging from one strand of KPU discourse, provides a helpful lens through which to scrutinise both cultures and their disparities. According to this theory, researchers’ and practitioners’ differing priorities are shaped by the different cultures in which they operate. By and large, when it comes to knowledge pro- duction, academic environments and researchers privilege inner science, peer review publication and citations as the indicators for quality and prestige (Cooper et al., 1997; Estabrooks et al., 2008; Hannan et al., 2000; Jacobson et al., 2004). Academic esteem and incentive systems have historically placed much less value on practice or policy relevance or ‘service to society’, and historically researchers have not been rewarded for active engagement in knowledge transfer (Allen, 2002). For the same reasons, according to the two communities theory, even where researchers make some efforts to communicate their research, this is predominantly through

1954 Mel Gray et al.

one-directional ‘engineering’ (Landry et al., 2001) or ‘producer push’ (Cooper and Levin, 2010), and the knowledge intended for use is not necessarily the knowledge needed by users.

Seen through this lens, practitioners, policy makers and planners are a sep- arate community. Their priority is relevant research and evidence, with prac- tical applicability that assists in service planning or problem solving, and evaluates outcomes to justify professional decisions, actions and public ex- penditure. Would-be research users prefer a ‘demand pull’ or ‘user pull’ model, whereby they solicit research on topics as and when needed, directly to inform practice or policy (Brown, 2012; Stevens et al., 2009). Hence, the ar- gument goes, many organisations and policy makers tend to rely on think tanks and commissions, rather than academic researchers, for fit-for-purpose information (Rigby, 2005).

The two communities theory has not been without criticism, in particular that it accentuates the barriers between knowledge producers and users, rather than the potential to surmount them through, for example, collabora- tive research (Greenhalgh and Wieringa, 2011; Wehrens, 2013). Further, modification is needed to take account of recent shifts in some academic knowledge production environments, such as the UK, where increasing value is attributed to research impact and knowledge exchange. Also, in applied fields such as social work, public bodies tend to fund research that speaks directly to policy or practice, so incentives towards producing applied know- ledge can be higher.

Notwithstanding these reservations, the two distinct communities can be readily discerned, and the shared goal across the research utilisation field is to forge the research-to-action connections between them. However, arguably EBP and KPU discourses hold different understandings of research utilisation, based on their different understandings of the research–policy– practice nexus. As a result, across the two communities, the two discourses in combination effectively envisage four worlds, populated respectively by knowledge producers and users (KPU) and researchers and policy makers/ practitioners (EBP). Each discourse, and the worlds they conjure, is dis- cussed next.

Evidence-based practice

Derived from evidence-based medicine pioneered by Sackett et al. (1996), EBP has spawned a huge area of scholarship relating to research-based policy and practice in allied fields. EBP can be described as the process in which the practitioner, drawing on the best available research evidence, ensures the best possible decisions are made, actions taken and services provided. Practitioners are encouraged to adhere to an evidence hierarchy which places at the top gold standard systematic reviews and randomised con- trolled trials, albeit that other forms of research evidence may be admitted

Connecting Research to Action 1955

when these are not available; indeed non-experimental and qualitative re- search are increasingly recognised and appraised by some exponents of EBP (e.g. EPPI Centre, 2014). As a process of enquiry, EBP appears to be flourishing in the USA more than elsewhere, and relatively little social work research produced outside the USA sits high in the EBP evidence hier- archy (Webber, 2014). However, as a discourse pertaining to research use, EBP is more widely prominent in contemporary social work policy, practice and research. This is not to say the principles of EBP are uncontested: they have generated much debate and some confusion. Not least, the recent ex- change between Gitterman and Knight (2013a, 2013b) and Thyer (2013) ex- emplifies concerns about the extent to which EBP, as its critics hold, prescribes tried-and-tested interventions and stymies professional art and judgement, or, as its exponents defend, allows room for practitioner apprais- al, integration with clinical expertise and other knowledges, service user values and situated circumstances. Nonetheless, exponents and critics alike will accept that EBP discourse conventionally places greatest emphasis on the ‘inner science’ (Shaw and Norton, 2007) of research intended for use. ‘Outer science’ usability matters too, as developments such as the Cochrane Collaboration Consumer Network (2014) attest; but outer science has been less prized in itself, since something may be highly usable but singularly ineffective.

EBP primarily envisages that expert researchers provide evidence to inform practitioners. Conventionally, it has concerned itself less with the context of knowledge production, or with how, even whether, evidence is ac- tually used in practice. Indeed, it might be argued that EBP’s adherence to the model of research experts from one world producing knowledge that is intrin- sically excellent and intended for use, but not necessarily usable, in the other world may accentuate rather than diminish the disconnect between research and action.

