|
Helpful Organizational Features
of a Community-Linked Research Unit: A Qualitative Study
|
|
Gillian King, PhD
Research Program Director
Thames Valley Children’s Centre
|
Mary Law, PhD,
OT Reg(ONT)
Co-Director
CanChild
Centre for Childhood Disability Research
|
Peter Rosenbaum,
MD, FRCP(C)
Co-Director
CanChild
Centre for Childhood Disability Research
|
Melissa Currie, MA
Thames Valley Children’s Centre
|
Nancy Plews,
MSc
Policy, Research, and Operations Manager
School of Rehabilitation Science
McMaster University
CanChild
Centre for Childhood Disability Research
|
Dianne Russell, MSc
Associate Professor
School of Rehabilitation Science
McMaster University
Research Coordinator
CanChild
Centre for Childhood Disability Research
|
Susanne King,
MSc
Research Coordinator
Offord Centre
McMaster University
|
Cheryl Missiuna,
PhD,
OT Reg(ONT)
Associate Professor
School of Rehabilitation Science
McMaster University
Investigator
CanChild
Centre for Childhood Disability Research
|
Stephen D. Walter,
PhD
Professor
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics
|McMaster University
CanChild
Centre for Childhood Disability Research
|
|
Correspondence:
Gillian King, PhD
Research Program Director
Thames Valley Children’s Centre
779 Base Line Road East
London, Ontario, Canada N6C 5Y6
gilliank@tvcc.on.ca
Citation:
King, G., Law, M.,
Rosenbaum, R.,
Currie, M.,
Plews,
M., Russell, D., Missiuna, C., Walter, S.
Helpful organizational features of a
community-linked research unit: A qualitative study. The Internet
Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice. July 2005. Volume 3 Number
3.
|
Abstract
There is a growing number of
research units and alliances whose purpose is to link researchers and
community partner groups. Little has been published about the benefits
of these research organizations, the characteristics that assist them
to function, and how they evolve over time. This article describes the
findings of a survey of 13 investigators and research coordinators
from CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research, a
multidisciplinary research unit founded in 1989. The article describes
this group’s perceptions of CanChild as an organization, including
major helpful factors, lessons learned, and changes over time to the
Centre’s approach to research. The purpose of this paper is to provide
information to researchers, managers, and funders about the benefits
of community-linked research units. The study themes, revealed through
qualitative methods, indicate the importance of three overarching
aspects that summarize helpful organizational factors of a
community-linked research unit: awareness of environmental context,
strong commitment of team members, and an emphasis on internal and
external communication activities. The findings demonstrate the
collaborative advantages of community-linked research partnerships
with respect to the cross-pollination of ideas and approaches,
sophistication in conceptualization of research studies, smoother
coordination of activities, and the development of innovative concepts
and products. |
|
Keywords and terms:
rehabilitation, childhood disability, effectiveness, qualitative,
research unit |
Introduction
Increasingly,
research addressing social or health issues is being conducted by research
units and alliances linked to community partners, which are often
multidisciplinary in nature.1,2
Research units are single entities whereas research alliances bring together
groups that share resources and expertise.3,4
Despite different structural models, these
organizations have common functions. They are engaged in knowledge
generation, knowledge sharing, and the development of research knowledge and
skill in target audiences such as university students and service providers.5,6
The presumed benefits of research
organizations include enhanced research productivity, greater innovation and
interdisciplinary synthesis, and more effective knowledge transfer to the
targeted community partner, resulting in positive influences on communities,
systems, and policies.7,8
Given the proliferation of research partnerships1 and the
increasing availability of funding for these endeavours,
it is surprising that little evidence exists for their presumed benefits.5,9
Articles have examined the group functioning of collaborative research teams
rather than organizations.10,11
Nanna et al.
have written a commentary on the planning and development of
clinical research units focusing on rehabilitation medicine.7
They consider the benefits of these units to be increased productivity,
financial support for experienced research personnel, and the education of
novice researchers. To our knowledge, studies have not addressed the
organizational characteristics or benefits of research units linked to a
community partner.
CanChild
Centre for Childhood Disability Research,
based at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, has been funded by the
Ontario Ministry of Health since 1989, the beginning of their health-system
linked research unit program. Researchers who visit CanChild have
encouraged us to share our insights. This information may be useful to other
research organizations, funders of collaborative research initiatives, and
health or social service managers with an interest in organizational
performance.
