Understanding Collaborative Interactions in Relation to Research Impact in Social Sciences and Humanities: A Meta-Ethnography
Saved in:
| Title: | Understanding Collaborative Interactions in Relation to Research Impact in Social Sciences and Humanities: A Meta-Ethnography |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Dewaele, Alexis (ORCID |
| Source: | Research Evaluation. Apr 2021 30(2):179-190. |
| Availability: | Oxford University Press. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, UK. Tel: +44-1865-353907; Fax: +44-1865-353485; e-mail: jnls.cust.serv@oxfordjournals.org; Web site: http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 12 |
| Publication Date: | 2021 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Information Analyses |
| Descriptors: | Interaction, Social Science Research, Humanities, Researchers, Stakeholders, Institutional Cooperation, Context Effect |
| DOI: | 10.1093/reseval/rvaa033 |
| ISSN: | 0958-2029 |
| Abstract: | The number and type of collaborations between researchers and stakeholders has increased significantly. This responds to the demand from policymakers, funders, and citizens that researchers should help to tackle important social issues (e.g. climate change, healthy aging). However, there is little knowledge about how collaboration processes are experienced, how we can theoretically conceptualize them, and how in this way we can develop efficient collaboration methods that contribute to solving urgent societal problems. In this meta-ethnography, we gathered relevant knowledge from carefully selected qualitative studies. A title/abstract analysis of 3422 articles from Web of Science and ProQuest led to the interpretative analysis of qualitative data from eight publications. The results of this study show that despite the need for a better understanding of complex collaborative interactions, the differences (or asymmetry) between organizations to which various partners belong hinder efficient collaboration. Bridging figures (brokers) can play an essential role if they succeed in drawing diverse stakeholders out of their organizational context into a new dimension that allows creativity and mutual understanding, but that also allows conflict and distortion. In ideal circumstances, this leads to a quasi-automatic transfer of knowledge between partners that takes place naturally and in both directions (knowledge diffusion). |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2021 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1314509 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFexyFii74pvLsgynqA95vJAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIA8sh6iKl7P-JLYigIBEICBm15qneF4LPWpy5WrUD8dap-mttrv_jmizqzFzIWp0Jnzo2gO4EsVCPvK54f87k_F3_hLRLVenuWpaF6C5b2qrykkooSYuHuWOX8tuWfNbX-FiGxYH0XZMgGhs1ohtntA5qcfnUs6HLFiK8kdBgfI5UodGaFIdIOghExLj4Kt8iR4pioNxnRTOyQcWquyqUfog5Zh9eCkhJfJoSO3 Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0153224194;p9101apr.21;2021Oct28.05:28;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0153224194-1">Understanding collaborative interactions in relation to research impact in social sciences and humanities: A meta-ethnography </title> <p>The number and type of collaborations between researchers and stakeholders has increased significantly. This responds to the demand from policymakers, funders, and citizens that researchers should help to tackle important social issues (e.g. climate change, healthy aging). However, there is little knowledge about how collaboration processes are experienced, how we can theoretically conceptualize them, and how in this way we can develop efficient collaboration methods that contribute to solving urgent societal problems. In this meta-ethnography, we gathered relevant knowledge from carefully selected qualitative studies. A title/abstract analysis of 3422 articles from Web of Science and ProQuest led to the interpretative analysis of qualitative data from eight publications. The results of this study show that despite the need for a better understanding of complex collaborative interactions, the differences (or asymmetry) between organizations to which various partners belong hinder efficient collaboration. Bridging figures (brokers) can play an essential role if they succeed in drawing diverse stakeholders out of their organizational context into a new dimension that allows creativity and mutual understanding, but that also allows conflict and distortion. In ideal circumstances, this leads to a quasi-automatic transfer of knowledge between partners that takes place naturally and in both directions (knowledge diffusion).</p> <p>Abstract</p> <hd id="AN0153224194-2">1. Introduction</hd> <p>The societal impact of research is an increasingly important goal for science policymakers and funding bodies. Some well-known examples include the Research Excellence Framework in the UK and the Standard Evaluation Protocol in the Netherlands (see [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref1">50</reflink>] for an overview). Research agendas and programmes are driven by the expectation—also voiced in the public debate—of a societal return on investment in science ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref2">38</reflink>]). Although the development of an impact agenda for science programming and assessment is relatively new, a whole lexicon of impact-related concepts has already appeared. Often-used terminology includes 'valorization, third stream activities, societal benefits, societal quality, usefulness, public values, knowledge transfer and societal relevance' ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]). However, despite the elaborate new vocabulary, what actually generates positive research impact remains poorly understood ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref4">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref5">58</reflink>]). In this study we therefore focus on the conditions and processes associated with collaborative interactions that are associated with positive impact. After all, as [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>]: 12) have recently stated, 'research with social impact is collaborative; collaboration at different stages of the project and among different agents—within and outside academia—appears to be a necessary component of success in achieving social impact'. In this study, an interpretative approach will allow us to grasp the meaning attributed by researchers and their stakeholders to collaborative interactions. We first elaborate on what characterizes these collaborative interactions, and secondly on the associated process of knowledge mobilization.</p> <p>1.1. Characteristics of collaborative interactions</p> <p>Processes that underlie the so-called 'pathways to impact' in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) have put a strong emphasis on collaborative interactions. For example, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref7">53</reflink>] refer to understanding what they call 'productive interactions' (i.e. exchanges between researchers and stakeholders in which knowledge is produced and valued that is both scientifically robust and socially relevant). [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref8">51</reflink>] define societal impact as the result of active, productive, and responsible interactions between (units of) research institutions and other organizations according to their purposes and aims in society. However, collaborative (or productive) interactions can take diverse forms. For example, in a recent systematic evaluation of 60 European impact case studies, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref9">38</reflink>] identified co-creation (i.e. repeated points of contact between scientific and societal partners mediating wider societal changes) as one of the important drivers behind research impact. The evaluation showed that co-creation comes in different forms. In some cases, it refers to the regularity of collaboration, the use of open access approaches or the interdisciplinary character of the approach. A formal dialogue is not always a conditio sine qua non: impact can be generated by simply spreading evidence-based ideas through publicity. Researchers can also 'lend' their scientific expertise in wider societal contexts ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref10">38</reflink>]). So although co-creation refers to repeated points of contact between scientific and societal partners, these contacts are positioned on a continuum between direct and indirect interactions. In that perspective, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref11">52</reflink>] refer to 'personal' interactions involving direct contacts between humans or mediated interactions through some kind of material 'carrier' (publication of texts, exhibitions, models, and films), but also financial interactions occurring when potential stakeholders engage in an economic exchange ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref12">52</reflink>]). The latter shows that the economic dimensions, allowing certain resources to be used, are also essential in making collaborative interactions possible.</p> <p>Another way of looking at collaborative interactions is by evaluating stakeholder involvement. Collaboration between stakeholders can occur in many different forms, such as: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>) formal support: a stakeholder is not involved in a project but endorses and provides legitimacy for it; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>) responsive audience: the stakeholder provides ideas, information and tactical advice; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>) integral partner: a stakeholder is engaged as a significant partner in the project and helps to shape both the way it is carried out and the outcomes. Societal actors can thus engage with the scientific process to different degrees ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref16">48</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref17">32</reflink>]). The assumption is that close collaboration between researchers and societal partners from the initial phases of research will eventually increase its impact on society ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref18">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref19">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref20">43</reflink>]). The more involved societal actors are, the more likely it is that the research will meet their needs, be picked up, and have impact through knowledge mobilization.