In so far as EBP discourse has conventionally paid attention to processes of moving research evidence into the practice world, this has been predicated on a ‘push’ model of linear transfer and instrumental research use, facilitated ‘through centralised and formal efforts’ (Yuan et al., 2010, p. 2). For EBP, the research-user world is one inhabited by practitioners who need to be well informed of best research evidence to underpin their decisions and actions. Typically, EBP efforts to achieve this have been technical and con- crete rather than dynamic or interactive, with a premium placed on making research findings accessible through research protocols, summaries and guidelines.

Dissemination—actively spreadingresearch informationtothose intended to use it in the practice world—is another key element of the knowledge trans- fer process. Within the EBP discourse, researchers’ attention to dissemin- ation has also been limited (Bellamy et al., 2006). Typically, dissemination too has been treated in a linear, instrumental way, usually through dis- crete events, such as conferences. Meanwhile, EBP discourse has paid little

1956 Mel Gray et al.

attention to the processes of actual research uptake. There are signs of change, as later discussion will show. But first we turn, by way of contrast, to KPU discourse.

Knowledge production/utilisation

KPU discourse collectively addresses the full continuum of processes through which knowledge is produced and utilised in practice. It received a boost from Gibbons et al.’s (1994) New Theory of Knowledge Production, which purportedly observed a change from traditional ‘Mode 1’ discipline- based research to interdisciplinary, socially relevant and useful ‘Mode 2’ knowledge involving industry or service partnerships.

At the production end of the continuum, KPU is concerned with the devel- opment of knowledge that is usable, relevant and of value to the communities it is intended to serve. When it comes to research quality, it is ‘outer science’ (Shaw and Norton, 2007) that is privileged and seen as decisive for the public or social accountability of academic researchers (Delanty, 2001; Jacobson et al., 2004). At the utilisation end, KPU discourse is concerned with the uptake, adoption, implementation and use of research knowledge, as change outcomes in the practice and policy worlds. So, for example, KPU looks dir- ectly at the nature and stages of research use. Several studies suggest the need to clarify and broaden understanding and measurement of research use, beyond instrumental use (direct application in, and impact upon, practice), to include conceptual use (altered understanding and thinking in practice situations) and symbolic use (superficially endorsing, but in practice ignoring research when it contradicts received wisdoms, dominant norms and political or resource priorities) (De Goede et al., 2012; Ginsburg et al., 2007; Wallin et al., 2012; Weiss, 1979). In line with this broadened understanding, KPU has also attempted to characterise and measure stages of research use, notably with Knott and Wildavsky’s (1980) scale conceiving a seven-stage progressive process involving ‘reception, cognition, reference, effort, adop- tion, implementation, and impact’ (p. 546).

In KPU discourse, the movement of research to action is seen to entail complex and multifaceted processes, and the focus is not just whether, but how and in what contexts, these can take place. Throughout, KPU also con- siders the factors—individual, organisational, cultural and political—that affect these processes, and shape the worlds of knowledge producers and users. Importantly, the gap between the worlds of knowledge producers and users appears less distinct here than for EBP, because KPU discourse dir- ectly concerns itself with bringing the two together, through processes that are interactive and dynamic, rather than technical and concrete. So, in common with EBP, there is extensive commitment to rendering research ac- cessible, through jargon-free language, clear examples of practice relevance and access to information technology (Estabrooks, 1999; Plath, 2006).

Connecting Research to Action 1957

Likewise, there is strong recognition that dissemination activities are most successful when research knowledge is not just transferred, but translated to research users (Cooper and Levin, 2010; Hemsley-Brown and Sharp, 2004; Nutley et al., 2007; Sebba, 2013; Sin, 2008; Stevens et al., 2009). But dis- tinctively in KPU discourse, knowledge transfer and translation between the two communities are to be achieved not simply through protocols, practice tools or discrete presentations to varying audiences, but through sustained engagement processes between producers and the same intended users (Chagnon et al., 2010; Gano et al., 2006; Nutley et al., 2003). Hence, a variety of strategies has been envisaged to connect the two communities in ways that integrate, rather than separate, the processes of knowledge translation, transfer and utilisation. These include frequent interaction through meetings, networks and partnerships, and the use of knowledge brokers, to mediate between the two worlds, making research known, understandable and usable to those who need it (Moore et al., 2011).

