Potential Knowledge Users Research Articles

Social media and postsecondary student adoption of mental health labels: protocol for a scoping review

IntroductionMany postsecondary students use social media at an age when mental health issues often arise for the first time. On social media, students describe their mental states or social interactions...

Fisheries knowledge exchange and mobilization through a network of policy and practice actors

Conservation researchers have been shown to be motivated by the application of their work to address real world problems. However, a significant number of recent studies in the sociology of science and related fields such as knowledge exchange and knowledge mobilization have shown that direct influence of conservation science on policy and practice is rare. To improve conservation science uptake, we need a better understanding of how knowledge mediation and interpretation by potential knowledge users actually happens. This article examines qualitative data from a set of 65 interviews with government staff and other stakeholders and rights holders involved with rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) management in British Columbia, Canada. The focus of the investigation is on the ways that scientific knowledge moves through this network of actors. We approach knowledge exchange and mobilization as a social and political process. Our analysis makes use of the concept of knowledge mediation spaces as the specific settings in which actors deliberate and make sense of multiple forms of knowledge and competing social interests. Four knowledge mediation spaces were identified in the case study: sharing expertise and best practices, consultation on policy direction, program delivery, and research partnerships. Sharing of knowledge among actors in this network was found to be influenced by the movement of individuals from one organization to another throughout their careers. We also found that there is frequent interaction among actors for problem solving and seeking expert advice and that scientific methods strongly inform the actions of fisheries actors; yet science does not always play a role in policy formation. We recommend researchers place more emphasis on engaging stakeholders and Indigenous rights holders more directly in order to inform their research agendas and to facilitate more direct pathways for knowledge exchange, and by extension impacts on management and conservation.

The role of western‐based scientific, Indigenous and local knowledge in wildlife management and conservation

Abstract Managers of wildlife are faced with decisions and issues that are increasingly complex, spanning natural and human dimensions (i.e. values, preferences, attitudes). A strong evidence base that includes multiple forms and sources of knowledge is needed to support these complex decisions. However, a growing body of literature demonstrates that environmental managers are far more likely to draw on intuition, past experience or opinion to inform important decisions rather than empirical evidence. We set out to assess how decision‐makers and other potential knowledge users (a) perceive, evaluate and use western‐based scientific, Indigenous and local knowledge and (b) the extent to which social, political and economic considerations challenge the integration of different forms of evidence into decision‐making. In 2018, we interviewed members from natural resource management branches of Indigenous governments (n = 4) and parliamentary governments (n = 33), as well as representatives from nongovernmental stakeholder groups (n = 28) involved in wildlife management and conservation in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Contrary to studies that suggest evidence‐based conservation and management are rare, respondents described relying heavily on multiple forms of knowledge. Results revealed that western science is used near‐unanimously, procured from internal (i.e. institutional) sources slightly more than external ones (i.e. peer‐reviewed journals, management agencies in other jurisdictions). However, we found Indigenous and local knowledge use to be much less than western scientific knowledge (approximately half as much) despite being highly valued. Perceived challenges to applying Indigenous and local knowledge include a lack of trust, hesitancy to share knowledge (particularly from Indigenous communities), difficulties in assessing reliability and difficulties discerning knowledge from advocacy. Despite high (and relatively diverse) evidence use, more than 40% of respondents perceived a diminishing role for evidence in final decisions concerning wildlife management and conservation. They associated this with decreases in institutional resources and capacity and increases in socio‐economic and political interference. We encourage transformative change in wildlife management enabling decision‐makers to draw upon multiple forms of knowledge. This transformative change should include direct involvement of knowledge holders, co‐assessment of knowledge and transparency in how (multiple forms of) evidence contribute to decision‐making. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Conservation genomics from a practitioner lens: Evaluating the research-implementation gap in a managed freshwater fishery

Fish and wildlife managers are faced with the daunting task of making informed and sensible decisions in the face of conflicting objectives and rapid environmental change. Conservation genomics – the use of new genomic techniques and genome-wide information to solve biological conservation problems – is an emerging scientific field that holds much promise in delivering practical knowledge to inform decisions, policies, and practices for conservation and management. However, the impact of genomics on conservation and management has been rather limited to date, described as the “conservation genomics gap”. We set out to identify perceived benefits and existing barriers supporting or limiting the use of conservation genomics in conservation practice by analyzing how potential knowledge users (conservation practitioners) perceive and evaluate genomics using the case of managed Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fisheries in the Canadian province of British Columbia. We interviewed 33 government employees and 32 representatives from nongovernmental stakeholder groups involved in fisheries management. We found that very few knowledge users were familiar with genomics or understood the difference between genetics and genomics. Despite low genomics familiarity, respondents generally view conservation genomics favorably, as a reliable and promising tool that could provide them with novel knowledge that would help them improve management or make better decisions. However, the exact benefits or outcomes genomics could provide in applied contexts are potentially limited by politics, communication, expertise, interpretation, cost, competing conservation practices, and time. Our research suggests that genomics has considerable potential in applied conservation and management if clearer communication between researchers and practitioners is achieved. We recommend genomic researchers and funding agencies identify wide-ranging practitioners and instate knowledge and sharing interfaces at project outset focused on practitioner objectives and improving practitioner knowledge and familiarity.

