↓ Skip to main content

“Don’t Mind the Gap!” Reflections on Improvement Science as a Paradigm

Overview of attention for article published in Health Care Analysis, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
“Don’t Mind the Gap!” Reflections on Improvement Science as a Paradigm
Published in
Health Care Analysis, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10728-017-0353-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Trenholme Junghans

Abstract

Responding to this issue's invitation to bring new disciplinary insights to the field of improvement science, this article takes as its starting point one of the field's guiding metaphors: the imperative to "mind the gap". Drawing on insights from anthropology, history, and philosophy, the article reflects on the origins and implications of this metaphoric imperative, and suggests some ways in which it might be in tension with the means and ends of improvement. If the industrial origins of improvement science in the twentieth century inform a metaphor of gaps, chasms, and spaces of misalignment as invariably imperfect and potentially dangerous, and therefore requiring bridging or closure, other currents that feed the discipline of improvement science suggest the potential value and uses of spaces of openness and ambiguity. These currents include the science of complex adaptive systems, and certain precepts of philosophical pragmatism acknowledged to inform improvement science. Going a step further, I reflect on whether or not these two contrasting approaches within improvement science should be treated as incommensurable paradigms, and what each approach tells us about the very possibility of accommodating seemingly irreconcilable or incommensurable approaches within improvement science.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Other 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Design 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 14 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,387,654
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Health Care Analysis
#211
of 301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,325
of 431,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Care Analysis
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 301 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 431,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.