Warwick Business School, The University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.
Warwick Business School, The University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Aug;114:81-8. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.045. Epub 2014 May 27.
In contrast to previous studies, which focus upon the professional dynamics of translational health research between clinician scientists and social scientists (inter-professional contestation), we focus upon contestation within social science (intra-professional contestation). Drawing on the empirical context of Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) in England, we highlight that although social scientists accept subordination to clinician scientists, health services researchers attempt to enhance their position in translational health research vis-à-vis organisation scientists, whom they perceive as relative newcomers to the research domain. Health services researchers do so through privileging the practical impact of their research, compared to organisation scientists' orientation towards development of theory, which health services researchers argue is decoupled from any concern with healthcare improvement. The concern of health services researchers lies with maintaining existing patterns of resource allocation to support their research endeavours, working alongside clinician scientists, in translational health research. The response of organisation scientists is one that might be considered ambivalent, since, unlike health services researchers, they do not rely upon a close relationship with clinician scientists to carry out research, or more generally, garner resource.
与之前的研究不同,我们关注的是临床科学家和社会科学家之间转化健康研究的专业动态(专业间的竞争),而是关注社会科学内部的竞争(专业内的竞争)。我们借鉴了英国合作领导应用健康研究和护理(CLAHRC)的经验背景,强调尽管社会科学家接受从属于临床科学家,但健康服务研究人员试图通过与他们视为相对新手的组织科学家相比,在转化健康研究中提高自己的地位。健康服务研究人员通过重视其研究的实际影响来实现这一目标,而组织科学家则倾向于发展理论,健康服务研究人员认为这与改善医疗保健无关。健康服务研究人员关注的是维持现有的资源分配模式,以支持他们在转化健康研究中与临床科学家合作的研究工作。组织科学家的反应可能被认为是矛盾的,因为与健康服务研究人员不同,他们不依赖与临床科学家的密切关系来开展研究,或者更广泛地说,获得资源。