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 et al 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 RAJ, Wehrens R, Bal R. Sustaining knowledge translation practices: a critical interpretive synthesis. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(12):2793-2804. doi: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. doi:1007/978-3-030-81093-1_1
  3. Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Spreading and scaling up innovation and improvement. BMJ. 2019;365:l2068. doi: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. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(11):e367. doi:2196/jmir.8775
  5. Dopson S, Fitzgerald L, Ferlie E. Understanding change and innovation in healthcare settings: reconceptualizing the active role of context. J Chang Manag. 2008;8(3-4):213-231. doi:1080/14697010802133577
  6. Meier N, Dopson S. Context in Action and how to Study it: Illustrations from Health Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019. doi:1093/oso/9780198805304.001.0001
  7. Konlechner S, Latzke M, Güttel WH, Höfferer E. Prospective sensemaking, frames and planned change interventions: a comparison of change trajectories in two hospital units. Hum Relat. 2019;72(4):706-732. doi:1177/0018726718773157
  8. Helpap S, Bekmeier-Feuerhahn S. Employees’ emotions in change: advancing the sensemaking approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2016;29(6):903-916. doi:1108/jocm-05-2016-0088
  9. Moisander JK, Hirsto H, Fahy KM. Emotions in institutional work: a discursive perspective. Organ Stud. 2016;37(7):963-990. doi:1177/0170840615613377
  10. Lawrence T, Suddaby R, Leca B. Institutional work: refocusing institutional studies of organization. J Manag Inq. 2011;20(1):52-58. doi:1177/1056492610387222
  11. Dopson S, Fitzgerald L. Knowledge to Action? Evidence-Based Health Care in Context. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005. doi:1093/acprof:oso/9780199259014.001.0001
  • Receive Date: 10 July 2022
  • Revise Date: 11 January 2023
  • Accept Date: 15 January 2023
  • First Publish Date: 17 January 2023