IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v26y2017i4p316-325..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social network analysis of a scientist–practitioner research initiative established to facilitate science dissemination and implementation within states and communities

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth M Ginexi
  • Grace Huang
  • Michael Steketee
  • Sophia Tsakraklides
  • Keith MacAllum
  • Julie Bromberg
  • Amanda Huffman
  • Douglas A Luke
  • Scott J Leischow
  • Janet M Okamoto
  • Todd Rogers

Abstract

This article presents a case study of a scientist–practitioner research network established by the National Cancer Institute’s State and Community Tobacco Control Research Initiative. While prior programs have focused on collaboration among scientists, a goal here was to encourage collaborations with non-university, practice-based partners. Two stages of analyses examine growth in the network and collaboration outcomes over a 2-year timeframe. First, visual and descriptive analyses were used to assess the network’s structure and characteristics. Second, regression modeling was used to assess the relationship between investigator characteristics on active collaboration with non-university partners in research and coauthorship. Network analysis revealed an increasing number of connections, low and decreasing density, increasing centralization and select individuals with high degree and betweenness centralities. Investigator seniority and experience did not predict the active partner connections. Rather, scientists’ betweenness centrality, or the extent to which they acted as bridges across the network, was the key predictor of collaboration. This finding suggests a novel way for dissemination-focused research programs to identify super-connector investigators to foster practitioner linkages.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth M Ginexi & Grace Huang & Michael Steketee & Sophia Tsakraklides & Keith MacAllum & Julie Bromberg & Amanda Huffman & Douglas A Luke & Scott J Leischow & Janet M Okamoto & Todd Rogers, 2017. "Social network analysis of a scientist–practitioner research initiative established to facilitate science dissemination and implementation within states and communities," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 316-325.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:26:y:2017:i:4:p:316-325.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvx026
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan Youtie & Luciano Kay & Julia Melkers, 2013. "Bibliographic coupling and network analysis to assess knowledge coalescence in a research center environment," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 145-156, March.
    2. Matthew Eblen & Richard R. Fabsitz & Jean L. Olson & Katrina Pearson & Lindsay R. Pool & Mona Puggal & Charles Wu & Robin M. Wagner, 2012. "Social network analysis comparing researcher collaborations in two cardiovascular cohort studies," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(5), pages 392-405, November.
    3. Glasgow, R.E. & Vinson, C. & Chambers, D. & Khoury, M.J. & Kaplan, R.M. & Hunter, C., 2012. "National institutes of health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: Current and future directions," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(7), pages 1274-1281.
    4. Brownson, R.C. & Jacobs, J.A. & Tabak, R.G. & Hoehner, C.M. & Stamatakis, K.A., 2013. "Designing for dissemination among public health researchers: Findings from a national survey in the United States," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(9), pages 1693-1699.
    5. Jon G. Garner & Alan L. Porter & Nils C. Newman & Todd A. Crowl, 2012. "Assessing research network and disciplinary engagement changes induced by an NSF program," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 89-104, March.
    6. repec:mpr:mprres:7813 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Margaret B. Hargreaves & Todd Honeycutt & Cara Orfield & Michaela Vine & Charlotte Cabili & Michaella Morzuch & Sylvia K. Fisher & Ronette Briefel, 2013. "The Healthy Weight Collaborative: Using Learning Collaboratives to Enhance Community-Based Prevention Initiatives Addressing Childhood Obesity," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 9400b95bca5045d2878be1b45, Mathematica Policy Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tung Manh Ho & Hong Kong T. Nguyen & Thu-Trang Vuong & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2017. "On the Sustainability of Co-Authoring Behaviors in Vietnamese Social Sciences: A Preliminary Analysis of Network Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-21, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hutto, Brent & Saunders, Ruth P. & Wilcox, Sara & Jake-Schoffman, Danielle E. & Bernhart, John A. & Dunn, Caroline G. & Kaczynski, Andrew T. & James, Katherine L., 2021. "Pathways of influences leading to adoption of the Faith, Activity and Nutrition (FAN) program in a statewide initiative," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. Gibson, Elizabeth & Daim, Tugrul U. & Dabic, Marina, 2019. "Evaluating university industry collaborative research centers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 181-202.
