Comparaison de trois stratégies de travail en réseau afin de favoriser l’application des connaissances issues de la recherche

Authors

  • Marc Daigle Centre de recherche et d’intervention sur le suicide et l’euthanasie Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, Québec
  • François Chagnon Centre de recherche et d’intervention sur le suicide et l’euthanasie Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec
  • Danielle Saint-Laurent Institut national de santé publique du Québec Centre de recherche et d’intervention sur le suicide et l’euthanasie Trois-Rivières, Québec
  • Janie Houle Centre de recherche et d’intervention sur le suicide et l’euthanasie Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.023.005

Abstract

In research as in practice, establishing strong teams is a recognized necessity and teams are increasingly large and dispersed. In the field of health care, the need for pluridisciplinarity is a further constraint in the organization of such teams or at least communication within them. Despite these difficulties, networking has emerged among groups of practitioners who share common objectives and try to fulfill their mission more effectively by developing, sharing, and applying knowledge targeted based on their fields of interest. This article is a critical analysis of three different networking experiences that all shared the common objective of application of knowledge through networking among practitioners: the suicide prevention practice community (CoP) of the Centre for Research and Intervention on Suicide and Euthanasia (CRISE), the task force on suicide in prisons of the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP), and the international Francophone network for safety promotion and trauma prevention.

Published

2008-04-21

How to Cite

Daigle, M., Chagnon, F., Saint-Laurent, D., & Houle, J. (2008). Comparaison de trois stratégies de travail en réseau afin de favoriser l’application des connaissances issues de la recherche. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 23(1), 33–60. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.023.005

Issue

Section

Articles