Full citation

Cheek, J., Corlis, M. & Radoslovich, H. (2009). Connecting What We Do With What We Know: Building A Community of Research and Practice. International Journal of Older People Nursing, 4(3), 233-238.

Format: Peer-reviewed article

Type: Research — Non-experimental

Experience level of reader: Fundamental

Annotation: The authors encourage researchers and practitioners to consider themselves as part of a community that is driven by mutual engagement, shared enterprise and shared repertoires; where research and practice are seen as a co-created journey characterized by interacting cycles of thinking, planning, doing and reviewing that culminate in research outcomes that address specific practice needs.

Setting(s) to which the reported activities/findings are relevant: Community, University

Knowledge user(s) to whom the piece of literature may be relevant: Clinicians, Researchers

Knowledge user level addressed by the literature: Organization

This article uses the Commercial Devices and Services version of the NtK Model

Primary Findings

Carriers:

  • A shared repertoire (e.g., shared language, stories, resources and standards) can strengthen the bond between researchers and practitioners, and nurture a sustainable project community. In many cases, this can be achieved by helping each party to understand the operating characteristics and project implications of other parties.
    Literature review.
  • Mutual engagement between researchers and stakeholders promotes the identification of common issue and concerns and enables them to jointly frame a project that encourages mutual commitment and seeks mutual value.
    Literature review.
    Occurrence of finding within the model: Step 3.1, Step 2.2, Step 1.1
  • Joint enterprises can strengthen the bond between researchers and practitioners, and nurture a sustainable project community. Co-location of researchers and practitioners represents one form of joint enterprise. This approach enables researchers to see how practices are conducted and hear how practices are discussed (and practitioners to see how research is conducted and hear how research is discussed). Often, the increased opportunity for informal observation and interaction nurtures an environment where co-creation and co-ownership are common outcomes.
    Literature review.
    Occurrence of finding within the model: Step 3.1, Step 2.2, Step 1.1

Tips:

  • It is helpful to think about research and practice as dynamic, contextual and active processes that interact — not sequential activities, where research takes place and then practice is modified. A common analogy for the sequential view portrays research and practice as separate islands, requiring a bridge to connect them. Instead of focusing on the bridge-building, the dynamic view depicts research and practice as being part of the same island — and focuses on community-building. In the dynamic view, there are greater opportunities for interaction between research (researchers) and practice (practitioners). Enhanced interaction often leads to the establishment of more focused and contextually-relevant projects. The dynamic view draws upon the theory and principles of communities of practice. The key elements of a community of practice — mutual engagement, joint enterprise and a shared repertoire — echo the key attributes of knowledge translation.
    Literature review.
  • It is helpful to think about research and practice as dynamic, contextual and active processes, and not fixed categories. This makes it is possible, at different times, for one individual to be a researcher and a practitioner. It depends upon the activity they are involved in. This fluidity enables stakeholders to understand the value of seeing research (researchers) and practice (practitioners) as activities (members) of a single community, not silos (permanent labels).
    Literature review.
    Occurrence of finding within the model: Step 3.1

Secondary Findings

Carrier: It is helpful to consider a research project as a journey, not a final destination, characterized by a cycle of thinking, planning, doing and reviewing that leads to more thinking, which is, in effect, a form of participatory or action based research. (Alde [2009])