A model for evidence networks: common vision, collective identity, collaboration
“Collaboration involves interactions between people. It is the product of relationships, not something discrete or rule bound… The unpredictable behaviour of the individuals involved prohibits the implementation of strict rules to be adhered to. However, the generative nature of the relationships between groups … is achieved through strategies that enable and empower groups, providing a sense of ownership of the mission and vision of the broader group.”1
Just over a decade ago I published my PhD thesis which sought to identify public and organisational discourses around international collaboration in health research. A decade later, I believe that much of what was concluded remains true today. In the thesis, it was determined that collaboration, organisations and organising are fundamentally activities that focus on human relationships and communication. It was concluded at that time that, while a coordinating administrative body was necessary for a global network to grow and succeed, it should not enforce control or impose predefined rules. Rather, it should adopt a transparent and flexible approach to governance in which pre-existing systems, cultures, and diversity are respected and, indeed, celebrated. A new model for international collaboration was proposed in which both internal and external communication strategies are utilised to effectively collaborate on the international stage. It also suggested that this should occur within a framework that values difference between groups, identifies mutual benefits, and empowers collaborating partners with limited resources and capacity to be successful. The three key elements of the model were Common vision, Collective identity, and Collaboration.
This year we published a paper in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology that articulates, in some detail, the form and function of JBI’s global collaborative evidence network, the JBI Collaboration (JBIC), and how partnerships, platforms and processes within the network can broaden the dissemination and impact of the work of all partners involved to drive the evidence-based healthcare agenda forward. Mapping this work against the work undertaken in 2011 demonstrates the ongoing relevance of the collaborative approach and the value of focusing on human relationships as the currency that provides the ‘why’ for collaboration: “networks can be fostered, supported, galvanised, even transformed, but they cannot be created without regard for their relationships”.
Common vision
JBI and its 75+ global collaborating entities share a desire to promote and support evidence-based decisions to improve health and health service delivery: Better evidence. Better outcomes. Brighter future. The vision and mission have been collectively revisited over the years to ensure they remain meaningful to all involved. Although the wording may have been massaged over time, the essence of the overarching objectives has remained the same. It is a vision and mission that remains relevant across cultures and contexts, particularly as we have navigated a path through the global COVID-19 pandemic. All groups have remained committed to ensuring the availability of trustworthy evidence to make critical decisions about health policy and practice. There has always been absolute clarity on the vision and mission, and this has given shape to collaborative activities and work programs as they relate to the synthesis, transfer and implementation of evidence.
At the end of the day the people that joined the JBC [sic] have all become involved because of the mission and the vision. It’s something real… that overarching belief in what we do.3
Collective identity
Just as identified in 2011, collective identity has, across the JBIC, been inclusive enough to account for cultural difference, but has also engendered a sense of ‘family’. While it has been challenging since the pandemic to create opportunities and honour the social rituals that have historically created a sense of connectedness across the JBIC, there has been an ongoing faith in the ties that bind us as a community of scholars and practitioners working towards a common goal. Pragmatically, we have continued to communicate via the usual remote channels (email, phone, social and digital media platforms, zoom, zoom and more zoom!), but we have done so deliberately, with intent, with purpose and with a commitment to the relationships we have worked so very hard to build and preserve and evolve over more than two decades. We have continued to host an AGM in which we included both formal and informal opportunities for business and academic engagement and relationship building, and introduced more informal ‘drop in’ meetings on a variety of topics and events that have evolved from ‘local’ to “gLocal”!
Collaboration
JBI continues to employ an inclusive, democratic approach to collaboration that is mindful of the diverse needs of all partners. There are many and varied opportunities for engagement across a broad range of activities (from the conduct of synthesis and implementation projects, participation in methodology groups, mentorship, clinical partnership engagement and delivery of training programs). In 2015, the JBIC Activity Matrix Framework was co-created with all partners to address inequities related to outputs and funding, and recognise the important scientific, scholarly and collaborative activities undertaken by JBIC entities. Following the first full activity cycle (three years), more entities were achieving higher levels of output and double the number of entities were receiving funding compared to the previous model. However, while this collaborative model aimed to be equitable, we must realise that partners often do not have equal opportunities, resources or capacities. In 2020, our annual monitoring and evaluation highlighted that those inequities remained, with most of the funding still being distributed to entities in high-income countries with English as their primary language – entities that had greater opportunities and support to invest in activity and output. The JBIC Brighter Futures Grant Program, introduced this year, seeks to fund programs of work across three domains that support collaboration, low- and middle-income-country capacity building and multilingual activities – challenges that had been identified consistently at annual JBIC meetings.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Today, the JBI Collaboration consists of 78 entities (and growing) across 38 countries in five regions (Australia, America, Asia, Africa and Europe). Just as in 2011, JBI continues to conceive its collaborative relationships as coactive rather than coercive, or ‘power with’ rather than ‘power over’. Collaboration is an art, not a science, and the human elements of collaboration have been carefully nurtured with open and transparent communication and inclusive decision-making, which endeavours to ensure collective wisdom is maximised at every opportunity. Common vision, collective identity and collaboration give JBI’s collaborative evidence network a powerful sense of unity that drives success and innovation. The JBI Collaboration is not just an echo chamber for JBI ideologies, but rather it is recognised as a network of groups who challenge us: to be different; to be better.
Authors
1. Zoe Jordan1, Bianca Pilla1.
1. JBI
References
1. Jordan Z (2011) International collaboration: manna, myth and model, PhD thesis, University of Adelaide
2. Pilla B, Jordan Z, Christian R, Kynoch K, McInerney P, Cooper K, Wu Y, Porritt K, Lockwood C, Munn Z (in press) The role of collaborative evidence networks in promoting and supporting evidence-based healthcare globally: reflections from 25 years across 38 countries, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
3. JBI. Evaluation of Changes to the Structure and Funding of the Joanna Briggs Collaboration, First Interim Report. [Unpublished results]. 2017.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this World EBHC Day Blog, as well as any errors or omissions, are the sole responsibility of the author and do not represent the views of the World EBHC Day Steering Committee, Official Partners or Sponsors; nor does it imply endorsement by the aforementioned parties.