With the emphasis on interaction and communication, the term knowledge exchange has entered the discourse, to denote the mutuality of the process (Graham et al., 2006). In fact, KPU literature offers a diverse range of knowl- edge exchange models and emphases. Some highlight broadly the quality of interaction between participants from both communities and the fit between their values and beliefs (De Goede et al., 2012; Weiss, 1979). Others, such as linkage models, concern researchers and users sharing expertise, knowledge and learning for specific purposes (Bowen and Martens, 2005). Importantly, the distinctions between models of knowledge exchange expose how the term itself is deployed in two ways. The first, more common, endorses bi- directional communication and mutual learning, but the primary direction of travel remains linear, from the world of production to the world of use, albeit through mutual communication. The second begins to conjure a different vision, through models of co-operative knowledge production, where collaboration throughout the research process has emerged as a strat- egy to enhance research use (Gray and Schubert, 2012, 2013; Heinsch, 2013; Hemsley-Brown and Sharp, 2004; Lavis, 2006). The theory here is that co- producing relevant and useful knowledge, with rather than just for inten- ded users, increases the likelihood of research use. Nutley et al.’s (2003) research-in-practice model is one exemplar. Gredig and Sommerfeld’s (2008) co-operative knowledge production model is another; it refers to a deeply social process through which research, professional and other forms of knowledge are combined, through a circular process of pattern formation and recognition, in action. This produces hybridised knowledge that is neither research nor practice-based, but both. It seeks to dissolve, rather than bridge, the gap between the research and practice processes and commu- nities. Its intention is to transform the research-to-action process, from a linear continuum to an iterative circle within which knowledge production, transfer, translation and utilisation processes become entwined.

1958 Mel Gray et al.

It must be acknowledged that, as yet, there is little evidence to confirm that either vision of knowledge exchange actually achieves, rather than just claims, its desired effects. Increased and improved interaction might enhance intercommunity trust and research receptivity, but it has yet to be shown that it improves demonstrable research use or impact (Nutley et al., 2003; Moore et al., 2011) and changed individual attitudes and behaviour may or may not lead to changed organisational practice (Denis et al., 2003; Moore et al., 2011; Taylor et al., 2004).

Notwithstanding these current limitations, KPU discourse tries to engage closely with the contextual factors, in both the research and practice worlds, which facilitate or inhibit the travel of research to action. Importantly, these extend beyond the level of individuals and interactions, to include systemic factors at the level of organisations. Discussion of the ‘two communities’ theory has already highlighted the organisational and cultural priorities that shape the academic research world and, notwithstanding some recent shifts, the disincentives these may present to active researcher engagement in knowledge transfer, translation and exchange. Broader KPU discourse has also paid attention to the pivotal role of organisations in shaping the knowledge-user world and its receptivity to research use. Organisations and the cultures they grow play a crucial role in animating or stultifying the process of connecting research to action.

Conventionally, EBP discourse has paid far less attention to the organisa- tional context of the research-user world. However, this appears to be shifting, and EBP discourse too is now pointing towards the crucial roles played by organisations not just individuals (Gray et al., 2013a, 2013b; Gray and Schubert, 2012, 2013; Mullen et al., 2008; Plath, 2013a, 2013b, 2014; Proctor and Rosen, 2008). In turn, it is their shared focus on organisations that pro- vides the axis around which the KPU and EBP discourses are beginning to converge. Each discourse has now generated intermediary fields of enquiry: implementation science, knowledge mobilisation and innovation, each giving prominence to organisations. Arguably, this convergence holds the potential to bring together the two communities and the four worlds so far envisaged.

Converging discourses, communities and worlds? Implementation science and knowledge mobilisation

Conventional EBP has been troubled by limited evidence of uptake arising from the methodological rigour of research alone (Oh, 1997). EBP research has also cast doubt on the effectiveness of linear and technical strategies of knowledge transfer. Some studies have highlighted mediating factors at the levels of individual skills and experience (McFarlane et al., 2001) and interac- tions and communication (Innvaer et al., 2002). These studies and others, however, have also exposed organisational facilitators and barriers to research

Connecting Research to Action 1959

utilisation within the user community, including time, workload, training, resources and the affordance of autonomy to make changes to practice (Holzer et al., 2007; Innvaer et al., 2002).

As a result, EBP has increasingly engaged in the emerging field of imple- mentation science. This retains the distinction between knowledge gener- ation and use (Johansson, 2010; Manuel et al., 2009; Mullen et al., 2008; Proctor et al., 2009) and remains predicated on the assumption that expert re- search evidence is moved to, not co-created with, practice. Thus, for example, the Cochrane Collaboration Consumer Network has been established to include research users on a sustained basis in the production and dissemin- ation of systematic reviews of research evidence intended to inform practice; but these reviews still adhere to Cochrane, not user-designated, evidence hierarchies (Cochrane, 2014). Nonetheless, implementation science embra- ces more fully than conventional EBP the complexity of the research- to-action process, and the mediating relationships and time involved. So, for example, Morago (2010) examines how leaders or champions of research within practice organisations might become highly influential mediators; Speller et al. (2005) advocate for knowledge brokers, on the grounds that effective research utilisation ‘requires the cultivation of new professional roles and the development of collaborative mechanisms working across research policy–practice boundaries’ (p. 18). As Grimshaw et al. (2004) note, the implementation of most clinical guidelines requires changing the system and, hence, organizational as well as individual change (p. 591). This, in turn, takes time; it involves working with complexity, multiple con- textual layers and power politics (Ferlie et al., in Greenhalgh et al., 2004).

