Academic thinking

Current academic knowledge suggests that the exchange and management of data between organisations and practitioners involved in the delivery of public service, has often proved extremely hard to achieve, in particular when sharing involves multiple professions and organisations with different values, standards and traditions. We have been working closely with academics from a number of universities to explore how academic thinking can support work with local places on challenging barriers to information sharing.

Academic partners
Our current panel is made up of the following academic institutions:

Academic seminars
We have also been working in partnership with the Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC) on a series of academic seminars looking at a range of policy areas. This series of seminars responds to the urgent challenges posed by the uses of information in governing and delivering public services. Information sharing is a central concern across policy domains including the integration of health and social care, models of smart cities, tackling gang and youth violence, and the Troubled Families agenda. You can register interest in the academic seminars by clicking this link. 

Academic report 2015
In association with our academic partners, we created our first  Academic report - easy to say, harder to do well. The information sharing literature is dispersed over a wide variety of academic disciplines, policies, and professional contexts. The term is used in different ways, and is taken to mean different things, in all these contexts.

Key findings include:

  • The fear of sharing data and misconceptions around what can and cannot be shared (Socitm 2011, Wilks 2014)
  • Relative policy emphases on stewardship (“need to know”) and usefulness (“need to share”) (Dawes et al 2009; Dawes 2010)
  • Patterns of interrelationship between professionals (6 et al. 2004, Richardson and Asthana 2006, Wilson et al 2011b)
  • Subjective self-worth and norms, organizational climate, anticipated reciprocal relationships and anticipated extrinsic rewards (Bock et al 2005)
  • Professional versus client view of evidence (Haidet and Paterniti 2003, Wilson et al 2011b)
  • Management’s support for knowledge sharing, and perceptions of a positive social interaction culture; and gender as a significant moderator: female participants required a more “positive social interaction culture” than their male counterparts before they would perceive a knowledge sharing culture as “positive” (Connelly and Kelloway 2003)
  • Professional, programmatic, and organizational risks (Dawes 1996)