</p> <p>1.2. Knowledge mobilization: Practical use and powerful ideas</p> <p>Several iterative theoretical models explain how research impact arises through sustained engagement between researchers and societal stakeholders ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref21">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref22">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref23">20</reflink>]). In mapping these collaborative interactions, it has been proven useful to distinguish between: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref24">1</reflink>) institutions (e.g. universities versus funding organizations); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>) types of relationship (direct, indirect, or fuzzy); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>) knowledge flows (direction, type, intensity, or quality); and finally (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref27">4</reflink>) the content of the collaboration ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref28">41</reflink>]). This is reflected in concepts such as 'knowledge transfer' (referring to a unidirectional approach) and 'knowledge exchange' (referring to a more interactive process that includes concepts such as sharing, generation, co-production, co-management, and brokerage of knowledge) ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref29">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref30">18</reflink>]). In this respect, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref31">49</reflink>] introduced three different engagement concepts that are associated with regulating the flow of knowledge from scientists to societal users: public communication (one-way flow of information from the sponsor to the public); public consultation (one-way flow of information from the public to the sponsor, but without real dialogue); and public participation (information exchange, includes dialogue). The concept of 'knowledge mobilization' is most comprehensive in the sense that it not only taps into the connection between researchers and those seeking to make evidence-informed decisions, but also refers to the aim of achieving positive impact in terms of social and/or environmental benefits ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref32">3</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>] identified 80 competencies in diverse categories (e.g. communication and management skills) that contribute to achieving research impact through knowledge mobilization. The conceptual framework of [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref34">33</reflink>] transcends the notion of competencies needed to achieve impact. It highlights the involvement of different categories of actors (e.g. policymakers, practitioners, and researchers); their roles; and the likely flows of knowledge, expertise, and influence between them. The authors recognize that research knowledge can take many forms—for example, not just knowing 'what works' but also knowing 'how things work' and knowing 'why things happen'—and that these different forms of knowledge are likely to impact in different ways (ranging on a spectrum from direct instrumental impact to indirect conceptual impact). Knowledge mobilization can thus lead to very practical beneficial outcomes (e.g. the development of a smartphone application) as well as to powerful new ideas (e.g. environmental awareness-raising through using a concept such as 'global warming').</p> <p>To conclude, collaborative interactions are thus characterized by a direct or mediated flow of information (e.g. communication between people or through media), that is (rather) uni- or bi-directional (e.g. top-down communication versus dialogue), and with strong or weak involvement of diverse stakeholders. For the purpose of this study, we will particularly focus on direct interactions that involve dialogue with stakeholders and on studies that at least discuss whether or not research impact has been achieved. However, proving research impact as the result of these collaborative interactions remains quite challenging ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>]). Moreover, the concept of impact itself has some important drawbacks. Within scientific communities, it is still a very contested topic ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref36">52</reflink>]) and it simply does not mean the same thing across institutions, geographies, and research cultures ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref37">44</reflink>]). In this study, we will therefore particularly focus on <emph>how researchers and stakeholders understand collaborative interactions in relation to research impact.</emph> In order to achieve conceptual innovation from an interpretative approach, we will conduct a meta-ethnography. The latter allows us to synthesize qualitative studies and grasp the perceived meaning related to collaborative interactions and research impact.</p> <hd id="AN0153224194-3">2. Method</hd> <p>Meta-ethnography has been developed as a method of synthesis that aims to integrate and interpret findings from multiple qualitative studies ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref38">27</reflink>]). The goal of the synthesis is to compare and contrast studies with one another, thereby providing new interpretations, rather than attempting to provide generalization ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref39">21</reflink>]). In other words, the goal is to come to an interpretation that is more than the sum of the studies. This distinguishes meta-ethnography from other methods for qualitative synthesis and is an aspect that proved useful in our review. Additional merits of meta-ethnography include its systematic approach and the high level of interpretation, which allows for meta-analysis even of emerging (sub)fields of research with relatively low specialization and thus low gross numbers of specific studies and data. From that perspective, this approach is different from traditional literature reviews ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref40">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref41">21</reflink>]). It does not aim to summarize an entire body of available knowledge or make statistical inferences. To stay close to an 'ideographic approach' (i.e. maximally approaching a unique contextual experience), including an overly large number of studies is to be avoided. Although the number of studies included in meta-ethnographies ranges widely ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref42">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref43">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref44">22</reflink>]), 40 studies is deemed the maximum number to allow for 'sufficient familiarity' ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref45">5</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref46">39</reflink>], who are acknowledged as the developers of the meta-ethnography, included only two to six studies in the core text of their studies. The main focus is grasping an in-depth understanding of phenomena that are to a certain extent comparable over studies.</p> <p>2.1. Literature search and selection process</p> <p>The primary collection of studied literature was derived from the Web Of Science and ProQuest online databases. Queries were run using a fivefold search string with a combination of following keywords (including orthographic variants and synonyms): (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>) university, research, academia, science; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref48">2</reflink>) stakeholder, quadruple helix, triple helix, government, policy, business, industry, small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), civic, community, society, citizen, non-academic, decision-makers; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>) co-creation, co-production, interaction, collaboration, participation, partnership, relation; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref50">4</reflink>) impact, valorization, uptake, dissemination, knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, knowledge translation, translational research; and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref51">5</reflink>) social sciences, humanities. This systematic search was carried out in July 2020 and resulted in 3422 references (see Figure 1) after removal of duplicates. In the second phase, these references were comprehensively assessed, working with several inclusion and exclusion criteria (e.g. studies that did not involve SSH researchers or non-academic stakeholders were excluded). Only papers that included qualitative research data on the perceived meaning of collaborative interactions in relation to research impact were incorporated. Reviews and opinion pieces were excluded. Using these criteria, the titles were evaluated first, then the remaining references' abstracts, etc. This process resulted in seven studies.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. class="chapter-para"&gt;PRISMA flow chart for describing screening of papers. This figure is a visual representation in flow chart form that describes how many papers were excluded at each step of the meta-narrative review screening by the authors. It is based on [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref52">35</reflink>] PRISMA flow chart for systematic reviews and meta-analysis.</p> <p>To further extend and complement our initial search, we conducted backward reference chaining to trace publications on collaborative interactions through investigating the reference lists from the seven identified studies. Exploring a total of 296 references led to identifying five potentially relevant publications that were identified as 'grey literature' (i.e. manuscripts outside of the traditional academic publishing and distribution channels). One of these studies was excluded because qualitative data were used only to supplement survey responses and were poorly integrated in the results section ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref53">56</reflink>]). A second study was solely based on survey data and therefore excluded ([4199820]). A third report was excluded because it did not use any qualitative data ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref54">23</reflink>]). Finally, the other two references referred to the same research report ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref55">24</reflink>]), which appropriately used qualitative data and therefore was included in this study. Through reference chaining we also identified four relevant review studies whose results were integrated into this manuscript ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref56">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref57">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref58">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref59">10</reflink>]). Ultimately, we thus selected eight studies for further analysis (see Table 1 for study characteristics).</p> <p>Table 1. Characteristics of included studies in the review</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6"&gt;Cherney (2015)&lt;/xref&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8"&gt;Comunian, Taylor, and Smith (2014)&lt;/xref&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16"&gt;Elliott and Popay (2000)&lt;/xref&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31"&gt;Nadine Marshall et al. (2017)&lt;/xref&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36"&gt;Molas-Gallart and Tang (2011)&lt;/xref&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Olmos-Pe&amp;#241;uela, Molas-Gallart, and Castro-Mart&amp;#237;nez (2014). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Gokiert, Willows, Georgis, Stringer and Alexander Research Committee(2017). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24"&gt;Hughes et al. (2011)&lt;/xref&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Journal/Publisher &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Journal of Sociology &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;European Planning Studies &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;PLoS One &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Research Evaluation &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Science and Public Policy &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;The International Indigenous Policy Journal &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Sample &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;54 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;44 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;28 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;31 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;23 (14 researchers and 9 stakeholders) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;24 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;9 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;76 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Data collection &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;In-depth interviews &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Semi-structured interviews &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;In-depth interviews &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Interviews &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Structured interviews &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;In-depth interviews &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Semi-structured interviews and one focus group &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Interviews &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Field &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Social sciences-industry collaborations &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Arts and humanities and regional creative economies &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Research utilization and local National Health Service policy making &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Social scientists influencing environmental policy &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Tracing 'productive interactions' to identify social impacts from social sciences &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Collaboration between SSH research groups and non-academic partners &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Collective experiences of a multidisciplinary, intersectoral committee &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Collaboration between arts and humanities and the private, public and third sectors &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>The study process involved (see [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref60">55</reflink>]): (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>) an in-depth analysis of the publications (extracting the data, reading and rereading the articles); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>) determining how the studies are related (deciphering concepts from description and assigning specific codes to them); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref63">3</reflink>) developing conceptual constructs through grouping and regrouping the codes; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>) synthesizing translations (challenging interpretations through a discussion of the coding process amongst peer researchers); and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref65">5</reflink>) expressing the synthesis through writing up a coherent and consistent results section that optimally captures the data and insights from the eight studies. These different phases parallel a process in which researchers evolve from first-order constructs (the participants' 'common sense' interpretations in their own words, cited in the studies) to second-order constructs (the authors' interpretations based on first-order constructs), and eventually to third-order constructs (the researchers' interpretations of the original authors' interpretations). Since first- and second-order constructs were not always distinguishable, we combined these during the interpretative process. For all involved studies, we identified 122 first-/second-order constructs (textual units, paragraphs or quotes that could be distinguished from one another 'content-wise' to allow further coding). All first-/second-order constructs were coded (one construct could be assigned several codes) to identify specific topics within the data. This led to identifying 277 codes across all studies. Further grouping and regrouping of the codes eventually led to identifying three overarching third-order constructs that we elaborate in the results section below. Table 2 shows the number of identified first-/second-order constructs for each study, whether first-/second-order constructs offer support for conceptual third-order constructs, and an example of a unique contribution of a study to a third-order construct. To validate the results, a session was held during which the main findings were fed back to all co-authors as well as to two external experts (one research impact policy officer and one expert in co-creative processes).</p> <p>Table 2. Overview of identified first/second order constructs and contribution of a study to third order constructs.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Study. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Number of identified first/ second order constructs. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th colspan="3"&gt;Support for conceptual third-order construct (number of first/second order constructs that offer support). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Example of unique contribution of a study to a third-order construct. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Organizational context. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Incentives. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Brokers. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1. Governance of Good Community by &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6195075"&gt;Gokiert (2017&lt;/xref&gt;) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;24 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (9) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (5) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;The participant's metaphor of 'gold nuggets' contributes to the construct of perceived &lt;italic&gt;(dis)incentives and (dis)advantages&lt;/italic&gt; in interpersonal collaborative interactions through its association with mutual understanding and 'capacity-building' of one's worldview. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2. Academic-industry collaborations by &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6"&gt;Cherney (2015)&lt;/xref&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;9 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (2) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (2) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (1) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Cherney's study adds to the importance of &lt;italic&gt;mediation processes&lt;/italic&gt; (brokers) through referring to shifts in involvement and control by partners in the collaboration: the importance of academics that are not 'hung up on the theoretical' and thus can act as change agents. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3. Guidance to influence environmental policy (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31"&gt;Nadine Marshall et al. 2017&lt;/xref&gt;) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (4) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;This study emphasizes that influencing decision-making is an art. The process in which policy makers osmotically assimilate information requires a continuous and trustful relationship. &lt;italic&gt;Brokering&lt;/italic&gt; is a distinct specialization that requires time, funding and training. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4. The role of universities in Regional Creative Economies by &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8"&gt;Comunian et al. (2014)&lt;/xref&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (3) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (1) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (1) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;The study refers to multiplex relationships: A rapid expansion and diversification of collaborative interactions that also bring specific tensions (such as conflict with an academic identity). It shows that the nature of the interactions is heavily mediated by &lt;italic&gt;system and institutional realities&lt;/italic&gt; as well as disciplinary cultures. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5. Informal collaborations by &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42"&gt;Olmos-Pe&amp;#241;uela et al. (2014)&lt;/xref&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (1) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (3) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;The study stresses the fact that assessments are often based exclusively on activities that can be audited and that informal collaborations are not taken into account which then acts as a &lt;italic&gt;disincentive&lt;/italic&gt;. Some researchers might try to avoid them. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6. Productive interactions by &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36"&gt;Molas-Gallart and Tang (2011)&lt;/xref&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;18 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (4) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (5) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Finding a common language (such as talking in terms of productive interactions) provides a level of &lt;italic&gt;positive reinforcement&lt;/italic&gt; which is helpful in encouraging researchers and thus legitimizes the engagement with users even if it does not feel like 'proper' academic work. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7. Policy makers using evidence by &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16"&gt;Elliott and Popay (2000)&lt;/xref&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;14 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (3) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (5) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (5) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;The study refers to the acknowledgment by stakeholders of the importance of research on the one hand yet also being dictated by &lt;italic&gt;corporate and financial priorities&lt;/italic&gt; on the other hand. