Over time there has been a shift, at least in the rhetoric, from a pipeline conceptualisation of knowledge implementation, to one that recognises the potential of more collaboration, co-productive approaches to knowledge production and use. In this editorial, which is grounded in our research and collective experience, we highlight both the potential and challenge with collaboration and co-production. This includes issues about stakeholder engagement, governance arrangements, and capacity and capability for working in a coproductive way. Finally, we reflect on the fact that this approach is not a panacea, but is accompanied by some philosophical and practical challenges.

Increasingly, it is being suggested that translational gaps might be eradicated or narrowed by bringing research users and producers closer together, a theory that is largely untested. This paper reports a national study to fill a gap in the evidence about the conditions, processes and outcomes related to collaboration and implementation. A longitudinal realist evaluation using multiple qualitative methods case studies was conducted with three Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research in Care (England). Data were collected over four rounds of theory development, refinement and testing. Over 200 participants were involved in semi-structured interviews, non-participant observations of events and meetings, and stakeholder engagement. A combined inductive and deductive data analysis process was focused on proposition refinement and testing iteratively over data collection rounds. The quality of existing relationships between higher education and local health service, and views about whether implementation was a collaborative act, created a path dependency. Where implementation was perceived to be removed from service and there was a lack of organisational connections, this resulted in a focus on knowledge production and transfer, rather than co-production. The collaborations’ architectures were counterproductive because they did not facilitate connectivity and had emphasised professional and epistemic boundaries. More distributed leadership was associated with greater potential for engagement. The creation of boundary spanning roles was the most visible investment in implementation, and credible individuals in these roles resulted in cross-boundary work, in facilitation and in direct impacts. The academic-practice divide played out strongly as a context for motivation to engage, in that ‘what’s in it for me’ resulted in variable levels of engagement along a co-operation-collaboration continuum. Learning within and across collaborations was patchy depending on attention to evaluation. These collaborations did not emerge from a vacuum, and they needed time to learn and develop. Their life cycle started with their position on collaboration, knowledge and implementation. More impactful attempts at collective action in implementation might be determined by the deliberate alignment of a number of features, including foundational relationships, vision, values, structures and processes and views about the nature of the collaboration and implementation.

The English National Health Service has made a major investment in nine partnerships between higher education institutions and local health services called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). They have been funded to increase capacity and capability to produce and implement research through sustained interactions between academics and health services. CLAHRCs provide a natural 'test bed' for exploring questions about research implementation within a partnership model of delivery. This protocol describes an externally funded evaluation that focuses on implementation mechanisms and processes within three CLAHRCs. It seeks to uncover what works, for whom, how, and in what circumstances.

Objectives In theory, greater interaction between researchers and practitioners should result in increased potential for implementation. However, we know little about whether this is the case, or what mechanisms might operate to make it happen. This paper reports findings from a study that is identifying and tracking implementation mechanisms, processes, influences and impacts in real time, over time in the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). Methods This is a longitudinal, realist evaluation case study. The development of the conceptual framework and initial hypotheses involved literature reviewing and stakeholder consultation. Primary data were collected through interviews, observations and documents within three CLAHRCs, and analysed thematically against the framework and hypotheses. Results The first round of data collection shows that the mechanisms of collaborative action, relationship building, engagement, motivation, knowledge exchange and learning are important to the processes and outcomes of CLAHRCs' activity, including their capacity for implementation. These mechanisms operated in different contexts such as competing agendas, availability of resources and the CLAHRCs’ brand. Contexts and mechanisms result in different impact, including the CLAHRCs’ approach to implementation, quality of collaboration, commitment and ownership, and degree of sharing and managing knowledge. Conclusion Emerging features of a middle range theory of implementation within collaboration include alignment in organizational structures and cognitive processes, history of partnerships, responsiveness and resilience in rapidly changing contexts. CLARHCs’ potential to mobilize knowledge may be further realized by how they develop insights into their function as collaborative entities.