Search results

The authors review the literature on information behavior, an autonomous body of work developed mainly in library studies and compare it with work on knowledge mobilization. The aim is to explore how information behavior can contribute to understanding knowledge mobilization in healthcare management.

The authors conducted a narrative review using an exploratory, nonkeyword “double-sided systematic snowball” method. This is especially useful in the situation when the two traditions targeted are broad and relies on distinct vocabulary.

The authors find that the two bodies of work have followed similar trajectories and arrived at similar conclusions, with a linear view supplemented first by a social approach and then by a sensitivity to practice. Lessons from the field of information behavior can be used to avoid duplication of effort, repeating the same errors and reinventing the wheel among knowledge translation scholars. This includes, for example, focusing on sources of information or ignoring the mundane activities in which managers and policymakers are involved.

The study is the first known attempt to build bridges between the field of information behavior and the study of knowledge mobilization. The study, moreover, foregrounds the need to address knowledge mobilization in context-sensitive and social rather than technical terms, focusing on the mundane work performed by a variety of human and nonhuman agents.

This paper seeks to critically examine the principles, mechanisms, and critical success factors of developmental peer review as a way to promote reflection and change in organizations.

This paper calls developmental peer review the structured, managed, and collaborative process whereby reputable others are invited into an organisation to provide feedback and offer guidance on organisational change and improvement. In the paper, the authors use the example of developmental peer review in UK local government both to foreground some of the distinctive aspects of the methodology and to identify some of its critical conditions of use.

The paper argues that this type of initiative often co‐exists with a more judgemental inspection‐oriented double. The institutional framework that surrounds developmental peer review makes it therefore both a powerful and delicate tool. There is a need in this initiative to maintain a dynamic balance to avoid either coercion or collusion in review.

In order to achieve its potential, peer review needs to be clearly framed and constructed as a developmental initiative. In the paper, a number of suggestions of how to do so are offered. If doubts exist on the nature of the exercise, it is likely that people will interpret it as a form of inspection and react defensively, reducing its capacity to trigger learning and transformation.

This paper advances knowledge and understanding about developmental peer review, by drawing on the relevant literature and also analysing a prevalent form of such review in current use in local government organizations in England and Wales.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the special issue, positioning the articles in relation to the current “turn to practice” within organisation and management studies.

The paper introduces a schematic classification of ways of putting practice at the centre of the concern of social scientists depending on the interest of the researcher and his/her position with regard to the object of the research.

The paper finds that turning to practice does not necessarily, or simply, equate with becoming more engaged, or with making social science relevant, or with moving social science closer to the practical concerns of separate practitioners. It is argued that the effort should be concentrated on developing a type of theory that helps practitioners articulate what they already do, and therefore somehow know. The model for this way of theorising would therefore be not physics or astronomy but rather grammar – a discipline that although just as old, has been based traditionally on a very different relationship between knower and known.

The paper argues that when conceived after a grammatical model, “theory” may become a resource to be used in action and for action to produce emancipatory awareness and trigger change through critical reflection.

The papers in this special issue constitute an initial contribution in this direction as they indicate different ways in which theory, when developed “with” and “amid” and not “for” or even “about” practitioners, may become a powerful trigger of change and transformation.

The purpose of this paper is to review action research approaches to changing practice through reflection, identifying themes, issues and questions relevant to a broader community of research practitioners. It invites additional layering in concept, enactment and account.

A framework for considering interwoven dimensions of action research as first‐, second‐ and third‐person inquiry is presented. The paper then works through stories to explore the complementarities of action research with other genres of research, addressing developments of practice through reflection. Questions of general relevance are identified.

Action research is a richly diverse range of approaches having much in common with a broader community who seek to develop embodied practice and practical knowing, work in collaboration, respect multiple ways of knowing, and influence change in social systems. Frames, approaches, practices and questions from action research can be applied more generally. The paper articulates a profusion of questions. These include inviting attention to researchers' reflective practices, to different ways of exploring issues of power, and to questioning (organizational) contexts in which interventions are set.

Practices of inquiry and intervention for social and organizational change are explored. Attention is drawn to issues of power and how they might affect action with a participatory intent. Ways of developing understandings and enactments are offered.

This paper offers a companion language and set of practices from which to view other genres of research/intervention interested in developing practice through reflection.

The paper aims to take a reflective stance on the relationship between policy/evidence and practice, which, the authors argue, is conceptually under‐developed. The paper aims to show that current research perspectives fail to frame evidence and policy in relation to practice.

A qualitative study was conducted in the English NHS in four Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). Seventy‐five observations of meetings and 52 semi‐structured interviews were completed. The approach to data analysis was to explore and reconstruct narratives of PCT managers' real practices.