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8. &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24"&gt;Hughes et al. (2011)&lt;/xref&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;27 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (1) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (13) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes (8) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;The study provides support for the fact that academia as well as non-academic partners bring in legitimacy. For example, the input from an industrial partner &lt;italic&gt;gives credence&lt;/italic&gt; to an academic course. &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0153224194-4">3. Results</hd> <p>The resulting sample of studies spans a broad array of disciplines, as it includes sociology, science communication, research evaluation, research policy, (creative) economics, community health, and public policy. It consists of studies conducted in Austria, Canada, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The process of data analysis led to identifying three common third-order constructs across studies: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref66">1</reflink>) the perceived role of the wider organizational context; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref67">2</reflink>) perceived (dis)incentives and (dis)advantages in interpersonal collaborative interactions; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>) the potentially important role of mediating staff, brokers, and champions. We will systematically discuss each one of these constructs.</p> <p>3.1. The wider organizational context</p> <p>Five out of the eight studies refer to diverse terminology associated with the importance of organizational characteristics as well as a wider political context. Quotes from participants clarify that the organization to which one belongs sets out a specific focus (e.g. rather process-oriented in academia versus outcome-oriented in industry) and working modes with which staff can identify:</p> <p>'<emph>There has always been a difficulty with academics trying to talk to industry. Industry doesn't really respect academia because they haven't really done anything [...] that deserves respect. I know that if I'm talking to people I can say 'I have done this with producers, we've sent it to market' and they immediately go 'then you understand what it's like, you're operating in our world and you understand our world.</emph>' ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref69">24</reflink>]: 16).</p> <p>When goals between organizations conflict, this creates a tension that is potentially further complicated or facilitated by the evolving nature of organizations. Organizational goals create motivations for their members that might either align throughout time or drift away from each other. For example, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref70">6</reflink>] states that the motivations (of stakeholders) to become involved in research cannot be separated from its potential perceived usefulness to the organizational agenda. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref71">8</reflink>] write that the nature of the stakeholder–researcher interactions is heavily mediated by system and institutional realities as well as disciplinary cultures. These authors refer to what they call 'multiplex collaborative relationships' that are under rapid expansion and diversification, but which at the same time are threatened since they are perceived as sometimes incompatible with an academic identity and achieving academic impact. From that perspective, investing in external activities could even backfire, as is illustrated by the following quote from a researcher: '<emph>Well I mean I think probably in career terms it didn't do me any good at all.</emph>' (Comunian et al. 2015: 2468). Also, organizational imperatives and contingencies such as timing and day-to-day priorities might get in the way: '<emph>You've got to insert yourself into their schedules and reacquaint them with your agendas, because they're not at the forefront of their daily work</emph>' <emph>(</emph>[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref72">6</reflink>]: 1013).</p> <p>Comparable tensions are in place for stakeholders outside academia for whom it is not straightforward to use evidence-based knowledge: <emph>'You've got to take your purchasing decisions on the best information and research you can get. But in the end they're dictated by corporate priorities, financial priorities and hopefully informed by that kind of independent viewpoint on what you knew'</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref73">16</reflink>]: 465). Policy directives might steer expectations and even lead to misunderstandings in how the collaborative interactions are framed, as illustrated by this researcher's quote: '<emph>But in fact, part of the museum defined what we were doing as a cultural diversity project, so they essentially turned the research in their minds into an educational outreach project and of course assumed that our intention was to convert these</emph> [...] <emph>non art lovers into art lovers. But that was the furthest from our intention!</emph>' ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref74">24</reflink>]: 49). Financial considerations, organizational politics, or lobbying by other interest groups might bring about a feeling that stakeholder consultation does not fulfil one's expectations: <emph>'everybody ... has been consulted 50 million times about everything, and they're sick to death of being consulted and very often feeling that even though they've been consulted, they haven't necessarily got what they wanted'</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref75">16</reflink>]: 466). However, the opposite can also happen; sometimes motivations align surprisingly well: '... <emph>The researchers helped the neighbourhood to deal with the variety of problems caused by having an "undesired" heritage like a large abandoned prison in their midst. The researchers benefitted by obtaining access to a study case</emph>' ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref76">42</reflink>]: 501). Finding the right 'fit' between organizations is thus essential in tackling asymmetries between organizations.</p> <p>Collaborative processes are to a certain extent perceived as unpredictable, since they depend on the dynamic characteristics of complex living systems: <emph>'I mean so much is to do with contingency. You know so much of it's to do with the surrounding situation at the time'</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref77">16</reflink>]: 465). Also, the short-term nature of research work and high staff turnover might hamper long-term collaboration ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref78">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref79">16</reflink>]). The wider organizational context thus operates as a framework within which people are either discouraged or motivated to undertake certain actions depending on the institutional aims or goals (e.g. more process- versus outcome-oriented, focused on understanding versus achieving policy-oriented aims) and the evolution of particular institutions as complex systems. These motivations enable or disable collaboration with partners outside one's own organization, which is reflected in the following construct.</p> <p>3.2. Perceived (dis)incentives and (dis)advantages in interpersonal collaborative interactions</p> <p>Seven out of the eight studies included in this meta-ethnography elaborate on what participants perceive as benefits, (dis)incentives, and (dis)advantages of engaging in interpersonal collaborative interactions. One quote from someone in the private sector perfectly illustrates how these perceived benefits are closely associated with organizational characteristics:</p> <p>'<emph>I felt there was a huge discrepancy between what academia does and what we do outside in industry, in terms of speed, how we turn around projects in industry, and how much closer we are to reality and to actual needs, whereas in the universities it's all very theoretical and there seems to be a fear of actually going outside the institution to approach people to get a better picture. ... For us as the industry partners I am not sure what we will gain from it...</emph>' ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref80">24</reflink>]: 52).</p> <p>Furthermore, although informal relationships are deemed important for productive collaborative interactions to emerge, they are sometimes threatened by an economic logic. They can only be sustained when do not entail any substantial additional costs and when the 'informal work' that has to be done is covered by the 'core' research funding of other projects ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref81">42</reflink>]). Views about stakeholder collaboration are sometimes tempered by resource considerations and a more pragmatic outlook ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref82">8</reflink>]: 2469): <emph>'...we couldn't make them [about imaginative ideas] sufficiently price competitive'.</emph> Also, current assessments are based exclusively on activities that can be audited. Therefore, informal collaborations are generally not taken into account or rewarded by research institutions, and are thus avoided by some researchers ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref83">42</reflink>]). The urge to deliver a tangible output or deliverable is sometimes perceived as restraining. For example, a purchasing manager was initially reluctant to talk about a research initiative she had been involved in because <emph>'there are other areas where we've had a more demonstrable return ... At certain times [during the project], I was trying to speed it up or to tighten it so that it actually delivered something that was demonstrable and would lead to change in the way resources were used'</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref84">16</reflink>]: 465). Being able to deliver such a demonstrable return is therefore sometimes perceived as the ultimate benefit of the collaboration between, in this case, a museum and a research organization: '<emph>The designing of something that is almost like a physical artefact (i.e. a mobile phone application), something that you can actually show people and use ... was the highlight for me. ... I know now that working with an organisation like the museum can actually get something like this to happen'</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref85">24</reflink>]: 37).</p> <p>Diverse factors that enable collaborative interpersonal interactions are mentioned. Improved cultural knowledge is one of them. In one study it was framed as: 'There are gold nuggets in there for better understanding of their worldview' ([6195075]). [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref86">36</reflink>] refer to how one stakeholder told them how she is now engaging with academics 'as never before', having gained a better understanding of how to work with academics and realizing the benefits of academic collaboration. Some partners understand impact as enhancing internal capacity that goes beyond the purely instrumental: the capacity-building of their worldview. Others describe the collaboration as a new dimension within which unusual and innovative things might happen and where distortion is allowed: <emph>'it is a terribly rich way to work ... a new space ... new sort of perspective ... where people's viewpoints are challenged ... boundaries are being pushed'</emph> ([6195075]: 5). The authors of the aforementioned study argue that conversations can be difficult and uncomfortable when, for example, old wounds are reopened between different stakeholder groups. However, a certain amount of 'distortion' is often an important part of being able to develop opportunities for further growth between collaborative parties ([6195075]). Evidence that comes from the collaboration is often perceived as far more persuasive, credible, and legitimate. It is perceived as less biased and subject to criticism: <emph>'So we needed something [from researchers] that was above board and clearly credible'</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref87">6</reflink>]: 1012)<emph>.