The literature on organizational behavior
provides a useful context in which to consider the functioning and benefits
of research organizations. This literature outlines the factors influencing
organizational effectiveness, including the degree to which values are
shared among team members, members’ motivation and commitment, and shared
organizational vision.13,14
According to Marson, innovation and commitment
flourish in organizations that promote a commitment to quality, recognize
performance, have people-centered management styles, and have visions that
motivate people.15
Rainey provides a useful Framework for
Organizational Analysis, which outlines 10 major types of characteristics
that can be used to analyze any organization.16 These
characteristics are environments, tasks/technology, goals/values,
leadership/strategy, culture, structures, processes, incentives, people, and
organizational performance/effectiveness.
It also is important to consider the change or evolution of organizations.
Research on organizational life cycles has identified four stages of
organizational development.17 In the entrepreneurial stage,
members marshal resources and establish the organization’s viability. In the
collectivity stage, members develop high cohesion and commitment. In the
formalization stage, there is more control over how the team operates. In
the elaboration stage, an organization seeks new ways to adapt, renew
itself, and expand its domain.
This article describes the findings of a survey of 13 investigators and
research coordinators from CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability
Research. The article describes this group’s perceptions of CanChild
as an organization, including major helpful factors, lessons learned, and
changes over time to the Centre’s approach to research. The intent was
not to provide concrete examples of meeting frequency or details of the
roles and responsibilities of team members; rather, the intent was to
provide a broader perspective with respect to important conceptual features
of research units. We begin, however, by describing the overall structure,
mission, and research themes of CanChild, to provide tangible
background information.
Description
of
CanChild
Structure
CanChild is a multidisciplinary team of researchers from occupational
therapy, physical therapy, speech-language pathology, pediatric medicine,
psychology, epidemiology, and biostatistics. The Centre is affiliated with
the School of Rehabilitation Science at McMaster University, sponsored by
McMaster University and the Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, and
formally partnered with the Ontario Association of Children’s Rehabilitation
Services (OACRS), which consists of 19 publicly-funded children’s
rehabilitation centres
in the province of Ontario, Canada. CanChild conducts research
relevant to service provision in these
centres,
shares findings with them, and supports the development of research skills
and evidence-based practice. The OACRS centres support CanChild
through advice, consultation, and access to clients, families, and service
providers.
Infrastructure support from the Ontario Ministry of Health supports
corporate endeavors, salaries for core staff, the development of research
studies, and dissemination and research education activities. The Centre’s
research is, for the most part, funded externally. Between 1989 and 2002,
investigators and collaborators held 91 externally-funded grants totaling
over $17 million Canadian. Between 1989 and 2002, largely through external
grant funding, the total staff grew from 6 to 36 people, including
researchers, project-supported research personnel, and business and
administrative staff.
Team meetings of investigators and core research support staff are held
every four to six weeks. These team meetings involve information sharing,
project updates, and presentations on topics of interest, designed to create
a learning environment. Strategic planning takes place at yearly retreats.
Ongoing committees focus on communication issues (i.e., external
dissemination, website maintenance) and on internal resource issues (e.g.,
computer maintenance, hiring, identification of needed resources, resource
allocation). Project teams, which are multidisciplinary in nature, meet on a
regularly scheduled basis to implement projects funded by external research
grants.
Mission
CanChild’s mission is to maximize the
participation and quality of life of children and youth with disabilities
and their families by (a) conducting research on childhood disability, (b)
transferring research information and findings into practice, and (c)
providing educational opportunities for students, service providers,
consumers, and policy makers. Knowledge transfer is accomplished through
journal articles, workshops, presentations, project reports, and
easy-to-read summaries, which are distributed to partner groups by mailings
and are available more widely via CanChild’s website (www.fhs.mcmaster/canchild).
Summaries and reports explicitly state the implications of research findings
for service delivery at the organizational and health system levels.
Research Themes
CanChild has four major research themes: (1) measurement and
description, (2) the evaluation of interventions, services, and programs for
children and families, (3) the life experiences of children and youth with
disabilities, and (4) the effectiveness of methods of knowledge transfer.
Within each theme area, there have been a number of ongoing research
programs. These research programs consist of a series of studies that add
pieces of knowledge to an overarching issue, and are rich in offshoots such
as the development of measures. The research on children’s motor development
typifies the sequence of activity that has occurred. A psychometrically
sound measure (the Gross Motor Function Measure; GMFM) was developed to
answer basic descriptive and evaluative questions, and then used with
various populations of children.18-20 Various offshoots to the
main research questions occurred, resulting in the development of the Gross
Motor Performance Measure (GMPM), the Gross Motor Function Classification
System (GMFCS), the GMFM-66, and several multi-media self-instructional
training materials.21-26
Research
impact
Buxton and Hanney’s “payback” model has been useful in assisting
CanChild to document research outputs, applications, and outcomes.27
Outputs refer to direct contributions to knowledge, such as published papers
or products, and to multimedia self-training tools, such as manuals, videos
and CD-ROMs. The next level of research impact is the actual application of
the ideas, findings, and materials by service providers, managers, and
policy makers. Outcomes refer to impact on the efficiency or effectiveness
of health services and on client satisfaction.
