How can we fail more intelligently?

Posted by Peter van der Graaf, Northumbria University; Amanda Purington Drake, Cornell University; and Ien van de Goor, Tilburg University

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 academic papers celebrating successes in knowledge exchange, but not many researchers and policy makers talk openly about their failures. But 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.

Paul Iske. Chief Failure Officer, speaking at the Fuse conference in 2022  

At the 5th Fuse Conference on Knowledge Exchange in Public Health in 2022, we created such a space in Newcastle by bringing together over 100 academic researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and community members to share and reflect on their failures and how to turn them into success. Don't miss the 6th conference in the US ! 

Our Special Issue: Learning from failures in knowledge exchange published this month in journal Evidence & Policy 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, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Kenya, Chile, South Korea, 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.

This includes a paper from Fuse Associate Mandy Cheetham and her practice colleagues on the challenges of co-production. They reflect on the failed performance of a theatre play to mobilise the research findings of a qualitative study into the health and wellbeing effect of major social security reforms (Universal Credit) in the North East of England. They argue that academics fail to appreciate emotional engagement of stakeholders in knowledge exchange.

The point about emotional labour in knowledge exchange and research is further developed (and flipped) by Louise Warwick-Booth, Ruth Cross and James Woodall. They reflect on data generated from three evaluation studies across different Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) interventions in the North of England. In their paper, they expose the conflict between the research teams and evaluation partners, structured around five key features of co-production to highlight the emotional costs and labour involved for researchers.

The seven papers highlight different ways of defining and conceptualising failures in knowledge exchange, ranging from mis-implementations, to setbacks, pitfalls, unproductive interactions between stakeholders, conflicts in co-production, and deviations from expected and desired results. Using different theories and frameworks, the papers in this special issue demonstrate that failures are complex problems, involving many actors at different levels across various organisations and networks. These organisations and networks are in turn influenced by a range of determinants, from workforce instability, leadership challenges, and lack of adequate funding to practical, everyday issues, such as logistical, technical, and buy-in considerations.

Each paper offers a different perspective on relational barriers and structural stressors contributing to failures, but all authors agree that failures offer opportunities for learning, particularly small failures. We tend to focus on large catastrophic failures, but small failures are often the early warning signs, which can help to avoid larger failure in the future. To support this learning, we need to talk more openly about failures and create a culture where talking about and sharing of failures is more accepted and, even better, actively encouraged. Therefore, we argue for more deliberate experimentation in organisations and partnerships to allow for failures that provide rich insight and learning. How can we fail more intelligently? And how do we create spaces and time for reflection on failures between evidence producers, brokers and users to share this learning and support them in turning failures into successes?


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

Authors

Peter van der Graaf is an Associate Professor in Public Health at Northumbria University and Research Manager of AskFuse - the responsive research and evaluation service run by Fuse. Peter is interested in the interface between research, practice and policy making and how this interface facilitates (or hinders) social improvement processes at local, regional, national and international levels. He conducts research on knowledge mobilisation in public health, with a focus on the wider determinants of health (e.g. housing, health landscapes, urban regeneration) and how they affect people’s health and wellbeing.

Amanda Purington Drake, PhD, is the Director of the ACT for Youth Center for Community Action at the Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research and a research collaborator with the Social Media Lab, both at Cornell University, USA. Amanda has a passion for using research and evaluation to help communities to promote and support the health and wellbeing of youth. Her work in the Bronfenbrenner Center has focused on promoting positive youth development, investigating non-suicidal self-injury in general populations of adolescents and young adults, and evaluating the effectiveness of large-scale adolescent sexual health initiatives. She has co-developed and evaluated interventions to develop youth social media literacy and to promote parent-teen communication about sexual health. Amanda works to bridge research and evaluation with practice and policymaking to prevent youth risk-behavior and promote healthy development.

Ien van de Goor (MSc, PhD) works as endowed professor and program leader in Public Health and Prevention at Tranzo, Faculty of Social and Behavioral sciences, Tilburg University, in the Netherlands. She has a background in health sciences with many years of research experience in evidence-informed public health. Central areas of interest are healthy behaviour in relation to the environment, poverty and vulnerable groups, and monitoring and public health policy.

The views and opinions expressed by the authors are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health.

Should researchers act as disruptors?

Learning from the Dutch Academic Collaborative Centres

Posted by Peter van der Graaf, Associate Professor in Public Health & AskFuse Research Manager, and Mandy Cheetham, Research Fellow, from Northumbria University

While Storm Babette was wreaking havoc in the UK, a team of international delegates from Tranzo, scientific centre for care and wellbeing of Tilburg University visited Fuse. The visit focused on sharing learning on how to develop and maintain collaborative research partnerships between policymakers, health practitioners, communities and academic researchers.

