Presented to you through Paradigm Publishing Services

Policy Press

Home Policy Press 9 Cultural exchange and EBP implementation
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

9 Cultural exchange and EBP implementation

Abstract

I think that in the community mental health sectors, so many of the clients we serve have multiple diagnoses, multiple problems, multiple risk factors and so much of the research seems focused on more single diagnoses, single risk factors, so I continue to think that it’s important for researchers to do what they’re doing but continue this trend of moving towards real-world situations and trying to find alternative methods of researching in real-world environments, or else the gulf between researchers and practitioners will continue. Practitioners will get research that is too removed from the clientele that they serve and just not be that impressed with it, and vice versa. I know researchers who view practitioners as not caring just one way or another about actual evidence will get frustrated. So I think there has been some great experience now with the federal system of care grants that have gone out and some of the other grant making processes where folks are learning more about how to do research and what outcomes are like and make it applicable to folks on the front line working in real community-based clinics. (Mental health services director)

Conceptual models of evidence use in policy and practice acknowledge that the URE to make or support decisions is often a collective and interactive endeavor rather than an activity performed by any one individual decision maker (Traynor et al, 2014; Edelstein, 2016). This collective endeavor involves the utilization of social capital (Spillane et al, 2001; Honig and Coburn, 2008), social networks (Foster-Fishman et al, 2001; Valente et al, 2015), a common language (Kothari et al, 2011), and the exchange of knowledge or information between researchers and practitioners and within networks of practitioners (Lomas, 2000; Mitton et al, 2007; Nutley et al, 2007).

Abstract

I think that in the community mental health sectors, so many of the clients we serve have multiple diagnoses, multiple problems, multiple risk factors and so much of the research seems focused on more single diagnoses, single risk factors, so I continue to think that it’s important for researchers to do what they’re doing but continue this trend of moving towards real-world situations and trying to find alternative methods of researching in real-world environments, or else the gulf between researchers and practitioners will continue. Practitioners will get research that is too removed from the clientele that they serve and just not be that impressed with it, and vice versa. I know researchers who view practitioners as not caring just one way or another about actual evidence will get frustrated. So I think there has been some great experience now with the federal system of care grants that have gone out and some of the other grant making processes where folks are learning more about how to do research and what outcomes are like and make it applicable to folks on the front line working in real community-based clinics. (Mental health services director)

Conceptual models of evidence use in policy and practice acknowledge that the URE to make or support decisions is often a collective and interactive endeavor rather than an activity performed by any one individual decision maker (Traynor et al, 2014; Edelstein, 2016). This collective endeavor involves the utilization of social capital (Spillane et al, 2001; Honig and Coburn, 2008), social networks (Foster-Fishman et al, 2001; Valente et al, 2015), a common language (Kothari et al, 2011), and the exchange of knowledge or information between researchers and practitioners and within networks of practitioners (Lomas, 2000; Mitton et al, 2007; Nutley et al, 2007).

Downloaded on 30.3.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.56687/9781447338147-012/html
Scroll to top button