</emph> Legitimacy can be also be offered by non-academic partners: <emph>'Bringing in an external lecturer can add a slightly different approach, and it brings a lot more credence to the project if you have got someone coming in from the industry'</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref88">24</reflink>]: 33). Furthermore, developing a language that enforces these collaborations might help as well. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref89">36</reflink>]: 224) state that:</p> <p>'<emph>the notion of "productive interactions" helped researchers to positively frame and therefore reinforce stakeholder collaboration. It provides a legitimization of the strategy of getting out and meeting stakeholders, networking and attending/presenting at meetings—which we all know is important in terms of creating research opportunities, yet can often feel not quite like 'proper' academic work</emph>'.</p> <p>To conclude, an effective collaborative dimension should allow the development of informal interactions to increase mutual understanding, to construct a common 'empowering' language as well as creating a bond between partners that is perceived as credible and legitimate. Several accounts underpin the idea that bringing about such a fertile context could be facilitated by mediating staff, brokers, or organizational champions.</p> <p>3.3. The perceived role of mediating staff, brokers, and champions</p> <p>Seven out of the eight studies included in this meta-ethnography support the perceived importance of staff who might build bridges and facilitate collaboration between individuals from different institutes and associations. Different names for this type of staff include 'brokers', 'change agents', 'interpreters', 'interface negotiators', and 'champions'. The latter is reflected in the idea that some partners have strong values and a lot of energy to commit to a shared goal. They have authority and are acknowledged as such by the group members: <emph>'... there are some real champions, ... who have been at every single meeting. ...you need to have a champion who's driven by the need to have respectful research done in their community that ties in with helping them in measuring what the goals of their community are'</emph> ([6195075]: 6). Also, in collaborative processes it is important to manage conflicts or uncomfortable and difficult situations, especially when touching on specific 'wounds': <emph>'We may not always agree on what is said. But we had that respect with one another so strongly that if we were uncomfortable with anything that was written [in a manuscript], that was respected and taken out'</emph> ([6195075]: 9).</p> <p>A broker should be able to handle a collaborative process that is characterized as iterative. For example, in [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref90">6</reflink>] study the author indicates that in order for a collaboration to be a two-way process, participants need to be willing to vary their level of control over different stages of the research process. Therefore, partner involvement tends to shift throughout the project. A facilitator has to be able to accept that such processes are relatively fluid: they go back and forth with sometimes unpredictable outcomes. Also, they have to be able to take some distance from a narrow academic perspective ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref91">24</reflink>]). Relevant statements included: <emph>'... it was not just an academic exercise ... not just a bunch of academics thinking about it theoretically. ... they were not hung up on the theoretical'</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref92">6</reflink>]: 1011), and, <emph>"I've become much more humble as a researcher"</emph> ([6195075]: 9).</p> <p>Change agents need to understand the rationale and justification of the research collaboration (Cherney 2013). The study by [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref93">31</reflink>] referred to influencing decision-making in collaborative processes as an art. The process by which policymakers osmotically assimilate scientific information requires a continuous and trustful relationship. Communicating well (i.e. in a way that is compelling, clear, and authoritative) is a necessity. Brokering should be considered but it is a distinct specialization that requires time, funding, and training. They should be practical, hands-on, and provide insights into the social dimension. Taking a pro-active stance is also important: researchers should identify where opportunities might emerge and respond quickly when needed ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref94">31</reflink>]). However, as bridges between collaborating parties are lacking, it might be difficult to take on the role of the other by taking on the priorities, values, and ways of working of stakeholders: <emph>'... there aren't any meeting places. And so there are ... word of mouth ... exchanges that take place ... Brokerage might be the key'</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref95">8</reflink>]: 2470).</p> <p>Facilitating a consensus through brokers is illustrated in the study by [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref96">36</reflink>]: 222): <emph>'The research played a mediating role between opposing groups, yielding identifiable results. Activists now accept open-pit mining ... Mining companies have accepted that there are areas unsuitable for exploration.'</emph> Participants in the study by [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref97">16</reflink>] stressed the potentially beneficial neutral position of researchers, who could act as an interface or be perceived as 'knowledgeable outsiders'. Researchers could clarify and contribute to decision-making but should not provide answers: <emph>'It's having someone who is external from all the organizations, with no vested interest and no reason to placate or irritate that I think is quite useful'</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref98">16</reflink>]: 466). Occupying this neutral position also aligns with the idea of fuzzy stakeholder boundaries, in which there is a perceived fluidity in the roles of academic and 'stakeholder' communities ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref99">36</reflink>]). Finally, effective brokers use language as a tool to establish this fluidity in shifting roles through a shared way of looking at things ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref100">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>To conclude, these results show how the wider organizational context creates a framework within which individuals are pushed from or pulled towards collaborative interactions. Organizational asymmetries (e.g. discrepancies in goals and political agendas), economic costs associated with the collaboration, as well as strictly assessing activities in terms of demonstrable outputs, have all been perceived as push factors. Perceived pull factors included increased knowledge and capacity-building (both instrumental and non-instrumental outcomes), the legitimacy that follows from working with reputable institutes, and the intrinsic motivation associated with doing something 'interesting' for the greater good. Facilitators or brokers potentially play an important role in creating a context in which all parties perceive benefits. Specific communication, a hands-on mentality, and using a language that both empowers collaboration partners and gives them a tool to arrive towards a shared understanding of a specific phenomenon or problem all might be key for successful collaborative interactions to achieve positive impact. An additional advantage of these brokers might be that they are perceived as neutral 'knowledgeable outsiders' who are therefore very adept in steering the development of continuous and trustful relationships amongst partners. Since collaborative processes are recognized as iterative, the training of brokers should include knowledge on how to work with unpredictable outcomes and partners who have varying levels of engagement throughout time.</p> <hd id="AN0153224194-5">4. Discussion</hd> <p>Up until now, no systematic review existed which brought together qualitative data on how stakeholders understand collaborative interactions in relation to research impact. This is especially relevant for several reasons. Firstly, there is a lack of understanding on how exactly these processes work. This remains a difficult task, since research is always embedded in dynamic networks that involve two-way processes between research policy and practice ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref101">44</reflink>]). However, complex does not mean impossible. Recent studies have shown that systematically planning and evaluating research impact pathways can lead to positive outcomes in diverse fields, from studying efficient use of land and water in marginalized farming families ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref102">7</reflink>]) to preventing intimate partner violence ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref103">54</reflink>]). Processes connecting research and impacts can be understood sufficiently to influence them in ways that enhance the likelihood of these impacts ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref104">33</reflink>]). Secondly, existing theoretical frameworks on collaborative interactions that use qualitative evidence (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref105">41</reflink>]) should be further fine-tuned and enriched through an inductive approach that brings in diverse individual experiences and understandings. The current study extends the knowledge on collaborative interactions, which might be useful in achieving positive research impact through improved understanding of collaborative interactions. Thirdly, there is an urgent need to find working models that help stakeholders solve societal problems. Although theories of change are often used as roadmaps to guide participants, it may be difficult to determine expected changes at the planning phase in highly innovative and explorative projects ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref106">44</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref107">37</reflink>] also stresses that the potential uses of research often cannot be anticipated, but that it is rather 'a process of emergence' ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref108">37</reflink>]: 53). The results of this study at least partly address the lack of understanding of collaborative processes, fine-tune existing concepts and integrate them into a comprehensive theoretical model, and might inspire innovative ways to solve societal problems. In this discussion, we will reflect on a model (see Figure 2) that describes successful knowledge diffusion amongst stakeholders. Collaborative relationships usually occur in a multiplex environment where stakeholders' ideas and knowledge are not well aligned due to organizational asymmetries. Effective brokers succeed in bringing stakeholders into a new dimension where distortion and conflict is allowed yet creativity and mutual understanding eventually leads to knowledge diffusion and to solving a complex challenge.