In 1992 and 1996, CanChild conducted
province-wide surveys to examine the impact of its activities on the
delivery of health services in the OACRS centres.28,29 The 1996
survey showed that the impact of CanChild’s work had increased since
1992. Service providers’ interest in research had almost doubled (from 39 to
67%) and 26% of respondents had been involved in research activities with
the Centre. Many information materials were being read by over 40% of
respondents and these were considered useful by over 90% of readers.
Approximately 40% of service providers reported that these materials had
influenced the following four areas of clinical practice: (1) how the
results of clinical assessments or re-evaluations of children were
communicated to families; (2) the extent to which families were involved in
decision making; (3) the use of outcome measures; and (4) the evaluation of
interventions. The CEOs of the OACRS centres stated that they were most
pleased with the development and adoption of family-centred service
philosophy and guidelines; the use of outcome measures; improvements to
clinical practice; and the enhanced credibility of the OACRS organization
with policy makers.
Objectives of the Qualitative Study
The objectives of the study were to
determine: (1) the benefits of a community-linked research unit, (2) the
organizational characteristics (i.e., values, approaches, and ways of
interacting) that team members felt were important aspects of the unit’s
structure and function, and (3) the ways in which the research unit had
evolved over a 13 year time span.
The findings
are based on information supplied by investigators, associate members, and
research coordinators (for CanChild as a whole or for particular
projects). Members of these groups play major roles in important
organizational activities, including strategic direction, the
conceptualization and implementation of research studies, and knowledge
sharing. Investigators lead or serve as co-investigators on projects,
contribute to the strategic direction and administration of the Centre, and
write dissemination materials. Associate members collaborate on projects and
contribute to written materials. Coordinators have both administrative and
research-related responsibilities. These groups were considered to have the
most insight into helpful organizational factors on the “big picture” level.
Method
Description of the Survey
The
survey consisted of instructions, open-ended questions, and a background
information section asking people to indicate the length of time they had
been a member of CanChild (to the nearest half year) and their role
with the unit. Respondents were asked to think back over the time they had
been involved with the Centre and to answer five questions about its
benefits, characteristics, and evolution (Table 1). Interviews were not used
due to the costs involved in interviewing and transcription. Analysis of
written documents, including open-ended surveys, is a commonly-used
qualitative technique.30
The survey instructions indicated that
responses would be analyzed qualitatively by a research assistant not
affiliated with CanChild who would ensure their anonymity. They were
also informed that selected quotes would be included in a journal article.
Table 1: Survey Questions
|
(1)
What
do you treasure most (if anything) about CanChild?
(2)
What
has been achieved through CanChild? These can be benefits on
the personal level, the professional level, the unit level, or the
inter-organizational level (i.e., our association with OACRS).
(3)
Please describe three lessons you have learned from your experiences
with CanChild that would provide useful, practical advice for
people wanting to start up a similar type of health system-linked
research unit (this advice can consist of both “do’s” and “don’ts”).
(4) What
do you think makes CanChild work and what hinders it (in other
words, what factors, aspects, or strategies serve to make CanChild
a successful health system-linked research unit and what aspects could
be improved)?
(5)
Looking back over the years, please think about the ways in which
CanChild as a unit has changed or grown. In your view, what have
been the major “cross-roads” or “turning points” (issues, times,
events, and/or realizations) encountered or experienced by CanChild?
These can be both good and bad times. Please describe one or two of
these most important experiences. |
Participants
Thirty-four individuals (investigators,
associate members, coordinators, and support staff members), who were
members or staff at the time or in the recent past, were emailed a cover
letter describing the project and asking them to complete the survey. They
were asked to fill in their responses in the body of an attached file.
Responses were sent to the external research assistant by email or by
anonymously mailing a disc containing the file.
The overall response rate was 44% (15 completed surveys out of a possible
34). Due to the low response rate from research and administrative support
staff (13%), only responses from the investigators, associate members, and
coordinators were included in the analysis. We do not know whether the low
response from support staff was due to a strike at McMaster University in
which they were involved around the time of the survey, negative perceptions
of CanChild, whether they found the questions to be irrelevant or
difficult to answer, or lack of time.
