Knowledge Mobilization Research Research Articles

Engaging knowledge users in Canadian knowledge mobilisation research: a scoping review of research in education

Background:This study examines the engagement of knowledge users in knowledge mobilisation (KMb) research on Canadian K-12 teaching and education policy. Research on and around KMb has grown in the decade since this field was first assessed comprehensively. Thus, it is timely to re-evaluate if current knowledge producer-user relationships in KMb research feature the mediating variables or recursive elements promulgated as best practices in KMb research. Methods:A scoping review was conducted to identify the profile of knowledge users, map the engagement of knowledge users, and account for any changes to their roles in the research process since 2008. Twenty-eight relevant studies were identified. Contextual data and frequency of engagement with knowledge users were collected and analysed. Findings:Findings indicate that a diverse group of knowledge users are engaged in KMb research and draws on knowledge from various disciplines. A majority of the studies reported that knowledge users were engaged in at least two stages of their research process, with them most frequently engaged during the search and data collection phase of the research process. Discussion and conclusion:There has been an encouraging effort in building iterative producer-user connections with knowledge users being engaged, often repeatedly, across different phases of the research process. This indicates an increasingly collaborative model of soliciting user insights on the development and diffusion of research evidence. The review sets the foundation for potential future research on producer-user engagement and provides insights applicable beyond the Canadian K-12 education system.

For health or for profit? Understanding how private financing and for-profit delivery operate within Canadian healthcare (4H|4P): protocol for a multimethod knowledge mobilisation research project

IntroductionPrivatisation through the expansion of private payment and investor-owned corporate healthcare delivery in Canada raises potential conflicts with equity principles on which Medicare (Canadian public health insurance) is founded. Some...

A Knowledge Mobilization Framework: Toward Evidence-Based Statistical Communication Practices in Education Research

The evidence-based decision-making movement often assumes that once evidence is available (e.g., via the What Works Clearinghouse), decision-makers will integrate it into their practice. Research-practice partnership studies have shown this is not always true. In this paper, we argue that instead of assuming research will be useful and used, we should directly study strategies for disseminating evidence and mobilizing knowledge. We present a framework for organizing knowledge mobilization research into three facets: (1) examining norms embedded in evidence we communicate, (2) descriptively understanding how decision-makers reason about this evidence as well as their varied decision-making needs, and (3) prescriptively developing and evaluating communication strategies that facilitate better use of evidence by decision-makers. We delineate this three-faceted framework—normative, descriptive, prescriptive—and demonstrate how it considers the perspectives and priorities of both researchers and decision-makers. Focusing on a case study—of how statistical evidence is conveyed by clearinghouses—we point to existing evidence in education and other fields such as data visualization and cognitive psychology that should inform our communication practices and identify areas where further knowledge mobilization research is needed.

More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production

BackgroundKnowledge mobilisation requires the effective elicitation and blending of different types of knowledge or ways of knowing, to produce hybrid knowledge outputs that are valuable to both knowledge producers (researchers) and knowledge users (health care stakeholders). Patients and service users are a neglected user group, and there is a need for transparent reporting and critical review of methods used to co-produce knowledge with patients. This study aimed to explore the potential of participatory codesign methods as a mechanism of supporting knowledge sharing, and to evaluate this from the perspective of both researchers and patients.MethodsA knowledge mobilisation research project using participatory codesign workshops to explore patient involvement in using health data to improve services. To evaluate involvement in the project, multiple qualitative data sources were collected throughout, including a survey informed by the Generic Learning Outcomes framework, an evaluation focus group, and field notes. Analysis was a collective dialogic reflection on project processes and impacts, including comparing and contrasting the key issues from the researcher and contributor perspectives.ResultsAuthentic involvement was seen as the result of “space to talk” and “space to change”. "Space to talk" refers to creating space for shared dialogue, including space for tension and disagreement, and recognising contributor and researcher expertise as equally valuable to the discussion. ‘Space to change’ refers to space to adapt in response to contributor feedback. These were partly facilitated by the use of codesign methods which emphasise visual and iterative working, but contributors emphasised that relational openness was more crucial, and that this needed to apply to the study overall (specifically, how contributors were reimbursed as a demonstration of how their input was valued) to build trust, not just to processes within the workshops.ConclusionsSpecific methods used within involvement are only one component of effective involvement practice. The relationship between researcher and contributors, and particularly researcher willingness to change their approach in response to feedback, were considered most important by contributors. Productive tension was emphasised as a key mechanism in leading to genuinely hybrid outputs that combined contributor insight and experience with academic knowledge and understanding.

Instagram as a knowledge mobilization platform for youth resilience research: An exploratory study

Objectives: Social media (SoMe) is globally prevalent, but its relevance for disseminating sensitive topics, such as violence victimization and mental health among adolescents and emerging adults, remain under-researched. Youth-dominate platforms may be well-suited for resilience messaging on safety, health, and well-being, and exploratory knowledge mobilization research. Research from a common team funding source supported a secondary objective that thematically linked research could be used to impact dissemination. Methods: This experiment utilized an ABA design, with a two-week baseline, followed by SoMe posting on weeks "A" and no posting on weeks "B" from a single Instagram account. During posting weeks, image-based messages from nine open access articles, from a risk and resilience research team, were posted three times per day. Each post contained a link to the associated open-access research article. Outcome dissemination indices, collected weekly, were reads of the referenced articles on a research-based networking site, ResearchGate. Results: Instagram indices formed the basis of our manipulation check. Relative to periods of inactivity, periods of active Instagram engagement led to significant increases in the number of Instagram impressions, website clicks, and followers, and in the number of reads of the posted ResearchGate articles. Implications: As the first study to examine Instagram impact for risk and resilience research, these findings encourage further SoMe work in this area of high public health import.

Re-Framing the Knowledge to Action Challenge Through NIHR Knowledge Mobilisation Research Fellows Comment on "CIHR Health System Impact Fellows: Reflections on 'Driving Change' Within the Health System".

The ambition of the Canadian Institutes for Health Research Health System Impact (HSI) Fellowship initiative to modernise the health system is impressive. Embedded researchers who work between academia and non-academic settings offer an opportunity to reframe the problem of evidence uptake as a product of a gap between those who produce knowledge and those who use it. As such, there has been an increasing interest in the potential of people in embedded research roles to work with stakeholders in the co-production of knowledge to address service challenges. In this commentary, we draw on research and experiential evidence of an embedded researcher initiative, which has similar intentions to the HSI Fellowships programme: the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Knowledge Mobilisation Research Fellowship (KMRF) scheme. We outline the similarities and differences between the two schemes, and then consider the work, characteristics and skills, and organisational arrangements evident in operationalising these types of roles.