Archetype D
|
Governance of research process shared between academics and service providers.
|
Exploitation supported high levels of trust that facilitate emergent connections between research and implementation.
|
Low levels of inertia to overcome at early stages, as individuals already have connections and goodwill ties.
|
Cliques and silos can arise from unconnected groups within network as no designated brokers are accountable or assigned.
|
Building on existing networks |
Academics and service providers involved in research process; existing relationships form the basis for the collaboration, relinquishing some academic autonomy.
|
Efforts to balance research and implementation goals in the early phases are assisted by existing structures and informal mechanism rather than central management.
|
High levels of possible integration and tailoring of research projects with local provider needs.
|
Informal governance is difficult to hold to account.
|
Research questions heavily influenced by local provider concerns. |
Absorptive capacity enabled by increased practitioner involvement in research. |
Strengthening existing ties enables solid basis for legacy to remain once funding for overall initiative ceases. |
Difficult to extend the network beyond certain size when working more informally as this is not centrally managed and more ad hoc; ICTs can help facilitate this. |