The overall response rate for the investigators, associate members, and
coordinators was 68% (13 completed surveys of a possible 19). The response
rate for the investigator/associate member group was 67% (8 completed
surveys). On average, respondents in this group had been members of the
Centre for 8.5 years. The response rate for the coordinator group was 71% (5
completed surveys). Their average length of involvement, as salaried staff,
was 8.4 years.
Qualitative Analysis
An inductive analysis process was used to allow relationships and
themes to emerge from the data.31 The research assistant, who was
experienced in qualitative analysis, transferred all responses into
Ethnograph,
a software package that facilitates the sorting of text into categories for
analysis.32 The research assistant removed identifying
information from the transcripts and then conducted open coding, which
develops initial categories of data.33 To protect the identities
of the respondents, neither full transcripts nor responses in their entirety
were shared with other members of the project group. Members of the group
had access only to data already arranged according to the preliminary coding
scheme.
The research assistant and first author discussed codes to reach consensus
and the codes were then shared with the rest of the research group. Group
discussions were conducted to perform both axial coding (organizing codes
into themes) and selective coding, where quotes illustrating the themes are
selected.33 Themes were generated to reflect the data.
Near the end of coding we realized the fit between the generated themes and
Rainey’s framework for organizational analysis, which specifies the major
types of characteristics of all organizations.16 We present the
study themes according to Rainey’s framework, but it should be noted that
the themes were generated inductively and grouped after the fact into
Rainey’s categories.
Member checking is used in qualitative research to establish the credibility
of findings by checking their interpretation with respondents.34
Since seven members of the research group also were respondents, member
checking occurred throughout the analysis process with approximately 50% of
the respondents (7 out of 13 individuals). Member checking often involves
only a subset of participants.34
Results
Figure 1 presents Rainey’s framework which
outlines the major features of all types of organizations, revised in minor
ways to reflect the themes that emerged.16 The figure lists the
study themes falling under each category. This figure shows that many of the
themes, which pertain to characteristics of a research organization, reflect
common features of all organizations. The figure also illustrates the
relative importance of “Culture and People” by showing the large number of
themes falling in these two categories.
The major difference from Rainey’s framework is the addition of two
categories titled “External Partnerships” and “Research Content or
Approach.” Rainey’s model focuses on the internal characteristics of
organizations, whereas community-linked research units such as CanChild
operate within a broader context of linkages, accountability, and
partnership. Three categories from Rainey’s model (i.e.,
tasks/technology, leadership/strategy, and incentives) were dropped because
they were not reflected in the themes. Figure 1 illustrates that
environmental context is a feature surrounding all the other aspects of
organizational analysis. People are located in the middle of the figure to
illustrate the importance of this element in the themes.
Figure 1:
Qualitative Themes Mapped on to Rainey’s Framework for Organizational
Analysis
In the following table, the characteristics
of organizations are described more fully and quotes are used to illustrate
the themes. The material is presented according to an ecological, top-down
framework, flowing from environmental context to external partnerships,
culture, structures, processes, and people, and ending with a consideration
of research content or approach, and organizational effectiveness.
Table 2: Categories of Organizational
Features, Related Study Themes, and Relevant Quotes
|
Main Category |
Sub-category |
Study Theme
|
Relevant Quotes |
|
Environmental Context
(the economic,
demographic, cultural, and legal conditions that influence
organizations)16 |
|
Importance of financial
infrastructure |
· [What
I treasure most is the] infrastructure to support development and
implementation of projects.
Having this existing CanChild structure makes writing and
submitting grants and project startup go like clockwork compared to the
average researcher’s situation.
· I
believe that good research comes from good planning up front—and when a
research unit is funded year-to-year, it makes it very difficult to plan
for the future and be proactive.
·
I think the
uncertainty of our future…has made people even more appreciative of what
we have. It has also forced us to reevaluate and take on new challenges,
and broaden our mission and focus. |
|
External Partnerships |
|
Importance of external
partnerships |
· The
relationship between OACRS and CanChild has been a‘win-win’ type
of situation, with each benefiting from the support and efforts of the
other.
[We have learned] the value of consumer involvement in the research
process. |
|
Culture
(underlying assumptions, shared values, and behavioral expectations)
35,36,37 |
Shared Goals & Values |
Having a common goal or
vision (“making a difference”) |
[I treasure] the sense of
a united purpose.
[I treasure] the spirit of collaboration—working together toward a
common goal. |
|
Valuing clinically
grounded research |
·
Focus on
projects that are relevant to children, families, and service providers.