These observations from the field of implementation science emerging from within EBP discourse are all but identical with observations from the emerging field of knowledge mobilisation, whose roots are in KPU discourse but increasingly reach into implementation science. Knowledge mobilisation takes a holistic approach to harnessing the benefits of research for organisa- tional change. So, as Brown (2012) notes, its focus includes attending to ‘the social nature and processes of research utilisation, and the motivations of social actors to engage in such activity—where adoption is seen as resulting from a “fruitful relationship”’ (p. 460). But enhancing this, knowledge mobil- isation also includes creating an organisational culture receptive to, and active- ly supportive and encouraging of, research utilisation (Gray and Schubert, 2012; Moore et al., 2011).

The coming-together of EBP and KPU discourses adds to terminological confusion and proliferation, with further designations, such as knowledge management entering the mix (Cooper and Levin, 2010). Nonetheless, the convergence is very welcome. Beyond this point in discussion, it becomes more fruitful to follow EBP and KPU discourses together, not separately. By way of caveat, we must note that their shared focus to date is on organisa- tions that shape the culture, priorities and practices of the knowledge user, rather than the knowledge provider community.

1960 Mel Gray et al.

Pivotal role of organisations in research utilisation

Acrossboth discourses, many studiesnow mention the importanceof a ‘culture of expectation’ within the practice community that values and drives research use (Gray et al., 2013a, 2013b; Hemsley-Brown and Sharp, 2004; Plath, 2013a, 2013b, 2014). As Cooper and Levin (2010) note: ‘Organisational and systemic approaches are needed across institutions, especially in terms of increasing col- laboration and networks among relevant parties’ (p. 356).

Organisational barriers to research use repeatedly identified in the litera- tures include lack of staff time, organisational support, access to research findings, supervision and funding to translate research into practice guide- lines (Bellamy et al., 2006; Gray and Schubert, 2012, 2013; LaMendola et al., 2009; Mullen et al., 2008; Murphy and McDonald, 2004; Straussner et al., 2006). In one of the first empirical studies to address organisational impact and research utilisation in health, Belkhodja et al. (2007) found in Canada that some of the most important determinants of research use were formal linkages between researchers and practice organisations, along with the size and sector of the organisation itself. Training for practitioners to access and appraise research evidence, for example, was more supported in hospitals than government departments and regional authorities. They argued that organisational context was vital to understanding what makes re- search utilisation and impact happen.

In an important related development, Greenhalgh et al. (2003, 2004), leading the field of innovation scholarship, have proposed a holistic approach that speaks to complexity and process, to understand how research or evidence-based innovations can bring about not just altered practices, but sustained systemic change. They distinguish between diffusion as ‘passive spread’, dissemination as active, planned efforts to persuade target groups to adopt an innovation, implementation as active and planned efforts to main- stream innovation within an organisation, and sustainability as making the in- novation routine until it becomes obsolete. Most importantly, they advocate for a whole-system approach of assimilation by the organisation, to make complex, research-informed change happen systemically. Greenhalgh and colleagues combine backgrounds in evidence-based health and knowledge management; their shared work is perhaps the most striking example yet of the melding of EBP and KPU discourses, animated through a common focus on the pivotal role of organisations in bringing together the two communities and connecting research to action.

Conclusion: implications for social work

What then are the implications for research utilisation in social work? First, we suggest, social work needs to widen its gaze. By and large, when it comes to

Connecting Research to Action 1961

connecting research to action, EBP discourse has been dominant (albeit con- tested) in social work. Our examination of the distinctions and the emerging complementarities between EBP and wider research utilisation discourses highlights the complexities involved, suggesting ways forward. The ‘two com- munities’ theory (Caplan, 1979; Wingens, 1990), which draws attention to researchers’ and practitioners’ differing priorities in knowledge production and utilisation, provides a helpful, if imperfect, framework for understanding what separates these communities and what might draw them together.

Second, despite the emergenceof somemodels that integrate bothresearch- er and user communities in iterative processes of knowledge co-production and utilisation (Gredig and Sommerfeld, 2008; Nutley et al., 2003), our analysis highlights that most approaches still denote a linear movement of research to practice, albeit one entailing communicative or iterative processes. These approaches to research utilisation have yet to be tested for their effectiveness in connecting research and action. In social work, as elsewhere, we need to find out not just what knowledge producers or users say makes a difference, but what actually makes a difference to achieving sustained, research-informed change in practice.