How do potential knowledge users evaluate new claims about a contested resource? Problems of power and politics in knowledge exchange and mobilization

This article examines how potential users of scientific and local/traditional/experiential knowledge evaluate new claims to knowing, using 67 interviews with government employees and non-governmental stakeholders involved in co-managing salmon fisheries in Canada's Fraser River. Research has consistently shown that there are major obstacles to moving new knowledge into policy, management, and public domains. New concepts such as Knowledge Exchange (KE) and Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) are being used to investigate these obstacles, but the processes by which potential users evaluate (sometimes competing) knowledge claims remain poorly understood. We use concepts from the sociology of science and find that potential users evaluate new knowledge claims based on three broad criteria: (1) the perceived merits of the claim, (2) perceptions of the character and motivation of the claimant, and (3) considerations of the social and political context of the claim. However, government employees and stakeholders have different interpretations of these criteria, leading to different knowledge preferences and normative expectations of scientists and other claimants. We draw both theoretical and practical lessons from these findings. With respect to theory, we argue that the sociology of science provides valuable insights into the political dimensions of knowledge and should be explicitly incorporated into KE/KMb research. With respect to practice, our findings underline the need for scientists and other claimants to make conscious decisions about whose expectations they hope to meet in their communications and engagement activities.

Knowledge users’ perspectives and advice on how to improve knowledge exchange and mobilization in the case of a co-managed fishery

Environmental scientists have long been frustrated by the difficulties involved in transferring their research findings into policy-making, management, and public spheres. Despite increases in scientific knowledge about social-ecological systems, research has consistently shown that regulators and stakeholders draw on tacit, informal, and experiential knowledge far more than scientific knowledge in their decision-making. Social science research in the fields of knowledge exchange (KE) and knowledge mobilization (KMb) suggest that one of the major barriers to moving knowledge into practice is that scientists fail to align their communication strategies with the information-seeking behaviours and preferences of potential knowledge users. This article presents findings from in-depth qualitative research with government employees and stakeholders involved in co-managing Pacific salmon fisheries in Canada’s Fraser River. We investigate how members of these groups access, view, and use scientific information, finding both similarities and differences. Members of both groups express a strong interest in academic science, and self-report using scientific information regularly in their work and advocacy. However, the two groups engage in different information-seeking behaviours, and provide notably different advice to academic scientists about how to make research and communication more relevant to potential users. For example, government employees focus on the immediate applications of research to known problems, while stakeholders express greater concern for the political context and implications of scientific findings. We argue that scientists need to “go where the users are” in the behavioural and intellectual sense, and tailor their communications and engagement activities to match the habits, preferences, and expectations of multiple potential user groups. We conclude with recommendations on how this may be done.

The effectiveness of workplace interventions to increase physical activity and decrease sedentary behaviour in adults: protocol for a systematic review.

BackgroundA physically active lifestyle plays a preventative role in the development of various chronic diseases and mental health conditions. Unfortunately, few adults achieve the minimum amount of physical activity and spend excessive time sitting. Developing targeted interventions to increase active living among adults is an important endeavour for public health. One plausible context to reach adults is the workplace. This systematic review aims to review the effectiveness of workplace interventions on increasing physical activity and decreasing sedentary behaviour in the workplace.MethodsAn advisory group of practitioners will work in collaboration with the research team to inform the systematic review and knowledge mobilization. Fifteen electronic databases will be searched to identify studies examining the effectiveness of workplace interventions on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. All experimental designs and observational studies (non-experimental intervention studies) meeting the study criteria will be included. Studies examining generally healthy, employed, adult participants will be included for the review. Interventions will focus on increasing physical activity and/or decreasing sedentary behaviour from the individual to policy level. The primary outcome variables will be reported or observed physical activity and/or sedentary behaviour in the workplace. Secondary outcomes will include variables ranging from return on investment to quality of life. Study quality will be assessed for risk of bias following the protocol identified in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and supplemented by the guidelines developed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group, using RevMan. The quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses, forest plots, and harvest plots will be used where appropriate to assess the direction, size, and consistency of the intervention effect across the studies using similar intervention strategies. Follow-up knowledge mobilization activities and products will be developed to support the use of this knowledge in practice.DiscussionThis protocol paper describes a systematic review assessing the effectiveness of various types of workplace interventions on increasing physical activity and decreasing sedentary behaviour at work. Collaborating with an advisory group of potential knowledge users throughout the process postulates a greater use and reach of the information gained from this systematic review by knowledge users.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42015019398Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0166-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Quebec rural emergency department project: a cross-sectional study of a potential two-pronged strategy in the knowledge transfer process.

