Toward a communicative perspective of collaborating in research: The case of the researcher-decision-maker partnership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the shift to a post-industrial order, the production and use of knowledge is gaining greater importance in a world beyond science. Particularly in the health sciences, research foundations are emphasising the importance of translating research results into practice and are experimenting with various strategies to achieve this outcome, including requiring practitioners to become part of funded research teams. In this paper, we present a case of a partnership between researchers and decision-makers in Canada who collaborated on an investigation of implementing change in health care organisations. Grounded in this case and recent empirical work, we propose that such research collaborations can be best understood from a communicative perspective and as involving four key elements: relational stance that researchers and decision-makers assume toward each other; purpose at hand that situates occasions for developing and using knowledge; knowledge-sharing practices for translating knowledge; and forums in which researchers and practitioners access knowledge. Our analyses suggest that partnerships are most effective when researchers see the value of contextualising their work and decision-makers see how this work can help them accomplish their purpose at hand.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.103 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.061 | 0.136 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.041 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".