Third, notwithstanding the dearth of good effectiveness studies, there is sufficient evidence to be confident that organisational cultures matter. All stages of the connecting-research-to-action process require more than steps or tasks to be accomplished by researchers and practitioners alone (Gabbay et al., 2003; Greenhalgh et al., 2003, 2004); they require ‘an organisational perspective beyond the individual researcher or end user’ (Sin, 2008, p. 95). Management policies and decisions are critical in shaping practitioners’ expectations of, and readiness for, research utilisation and practice change. For genuine and sustained change to occur, an organisational culture that values and resources the production, transfer, translation and use of research in practice is crucial (Gray et al., 2013a, 2013b; Cooper and Levin, 2010; Gabbay et al., 2003; Greenhalgh et al., 2003, 2004; Plath, 2013a, 2013b, 2014).

Two further implications suggest themselves as starting points for further discussion. First, whether focusing on changing individual practice, or organ- isational systems and cultures, or both, we must be mindful of the policy con- texts that may continue to support restrictive and proceduralised practices, and political contexts where some research findings and implications are more welcome than others. Here we might turn for inspiration to Ferguson’s (2013) arguments for ‘critical best practice’, which highlights the scope for practitioners, managers and the profession to resist the constraints of man- agerialism and political expediency (Carey, 2009; Lawler, 2013). Second, and relatedly, Greenhalgh and Wieringa (2011) have encouraged us to move beyond the conventional discourses of both EBP and KPU, and to draw instead on constructs from philosophy, sociology and organisation science to understand how knowledge is ‘created’, ‘constructed’, ‘embodied’, ‘performed’ and ‘collectively negotiated’. This approach may allow us to understand ‘the link between knowledge and practice in more creative and

1962 Mel Gray et al.

critical ways’, along with ‘the complex links between power and knowledge’ that operate at individual, organisational, policy and political levels (Green- halgh and Wieringa, 2011, p. 501).

Of course, these challenges are not distinct to social work. But, in a culture that continues to favour procedure and protocol over critical debate, to make individuals rather than institutions responsible for research utilisation, and commonly to find itself beset by, rather than embracing, change, we have some distance to travel.

References

Allen, M. (2002) ‘Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-

analysis’, available from %@ 9781410604552 (electronic book).

Backer, T. E. (1991) ‘Knowledge utilization: The third wave’, Knowledge Creation Diffu-

sion Utilization, 12(3), pp. 225–40.

Belkhodja, O., Amara, N., Landry, R. and Ouimet, M. (2007) ‘The extent and organiz-

ational determinants of research utilization in Canadian health services organizations’,

Science Communication, 28(3), pp. 377–417.

Bellamy, J. L., Bledsoe, S. E. and Traube, D. E. (2006) ‘The current state of EBP in social

work’, Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 3(1), pp. 23–48.

Bowen, S. and Martens, P. (2005) ‘Demystifying knowledge translation: Learning from the

community’, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 10(4), pp. 203–11.

Brown, C. (2012) ‘The “policy-preferences model”: A new perspective on how researchers

can facilitate the take-up of evidence by educational policy makers’, Evidence and

Policy, 8(4), pp. 455–72.

Caplan, N. (1979) ‘The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization’, American

Behavioral Scientist, 22(3), pp. 459–70.

Carey, M. (2009) ‘The order of chaos: Exploring agency care managers construction of

social order within fragmented worlds of state social work’, British Journal of Social

Work, 39(3), pp. 556–73.

Chagnon, F., Pouliot, L., Malo, C., Gervais, M. and Pigeon, M. (2010) ‘Comparison of

determinants of research knowledge utilization by practitioners and administrators in

the field of child and family social services’, Implementation Science, 5(41), pp. 1–12,

available online at www.implementationscience.com/content/5/1/41.

Cochrane Collaboration Consumer Network (2014) Cochrane Consumer Network, avail-

able online at http://consumers.cochrane.org/.

Cooper, A. and Levin, B. (2010) ‘Some Canadian contributions to understanding knowl-

edge mobilisation’, Evidence and Policy, 6(3), pp. 351–69.

Cooper, H., Charlton, K. and DeNeve, K. (1997) ‘Finding the missing science: The fate of

studies submitted for review by a human subjects committee’, Psychological Minds,

2(4), pp. 447–52.

De Goede, J., Bon-Martens, M. J. H., Mathijssen, J. J. P., Putters, K. and Oers, H. A. M.

(2012) ‘Looking for interaction: Quantitative measurement of research utilization by

Dutch local health officials’, Health Research Policy and Systems, 10(9), pp. 2–12.

Delanty, G. (2001) Challenging Knowledge: The University in the Knowledge Society,

Buckingham, UK, The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open Univer-

sity Press.

