Table 1. A typology of CLAHRC enactments.
Formative interpretations and leadership styles | Governance structures | Epistemic base/professional groups involved | Capabilities | Challenges | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Classical (Bluetown) | Research and dissemination model | KT activity focused around a small core set of senior managers. | Clinical-sciences paradigm. NHS facing. | Production of research evidence. | No CLAHRC-wide strategy to support KT. |
KT via dissemination of rigorous high-quality scientific research. | Centralized KT network. | Led by university hospital with strong research reputation. | Management presents a clear CLAHRC vision and strong control over output. | KT efforts localized to particular projects. | |
Teams support local implementation. | |||||
Home-grown (Greentown) | Organizational learning model. | Decentralized KT network. | Clinical-academic paradigm. Academic-facing. | Idea/theory generation. | Confused CLAHRC mission/member roles. |
Purposefully engineers KT mechanisms. | KT activity distributed across the CLAHRC organizational hierarchy. | Led by mental health trust. | Builds research capacity in localities further away from the CLAHRC core. | ||
Imported (Browntown) | Adaptation of Canadian KT model. | Distributed leadership: KT activity focused around a larger core set of senior managers. | Allied-health & nursing paradigm. NHS-facing. | Implementation/applied work. | Professional/disciplinary focus limits ability to draw on high profile clinical-academic research networks. |
Pre-existing hybrid roles of members to encourage natural KT. | Centralized KT network. | Led by a university hospital. | Builds capacity for ‘bottom-up’ engagement with ‘ward-level’ allied-health & nursing healthcare communities. |
CLAHRC: Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care; KT: knowledge translation; NHS: National Health Service.