Skip to main content
. 2020 Feb 18;18:24. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0536-9

Table 3.

Empirical details about partnership initiation evaluated and reported in each review

Narratives Team initiation Stakeholder engagement IKT partnerships Action research Shared mental models Knowledge transfer
Reference number [37] [33] [32] [9] [36] [31] [43] [35] [44] [8] [30] [39] [41] [38] [42] [40] [34]
Processes
 Defining and describing the problem and research question x x x x x x x x x x
 Setting priorities and/or expectations; conducting needs assessment x x x x x x x x x
 Identifying stakeholders and opportunities to build partnerships (internal and external opportunities) x x x x x
 Creating common goals with common outcomes, objectives, memorandum of understanding, agreement, operating norms x x x x x x x x x x x
 Establishing pre-existing resources that could be used or acquired by the partners to build the project x x x x x x
 Developing risks and benefits of the partnership x
 Considering inequalities in power x x x x
 Establishing communication methods such as evidence briefs, web portals, social media, new tools and technologies x x x x x
 Receiving training and learning x x x x x x
 Applying for funding x x x
 Planning to conduct joint research x x x x x
 Establishing committees, boards, or working groups x
 Creating and transferring of organisational knowledge occurs through processes of conversion (i.e. tacit to formal) and assimilation, and the transfer from individual to collective x
 Mobilising knowledge/change agents x x
 Building organisational structures aligned with strategy and external context x x x x
Enablers
 Sense of ownership of research or output x x x x x x x x
 Commitment to partnership x x x x x x x
 Formal training and development and the acquisition of team members’ knowledge and skills x x x x
 Positive attitude towards listening, learning, adapting and training x x x x x
 Time for team meetings for information sharing by using all-day conference, etc. x x x x
 Multiple and varied opportunities for interaction x
 Phased approach to developing shared language x x
 Support from facilitators, champions, boundary, spanners; advisory board x x x x x x x
 Clear and agreed upon goals, roles, expectations and vision x x x x x x x x x x
 Dedicated funding x x x x
 Pre-existing relationships between researchers and research users x x x
 Policy-makers with a research background and researchers skilled in policy-making x
 Supportive policy framework or network structure/ties for researchers and research users to create knowledge and implementing research results x x x x x x x
 Team members from the community x x x x
 Positive personality of the action researcher x
Barriers
 Time for learning and training, developing relationships, building trust and sustaining intervention x x x x x x x x x
 Performance rewards awarded to individuals rather than groups x
 Performance feedback that mixed individual with group level feedback x
 No understanding and/or differing interpretations of the institutional and federal Institutional Review Board regulations x x x
 Imbalance between rigor of academic preferred research designs and incorporating of community preferences x x x x
 No stakeholder engagement x x x x x
 different needs and priorities x x x x x
 No skill in understanding of partnership process x x
 Negative attitude about researchers or the value of research x x x x
 Goals, roles and expectations were not clear x x x x x x
 No incentives to participate x x
 No funding or infrastructure of partnership x x x x x x
 Little continuity of involvement due to staff turnover x x x
 Limited interaction due to geographic distance x x
 Community resistance x x
 Issues of power x x x x x x
 Conflict of interest x x
 Negative personality of the action researcher x
 No guidance of initiation of partnerships in literature x x x x x
Outcomes
 Empowerment of research users x x x x x x
 Develop research questions x x x x
 Develop a clear understanding of the expectations of different partners x x x
 If research users understand research, they grow to value it, it is more relevant and easier to disseminate and implement, aids in the translation and interpretation of findings which increases actionability x x x x x x x x x
 Enhanced mutual understanding of process, including language, work style, needs and constraints, research x x x
 Strengthened relationship, trust and goodwill x x x x x
 Emergence of community leaders x
 Agenda building x x x x
 Builds strengths and resources within the community x x x x x
 Increase trust and respect, minimise fear x x x x x x x
 Compliance and accountability x x x x x x x