Moving Knowledge into Action Through Communities of Practice: Multiple Case Studies of Successful System Change to Improve the Health of Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This monograph reports the results of a three-year multiple case study of nine knowledge-to-action (KTA) initiatives mobilized in communities of practice (C0Ps) operating in Ontario's seniors' health system. A multiple case study design was used to conduct nine case studies through a combination of case study and ethnographic methods. Deductive analytical methods were used to answer two broad research questions about the KTA processes mobilized through the CoPs, and about the roles played by CoP members and other stakeholders. Inductive analytical methods were used to reveal the patterns of interaction characteristic of the CoPs. These CoPs acted as flexible and temporary social forms with specific characteristics and processes allowing them to integrate explicit and tacit knowledge to resolve the unique contextual challenges of health practices. Our findings suggest that these CoPs often developed a double-loop learning process that is well suited to responding to adaptive challenges and wicked problems. Conclusions from this qualitative study are not generalizable to all situations and contexts. Findings suggest that the concept of "knowledge-to-action" be supplemented by a concept of "action-to-knowledge" that recognizes that important initiatives are often incubated in the action of health care delivery when dedicated professionals come together to tackle intractable issues. This is the first multiple case study of CoPs in the Canadian health system. The study shows that CoPs can act as the junction for the rational epistemology of science and the narrative epistemology of practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".