·
Focus on
making research ‘useable’ to all stakeholders. |
|
Valuing multidisciplinary
collaboration or teamwork |
·
It’s all
about teamwork (establishing roles, multidisciplinary contributors,
sharing workload).
·
[What I
treasure most is the] multidisciplinary nature of the unit—people
bringing unique perspectives to shared issues.
·
I have
learned the importance of partnership and teamwork…the importance of
selecting team members who have the requisite complementary research
skills and interests (so that all aspects of solid research—including
conceptualization, operationalization, implementation, and
interpretation—get covered extremely well). CanChild members also
have strong interpersonal skills and a commitment to group goals, both
of which are extremely important for a group that desires longevity. |
|
Importance of mutual
trust & respect/support |
·
[What I
treasure most is] the collaborative and supportive research
culture—everyone works together to achieve their individual research
objectives, and it’s the working together that leads to success. |
|
Valuing a learning or
“capacity building” culture |
·
[What I
treasure most is] the opportunity for growth and skill
development—investing in people for the long term.
·
CanChild
has created a research infrastructure that is ‘capacity building’ in the
sense of coaching and developing the skills of all its members. |
|
Friendly climate
|
·
[I
treasure] the great ambiance.
·
[I
treasure] the humor people bring to their work.
·
[I
treasure] the open and friendly investigators and staff.
·
[What I
treasure most is the] collegiality: the project teams and CanChild
as a whole operate in a cooperative rather than competitive fashion.
There are no struggles for power. |
|
Structures
(relatively stable
divisions of responsibility within an organization that include the
specialization of individuals and groups, hierarchies of authority, and
rules and regulations)16 |
Specialization or
Division of Responsibility |
Importance of a strong
foundation of support people |
·
Have a
consistent, strong foundation (infrastructure) of support people who
learn the ins and outs of research, to fully support the investigators.
·
Build in
enough administrative support in terms of managing schedules, recording
and disseminating minutes, planning agendas, coordinating grant
applications and manuscripts...etc. This level of support allows
investigators to channel energies to the creative aspects, knowing that
the foundation is being supported by competent staff. |
|
Hierarchy or
Centralization |
Non-hierarchical approach |
·
The
atmosphere and culture of the Centre are such that it is okay not to
know, and to ask, and to be taught by others in a remarkably
non-hierarchical way. |
|
Formalization or Rules &
Regulations |
Need to clarify roles and
expectations |
·
It is very
important to clarify roles and expectations of all people involved with
a unit or centre, and to continue to do this over time.
·
[I have
learned] the importance of having an appropriate amount of
organizational structure, which includes things like clear expectations
and ground rules for behavior. In the early years, CanChild
struggled a bit with establishing ground rules (e.g., the importance of
not revisiting decisions once they are made, the importance of deciding
on authorship…early on in the development of a research project).
CanChild has a fairly loose organizational structure…there are not
always clear expectations for levels of involvement. This creates some
disparity among team members, which sometimes creates tensions. |
|
Processes
(ways of operating that
help people coordinate their work with one another, including decision
making, communication, and change or innovation)16
|
Decision Making |
Improving decision making
or team functioning |
·
[The
retreat day] allowed us to look at our structure and put into place
several things which improved our team functioning (e.g., committee
structures, ground rules for meetings, building on the strengths of
different team members). |
|
Tackling issues |
·
As a group,
we are aware of when the changes and challenges seem too much, and make
active efforts to talk about these tensions and issues.
·
We are not
afraid to tackle issues or problems when they arise. |
|
Communications |
Importance of
communication (external & internal) |
·
The
communication of research findings to maximize their influence on policy
and practice is a formidable challenge.
·
The
importance of good communication and considering the needs of various
audiences has been a valuable lesson.
·
[We need]
better internal communication at all levels. It is important to keep up
on people’s interests, studies, activities. Sharing information among
support staff is not always done or done in an efficient manner.
|
|
Change or Innovation |
Encouraging growth in all
team members |
·
Related to
staffing and communication is an issue about encouraging growth among
staff including secretaries, research clerks, research assistants, and
research coordinators. More thought and effort could be put into
searching out, discussing and supporting developmental opportunities for
staff. |
|
People
(group cohesion and team
members’ values, motivation, and organizational commitment)
|
Group Cohesion |
Importance of
relationships |
·
[I
treasure] the friendships—the daily opportunities to work closely with
people I like and respect very much as friends as well as colleagues in
their professional roles. …This experience is unlike most other places I
have worked.
