Productive interactions to exchange knowledge in healthcare building design

Annemans, M and Heylighen, A (2021) Productive interactions to exchange knowledge in healthcare building design. Building Research & Information, 49(3), pp. 281-293. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

Architects and healthcare organizations involved in designing healthcare environments highly value insights gained through research to inform their practice. Obtaining research funding increasingly presupposes economic and/or societal value of research outcomes. Our study aims to gain a nuanced understanding of what knowledge transfer in an inter- and transdisciplinary context, like healthcare building design, means for various actors involved. Based on the notion of productive interactions, we reflect on a knowledge-transfer project seeking solutions for real-world problems in the design of healthcare buildings with a focus on patient experience. We analyze how different actors involved in the project –including researchers, healthcare organizations, and designers–view and value the knowledge provided and transferred, and the (pathways towards) impact. In doing so, we illustrate how productive interactions can take place in real-life situations. We conclude that the roles of researchers and practitioners in knowledge exchange processes should be understood to be fluid. Future realizations of productive interactions could be supported by evaluating knowledge-transfer projects in terms of process and outcomes, thus acknowledging the shifting roles of researchers and practitioners, and the potential to improve well-being and social relations through research.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: case study enquiry; healthcare building design; knowledge exchange; patient experience; productive interactions; qualitative research
Index terms: knowledge transfer, practitioner, research funding, well-being, qualitative research, case study, building design, designer, architect, knowledge exchange, interaction
Subjects: behavioral psychology, research management, knowledge management, architectural design, practitioner, data collection methods, research dissemination and communication, profession, mental health and wellbeing, research design and methodology
Topics: Information Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Design Practice
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTE

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here