Connecting Research to Action 1963

Denis, J. L., Lehoux, P., Hivon, M. and Champagne, F. (2003) ‘Creating a new articulation

between research and practice through policy? The views and experiences of research-

ers and practitioners’, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 8(Suppl. 2),

pp. 44–50.

Eccles, M. P., Armstrong, D., Baker, R., Cleary, K., Davies, H., Davies, S., Glasziou, P.,

Ilott, I., Kinmonth, A. L., Leng, G., Logan, S., Marteau, T., Michie, S., Rogers, H.,

Rycroft-Malone, J. and Sibbald, B. (2009) ‘An implementation research agenda’,

Implementation Science, 4(18), pp. 1–7.

EPPI Centre (2014) The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-Ordinating

Centre, available online at https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/.

Estabrooks, C. (1999) ‘Modeling the individual determinants of research utilization’,

Western Journal of Nursing Research, 21, pp. 758–72.

Estabrooks, C. A., Derksen, L., Winther, C., Lavis, J. N., Scott, S. D., Wallin, L.

and Profetto-McGrath, J. (2008) ‘The intellectual structure and substance of the

knowledge utilization field: A longitudinal author co-citation analysis, 1945–2004’,

Implementation Science, 3(4), pp. 1–22.

Estabrooks, C. A., Thompson, D. S., Lovely, J. E. and Hofmeyer, A. (2006) ‘A guide to

knowledge translation theory’, Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Profes-

sions, 26(1), pp. 25–36.

Ferguson, H. (2013) ‘Critical best practice’, in Gray, M. and Webb, S. A. (eds), The New

Politics of Social Work, London, Palgrave, pp. 116–27.

Gabbay, J., le May, A., Jefferson, H., Webb, D., Lovelock, R., Powell, J. and Lathlean, J.

(2003) ‘A case study of knowledge management in multiagency evidence-based

consumer-informed “communities of practice”: Implications for policy development

in health and social services’, Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study

of Health, Illness and Medicine, 7, pp. 283–310.

Gano, G. L., Crowley, J. E. and Guston, D. (2006) ‘“Shielding” the knowledge transfer

process in human service research’, Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory, 17, pp. 39–60.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994)

The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contem-

porary Societies, London, Sage.

Ginsburg, L. R., Lewis, S., Zackheim, L. and Casebeer, A. (2007) ‘Revisiting interaction in

knowledge translation’, Implementation Science, 2(34), pp. 1–11.

Gitterman, A. and Knight, C. (2013a) ‘Evidence-guided practice: Integrating the science

and art of social work’, Families in Society, 94(2), pp. 70–8.

Gitterman, A. and Knight, C. (2013b) ‘Response to Thyer’s “Evidence-based practice or

evidence-guided practice”’, Families in Society, 94(2), pp. 85–6.

Graham, I., Logan, J., Harrison, M., Straus, S., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W. and Robinson, N.

(2006) ‘Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map?’, Journal of Continuing Educa-

tion in the Health Professions, 26(1), pp. 13–24.

Gray, M. and Schubert, L. (2012) ‘Sustainable social work: Modelling knowledge produc-

tion, transfer and evidence-based practice’, International Journal of Social Welfare,

21(2), pp. 203–14.

Gray, M. and Schubert, L. (2013) ‘Knowing what we know about knowledge in social work:

The search for a comprehensive model of knowledge production’, International Journal

of Social Welfare, 22(4), pp. 334–346.

1964 Mel Gray et al.

Gray, M., Joy, E., Plath, D. and Webb, S. A. (2013a) ‘Implementing evidence-based prac-

tice: A review of the empirical research literature’, Research on Social Work Practice,

23(2), pp. 157–66.

Gray, M., Joy, E., Plath, D. and Webb, S. A. (2013b) ‘Opinions about evidence: A study of

social workers’ attitudes towards evidence-based practice’, Journal of Social Work

Advance Access published February 14, 2013, 10.1177/1468017313475555.

Gray, M., Plath, D. and Webb, S. A. (2009) Evidence-Based Social Work: A Critical Stance,

London, Routledge.

Gredig, D. and Sommerfeld, P. (2008) ‘New proposals or generating and exploiting

solution-focused knowledge’, Research on Social Work Practice, 18(4), pp. 292–300,

first published 12 June 2007.

Greenhalgh, T. and Wieringa, S. (2011) ‘Is it time to drop the “knowledge translation”

metaphor? A critical literature review’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104,

pp. 501–9.

Greenhalgh, T., Glenn, R., MacFarlane, F., Bate, P. and Kyriakidou, O. (2004) ‘Diffusion

of innovations in service organisations: Systematic review of recommendations’,

Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), pp. 581–629.

Greenhalgh, T., Toon, P., Russell, J., Wong, G., Plumb, L. and Macfarlane, F. (2003)

‘Transferability of principles of evidence based medicine to improve educational

quality: Systematic review and case study of an online course in primary health care’,

British Medical Journal, 326, pp. 142–5.