·
I have
watched CanChild evolve into a cohesive team. Despite having so
many researchers involved, from a variety of backgrounds, everyone works
well together while contributing something unique to the Centre. |
|
The whole is greater than
the sum of the parts |
·
Everyone…is
part of the greater whole and contributes to making a difference for
children with disabilities and their families.
·
CanChild
has provided me the opportunity to work with others who share similar
research interests and become involved in projects whose scope and
impact are greater than I could accomplish as an individual. |
|
Trust among team members |
·
The people
with whom I work are people I can trust to be open and honest about
issues. |
|
Individual Level
|
Striving for excellence
(high expectations) |
·
This
atmosphere of not wanting to let others down spurs people on to do their
best and to meet deadlines.
·
At one time
or another, all of us seem to have experienced the sense of doing far
too much and needing to back away from commitments.
·
Lower
expectations might be a good thing…people tend to set the bar for
accomplishment too high. We tend to overextend our people resources and
work to extremely tight timelines, which takes its toll. We need to be
better at matching all our resources (including people’s time) to our
research goals. |
|
Valuing multidisciplinary
skills and perspectives (complementarity & diversity) |
·
The
complementarity among us…is one of our strengths, since we bring an
unusual mixture of skills and styles to the action, and are enriched by
our diversity.
·
[We need]
to continue to broaden our team to include some people with very
different backgrounds and perspectives. I find we can get a bit insular
in our thinking and have a tendency to think we know it all or have the
best answer no matter what the issue. |
|
Motivation |
Feeling part of
meaningful work |
·
[We have] a
great sense of accomplishment and productivity while still having fun.
·
[I like]
the feeling that you are part of work that is meaningful and
internationally important. |
|
Opportunity to learn and
grow |
·
Because
CanChild is a multidisciplinary team, and has a supportive
environment, I have been fortunate to learn on levels and grow in ways
that I’m certain would not be provided in other research endeavors I
might have pursued. |
|
Job Satisfaction |
Feeling recognized and
valued |
·
[This is
an] environment where everyone…is valued and recognized. |
|
Latitude for personal
choices or flexibility |
·
Fluctuations in involvement and disengagement are taken in stride, seen
to be the norm, and are respected and understood by others.
·
[An]
‘implicit’ strategy that has worked well…is that people, for the most
part, ‘decide’ what they want to be involved with.…CanChild seems
to know how to successfully motivate its team members. |
|
Organizational Commitment
|
Commitment to
CanChild |
·
[What helps
the Centre is] the utter commitment of many of its members and the
reciprocal ‘working together’ that takes place
·
[What helps
the Centre] is the ability of all of these ‘strong’ individuals to work
collaboratively together with a commitment that is not seen everywhere. |
|
Research Content or
Approach |
|
Programmatic and planned
research (depth, breadth & sophistication) |
·
Developing
‘programs’ of research and not simply projects—has enabled us to
build…bodies of work that enrich our understanding of issues much more
than is usually possible with a single study.
·
[A turning
point for CanChild was] the realization that we needed to think
programmatically and not just about projects and individual studies. As
this shift took root I believe that we began to think differently about
all the things we did…we started to look at issues in different, and I
think bigger, ‘units.’ We became more aware of the ‘context’ of what we
were thinking about and wanting to do.
·
Anything is
achievable over time. One can start small. The important thing is to
build—ideas; people’s skills, experience, and expertise; and resources.
This is the idea of having a vision or ultimate goal and then just
working towards that bit by bit. Bigger impacts are only achievable when
one has a long-range vision in mind. |
|
Broad outlook |
·
Our
mission, our partners, and the focus of our research have all broadened.
·
There also
has been tremendous growth in how we think about issues, the breadth of
issues we are willing to tackle, and in the sophistication and scope of
our research studies.
·
It is the
marriage of the conceptual and the practical or applied that I feel
distinguishes our work, and guides how we move ahead. |
|
Responsive to a variety
of audiences (tailored communication) |
·
When we
started as a unit, our approach to dissemination was to write scientific
articles and research reports and send them off to the centres. Over
time, we began to share our results with participants, and this led us
to different and better ways to communicate findings and research
information. We became more aware of the needs of our audiences. |
|
Organizational
Effectiveness |
|
Recognition of
CanChild’s impact |
·
We are
accumulating evidence that our work…[is] making a difference—to the way
people think, and practice, and do research, and measure their outcomes.
·
Our
tallying of impact…has allowed us to capture where we are making a
difference.
