Macro-level Diffusion of a Methodological Knowledge Innovation: Research Synthesis Methods, 1972-2011

Use of research synthesis methods has contributed to changes in research practices. In disciplinary literatures, authors indicate motivations to use the methods include needs to (a) translate research-based knowledge to inform practice and policy decisions, and (b) integrate relatively large and diverse knowledge bases to increase the generality of results and yield novel insights or explanations. This review presents two histories of the diffusion of research synthesis methods: a narrative history based primarily in the health and social sciences; and a bibliometric overview across science broadly. Engagement with research synthesis was strongly correlated with evidence-based practice (EBP), and moderately with review prevalence. The social sciences were most diverse in terms of when research synthesis was adopted. Technology, physical sciences, and math appear to be relatively resistant though fields such as physics may be considered to have used similar methods long ago. Additional research is needed to assess the consequences of adoption within fields, including changes in how researchers engage with knowledge resources. This review demonstrates that particularistic histories of science and technology may be fruitfully augmented with informetrics to examine how disciplinary diffusion narratives coincide with patterns across science more broadly, thereby opening up disciplinary knowledge to inform future research

Diffusion of Meta-Analysis, Systematic Review, and Related Research Synthesis Methods: Patterns, Contexts, and Impact

Like collaboration and interdisciplinary scholarship, research synthesis methods are used to integrate science knowledge. Unlike collaboration and interdisciplinary scholarship, research synthesis is a scientific method researchers apply to systematically and explicitly integrate knowledge from primary research studies to estimate the best answer to a specific question based on accumulated research findings. This study investigates the diffusion and impact of research synthesis methods at the macro- and meso-levels. At the macro-level, diffusion from 1972-2011 is described using bibliometric methods. Relatively modest engagement with the methods in the 1970s and 1980s was followed by increased engagement across a greater diversity of fields in the 1990s. Engagement with the methods continued to increase and spread across fields through the first decade of the 2000s. Engagement with research synthesis methods was strongly correlated with engagement with evidence-based practice (ρ=0.893, p < 0.001) and the number of years a field engaged with the methods (ρ = 0.706, p < 0.001), moderately correlated with engagement with past research (ρ = 0.403, p < 0.001); and modestly correlated with Biglan class (ρ = 0.279, p = 0.011). Five fields, Evolutionary Biology, Conservation Biology, Social Work, Women’s Studies, and Information and Library Science were selected for investigation at the meso-level. Content analysis, topic modeling, and qualitative summaries of literature at the intersections of these fields and research synthesis contextualize the diffusion process and reveal differences and similarities across field contexts. Bibliometric evaluation indicates that adoption of research synthesis contributes to changes in collaboration patterns: a greater number of authors contribute to research syntheses than research reviews in fields where collaboration on research reviews is low. This study provides some evidence that use of the methods has refined rather than replaced roles of traditional research reviews in Social Work; and illustrates interactions between innovations and use contexts. Innovations and their contexts are modified through adaptations influenced by historical contexts, values, and goals that intersect with the innovation use context.Doctor of Philosoph

Do synthesis centers synthesize? A semantic analysis of topical diversity in research

Synthesis centers are a form of scientific organization that catalyzes and supports research that integrates diverse theories, methods and data across spatial or temporal scales to increase the generality, parsimony, applicability, or empirical soundness of scientific explanations. Synthesis working groups are a distinctive form of scientific collaboration that produce consequential, high-impact publications. But no one has asked if synthesis working groups synthesize: are their publications substantially more diverse than others, and if so, in what ways and with what effect? We investigate these questions by using Latent Dirichlet Analysis to compare the topical diversity of papers published by synthesis center collaborations with that of papers in a reference corpus. Topical diversity was operationalized and measured in several ways, both to reflect aggregate diversity and to emphasize particular aspects of diversity (such as variety, evenness, and balance). Synthesis center publications have greater topical variety and evenness, but less disparity, than do papers in the reference corpus. The influence of synthesis center origins on aspects of diversity is only partly mediated by the size and heterogeneity of collaborations: when taking into account the numbers of authors, distinct institutions, and references, synthesis center origins retain a significant direct effect on diversity measures. Controlling for the size and heterogeneity of collaborative groups, synthesis center origins and diversity measures significantly influence the visibility of publications, as indicated by citation measures. We conclude by suggesting social processes within collaborations that might account for the observed effects, by inviting further exploration of what this novel textual analysis approach might reveal about interdisciplinary research, and by offering some practical implications of our results.publishedVersio

Impact of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network: Accelerating the Translation of Research Into Practice

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a thematic network dedicated to accelerating the adoption of evidence-based cancer prevention and control practices in communities by advancing dissemination and implementation science. Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute, CPCRN has operated at two levels: Each participating Network Center conducts research projects with primarily local partners as well as multicenter collaborative research projects with state and national partners. Through multicenter collaboration, thematic networks leverage the expertise, resources, and partnerships of participating centers to conduct research projects collectively that might not be feasible individually. Although multicenter collaboration often is advocated, it is challenging to promote and assess. Using bibliometric network analysis and other graphical methods, this paper describes CPCRN’s multicenter publication progression from 2004 to 2014. Searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science in 2014 identified 249 peer-reviewed CPCRN publications involving two or more centers out of 6,534 total. The research and public health impact of these multicenter collaborative projects initiated by CPCRN during that 10-year period were then examined. CPCRN established numerous workgroups around topics such as: 2-1-1, training and technical assistance, colorectal cancer control, federally qualified health centers, cancer survivorship, and human papillomavirus. The paper discusses the challenges that arise in promoting multicenter collaboration and the strategies that CPCRN uses to address those challenges. The lessons learned should broadly interest those seeking to promote multisite collaboration to address public health problems, such as cancer prevention and control