Louise Warwick-Booth, Ruth Cross and James Woodall

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Obstacles to co-producing evaluation knowledge: power, control and voluntary sector dynamics’, part of the Special Issue: ‘Learning from Failures in Knowledge Exchange’.

Co-production has been increasingly discussed as a positive and useful approach in health and social care research, based on principles such as partnership working, reciprocation, power sharing and the appreciation of all expertise. We have used co-production values to inform our evaluation work for many years, but in our Evidence & Policy article we reflect upon the challenges that such approaches bring, specifically in relation to sharing findings, known as knowledge exchange. Our article discusses evaluation work across three interventions that constitute perhaps the most challenging of our experiences in over a decade of such work. Conflict in evaluation work remains largely underreported, but we feel our experiences provide a useful contribution for readers.

Stephen MacGregor

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Theorising a spectrum of reasons for failure in knowledge brokering: a developmental evaluation’, part of the Special Issue: ‘Learning from Failures in Knowledge Exchange’.

Failure often gets a bad rap, especially in professional settings. It’s usually seen as a waste of time and resources, something to steer clear of. But failure is not just an unfortunate outcome; it can be a crucial learning opportunity.

Particularly in higher education, the pressure is on for academics and universities to show the real-world impact of research. Here, knowledge brokers play a critical role: they are the ‘human force’ behind efforts to connect research production and use contexts. Yet, the challenges and failures that these professionals face are not often discussed.

My recent Evidence & Policy article aimed to shed light on the spectrum of reasons for failure in the professional practice of knowledge brokering, drawing on a set of semi-structured interviews with a network of knowledge brokers. To understand knowledge brokers’ experiences, two frameworks were integrated: (a) the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework, and (b) Dr. Amy Edmondson’s Spectrum of Reasons for Failure framework.

Peter van der Graaf, Ien van de Goor and Amanda Drake Purington

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Learning from failures in knowledge exchange and turning them into successes’, which introduces the Special Issue: ‘Learning from Failures in Knowledge Exchange’.

We don’t like talking about failures, as it signals loss of time, resources and reputation, but failures present opportunities for learning in knowledge exchange. However, this requires a ‘failure culture’ in academia and policy, in which failures are no longer avoided but actively encouraged. To learn how to turn failures into successes, we need to share and publish our failures, have early engagement with all stakeholders in the knowledge exchange process, and make more use of boundary spanners.

There are plenty of papers celebrating successes in knowledge exchange, but not many researchers and policy makers talk openly about their failures. However, learning from failures is just as important, if not more crucial, than celebrating successes. Allowing partners to reflect in a safe space on knowledge exchange practices and research projects gone wrong, in which communication broke down, partners did not engage or dropped out, and evidence was not taken up or ignored, will provide important lessons on how knowledge exchange practices and research can be improved.

At the 5th Fuse conference on knowledge exchange in public health, held in Newcastle, UK on 15-16 June 2022, we created such a space by bringing together over 100 academic researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and community members to share and reflect on thier failures and how to turn them into success. Our special issue brings together selected papers from the conference and papers that were submitted in response to an open call afterwards. From 23 original submissions from 14 different countries (including the UK, USA, Cananda, Norway, Switzerland, Kenya, Chile, South Korea, Canada and Portugal) and from a range of disciplines and areas of focus (Public Health, Primary Care, Oral Health, Sociology, Anthropology, Public Management, Policy-Making, and Community and Voluntary Sector), we invited four research papers and three practice papers for full submissions.