Implementation Science is not cross-disciplinary. The week in #impsci Twitter

photo by Stephen Pedersen on Unsplash
Spread the science

What does recent Twitter say about implementation science? Well, one common thread was that Implementation Practice includes enabling relationship-building, developing a common language, defining roles, and dedicating resources. That was a pretty clear thread in the network plot below.

What else can we say about the Twitter chatter on #impsci.

We see a lot of people talking about the cross-disciplinary nature of the field. This statement is kind of a new bugaboo with me. On the surface, the field of impsci emphasizes the need to take down academic silos, yet we see many of the top-tier journals constrain their submissions. Implementation Science is health-focused. Implementation Research and Practice is behavioral health focused.

Where are the articles on educational policy?

Where are the articles on marketing?

Where are the articles on environmental stewardship?

Hey, how about financial modeling? (Apologies to Alex Dopp, who is working in this area.)

Part of this is funding. NCI funds many great projects, but they end up being health and cancer-control focused (for good reason, it’s their/our money). But surely there are generalized principles that can apply to any innovation. Everett Rogers talked about this 60ish years ago!

Those who attended the specific EISummitt session on this issue: we want to hear from you. Let’s do better.

Top Tweeters

And our top tweets for the week


Spread the science

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *