Social Psychology of and for World-Making.

ACADEMIC ABSTRACT: Social psychology's disconnect from the vital and urgent questions of people's lived experiences reveals limitations in the current paradigm. We draw on a related perspective in social psychology1-the sociocultural approach-and argue how this perspective can be elaborated to consider not only social psychology as a historical science but also social psychology of and for world-making. This conceptualization can make sense of key theoretical and methodological challenges faced by contemporary social psychology. As such, we describe the ontology, epistemology, ethics, and methods of social psychology of and for world-making. We illustrate our framework with concrete examples from social psychology. We argue that reconceptualizing social psychology in terms of world-making can make it more humble yet also more relevant, reconnecting it with the pressing issues of our time. PUBLIC ABSTRACT: We propose that social psychology should focus on "world-making" in two senses. First, people are future-oriented and often are guided more by what could be than what is. Second, social psychology can contribute to this future orientation by supporting people's world-making and also critically reflecting on the role of social psychological research in world-making. We unpack the philosophical assumptions, methodological procedures, and ethical considerations that underpin a social psychology of and for world-making. Social psychological research, whether it is intended or not, contributes to the societies and cultures in which we live, and thus it cannot be a passive bystander of world-making. By embracing social psychology of and for world-making and facing up to the contemporary societal challenges upon which our collective future depends will make social psychology more humble but also more relevant.

Disseminated learning from clinician-scientists: a multiple case study in physiotherapeutic care.

BACKGROUND: Clinician-Scientists are considered to be important for continuous improvement of patient care, because they are ideally positioned to bridge the gap between scientific research and clinical care. However, limited empirical evidence is available about how they connect these two realms. So far research has mainly focused on their direct role in bridging the gap. This study investigates an additional mechanism; that is whether clinician-scientists also connect science and care indirectly through disseminated learning. During this type of learning, clinical colleagues learn by working with clinician-scientists. METHODS: Disseminated learning was studied in five physiotherapeutic care settings in the Netherlands with clinician-scientists (N = 5) and their clinical colleagues (N = 14). Semi-structured interviews were conducted between March and May of 2016. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Clinicians and clinician-scientists in all settings reported clinicians learning informally. They learned by being informed about (evidence for) new tests and treatments, through increased understanding of the research process and research results, and through awareness of an academic reflective approach to care. Learning took place primarily through knowledge sharing, and to a lesser extent through role modeling or joint implementation. Interpersonal and organizational conditions, such as overlapping clinical expertise and organizational policy and culture, seemed to facilitate or hinder learning. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights disseminated learning as a mechanism of how clinician-scientists may connect science and care. Furthermore, it provides insight into how disseminated learning may take place and the conditions that may facilitate or restrict learning.

Professional identity in clinician-scientists: brokers between care and science.

CONTEXT: Despite increasing numbers of publications, science often fails to significantly improve patient care. Clinician-scientists, professionals who combine care and research activities, play an important role in helping to solve this problem. However, despite the ascribed advantages of connecting scientific knowledge and inquiry with health care, clinician-scientists are scarce, especially amongst non-physicians. The education of clinician-scientists can be complex because they must form professional identities at the intersection of care and research. The successful education of clinician-scientists requires insight into how these professionals view their professional identity and how they combine distinct practices. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate how recently trained nurse- and physiotherapist-scientists perceive their professional identities and experience the crossing of boundaries between care and research. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 nurse- and physiotherapist-scientists at 1 year after they had completed MSc research training. Interviews were thematically analysed using insights from the theoretical frameworks of dialogical self theory and boundary crossing. RESULTS: After research training, the initial professional identity, of clinician, remained important for novice clinician-scientists, whereas the scientist identity was experienced as additional and complementary. A meta-identity as broker, referred to as a 'bridge builder', seemed to mediate competing demands or tensions between the two positions. Obtaining and maintaining a dual work position were experienced as logistically demanding; nevertheless, it was considered beneficial for crossing the boundaries between care and research because it led to reflection on the health profession, knowledge integration, inquiry and innovation in care, improved data collection, and research with a focus on clinical applicability. CONCLUSIONS: Novice clinician-scientists experience dual professional identities as care providers and scientists. The meta-position of being a broker who connects care and research is seen as core to the unique clinician-scientist identity. To develop this role, identity formation and boundary-crossing competencies merit explicit attention within clinician-scientist programmes.