·
[There is]
international recognition of [our] work—evidenced by the increasing
request to ‘visit’ from around the globe. |
|
Discussion
The study themes provided rich information about the helpful organizational
features, benefits, and evolution of a research unit. Not surprisingly, the
themes reflected the characteristics of all organizations with the exception
of themes about external partnerships and research approach, which appear to
be unique to community-linked research units.16 This discussion
considers three overarching aspects that encapsulate the helpful
organizational features reflected in the themes—awareness of context, strong
commitment, and good communication. The discussion also considers changes in
CanChild’s
directions, processes, and scope over time,
and outlines the unique benefits of research units that are linked to
community partners.
First, however, the limitations of the study
methodology need to be acknowledged. The participants were investigators,
associate members, and research coordinators, who together have primary
responsibility for planning, management, implementation of research studies,
and dissemination activities. Members of such a group likely will have
different perceptions from support staff members. Furthermore, participants
may have been biased to present positive aspects of CanChild due to
awareness that quotes would be made public, although we attempted to guard
against this by protecting their anonymity. We also attempted to guard
against bias by having a non-CanChild member responsible for the
interpretation and extraction of study themes, although the authors also
were involved in this process. The 68% participation rate of investigators,
associate members, and coordinators is somewhat low; we do not know,
however, whether the nature or breadth of the study themes would have
changed with more respondents.
The themes may not provide a full picture with respect to the tensions and
issues faced by the unit but they indicate the importance of paying
attention to particular organizational features and therefore provide
information that may assist other research groups. The themes and quotes
also provide a picture of what a research unit should try not do, including
trying to do too much, setting expectations too high, and ignoring issues
dealing with internal communication and staff development.
Context
The themes
revealed the importance of two types of context: external context (themes
titled Importance of External Partnerships, and Importance of Financial
Infrastructure) and the context of research inquiry (Programmatic and
Planned Research, Broad Outlook, and Responsive to a Variety of Audiences).
Organizations that are aware of their environmental context are considered
to be at an advantage.39
Research units require support from other
groups and organizations. The themes indicated the importance of recognizing
what external partners contribute to the enterprise. This is especially true
for a community-linked research unit such as
CanChild,
which relies on its community partner (OACRS) for information about
important current issues in order to conduct clinically grounded research.
Community organizations provide an important feedback loop that helps
community-linked research units improve their knowledge sharing efforts by
ensuring that research is relevant.
The context for research inquiry is important because it informs the
development of research programs. Over time,
CanChild
has developed a broader research context, including an interest in health
system level issues. This larger purview has broadened the issues that are
examined, expanded the potential applicability of the findings, and has
encouraged the tailoring of written communications, thus increasing the
implications of the research for policy makers, managers, service providers,
and families.
The theme titled Programmatic and Planned Research indicates that
programmatic research involves bodies of work that are characterized by a
confluence of ideas and perspectives, which enriches the understanding of an
issue. At
CanChild,
synergy and creativity have resulted from a programmatic approach, as
evidenced by study quotes indicating an evolution in the breadth and
sophistication of research studies. Team members are able to tackle topics
of bigger scope, address more complex questions, explore interesting side
issues, and consider linkages between studies. This ability to be innovative
reflects the unit’s learning culture and is motivating to team members
(Opportunity to Learn and Grow).
Infrastructure support has facilitated the
development of a programmatic research approach by supporting the
cross-fertilization and synergistic building of ideas among a fairly
consistent core group of researchers. Programmatic research is possible only
through the concerted and sustained effort of a group of individuals with
complementary skills working together in a supportive environment. Wisdom is
more likely to be found in contexts shaped by multiple interactive minds as
is the case with multidisciplinary research units. Members of these units
have the time needed to develop ideas through long gestation periods
involving brainstorming and pilot work, and time to consider thoroughly the
implications of bodies of findings for potential users.40
Commitment
Commitment
refers to whole-hearted engagement in an activity and encompasses a sense of
belonging, wanting to contribute, and feeling recognized and valued for
one’s contributions. The notion of commitment captures the themes in Figure
1 dealing with Culture and People, including shared goals and values, group
cohesion, values, motivation, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment.
CanChild’s
work is created out of a shared desire to make a difference to children with
disabilities and their families through research that is relevant to
clinical and managerial practice (Having a Common Goal or Vision, and
Valuing Clinically Grounded Research). This vision reflects and sustains a
very high level of commitment. A shared vision provides a common identity,
gives coherence to diverse activities and is considered to be one of the
striking characteristics of high performance teams.41,42
It is noteworthy that “leadership” did not emerge as a theme in the survey.
