NN&I - May 2010
Researchwww.nephronline.comMay 2010 Nephrology News & Issues 53 partnerships are not only the ideal but a necessity as research-based or evi-dence-based practice has become the standard of care for health based social workers and all in the public health profession. Such collaborations do not simply aid in the understanding of effective treatments but have also been found to allow clinicians the opportuni -ties to gain new research skills, partici-pate in a more informed dialogue with other health care professionals, and result in renewed enthusiasm for health social work practice. Christ, Siegel and Weinstein13 support this point by out -lining the specific benefits of research and clinical partnerships found in hav -ing a research unit located in a hospi -tal's social work department as a meth-od that brought increased productivity and academic attention to them. These benefits can be further realized when collaborations in health research are carried out between international part -ners, allowing a more developed coun- try to provide expertise and technical resources while their partners in less developed nations may provide clinical experience and contextual knowledge, as is outlined by Lucas.5 Despite the benefits to all parties of research and practice collaboration, such partnerships often meet with resis-tance. Historically, practitioners have felt that academic researchers are out of touch with the treatment of patients in real time, and have felt exploited by researchers and powerless with the research team.10 In fact, even under a successful model13 the benefits of collab -oration were not seen instantly. Instead, the relationship between research and clinical social workers required a lengthy process of curiosity and competitive -ness before being able to cooperate and collaborate effectively.Resistance to such collaboration may be born out of the fact that aca-demic researchers and clinical prac -titioners approach the work in vastly different ways. For instance, Joubert notes that practice research collabora-tions are defined by an idea born from the practitioner and a research pro-cess designed around clinical practice needs, as opposed to more traditional research in which the researcher for -mulates a hypothesis and looks for environments in which the theory may be tested.12 Other authors suggest the issue is that academics are driven by curiositylong-term interests rather than the clinician's short-term goal-oriented purposes.2 Such fundamen -tal perceptual differences in focus and process may both complicate and make collaborations difficult. For collaborations to work success -fully, Reback et al.10 advocated four key components of effective partner -ships, including establishing relation -ships between researcher and the com-munity early in the research process, even before a grant has been written. At the same time, they urge practitio-ners to get to know the researcher to determine if it is a person or team with whom they want to work. The goal should be a "mutual choosing of part -ners" (Reback, p. 839). The research partnership, once established, should be equal and be based on ongoing bilateral communication. Finally, this equal partnership should resist hier -archical collaborations by listing all parties as co-investigators on funding documents, and the researcher should make sure to share all research findings with the practitioners and the larger community they serve.10 Such a model could be especially useful in the field of international health research collabora -tion, where Lucas5 opines that unequal power between partner nations risks exploitation of the scientists and insti-tutions of the developing country. While clinical and academic research partnerships may still be establishing growing pains, collabora -tions among academia and practitio -ners in the biotechnology and pharma -cology fields are more experienced. In these fields, "practitioners" are indus-trial and medical end-users of such research. And while these users cer -tainly understand that academic col -laboration and university support are paramount to progress, innovation and speed in the market, such partnerships face an equal share of difficulties. For instance, Weatherall2 notes that as uni -versities see great financial advantages to industrial partnership, scientists face increasing pressure to develop short-term research projects with predictable goals. Furthermore, the easing of guide-lines for academic and industrial inter -actions has led to scientists feeling pres- sure to exploit their work for commer -cial gain and profit.2 Such partnerships have blurred the lines between unbiased research and that done by researchers with a financial interest in outcomes. What greater pressure could there be than for the achievement of tenure for the academic, or development of effec -tive clinical treatment models for the cli -nician? Even though this may put pres-sure on both to cultivate a research part -nership, as suggested by Joubert,12 the While clinical and academic research partnerships may still be establishing growing pains, collaborations among academia and practitioners in the biotechnology and pharmacology fields are more experienced. Research_NNI0510_6.indd 53 4/16/10 3:49:33 PM
You must have JavaScript enabled to view digital editions.