Great visit from @TilburgU_Tranzo to the North East yesterday hosted by @fuse_online @gateshead and @EdbertsHouse to share international learning on #collaborative research partnerships between policymakers, health practitioners, communities and researchers. #KMb pic.twitter.com/iTCMggC1hG

— Peter van der Graaf 🇪🇺🇳🇱🇬🇧 (@pvandergraaf75) October 21, 2023

Tranzo works in Academic Collaborative Centres (ACCs),which are sustainable partnerships between Tilburg University researchers and health and care organisations at both a regional and national level, including (local) government, third sector organisations and other research institutes. Tranzo hosts in total 11 ACCs, each with a different topic area: ranging from mental health, addiction, intellectual disability, to public health, youth, work & health, social work, care for older adults, and technological and social innovations for mental health. Each centre could be compared to a research cluster within Fuse and is led by an academic lead.

Despite the diversity in topics addressed in each centre, there are five underlying research themes:

1. health-related behaviour, health care policies and societal influences; 
2. social inequality and inclusivity; 
3. mental health care, capabilities and recovery; 
4. client perspective and participation, experiential expertise, and; 
5. the (health) care system.

We could call these cross-cutting themes, and this is something Fuse could consider to integrate research across clusters. For example, translational research could act as a cross-cutting theme within Fuse.

The ACCs work in a similar way to Fuse: they connect science, lived experience and professional practice in the domain of health and wellbeing in the Netherlands through co-creation of research and knowledge exchange. These diverse sources of knowledge are valued equally. The principles of establishing long-term partnerships, based on equality, personal relationships will also sound familiar to Fuse members.

During the discussions on the day, we reflected on the importance and challenges of blurring boundaries and the need for ‘living bridges’ between partners organisations. Personal and trusted relationships and a commitment to reciprocity were identified as key for this, but also the need for systems that support and incentivise collaborative working. Unfortunately, universities and research funding programmes are often not set up for this way of working, or narrowly confine knowledge exchange to commercial spin-off companies.

Blurring boundaries, science practitioners, and the fourth-generation university

One of the ways in which Tranzo has tried to blur boundaries is by developing science practitioner roles, which are practitioners who take up a temporary post in universities to develop their research skills and act as boundary spanners for the knowledge they co-create within their practice organisations. These roles can be funded by the health and care organisations (in kind), as they recognise the importance of using more evidence to inform their decision making, by blending scientific knowledge with the knowledge and expertise from practitioners and service users. But sometimes also external funding (grants) is available for co-creation projects with science practitioners. Sometimes it is a combination of in kind and grant funding.

This makes science practitioners the flip side of embedded researchers in Fuse: instead of academic researchers co-locating temporarily in a practice organisation (for example a public health team in a local authority) practitioners spend time in academia, (partly) paid for by their organisation and supported by academics to develop their own research. Both roles help to blur boundaries and therefore science practitioners, which go beyond short-term placements, could be a valuable role to consider for Fuse.

To support this two-way traffic between researchers and practitioners, Tranzo has defined itself as a ‘developing towards a fourth-generation university’: an open network university reaching out and working on innovation with partners and citizens in an ecosystem. While first generation universities are focused on education and second generation universities combine education with research, third generation universities embrace entrepreneurship and try to market their knowledge. However, this happens solely within the space of the university (Steinbuch, 2016).

In contrast, fourth generation universities see themselves as only one space within a wider knowledge eco-system that requires close collaboration with all participants in this eco-system, including policymakers, professionals and service users, but also private organisations, arts and creative industries and international collaborations. Interestingly, the function of senior leaders within fourth generation universities is not to manage processes and structures, but to disrupt them. By disrupting existing practices, ways of thinking, and valuing and using different types of knowledge, more value can be created within the eco-system.

This perspective suggests an extended new role for Fuse: not only trying to be a bridge between different worlds (research and practice) or between different research infrastructures and networks within the North East and North Cumbria - Applied Research Collaboration (ARC), Health Determinants Research Collaborations (HDRCs), and Research Support Service (RSS) - but actively disrupting the status quo by building structures and processes to enable the creation of value through new collaborative partnerships and by stimulating multi-actor innovation.  

The new value that could be created in this way was clearly visible during the two site visits on the day, when we were welcomed by staff and community members at Edberts House and Gateshead Council. Embedded research roles have shone a light in Gateshead on the importance of control for residents, whose lives are often defined by a lack of control and influence over decisions affecting their lives. Research helped them to learn from a community-centred approach and use this learning to inform future planning. Council staff felt more confident and skilled to develop their own research and evaluations and implement solutions using this knowledge and the connections it helped to create with external partners.

