Unpacking Contexting and Institutionalizing as Complex Sustaining Practices; Comment on “Sustaining Knowledge Translation Practices: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis”

Document Type : Commentary


Department of Sociology and Social Work, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark


This article discusses the work of Borst, Wehrens and Bal’s (2022) in which they suggest ‘sustaining work’ as a term that covers the efforts of actors to sustain the use of health research in policy and practice through three practices. I suggest that two of these, contexting and institutionalizing, need to be further unpacked to understand how and why they are important for sustaining work in knowledge translation (KT). To contribute here, I discuss KT as processes of organizational change that occurs within and across organizations, often involving actors with different views on and approaches to the use of health research in policy and practice. These actors will likely have very different understandings of what the context for using research is and they are likely be members of competing or conflicting institutions. Future research needs to take such elements into account to improve our understanding and practice of sustaining work.


  1. Borst R, Wehrens R, Bal R. Sustaining knowledge translation practices: A critical interpretive synthesis. International journal of health policy and management. 2022:1. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.6424.
  2. Meier N, Dopson S. What is context? Methodological reflections on the relationship between context, actors, and change. In: Kislov R, Burns D, Mørk BE, Montgomery K, eds. Managing healthcare organisations in challenging policy contexts. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021:1-22. 10.1007/978-3-030-81093-1_1.
  3. Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Spreading and scaling up innovation and improvement. BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2019;365:l2068. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l2068.
  4. Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, et al. Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. Journal of medical Internet research. 2017;19(11):e367. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8775.
  5. Dopson S, Fitzgerald L, Ferlie E. Understanding change and innovation in health care settings: Reconceptualizing the active role of context. Journal of Change Management. 2008;8(3-4):213-231. doi.10.1080/14697010802133577
  6. Meier N, Dopson S, eds. Context in action and how to study it: Illustrations from healthcare. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198805304.001.0001
  7. Konlechner S, Latzke M, Güttel W,H., Höfferer E. Prospective sensemaking, frames and planned change interventions: A comparison of change trajectories in two hospital units. Human Relations. 2019;72(4):706-732. doi: 10.1177/0018726718773157.
  8. Helpap S, Bekmeier-Feuerhahn S. Employees' emotions in change: Advancing the sensemaking approach. J Organ Change Manage. 2016;29(6):903-916. doi.10.1108/JOCM-05-2016-0088
  9. Moisander JK, Hirsto H, Fahy KM. Emotions in institutional work: A discursive perspective. Organization Studies. 2016;37(7):963-990. doi: 10.1177/0170840615613377.
  10. Lawrence KA, Suddaby R, Leca B. Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry. 2011;20(1):52-58. doi.10.1177%2F1056492610387222
  11. Dopson S, Fitzgerald L. Knowledge to action? Evidence based health care in context. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005: DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199259014.001.0001

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 17 January 2023
  • Receive Date: 10 July 2022
  • Revise Date: 11 January 2023
  • Accept Date: 15 January 2023
  • First Publish Date: 17 January 2023