Grimshaw, J. M., Thomas, R. E., MacLennan, G., Fraser, C., Ramsay, C. R., Vale, L. et al.

(2004) ‘Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation

strategies’, Health Technology Assessment, 8(6), pp. iii–72.

Hannan, A., Enright, H. and Ballard, P. (2000) ‘Using research: The results of a pilot study

comparing teachers, general practitioners and surgeons’, available online at www.leeds.

ac.uk/educol/documents/000000851.

Hanney, S. R., Gonzalez-Block, M. A., Buxton, M. J. and Kogan, M. (2003) ‘The utilisation

of health research in policy making: Concepts, examples and methods of assessment’,

Health Research Policy and Systems, 1(2), pp. 1–28.

Heinsch, M. (2013) ‘Making social work research count: Researchers’ perceptions of using

research in practice’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, available online

at http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/103935 (uon:13642).

Hemsley-Brown, J. V. and Sharp, C. (2004) ‘The use of research to improve professional prac-

tice: A systematic review of the literature’, Oxford Review of Education, 29(4), pp. 449–70.

Holzer, P., Lewig, K., Bromfield, L. and Arney, F. (2007) ‘Research use in the Australian

child and family welfare sector’, a joint report by the Australian Institute of Family

Studies, National Child Protection Clearinghouse and the Australian Centre for

Child Protection, University of South Australia, available online at www.aifs.gov.au/

nch/pubs/reports/researchutilisation/stage1/research.pdf.

Innvaer, S., Vist, G., Trommald, M. and Oxman, A. (2002) ‘Health policy-makers’ percep-

tions of their use of evidence: A systematic review’, Journal of Health Services Research

and Policy, 7(4), pp. 239–44.

Jacobson, N., Butterill, D. and Goering, P. (2004) ‘Organizational factors that influence

university-based researchers’ engagement in knowledge transfer activities’, Science

Communication, 25, pp. 246–59.

Johansson, S. (2010) ‘Implementing EBPs and programmes in the human services: Lessons

from research in public administration’, European Journal of Social Work, 13(1), pp.

109–25.

Connecting Research to Action 1965

Knott, J. and Wildavsky, A. (1980) ‘If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem?’,

Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1(4), pp. 537–78.

LaMendola, W., Ballantyne, N. and Daly, E. (2009) ‘Practitioner networks: Professional

learning in the twenty-first century’, British Journal of Social Work, 39, pp. 710–24.

Landry, R., Amara, N. and Lamari, M. (2001) ‘Utilization of social science research knowl-

edge in Canada’, Research Policy, 30(2), pp. 333–49.

Landry, R., Amara, N. and Ouimet, M. (2007) ‘Determinants of knowledge transfer: Evi-

dence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering’,

Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(6), pp. 561–92.

Lavis, J. (2006) ‘Research, public policymaking, and knowledge-translation processes:

Canadian efforts to build bridges’, Journal of Continuing Education in the Health

Professions, 26(1), pp. 37–45.

Lawler, J. (2013) ‘Critical management’, in Gray, M. and Webb, S. A. (eds), The New

Politics of Social Work, London, Palgrave, pp. 98–115.

Manuel, J. I., Mullen, E. J., Fang, L., Bellamy, J. L. and Bledsoe, S. E. (2009) ‘Preparing

social work practitioners to use EBP: A comparison of experiences from an implemen-

tation project’, Research on Social Work Practice, 19, pp. 613–27.

McFarlane, W. R., McNary, S., Dixon, L., Hornby, H. and Cimett, E. (2001) ‘Predictors of

dissemination of family psychoeducation in community mental health centers in Main

and Illinois’, Psychiatric Services, 52(7), pp. 935–42.

Moore, G., Redman, S., Haines, M. and Todd, A. (2011) ‘What works to increase the use of

research in population health policy and programmes: A review’, Evidence and Policy,

7(3), pp. 277–305.

Morago, P. (2010) ‘Dissemination and implementation of EBP in the social services: A UK

survey’, Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 7(5), pp. 452–65.

Mullen, E. J., Bledsoe, S. E. and Bellamy, J. L. (2008) ‘Implementing evidence-based social

work practice’, Research on Social Work Practice, 18(1), pp. 325–38.

Murphy, A. and McDonald, J. (2004) ‘Power, status and marginalisation: Rural social

workers and EBP in multidisciplinary teams’, Australian Social Work, 57, pp. 127–36.

Nutley, S., Walter, I. and Davies, H. (2007) Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform

Public Services, Bristol, Policy Press.

Nutley, S., Walter, I. and Davies, H. T. O. (2003) ‘From knowing to doing: A framework for

understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda’, Evaluation, 9(2), pp. 125–48.