IntroductionHealth services research generates useful knowledge. Promotion of implementation of this knowledge in medical practice is essential. Prior to initiation of a major study on rural emergency departments (EDs), we deployed two knowledge transfer strategies designed to generate interest and engagement from potential knowledge users. The objective of this paper was to review: 1) a combined project launch and media press release strategy, and 2) a pre-study survey designed to survey potential knowledge users’ opinions on the proposed study variables.Materials and MethodsWe evaluated the impact of the project launch (presentation at two conferences hosted by key stakeholders) and media press release via a survey of participants/stakeholders and by calculating the number of media interview requests and reports generated. We used a pre-study survey to collect potential key stakeholder’ opinions on the study variables.ResultsTwenty-one of Quebec’s 26 rural EDs participated in the pre-study survey (81% participation rate). The press release about the study generated 51 press articles and 20 media request for interviews, and contributed to public awareness of a major rural research initiative. In the pre-study survey, thirteen participants (46%) mentioned prior knowledge of the research project. Results from the pre-study survey revealed that all of the potential study variables were considered to be relevant for inclusion in the research project. Respondents also proposed additional variables of interest, including factors promoting retention of human resources.ConclusionsThe present study demonstrated the potential utility of a two-pronged knowledge transfer strategy, including a combined formal launch and press release, and a pre-study survey designed to ensure that the included variables were of interest to participants and stakeholders.

Why New Hybrid Organizations are Formed: Historical Perspectives on Epistemic and Academic Drift.

By comparing three types of hybrid organizations—18th-century scientific academies, 19th-century institutions of higher vocational education, and 20th-century industrial research institutes—it is the purpose here to answer the question of why new hybrid organizations are continuously formed. Traditionally, and often implicitly, it is often assumed that emerging groups of potential knowledge users have their own organizational preferences and demands influencing the setup of new hybrid organizations. By applying the concepts epistemic and academic drift, it will be argued here, however, that internal organizational dynamics are just as important as changing historical conjunctures in the uses of science when understanding why new hybrid organizations are formed. Only seldom have older hybrid organizations sought to make themselves relevant to new categories of knowledge users as the original ones have been marginalized. Instead, they have tended to accede to ideals supported by traditional academic organizations with higher status in terms of knowledge management, primarily universities. Through this process, demand has been generated for the founding of new hybrid organizations rather than the transformation of existing ones. Although this study focuses on Swedish cases, it is argued that since Sweden strove consistently to implement existing international policy trends during the periods in question, the observations may be generalized to apply to other national and transnational contexts.

Knowledge Translation, Evidence-Based Practice, and You

Knowledge Translation, Evidence-Based Practice, and You

Integrating Knowledge Generation with Knowledge Diffusion and Utilization

Knowledge diffusion and utilization (KDU) have become a key focus in the health research community because of the limited success to date of research findings to inform health policies, programs and services. Yet, evidence indicates that successful KDU is often predicated on the early involvement of potential knowledge users in the conceptualization and conduct of the research and on the development of a "partnership culture". This study describes the integration of KDU theory with practice via a case study analysis of the Consortium for Applied Research and Evaluation in Mental Health (CAREMH).This qualitative study, using a single-case design, included a number of data sources: proposals, meeting minutes, presentations, publications, reports and curricula vitae of CAREMH members.CAREMH has adopted the following operational strategies to increase KDU capacity: 1) viewing research as a means and not as an end; 2) bringing the university and researcher to the community; 3) using participatory research methods; 4) embracing transdisciplinary research and interactions; and 5) using connectors. Examples of the iterative process between researchers and potential knowledge users in their contribution to knowledge generation, diffusion and utilization are provided.This case study supports the importance of early and ongoing involvement of relevant potential knowledge users in research to enhance its utilization potential. It also highlights the need for re-thinking research funding approaches.