↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge ‘Translation’ as social learning: negotiating the uptake of research-based knowledge in practice

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Knowledge ‘Translation’ as social learning: negotiating the uptake of research-based knowledge in practice
Published in
BMC Medical Education, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0585-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. L. Salter, A. Kothari

Abstract

Knowledge translation and evidence-based practice have relied on research derived from clinical trials, which are considered to be methodologically rigorous. The result is practice recommendations based on a narrow view of evidence. We discuss how, within a practice environment, in fact individuals adopt and apply new evidence derived from multiple sources through ongoing, iterative learning cycles. The discussion is presented in four sections. After elaborating on the multiple forms of evidence used in practice, in section 2 we argue that the practitioner derives contextualized knowledge through reflective practice. Then, in section 3, the focus shifts from the individual to the team with consideration of social learning and theories of practice. In section 4 we discuss the implications of integrative and negotiated knowledge exchange and generation within the practice environment. Namely, how can we promote the use of research within a team-based, contextualized knowledge environment? We suggest support for: 1) collaborative learning environments for active learning and reflection, 2) engaged scholarship approaches so that practice can inform research in a collaborative manner and 3) leveraging authoritative opinion leaders for their clinical expertise during the shared negotiation of knowledge and research. Our approach also points to implications for studying evidence-informed practice: the identification of practice change (as an outcome) ought to be supplemented with understandings of how and when social negotiation processes occur to achieve integrated knowledge. This article discusses practice knowledge as dependent on the practice context and on social learning processes, and suggests how research knowledge uptake might be supported from this vantage point.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 175 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 16%
Student > Master 27 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 15%
Other 12 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 44 25%
Unknown 27 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 43 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 18%
Computer Science 8 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 3%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 35 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 19 September 2019.
All research outputs
#5,403,968
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#812
of 3,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,013
of 297,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#23
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,326 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
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 297,592 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.