Dancing the two-step: Collaborating with intermediary organizations as research partners to help implement workplace health and safety interventions.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of the involvement of intermediaries who were research partners on three intervention studies. The projects crossed four sectors: manufacturing, transportation, service sector, and electrical-utilities sectors. The interventions were participative ergonomic programs. The study attempts to further our understanding of collaborative workplace-based research between researchers and intermediary organizations; to analyze this collaboration in terms of knowledge transfer; and to further our understanding of the successes and challenges with such a process. PARTICIPANTS The intermediary organizations were provincial health and safety associations (HSAs). They have workplaces as their clients and acted as direct links between the researchers and workplaces. METHODS Data was collected from observations, emails, research-meeting minutes, and 36 qualitative interviews. Interviewees were managers, and consultants from the collaborating associations, 17 company representatives and seven researchers. RESULTS The article describes how the collaborations were created, the structure of the partnerships, the difficulties, the benefits, and challenges to both the researchers and intermediaries. The evidence of knowledge utilization between the researchers and HSAs was tracked as a proxy-measure of impact of this collaborative method, also called Mode 2 research. CONCLUSION Despite the difficulties, both the researchers and the health and safety specialists agreed that the results of the research made the process worthwhile.

[1]  M. Gibbons,et al.  Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty , 2003 .

[2]  C. Weiss.  The many meanings of research utilization. , 1979 .

[3]  Richard P. Wells,et al.  Achieving Buy-In , 2005 .

[4]  Lynn Shaw,et al.  Renewing focus and building capacity for enacting authentic collaboration in work rehabilitation. , 2008, Work.

[5]  Jeremy M. Grimshaw,et al.  Changing Provider Behavior: An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2001, Medical care.

[6]  Nathan Caplan,et al.  The Two-Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilization , 1979 .

[7]  Erik Johnston,et al.  The Influence of Collaboration on Program Outcomes , 2008, Evaluation review.

[8]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Realist synthesis - an introduction , 2004 .

[9]  Jan Dul,et al.  Case Study Methodology in Business Research , 2007 .

[10]  Michael Huberman,et al.  Linkage Between Researchers and Practitioners: A Qualitative Study , 1990 .

[11]  Lynn Shaw,et al.  Moving toward virtual interdisciplinary teams and a multi-stakeholder approach in community-based return-to-work care. , 2008, Work.

[12]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Qualitative Analysis For Social Scientists , 1987 .

[13]  Thomas A. Schwandt,et al.  Judging interpretations: But is it rigorous? trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation , 2007 .

[14]  H. Davies,et al.  Increasing research impact through partnerships: Evidence from outside health care , 2003, Journal of health services research & policy.

[15]  Nick Tilley,et al.  Realistic evaluation bloodlines , 2001 .

[16]  Bryan G. Cook,et al.  Utilizing research in professional practice. , 2006, Work.

[17]  Lucinda Dale.  Partnering with management to implement ergonomics in the industrial setting. , 2004, Work.

[18]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[19]  I. Sanderson.  Getting Evidence into Practice , 2004 .

[20]  Daniel L. Stufflebeam,et al.  The Metaevaluation Imperative , 2001 .

[21]  J. Lomas,et al.  From evidence to practice in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. , 1993, The Milbank quarterly.

[22]  J. M. Beyer,et al.  The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings. , 1982 .

[23]  R. Stake,et al.  Situational evaluation of teaching on campus , 2000 .

[24]  C. Adair,et al.  Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. , 2007, The Milbank quarterly.

[25]  Egon G. Guba,et al.  What Have We Learned About Naturalistic Evaluation , 1987 .

[26]  Jaime Guzman,et al.  Decreasing occupational injury and disability: the convergence of systems theory, knowledge transfer and action research. , 2008, Work.

[27]  Michael Huberman,et al.  Knowledge dissemination and use in science and mathematics education: A literature review , 1994 .

[28]  Thomas A. Schwandt,et al.  Judging interpretations: But is it rigorous? trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation , 2007 .

[29]  N. Tilley,et al.  Whither (European) evaluation methodology? , 1995 .

[30]  Michael Gibbons,et al.  Introduction: `Mode 2' Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge , 2003 .

[31]  Thomas Llewelyn Webb,et al.  What Factors Predict Scientists' Intentions to Participate in Public Engagement of Science Activities? , 2007 .

[32]  Donald C. Cole,et al.  Sustained, Intensive Engagement to Promote Health and Safety Knowledge Transfer to and Utilization by Workplaces , 2003 .

[33]  D. Cole,et al.  Doing Knowledge Transfer: Engaging Management and Labor with Research on Employee Health and Safety , 2004 .

[34]  Andrew C Laing,et al.  Methodological issues in evaluating workplace interventions to reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders through mechanical exposure reduction. , 2003, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[35]  Matthias Wingens,et al.  Toward a General Utilization Theory , 1990 .

[36]  Douglas R. Wilson,et al.  Square Pegs in Round Holes , 2007 .