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. class="chapter-para"&gt;Visual representation of the process of knowledge diffusion in a multiplex collaborative environment.</p> <p>4.1. Enabling multiplex collaborative relationships</p> <p>Collaborative interactions are characterized by a direct or mediated flow of information that is (rather) uni- or bi-directional and with strong or weak involvement of diverse stakeholders. This study shows that these characteristics are associated with perceived advantages and disadvantages, the potentially important role of knowledge brokers, and the wider organizational context. The latter determines to a certain extent whether <emph>multiplex collaborative relationships</emph> (i.e. an expansion and diversification of collaborative relationships between institutions, departments, and individuals within public or private sectors) produce desired outcomes. For example, are researchers allowed to spend time on activities that are not directly associated with quantifiable academic output? The extent to which an organization sets specific process- or outcome-oriented goals for their staff or acts upon specific political agendas determines the types of relationships that emerge within and outside the work environment. Positive societal impact capacity (the ability to realize benefits to society based on research) is thus not only a question of individual skills, but also depends on the conditions that are provided by the context in which individuals are embedded and operate ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref109">11</reflink>]). A qualitative study of benefits and challenges in collaborative science showed that the academic context hinders collaboration, particularly in reference to tenure and promotion criteria that are applied to early career researchers ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref110">12</reflink>]). In order to overcome limiting contextual characteristics, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref111">46</reflink>] have suggested creating university-based knowledge mobilization units with an institution-wide mandate to support research-based partnerships outside of the current economic impact paradigms of technology commercialization and industry liaison. Our study shows that allowing a certain amount of loss of control over the research process and partner involvement might be an essential characteristic of enabling collaborative interactions that are partly determined by day-to-day realities and contingencies. It is important to minimize or bridge organizational asymmetries in order to facilitate positive outcomes based on collaborative interactions.</p> <p>This meta-ethnography shows that the economic dimension might play an important role. This was previously stressed by researchers who argue that the funding of uptake and implementation activities within partner organizations is needed to make research easily available, as well as to enhance researchers' skills in working with partners outside academia ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref112">47</reflink>]). Our findings point out that organizations and funders should create working conditions in which informal relationships are allowed and to a certain extent stimulated, since these relationships might have an important role in bridging organizational or interpersonal asymmetries. The focus of research evaluators who only accept demonstrable outputs might be counterproductive, since there is often a perceived need amongst stakeholders to go beyond the purely instrumental. Studies often produce less tangible conceptual impacts that contribute to a changed awareness regarding particular issues ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref113">33</reflink>]). That being said, for researchers working within SSH, working towards a tangible output (such as a smartphone application) can also be perceived as particularly rewarding. To improve research evaluation, performance feedback and rewards should be awarded to a group rather than to an individual in order to develop shared mental models that contribute to desired outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref114">15</reflink>]). Funders should therefore take into account some degree of freedom related to the extent to which researchers keep control over the research process, acknowledge the importance of informal relationships in collaborative interactions, and accept outputs that are tangible as well as those that are intangible.</p> <p>4.2. Knowledge diffusion through effective brokers</p> <p>Some participants described positive collaborative interactions as entering a new dimension where distortion is allowed, the collaborating partner is perceived as bringing in legitimacy, outcomes are valuable (a win–win situation), and a common language has been developed. These interactions then lead to what one participant called 'gold nuggets', i.e. an in-depth cultural understanding of a community. The latter taps into the idea of educative authenticity, which was originally defined by [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref115">30</reflink>] as the extent to which individuals have become more understanding of the constructions of others. This process of 'co-learning' is an important key principle in community-based research, where reciprocal transfer of knowledge, skills, capacity, and power is perceived as pivotal to achieving a positive impact ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref116">25</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref117">26</reflink>] argue that there is a frequent deficit of a more transformative orientation that takes stakeholder interaction and negotiation in impact evaluation into account. Moreover, contemporary impact evaluation practices seem to go against a more qualitative and theoretically driven methodology and do not accurately represent the experience either of the academic research endeavour or of impact as it may be more broadly construed ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref118">28</reflink>]). One of the key elements in successful knowledge exchange could be to involve stakeholders in the process of designing and implementing evaluations, and in doing so to enable a deeper learning experience ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref119">17</reflink>]). To successfully develop collaborative interactions that tackle complex societal challenges, we thus might need a wind of change that focuses on profound learning experiences as well as working together through action and advocacy. Mediating staff such as knowledge brokers and impact champions can play an important role in this process.</p> <p>In response to the need for innovative and collaborative approaches to knowledge exchange, several novel approaches have been identified and developed. These include: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref120">1</reflink>) the involvement of stakeholders in scientific research programs throughout every aspect of the study including design, implementation, and analysis (i.e. co-production); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref121">2</reflink>) embedding scientists in decision-making agencies; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref122">3</reflink>) actions as developed by boundary organizations (not embedded within research teams but established as a separate entity); and finally (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref123">4</reflink>) knowledge brokers. The latter are typically embedded within research teams or institutions and develop relationships and networks with, among, and between producers and users of knowledge ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref124">10</reflink>]). In this study, knowledge brokers and impact champions were perceived by participants as those individuals who have strong values, great energy, bring people together around a shared goal, are able to negotiate difficulties and conflicts, and have a pro-active attitude (they seize opportunities). Previous studies have shown that for innovative and transformative processes to lead to positive outcomes, three conditions are important: building a strong community amongst partners; leadership (e.g. aligning change with organizational values); and building capacity and skills ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref125">57</reflink>]). One of these positive outcomes is knowledge transfer. Based on the qualitative data from the studies in this meta-ethnography, we prefer using the concept of knowledge diffusion (all partners absorb the co-produced knowledge that flows bi-directionally) as opposed to osmotic knowledge assimilation since osmosis entails a physical barrier and assimilation refers to a one-way process. Ideally, knowledge diffusion is achieved when brokers are able to manage a process that is iterative rather than linear, bi-directional, and with fluid rather than strictly delineated boundaries between stakeholders. During the process, a certain loss of control is allowed and perceived as normal. Preferably brokers are perceived as knowledgeable outsiders who are able to take on the role of the other and are therefore able to reach consensus relatively easily. This new knowledge, combined with what we already know about the potential roles and skills of knowledge brokers (see, e.g. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref126">45</reflink>]), could easily feed into training programs that aim to facilitate knowledge mobilization.</p> <p>4.3. Future outlook, limitations and conclusion</p> <p>This study on the perceived meaning of collaborative interactions in relation to research impact drew on more than 3000 published studies of which titles and abstracts, and in a later phase the full text, were analysed. We were quite surprised to find so few studies that actually address this fairly straightforward topic. Moreover, the selected articles, which were all qualitative in nature, differ from each other in several important respects. Firstly, although they all focus on collaborative interactions, their specific focus and conceptualization is quite different. [6195075] and [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref127">24</reflink>] offer a qualitatively rich analysis with extensive descriptions, while [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref128">6</reflink>] offers fewer but relatively long quotes on academic–industry collaborations. Secondly, three studies offer a summary of qualitative data with little or even no direct access to verbatim quotes ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref129">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref130">42</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref131">31</reflink>]), leaving little space for theoretical concepts to unfold. From a methodological point of view, ethnographic field studies, currently lacking in this study, could also offer important insights. This clearly shows that a large study field in qualitative research is still left open and that inductive research on a larger scale is warranted to remove gaps in both theoretical and more applied knowledge. A session held to validate the results from this meta-ethnography showed some limitations, such as the fact that we excluded a whole body of 'grey literature' and experts by experience. Although working through Web of Science and ProQuest is mainly aimed at ensuring the quality of the included studies, it also shows how academia creates its own barriers and exclusion mechanisms. Also, the important role of societal values in relation to what are deemed important research and beneficial research outcomes is now largely left out of this discussion. The task to further develop an interdisciplinary conceptual framework on collaborative interactions is therefore still incomplete and should in the future address how interpretations on key concepts such a 'communities' and 'knowledge' diverge.