Oh, C. H. (1997) ‘Issues for the new thinking of knowledge utilization: Introductory

remarks’, Knowledge and Policy, 10(3), pp. 3–10.

Plath, D. (2006) ‘EBP: Current issues and future directions’, Australian Social Work, 59(1),

pp. 56–72.

Plath, D. (2013a) ‘Organizational processes supporting EBP’, Administration in Social

Work, 37, pp. 1–18, ISSN: 0364–3107 print/1544–4376 online, 10.1080/03643107.

2012.672946.

Plath, D. (2013b) ‘Support for EBP in a human service organization’, Administration in

Social Work, 37, pp. 25–38.

Plath, D. (2014) ‘Implementing EBP: An organisational perspective’, British Journal of

Social Work, 44(4), pp. 905–23.

Proctor, E. K. and Rosen, A. (2008) ‘From knowledge production to implementation:

Research challenges and imperatives’, Research on Social Work Practice, 18(4),

pp. 285–91.

Proctor, E. K., Landsverk, J., Aarons, G., Chambers, D., Glisson, C. and Mittman, B. (2009)

‘Implementation research in mental health services: An emerging science with

1966 Mel Gray et al.

conceptual, methodological, and training challenges’, Administration and Policy in

Mental Health, 36, pp. 24–34.

Rigby, E. (2005) ‘Linking research and policy on Capitol Hill’, Evidence and Policy, 1, pp.

195–213.

Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B. and Richardson, W. S.

(1996) ‘Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t’, British Medical Journal,

312, pp. 71–2.

Sebba, J. (2013) ‘An exploratory review of the role of research mediators in social science’,

Evidence and Policy, 9(3), pp. 391–408.

Shaw, I. and Norton, M. (2007) The Kinds and Quality of Social Work Research in UK

Universities, Using Knowledge in Social Care Report, London, SCIE.

Sin, C. H. (2008) ‘The role of intermediaries in getting evidence into policy and practice:

Some useful lessons from examining consultancy-client relationships’, Evidence and

Policy, 4(1), pp. 85–103.

Speller, V., Wimbush, E. and Morgan, A. (2005) ‘Evidence-based health promotion prac-

tice: how to make it work’, Promotion and Education, Suppl. 1 pp. 15–20.

Stevens, M., Liabo, K., Witherspoon, S. and Roberts, H. (2009) ‘What do practitioners want

from research, what do funders fund and what needs to be done to know more about

what works in the new world of children’s services?’, The Policy Press, 5(3), pp. 281–94.

Straussner, S. L. A., Naegle, M. A., Gillespie, C., Wolkstein, E., Donath, R. and Azmitia, E.

C. (2006) ‘The SATOL Project: An interdisciplinary model of technology transfer

for research-to-practice in clinical supervision for addiction treatment’, Journal of

Evidence-Based Social Work, 3, pp. 39–54.

Taylor, R. S., Reeves, B. C., Ewings, P. E. and Taylor, R. J. (2004) ‘Critical appraisal skills

training for health care professionals: A randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN462

72378]’, BMC Medical Education, 4, pp. 30–40.

Thyer, B. (2013) ‘Evidence-based practice or evidence-guided practice: A rose by any other

name would smell as sweet [Invited response to Gitterman and Knight’s “Evidence-

guided practice”]’, Families in Society, 94(2), pp. 79–84.

Wallin, L., Gustavsson, P., Ehrenberg, A. and Rudman, A. (2012) ‘A modest start, but a

steady rise in research use: A longitudinal study of nurses during the first five years in

professional life’, Implementation Science, 7(19), pp. 1–12.

Webber, M. (2014) ‘From ethnography to randomized controlled trial: An innovative ap-

proach to developing complex social interventions’, Journal of Evidence-Based Social

Work, 11(1–2), pp. 173–82, 10.1080/15433714.2013.847265.

Wehrens, R. (2013) ‘Beyond two communities: The co-production of research, policy and

practice in collaborative public health settings’, unpublished doctoral thesis, University

of Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Weiss, C. H. (1979) ‘The many meanings of research utilisation’, Public Administration

Review, 39(5), pp. 426–31.

Wingens, M. (1990) ‘Toward a general utilization theory: A system theory reformulation of

the two-communities metaphor’, Science Communication, 12(1), pp. 27–42.

Yuan, C. T., Nembhard, I. M., Stern, A. F., Brush, J. E., Krumholz, J. H. M. and Bradley,

E. H. (2010) ‘Blueprint for the dissemination of EBPs in health care, Commonwealth

Fund Publication No. 1399, 86, available online at www.commonwealthfund.org/~/

media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2010/May/1399_Brint_dissemination_evi

dencebased_practices_ib.pdf.

Connecting Research to Action 1967

Copyright of British Journal of Social Work is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.