It was inspiring to hear from our colleagues in Tranzo and share examples of our collaborative research. We had positive and fruitful exchanges about our experiences, challenges and shared interests including training in the craft of knowledge exchange, mentoring, engagement and impact. We look forward to continuing the conversations and would be interested in any readers' thoughts on how we can be more disruptive as Fuse researchers?

The view from Tranzo

Reflections from Prof. Dr. Ien van de Goor, Program leader Academic Collaborative Center Public Health, Tranzo and Tilburg University

On behalf of the Tranzo delegation, first of all many thanks for the very warm welcome on this stormy day in October. We were impressed by the introductions in the morning program on how translational research within Fuse is taking form. There were some very nice examples of how knowledge exchange can help to increase the flow of evidence into public health practice. And how push and pull factors in this process are taken into account in the Fuse knowledge exchange model. It was very interesting to hear about the co-creation process where research was translated in a book for children with parents suffering from addiction problems. As was the report on the relation between the Covid-19 pandemic and health inequities. Both resonated with Tranzo’s way of working: a diversity of themes and different ways of making an effort to do impactful research.  

Next in the afternoon program we were invited to Edberts House and the Gateshead Council. The way the voice of the community is a driving force in making Edberts House into a successful and valued community project, was impressive to experience (as was the lovely lunch offered!).

The program was finalised by meeting with representatives of Gateshead Council. The enthusiasm of the members from the Council's Public Health team and the Fuse researchers was striking and made clear that direct collaboration and co-creation between academic research and local authorities can contribute significantly to the uptake of evidence in public health policy and practice.

So for Tranzo it was a very insightful and inspiring visit learning about Fuse collaborating with practice and sharing our ways of working and trying to be impactful with scientific research. We really look forward to exploring further opportunities to collaborate, co-create and share our thoughts on finding ways to be disruptive (for the better!)

Research on the go with women in walking groups

Posted by Stephanie Morris, Research Fellow, University of York

In this blog Steph reflects on the use of mobile ethnography in a recent study of the place of walking groups in the lives of women in deprived areas of north-east England.

Ethnography’s signature method, participant observation, or ‘hanging out’, provides rich data inaccessible by other forms of qualitative research. Mobile ethnography, as the name suggests, uses this methodology in the context of mobility. It can involve ‘go-along’ interviewing (See Carpiano 2008, Kusenbach, 2003) and participant observation as researchers travel and converse with participants.

When conducting research with women in walking groups, I found that mobile ethnography facilitated inclusivity and openness. For example, some women were interested in participating in the study, but uninterested in having a formal ‘sit down’ interview. So this approach opened up the study to those who might not usually opt to take part in research. Walking with study participants also enabled me to build rapport in a more ‘natural’ way than in a one-off interview, when the research and participant go in ‘cold’. Walking and talking, what the women did on the walks, encouraged free and open conversation: participants talked a lot to me about the intricacies of their lives, as they did with each other.

Mobile ethnography produces data which I feel is not likely to be created in static interview interactions. In ‘go along’ informal interviews, objects and embodied experiences along the route are often talked about. Conversations ranged from discussing fly tipping and historical features in the landscape, to sharing experiences of bodily sensations whilst walking in all weathers! Walking with the groups also provided a first-hand experience of the sense of safety and solidarity that comes with group walking. The following excerpt from my fieldnotes* shows an example of how this happened:

"As we walk along, Ashley who is in front of us by a few metres, points out that there is a hole in the path. She puts her stick down it and shouts to us to be careful of the hole. We do the same for the people behind us. Less than a minute later, Lisa says ‘step’, as there is a slight step in the hard soil and she is warning me about it. I do the same for the people behind me, and I get the feeling that I am being watched out for, and that I am instantly doing the same for the others."

Acts like this also quickly make the researcher feel part of the group, an insider participant-observer.

Despite its broad affordances, mobile ethnography is not without its challenges. The logistics of note taking when walking are tricky to say the least! I used the note function on a smartphone to take notes and took photographs along the route to remind me of encounters noteworthy of description. I walked with a Nordic walking group, which was even more difficult as I often had to carry the Nordic poles in one hand or clip and unclip at the group’s brief stops to quickly take notes of conversations or observations. However, as it was usual for people to walk alone for moments during walks, these times provided me with opportunities for note-taking. Conducting ‘go along’ formal interviews with a voice recorder was for the most part unproblematic; however, external noise was an issue at points near busy roads.

