Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Kirsten Kainz x
Clear All Modify Search

Despite increasing use of implementation frameworks, research evidence indicates that the uptake of evidence-based practice is minimally realised. Reasons for the lack of up-take may be: 1) lack of fit between evidence-based interventions and local contexts; 2) lack of knowledge of how and when to adapt an evidence-based intervention to promote effective practice in local contexts; and 3) a frequently used implementation research agenda that limits new insights to achieve effective practice. In response to these concerns we propose an embedded, integrated research agenda motivated with causal thinking for knowledge of when and how to adapt interventions and implementation to achieve effective practice.

Restricted access

The language of co-creation has become popular with policy makers, researchers and consultants wanting to support evidence-based change. However, there is little agreement about what features a research or consultancy project must have for peers to recognise the project as co-creative, and therefore for it to contribute to the growing body of practice and theory under that heading. This means that scholars and practitioners do not have a shared basis for critical reflection, improving practice and debating ethics, legitimacy and quality. While seeking to avoid any premature defining of orthodoxy, this article offers a framework to support researchers and practitioners in discussing the boundaries and the features that are beginning to characterise a particular discourse, such as the one that is unfolding around the concept of co-creation. The paper is the outcome of an online and face-to-face dialogue among an international group of scholars. The dialogue draws on Critical Systems Heuristics’ () questions concerning motivation (revealing assumptions about its purpose and value), power (interrogating assumptions about who has control and is therefore able to define success), knowledge (surfacing assumptions about experience and expertise) and legitimacy (disclosing moral assumptions). The paper ends by suggesting important areas for further exploration to contribute to the emerging discourse of co-creation in ways that support critical reflection, improved practice, and provide a basis for debating ethics and quality.

Open access