A number of individuals at
CanChild
take on leadership roles on committees and projects, so that leadership is
shared (Non-hierarchical Approach). Furthermore, good leaders in collegial
environments are not “seen”: they empower others by inspiring a commitment
to the group’s vision and providing a supportive environment. Credit is
rarely attributed to leaders who use indirect means.43
Shared organizational values provide a
foundation that guides the behavior of individuals within organizations and
contributes to a sense of belonging,
leading to organizational commitment.12 Shared values are
particularly helpful in complex decentralized organizations, such as
research units, where it is important for team members to feel empowered in
the collective pursuit of a goal and where there is a focus on continuous
improvement.12
Members value “making a difference,” multidisciplinary teamwork,
mutual trust and respect, learning, and a collegial environment. These
values are an integrating and energizing force, as seen in the themes
reflecting commitment to the unit and its vision, striving for
excellence, feeling part of meaningful work, and having opportunities to
learn and grow. CanChild’s values reflect a combination of
traditional values of public service organizations (e.g., respect,
integrity, and accountability) and new values (e.g., teamwork, commitment,
innovation, and quality).12
The themes point to ways in which research units can enhance members’
motivation and satisfaction with their work. It is important for members to
feel part of meaningful work, recognized for their unique contributions, and
to choose the nature of their involvement so they can engage in activities
that match their interests, abilities, and time constraints. Being able to
play to people’s strengths depends on whether the team as a whole has
complementary skills and interests. Otherwise, this type of specialization
might decrease rather than enhance overall productivity.
Seven of the 11 top motivational factors for public sector employees
reported by Jurkiewicz, Massey, and Brown were found in the study themes.
These were the chance to learn new things, the chance to use special
abilities, variety in work, working as part of a team, the chance to
contribute to important decisions, friendly and congenial associates, and
the chance to benefit society. CanChild members’ motivations
therefore resemble those of public sector employees.13
The notion of commitment also encompasses group cohesion. Here, the
themes indicated the importance of relationships, trust among team members,
and an acknowledgement of the synergy provided by the group (The Whole is
Greater than the Sum of the Parts). CanChild has a collegial
environment in which members value their relationships with one another,
endeavor to respect and communicate openly, and feel supported to put forth
their best efforts on behalf of the team. This commitment is reflected in
the group process themes (Improving Decision Making or Team Functioning, and
Tackling Issues).
All teams encounter issues that affect their functioning, and particular
developmental tasks must be accomplished for teams to perform at an optimal
level.44
The willingness to tackle issues is a group norm that assists in resolving
problems and reducing tensions. It is important for team members to
acknowledge that issues exist and to address these openly, trusting that
this can be done without jeopardizing relationships and improvements will be
made.45
A culture of trust is important for any successful venture involving
collaboration.10
Collegial organizations that value learning and constant improvement have a
good level of comfort with challenge and questioning.46
In summary, the notion of commitment reflects many of the themes. A
personal sense of commitment is influenced by organizational and personal
values, and affects people’s motivation, the cohesion of the group, and how
issues are dealt with by the team.
Communication
The notion of communication encompasses the
theme Importance of Communication and underlies other themes that require
effective communication (i.e., Need to Clarify Roles and Expectations,
Responsive to a Variety of Audiences, and Recognition of
CanChild’s
Impact). Good communication also is implied in Valuing Multidisciplinary
Skills and Perspectives and is necessary for developing Trust Among Team
Members and for Tackling Issues effectively.
Research units linked to community partners are in the business of
generating and communicating knowledge to those partners and often to a
wider audience. Consequently, external communication of research concepts
and findings is crucial, through easy-to-read summaries and more traditional
means such as peer-reviewed articles. At
CanChild,
members endeavor to be Responsive to a Variety of Audiences by tailoring
communications to their needs and interests. For example, newsletters are
written for parents and children involved in research studies. Internal
communication also is very important and can be a challenge due to the
number of activities underway and the number of people involved.
CanChild
has a strong commitment to dissemination activities, as seen in the theme
titled Importance of External Partnerships, which illustrated the importance
of collaborations with families and the formal partnership with OACRS. Team
members want to provide information that is useful to OACRS centres, in
order to fulfill their common goal of “making a difference” to children and
families. The unit has benefited appreciably from the connection with OACRS,
which contributes to an awareness of community issues and has influenced the
relevance and scope of
CanChild’s
research agenda (Broad Outlook). This type of interdependent relationship
can strengthen a research organization’s commitment to meeting the
information needs of a partner group.
Change
and Evolution
To our knowledge, there
is no literature on the evolution of research units. This section therefore
provides speculative |