As with all ethnography, doing it well requires a lot of time and emotional labour. For instance, as transcribing fieldnotes is time intensive and needs to be completed as soon as possible after participating in the activity/group being studied, this task can clash with life’s other responsibilities. Likewise, as participants can become friends, research relationships and boundaries need to be carefully negotiated. And lastly, when using a method that helps to build rapport and relationships valuable for research, at the end of a project it can be difficult to say goodbye (and it was particularly hard to say goodbye to the many pleasures of group walking!).

There are many other contexts where mobile ethnography could contribute to health research, including but not limited to other physical activity and sustainable travel interventions. Why not give it a try?!

*Anonymised using pseudonyms

Getting physical activity research moving

Posted by Louise Hayes, Research Methodologist, Newcastle University and the Fuse Physical Activity Group

So, we all know we should be more physically active – the evidence is out there. People who are more active are less likely to suffer from many chronic diseases, have more energy, better mental health, sleep better…… But how do we get people to be more active?

We knew researchers across North East England were working on physical activity related research and we knew that practitioners were delivering physical activity interventions, with the aim of getting more people active. What we didn’t know was who was doing what and whether or not the evidence from the researchers was getting to the practitioners or if the practitioners were delivering evidence-based intervention or evaluating their interventions. So, a little over five years ago, Martin White, the then Director of Fuse, Laura Basterfield and I (two physical activity researchers at Newcastle University), set about getting physical activity researchers from across the region together. We wanted to provide a forum for researchers to share information on current and future research and to identify opportunities for collaborations across individuals and teams conducting PA research in the Fuse partner universities. The inaugural Fuse Physical Activity Workshop (#FusePAW) was held at Newcastle University in May 2013.

It quickly became apparent that there was an appetite for a Fuse Physical Activity Group to be formed to build upon the enthusiasm for collaborative working and developing a shared physical activity research agenda that was in evidence at this first PAW. Several people also made it clear (and yes, we do mean you, @Scottylloyd1979!) that there was a need to widen the base of the group to include our practitioner partners involved in delivering physical activity interventions on the front line and to build relationships across sector boundaries. And so the Fuse physical activity group was born!

Liane Azevedo and I took on the role of leading the group, along with a team including Scott Lloyd, Caroline Dodd-Reynolds, Alison Innerd and Natalie Connor representing the North East Universities and public health partners. Since then we have had twice yearly Fuse PAWs, hosted by each of the five Fuse Universities and covering a range of topics from inequalities in physical activity to measurement of physical activity and physical activity during pregnancy. We’re proud to say that we’ve achieved an equal balance of academics and practitioners attending the events.

From the outside it might look like it’s been plain sailing – we’ve attracted an amazing cast of physical activity researcher royalty to present at our events, (see the list below - to name but a few!). On the inside there has been blood, sweat and occasional tears! Will the speakers agree to come? Will anyone sign up to attend? Will there be enough parking spaces/coffee? Will we be able to afford fruit during the breaks or just (unhealthy, but delicious) biscuits? (The latter has often been uppermost in the minds of some of our delegates if the feedback we receive in our, now infamous, shiny blue feedback box* is anything to go by!)

We were nervous that attendance might suffer when austerity measures cut into our budget meaning we were no longer able to provide lunch – but happily attendance has steadily increased and we have begun to attract individuals from outside the North East and sometimes even from outside the UK!

It was great to celebrate our tenth PAW on 20th April 2018, following #Fuse10 on 19th April, and to think about our previous events. All the hard work definitely felt worthwhile as we reflected on the many interesting presentations, workshops and discussions that have come out of the FusePAWs as well as collaborations, including a joint evaluation of the Redcar school pedometer intervention by Northumbria and Leeds Beckett Universities.

As #FusePAW, we have a responsibility to ‘do

’ physical activity research better and try to capture how FusePAWs inform physical activity within the region and further afield. To this end we discussed how we can work together more effectively as academics and public health practitioners to challenge traditional methods for delivering and evaluating physical activity interventions to nudge the field forwards at this event.  If you have any suggestions on how we can do this please contact me at louise.hayes@ncl.ac.uk

Watch this space for findings!


The Fuse Physical Activity Group is Louise Hayes, Liane Azevedo, Scott Lloyd, Caroline Dodd- Reynolds, Alison Innerd and Natalie Connor


Just a few of our amazing cast of presenters

Professor Ashley Cooper (University of Bristol), Dr Esther Van Sluijs (University of Cambridge), Dr Paul Kelly (University of Edinburgh), Dr Nick Cavill (Public Health England), Bob Laventure (Loughborough University), Prof Charles Foster (University of Oxford) Dr Mark Tully (Queens University), Prof Tess Kay (Brunel University), Prof Adrian Taylor (University of Plymouth) and Prof John Saxton (Northumbria University).

* Look out for our next event to see it for yourself!