The exploratory findings are presented through two kinds of narratives. The first narrative vividly illustrates the significance of the active involvement, skills and creativity of health care practitioners for policy implementation. The second narrative elucidates how problems of collaboration among different experts in PCTs might emerge and affect evidence utilisation in practice.

The findings exemplify that policies are made workable in practice and, hence, policy makers may also need to be mindful of practical intricacies and conceive policy implementation as an iterative process.

The contribution of this paper lies in offering an alternative and important perspective to the debate of utilisation of policy/evidence in health care management and in advancing existing understanding of health care management practice. The paper's rich empirical examples demonstrate some important dimensions of the complexity of practice.

Drawing upon a case study with public prosecutors, this article seeks to illustrate a reflective methodology for the analysis of activities.

The paper first describes the origin of the intervention at the National School of Magistracy and the great diversity of public prosecutor daily activities, and then presents the theoretical and methodological framework employed: the “clinic of activity” and its associated analyses in “crossed self‐confrontation”. This perspective organizes a developmental process in the professional experience of professionals by the way of the analysis methodology, constructed in a Vygotskian interpretation of the thought‐language relations and its consequences for consciousness and psychological development. Finally, the paper illustrates the approach using the example of a micro‐event, a lapsus lingae that occurred during work activity, and shows how such an apparently insignificant “detail” can become a subject of reflection and enable an individual and collective elaboration of thinking about work.

By examining this singular event and the progression of its interpretation, the paper attempts to explain the approach and field of operation in the clinic of activity. This example shows how an apparently insignificant event can lead to an analysis of the work activity. In this example, an error in pronunciation, interpreted by the professionals as a lapsus linguae, is the basis of an analysis which makes it possible to show and develop the principle of the counter argument, the obligations that this principle carries, as well as the historical and generic forms of the counter argument within hearings.

This paper looks to transform preoccupied professionals into occupied professionals, or in other words, to expand the profession's limits.

The purpose of this paper is to show the importance of theoretical‐genetic reflection in expansive learning and the transformation of an activity.

Cultural‐historical activity theory is used to explicate forms of work‐related reflection, and an intervention method based on activity theory, the change laboratory, is presented.

Different levels of reflection and the intellectual tools needed for them are identified.

The empirical support presented for the theoretical ideas in the article is based on an exemplary case. This intervention method makes it possible to analyze reflection as a tool‐mediated collaborative activity.

The change laboratory method can be used to support expansive learning and learning to learn in work communities.

The paper introduces a less well‐known original intervention methodology to the audience of the JOCM and demonstrates how it connects some current lines of thought in change management.

This paper aims to present evidence for regarding reflexive practice as the crux of patient safety in tertiary hospitals. Reflexive practice buttresses safety because it is the precondition for flexible systematization – that is, the process that involves frontline clinicians in designing, redesigning and flexibly enacting care processes.

The paper presents an account of a collaborative video‐ethnographic project with a multi‐disciplinary team in an acute spinal unit. Video‐ethnography was combined with video‐reflexivity to provide practitioners with the opportunity to become involved in data interpretation and solution generation.

The study reveals that an outsider analysts/catalyst (or clinalyst) is critical to engaging frontline practitioners in reflexivity. The clinalyst is able to elicit insights and perspectives that assist practitioners in revisiting and revising their processes and practices, principally because video‐based reflexivity connects “what we do” directly to “who we are”.

Because complexity will be an indelible part of health care work, health care organizations should invest in developing “reflexive space” where learning about complexity becomes possible. Instead of continuing to invest in research efforts seeking to derive and test staff compliance with guidelines and protocols, and training centred on simulation, these organization must begin to engage with the lived complexity of clinical work in order to skill up incoming clinicians.

Enhancing clinical practitioners' capability to confront complexity in their practices is currently not a standard component of clinical training or work‐based learning. Video‐reflexive ethnography in tertiary health care is unique in involving clinicians in “making sense” of and deriving solutions from lived complexity.

The purpose of this paper is to challenge how we have traditionally thought about organisations and introduce two frameworks to enable us to understand how change in organisations might be facilitated better.

The paper discusses organisations as complex adaptive systems and uses complexity theory to inform two new frameworks for facilitating organisational learning and change.

In order for organisational learning to occur we need to change our mind-set of how we see organisations and to think of learning not just as individual but also as generative “communicative action” that emerge out of collaborative relationships.

The frameworks proposed are grounded in organisational learning literature and the experience of the author. The proposed agenda for organisational learning has yet to be acted upon and evaluated.

The frameworks can be used to enhance understanding of learning and change in organisations. The agenda for enabling organisational transformation identifies key steps to put the ideas developed in the paper into practice.

The approach advocated for use within organisations is one of empowerment and collaboration rather than top down direction.

The paper introduces new frameworks and a practical agenda to bring about organisational transformation through work-applied learning.