    3. Margaret B. Hargreaves, "undated". "Rapid Evaluation Approaches for Complex Initiatives," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 6c5ac4a1b3d74174b02194d66, Mathematica Policy Research.
    4. Nader Hamdi & Brenna Ellison & Jennifer McCaffrey & Jessica Jarick Metcalfe & Ashley Hoffman & Pamela Haywood & Melissa Pflugh Prescott, 2020. "Implementation of a Multi-Component School Lunch Environmental Change Intervention to Improve Child Fruit and Vegetable Intake: A Mixed-Methods Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, June.
    5. Eike Quilling & Birgit Babitsch & Kevin Dadaczynski & Stefanie Kruse & Maja Kuchler & Heike Köckler & Janna Leimann & Ulla Walter & Christina Plantz, 2020. "Municipal Health Promotion as Part of Urban Health: A Policy Framework for Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-10, August.
    6. Gavarkovs, Adam G. & Blunt, Wendy & Petrella, Robert J., 2019. "A protocol for designing online training to support the implementation of community-based interventions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 77-87.
    7. Christopher E Knoepke & M Pilar Ingle & Daniel D Matlock & Ross C Brownson & Russell E Glasgow, 2019. "Dissemination and stakeholder engagement practices among dissemination & implementation scientists: Results from an online survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-12, November.
    8. Frank Puga & Kathleen R. Stevens & Darpan I. Patel, 2013. "Adopting Best Practices from Team Science in a Healthcare Improvement Research Network: The Impact on Dissemination and Implementation," Nursing Research and Practice, Hindawi, vol. 2013, pages 1-7, March.
    9. Oscar Llopis & Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo & Julia Olmos-Peñuela & Elena Castro-Martínez, 2018. "Scientists’ engagement in knowledge transfer and exchange: Individual factors, variety of mechanisms and users," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 790-803.
    10. Sahl, Samantha & Pontoriero, Maria Isabella & Hill, Chloe & Knoepke, Christopher E., 2021. "Stakeholder perspectives on the implementation of shared decision making to empower youth who have experienced commercial sexual exploitation," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    11. Dominick Esposito & Jessica Heeringa & Katharine Bradley & Sarah Croake & Laura Kimmey, 2015. "PCORI Dissemination and Implementation Framework," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 8c227da0bed845518a2bba72f, Mathematica Policy Research.
    12. Carter Bloch & Jesper W Schneider & Thomas Sinkjær, 2016. "Size, Accumulation and Performance for Research Grants: Examining the Role of Size for Centres of Excellence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, February.
    13. Eike Quilling & Maja Kuchler & Patricia Tollmann & Anke Osterhoff & Janna Leimann, 2022. "Needs to Create Healthy Living Environments—A Two-Stage Delphi Survey in Europe to Identify Facilitating Factors and Barriers in Municipal Health Promotion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-15, April.
    14. Debra A. Strong & Diane Paulsell & Russell Cole & Sarah A. Avellar & Angela V. D'Angelo & Juliette Henke & Rosalind E. Keith, "undated". "Regional Partnership Grant Program Cross-Site Evaluation Design Report," Mathematica Policy Research Reports d563137afff143e3ab5b6096e, Mathematica Policy Research.
    15. Kennedy, Ann Blair & Schenkelberg, Michaela & Moyer, Christina & Pate, Russ & Saunders, Ruth P., 2017. "Process evaluation of a preschool physical activity intervention using web-based delivery," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 24-36.
    16. Engell, Thomas & Løvstad, Anne Marte & Kirkøen, Benedicte & Ogden, Terje & Amlund Hagen, Kristine, 2021. "Exploring how intervention characteristics affect implementability: A mixed methods case study of common elements-based academic support in child welfare services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    17. Hird, Mackenzie D. & Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M., 2017. "How complex international partnerships shape domestic research clusters: Difference-in-difference network formation and research re-orientation in the MIT Portugal Program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 557-572.
    18. Alan L. Porter & David J. Schoeneck & Jan Youtie & Gregg E. A. Solomon & Seokbeom Kwon & Stephen F. Carley, 2019. "Learning about learning: patterns of sharing of research knowledge among Education, Border, and Cognitive Science fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1093-1117, March.
    19. Van De Griend, Kristin M. & Billings, Deborah L. & Frongillo, Edward A. & Hilfinger Messias, DeAnne K. & Crockett, Amy H. & Covington-Kolb, Sarah, 2020. "Core strategies, social processes, and contextual influences of early phases of implementation and statewide scale-up of group prenatal care in South Carolina," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    20. Fernanda Morillo & Adrián A. Díaz-Faes & Borja González-Albo & Luz Moreno, 2014. "Do networking centres perform better? An exploratory analysis in Psychiatry and Gastroenterology/Hepatology in Spain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1401-1416, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:26:y:2017:i:4:p:316-325.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.