</p> <p>However, data from the selected eight qualitative studies (based on 289 group or individual interviews) led to important reflections regarding collaborative interactions: multiplex collaborative relationships are perceived to be hindered by the asymmetry between the organizational contexts to which various partners belong. The role of bridging figures (brokers) can be essential in drawing diverse stakeholders out of these contexts into a new dimension that allows creativity and mutual understanding but also allows conflict and distortion. In ideal circumstances, this leads to a quasi-automatic transfer of knowledge between partners that takes place naturally and in both directions (knowledge diffusion).</p> <p>Acknowledgements</p> <p>We particularly would like to express our gratitude to Saskia Westerduin (Apollo18, Innovation-by-Design Agency) as well as Esther De Smet (Policy and Quality Control Unit at Ghent University) for their help with the validation of the study results. We would also like to thank the many partners with whom we collaborated in the ACCOMPLISSH Horizon 2020 project for their inspiration and support.</p> <p> <emph>Conflict of interest statement:</emph> None declared.</p> <ref id="AN0153224194-6"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref13" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aiello, E., Donovan, C., Duque, E., Fabrizio, S., Flecha, R., Holm, P., Molina, S., Oliver, E., &amp; Reale, E. (2020) ' Effective Strategies That Enhance the Social Impact of Social Sciences and Humanities Research ', Evidence &amp; Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref6" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bayley, J. E., Phipps, D., Batac, M., &amp; Stevens, E. (2018) ' Development of a Framework for Knowledge Mobilisation and Impact Competencies ', Evidence &amp; Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 14 : 725 – 38. Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref15" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bornmann L. (2013) ' What is Societal Impact of Research and How Can It Be Assessed? a Literature Survey ', Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64 : 217 – 33. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Campbell, R., Pound, P., Morgan, M., Daker-White, G., Britten, N., Pill, R., Yardley, L., Pope, C., &amp; Donovan, J. (2011) ' Evaluating Meta-Ethnography: Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of Qualitative Research ', Health Technology Assessment, 15 : 1 – 164. Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref43" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cherney A. (2015) ' Academic–Industry Collaborations and Knowledge co-Production in the Social Sciences ', Journal of Sociology, 51 : 1003 – 16. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref70" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Christen, E. W., Mitchell, M., Roth, C., &amp; Rowley, E. (2019) ' Addressing Research Complexity: Analysing Pathways to Impact and Using Transdisciplinary Approaches ', Agricultural Science, 30 : 32 – 43. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref102" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Comunian R., Taylor C., &amp; Smith D. N. (2014) ' The Role of Universities in the Regional Creative Economies of the UK: Hidden Protagonists and the Challenge of Knowledge Transfer ', European Planning Studies, 22 : 2456 – 76. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref71" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cook, T., Boote, J., Buckley, N., Vougioukalou, S., &amp; Wright, M. (2017) ' Accessing Participatory Research Impact and Legacy: Developing the Evidence Base for Participatory Approaches in Health Research ', Educational Action Research, 25 : 473 – 88. Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref35" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cvitanovic, C., Hobday, A. J., van Kerkhoff, L., Wilson, S. K., Dobbs, K., &amp; Marshall, N. A. (2015) ' Improving Knowledge Exchange among Scientists and Decision-Makers to Facilitate the Adaptive Governance of Marine Resources: A Review of Knowledge and Research Needs ', Ocean &amp; Coastal Management, 112 : 25 – 35. Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Jong S. P., &amp; Muhonen R. (2020) ' Who Benefits from Ex Ante Societal Impact Evaluation in the European Funding Arena? A Cross-Country Comparison of Societal Impact Capacity in the Social Sciences and Humanities ', Research Evaluation, 29 : 22 – 33. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeHart D. (2017) ' Team Science: A Qualitative Study of Benefits, Challenges, and Lessons Learned ', The Social Science Journal, 54 : 458 – 67. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., &amp; Sutton, A. (2005) ' Synthesising Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence: A Review of Possible Methods ', Journal of Health Services Research &amp; Policy, 10 : 45 – 53. Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixon-Woods M., Booth A., &amp; Sutton A. J. (2007) ' Synthesizing Qualitative Research: A Review of Published Reports ', Qualitative Research, 7 : 375 – 422. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Druskat V. U., &amp; Pescosolido A. T. (2002) ' The Content of Effective Teamwork Mental Models in Self-Managing Teams: Ownership, Learning and Heedful Interrelating ', Human Relations, 55 : 283 – 314. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliott H., &amp; Popay J. (2000) ' How Are Policy Makers Using Evidence? Models of Research Utilisation and Local NHS Policy Making ', Journal of Epidemiology &amp; Community Health, 54 : 461 – 8. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fazey, I., Bunse, L., Msika, J., Pinke, M., Preedy, K., Evely, A. C., Lambert, E., Hastings, E., Morris, S., &amp; Reed, M. S. (2014) ' Evaluating Knowledge Exchange in Interdisciplinary and Multi-Stakeholder Research ', Global Environmental Change, 25 : 204 – 20. Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fazey, I., Evely, A. C., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Kruijsen, J., White, P. C., Newsham, A., Jin, L., Cortazzi, M., Phillipson, J., Blackstock, K., Twistle, N., Sheate, W., Armstrong, F., Blackmore, C., Fazey, J., Ingram, J., Gregson, J., Lowe, P., Morton, S., &amp; Trevitt, C. (2013) ' Knowledge Exchange: A Review and Research Agenda for Environmental Management ', Environmental Conservation, 40 : 19 – 36. Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gokiert R. J et al. (2017) ' Wâhkôhtowin: The Governance of Good Community-Academic Research Relationships to Improve the Health and Well-Being of Children in Alexander First Nation ', International Indigenous Policy Journal, 8 / 2. Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenhalgh T., &amp; Wieringa S. (2011) ' Is It Time to Drop the 'Knowledge Translation' Metaphor? A Critical Literature Review ', Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104 : 501 – 9. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gronvad J., Hvidtfeldt R., &amp; Pedersen D. B. (2017). Analysing co-creation in theory and in practice – A systemic review of the SSH impact literature. Retrieved from &lt;https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/35d470%5f78a9168f52d347de9ea1c8b29998826a.pdf? index=true&gt; accessed 8 Dec 2020.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hannes K., &amp; Lockwood C. (2012). Synthesizing Qualitative Research: Choosing the Right Approach. West Sussex, UK : Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hannes K., &amp; Macaitis K. (2012) ' A Move to More Systematic and Transparent Approaches in Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Update on a Review of Published Papers ', Qualitative Research, 12 : 402 – 42. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> HM Treasury (2003). The Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration Interactions. London : Stationary Office. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes A., &amp; , Kitson M. (2009) Knowledge Exchange between Academics and the Business, Public and Third Sectors. Cambridge, UK: Centre for Business Research and UK-IRC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes, A., Kitson, M., Probert, J., Bullock, A. &amp; Milner, I. (2011). Hidden Connections: Knowledge Exchange between the Arts and Humanities and the Private, Public and Third Sectors. Cambridge : Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., &amp; Becker, A. B. (1998) ' Review of Community-Based Research: Assessing Partnership Approaches to Improve Public Health ', Annual Review of Public Health, 19 : 173 – 202. Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson S., &amp; Rasulova S. (2017) ' Qualitative Research and the Evaluation of Development Impact: Incorporating Authenticity into the Assessment of Rigour ', Journal of Development Effectiveness, 9 : 263 – 76. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kinn, L. G., Holgersen, H., Ekeland, T. J., &amp; Davidson, L. (2013) ' Metasynthesis and Bricolage: An Artistic Exercise of Creating a Collage of Meaning ', Qualitative Health Research, 23 : 1285 – 92. Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laing K., Mazzoli Smith L., &amp; Todd L. (2018) ' The Impact Agenda and Critical Social Research in Education: Hitting the Target but Missing the Spot? ', Policy Futures in Education, 16 : 169 – 84. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lavis, J. N., Lomas, J., Hamid, M., &amp; Sewankambo, N. K. (2006) ' Assessing Country-Level Efforts to Link Research to Action ', Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84 : 620 – 8. Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln Y. S., &amp; Guba E. G. (1986) ' But is It Rigorous? Trustworthiness and Authenticity in Naturalistic Evaluation ', New Directions for Program Evaluation, 30 : 73 – 84. Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, S.J., (2009). Engaging with citizens and other stakeholders. In T. Bovaird &amp; E. Löffler (eds), Public Management and Governance (pp. 189-202). London: Taylor &amp; Francis/Routledge. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meagher L., Lyall C., &amp; Nutley S. (2008) ' Flows of Knowledge, Expertise and Influence: A Method for Assessing Policy and Practice Impacts from Social Science Research ', Research Evaluation, 17 : 163 – 73. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitton, C., Adair, C. E., McKenzie, E., Patten, S. B., &amp; Perry, B. W. (2007) ' Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: Review and Synthesis of the Literature ', Milbank Quarterly, 85 : 729 – 68. Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moher D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., &amp; Prisma Group. (2009) ' Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement ', Annals of Internal Medicine, 151 : 264 – 9. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Molas-Gallart J., &amp; Tang P. (2011) ' Tracing 'Productive Interactions' to Identify Social Impacts: An Example from the Social Sciences ', Research Evaluation, 20 : 219 – 26. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morton S. (2015) ' Creating Research Impact: The Roles of Research Users in Interactive Research Mobilisation ', Evidence &amp; Policy, 11 : 35 – 55. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muhonen R., Benneworth P., &amp; Olmos-Peñuela J. (2020) ' From Productive Interactions to Impact Pathways: Understanding the Key Dimensions in Developing SSH Research Societal Impact ', Research Evaluation, 29 : 34 – 47. Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nadine Marshall, N., Adger, N., Attwood, S., Brown, K., Crissman, C., Cvitanovic, C., De Young, C., Gooch, M., James, C., Jessen, S., Johnson, D., Marshall, P., Park, S., Wachenfeld, D., &amp; Wrigley, D. (2017) ' Empirically Derived Guidance for Social Scientists to Influence Environmental Policy ', PLoS One, 12 : e0171950. Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noblit G. W., &amp; Hare R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Newbury Park, CA : SAGE. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nutley S. M., Walter I., &amp; Davies H. T. O. (2007). Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services. Bristol : Policy Press. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oancea A., Florez Petour T., &amp; Atkinson J. (2017) ' Qualitative Network Analysis Tools for the Configurative Articulation of Cultural Value and Impact from Research ', Research Evaluation, 26 : 302 – 15. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olmos-Peñuela J., Molas-Gallart J., &amp; Castro-Martínez E. (2014) ' Informal Collaborations between Social Sciences and Humanities Researchers and Non-Academic Partners ', Science and Public Policy, 41 : 493 – 506. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orr K., &amp; Bennett M. (2012) ' Public Administration Scholarship and the Politics of Coproduction Academic-Practitioner Research ', Public Administration Review, 72 : 487 – 96. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pedersen D. B., Grønvad J. F., &amp; Hvidtfeldt R. (2020) ' Methods for Mapping the Impact of Social Sciences and Humanities—a Literature Review ', Research Evaluation, 29 : 4 – 21. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phipps D., &amp; Morton S. (2013) ' Qualities of Knowledge Brokers: Reflections from Practice ', Evidence &amp; Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 9 : 255 – 65. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phipps D. J., &amp; Shapson S. (2009) ' Knowledge Mobilisation Builds Local Research Collaborations for Social Innovation ', Evidence &amp; Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 5 : 211 – 27. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phipps, D., Cummins, J., Pepler, D. J., Craig, W., &amp; Cardinal, S. (2016) ' The Co-Produced Pathway to Impact Describes Knowledge Mobilization Processes ', Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 9 : 31 – 40. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ross, S., Lavis, J., Rodriguez, C., Woodside, J., &amp; Denis, J. L. (2003) ' Partnership Experiences: Involving Decision-Makers in the Research Process ', Journal of Health Services Research &amp; Policy, 8 : 26 – 34. Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe G., &amp; Frewer L. J. (2005) ' A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms ', Science, Technology, &amp; Human Values, 30 : 251 – 90. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sivertsen G. (2017) 'Unique, but Still Best Practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an International Perspective', Palgrave Communications, 3 : 1 – 6. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sivertsen G., &amp; Meijer I. (2020) ' Normal versus Extraordinary Societal Impact: How to Understand, Evaluate, and Improve Research Activities in Their Relations to Society? ' Research Evaluation, 29 : 66 – 70. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spaapen J., &amp; Sivertsen G. (2020) ' Assessing Societal Impact of SSH in an Engaging World: Focus on Productive Interaction, Creative Pathways and Enhanced Visibility of SSH Research ', Research Evaluation, 29 : 1 – 3. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spaapen J., &amp; Van Drooge L. (2011) ' Introducing 'Productive Interactions' in Social Impact Assessment ', Research Evaluation, 20 : 211 – 8. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spangaro, J., Koziol-McLain, J., Rutherford, A., &amp; Zwi, A. B. (2020) ' Made Me Feel Connected' A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Intimate Partner Violence Routine Screening Pathways to Impact ', Violence Against Women, 26 : 334 – 58. Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toye, F., Seers, K., Allcock, N., Briggs, M., Carr, E., &amp; Barker, K. (2014) ' Meta-Ethnography 25 Years on: Challenges and Insights for Synthesising a Large Number of Qualitative Studies ', BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14 : 80. Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turpin, T., Aylward, D., Garrett-Jones, S., Speak, G., Grigg, L., &amp; Johnston, R. (1999). University and Industry Research Partnerships in Australia: An Evaluation of ARC/DETYA Industry-Linked Research Schemes. Canberra, Australia : JS McMillan Printing Group. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yee J., &amp; White H. (2016) ' The Goldilocks Conundrum: The 'Just Right' Conditions for Design to Achieve Impact in Public and Third Sector Projects ', International Journal of Design, 10 : 7 – 19. Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zych M. M., Berta W. B., &amp; Gagliardi A. R. (2020) ' Conceptualising the Initiation of Researcher and Research User Partnerships: A Meta-Narrative Review ', Health Research Policy and Systems, 18 : 1 – 18. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Alexis Dewaele; Kristof Vandael; Stefan Meysman and Ann Buysse</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref126"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1314509 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Understanding Collaborative Interactions in Relation to Research Impact in Social Sciences and Humanities: A Meta-Ethnography – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dewaele%2C+Alexis%22">Dewaele, Alexis</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0688-9109">0000-0002-0688-9109</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vandael%2C+Kristof%22">Vandael, Kristof</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Meysman%2C+Stefan%22">Meysman, Stefan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Buysse%2C+Ann%22">Buysse, Ann</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Research+Evaluation%22"><i>Research Evaluation</i></searchLink>. Apr 2021 30(2):179-190. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Oxford University Press. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, UK. Tel: +44-1865-353907; Fax: +44-1865-353485; e-mail: jnls.cust.serv@oxfordjournals.org; Web site: http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 12 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2021 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Science+Research%22">Social Science Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Humanities%22">Humanities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Researchers%22">Researchers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stakeholders%22">Stakeholders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Cooperation%22">Institutional Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Context+Effect%22">Context Effect</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1093/reseval/rvaa033 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0958-2029 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: The number and type of collaborations between researchers and stakeholders has increased significantly. This responds to the demand from policymakers, funders, and citizens that researchers should help to tackle important social issues (e.g. climate change, healthy aging). However, there is little knowledge about how collaboration processes are experienced, how we can theoretically conceptualize them, and how in this way we can develop efficient collaboration methods that contribute to solving urgent societal problems. In this meta-ethnography, we gathered relevant knowledge from carefully selected qualitative studies. A title/abstract analysis of 3422 articles from Web of Science and ProQuest led to the interpretative analysis of qualitative data from eight publications. The results of this study show that despite the need for a better understanding of complex collaborative interactions, the differences (or asymmetry) between organizations to which various partners belong hinder efficient collaboration. Bridging figures (brokers) can play an essential role if they succeed in drawing diverse stakeholders out of their organizational context into a new dimension that allows creativity and mutual understanding, but that also allows conflict and distortion. In ideal circumstances, this leads to a quasi-automatic transfer of knowledge between partners that takes place naturally and in both directions (knowledge diffusion). – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2021 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1314509 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1314509 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1093/reseval/rvaa033 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 12 StartPage: 179 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Interaction Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Science Research Type: general – SubjectFull: Humanities Type: general – SubjectFull: Researchers Type: general – SubjectFull: Stakeholders Type: general – SubjectFull: Institutional Cooperation Type: general – SubjectFull: Context Effect Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Understanding Collaborative Interactions in Relation to Research Impact in Social Sciences and Humanities: A Meta-Ethnography Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Dewaele, Alexis – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Vandael, Kristof – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Meysman, Stefan – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Buysse, Ann IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 04 Type: published Y: 2021 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0958-2029 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 30 – Type: issue Value: 2 Titles: – TitleFull: Research Evaluation Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
