KMbeing

Knowledge Mobilization (KMb): Multiple Contributions & Multi-Production Of New Knowledge

Category Archives: research

The Ecosystem Of Knowledge Mobilization

Leave a Comment Posted by KMbeing on May 13, 2013

A tree does not grow quickly in one day. A tree requires deep, nutritional soil, adequate rain and the warmth of sunlight to slowly grow each day. Year after year it grows with the rings of experience that come with each season. Each year it extends out and forms new branches.

Knowledge is like that. It takes time to acquire knowledge. Knowledge requires deep support and nurturing along with the warmth and openness of others to gain more knowledge each day. Year after year knowledge grows with the experiences of life.

A solitary tree is often an unusual site. Trees are mostly part of a larger forest, growing stronger side by side with branches overlapping and touching. Just as individual knowledge is touched and connected to other knowledge. Within the forest, a variety of birds and other animals transport seeds, foreign plants and flowers while travelling and jumping across these connecting branches. These are like the exposure to new ideas and co-creation of new knowledge. And sometimes flames of change completely engulf the forest eventually spurring on new growth and new direction, like a knowledge paradigm shift.

This is the ecosystem of nature, and a more creative way to the think of the ecosystem of knowledge mobilization.

Individual Knowledge Mobilization, KMb, knowledge, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, making the world a better place, Quick Knowledge Thought, research, social media ecosystem, growth, knowledge, knowledge mobilization, life experience, nature, nurture, support, trees

140 Twitter Characters To Knowledge Mobilization – Revisited

1 Comment Posted by KMbeing on April 5, 2013

How have traditional models of research and dissemination changed to present new knowledge to the public or further inform research by creating broader public engagement? Many researchers – particularly in the health sciences – are still embedded in long-established values and approaches to methodology and validity, often overlooking new modes of knowledge mobilization such as social media.

One of my recent KMbeing blog posts presented a very brief Twitter survey of the 16 classic Networks of Centres of Excellence in Canada (NCE). The survey found that many of these NCEs are still not effectively using Twitter as a valuable social media tool that can enhance knowledge mobilization strategies. This quick overview showed that of those NCEs that could actually be found on Twitter only four NCEs tweet an average of just over one tweet per day – which is clearly insufficient for effective social media and potential stakeholder engagement. It would appear that using Twitter as part of a knowledge mobilization strategy is clearly not on the radar screen of many of these NCEs, despite the potential of Twitter (and social media) as a valuable means of addressing key outcomes mandated for NCEs – including working with end users to accelerate the creation and application of new knowledge.

To be fair, my own quick methodology of the previous survey focused on the average number of tweets per day over a 30 day period from the 14^th February 2013 to the 15^th March 2013. The average number of tweets in a month was then divided by 30 to get the average number of tweets per day. Although the Twitter profile start date for each NCE was included along with the actual total number of tweets since each NCE began tweeting, this was not considered when doing the first brief survey.

So now, for part two of the original blog post survey 140 Twitter Characters To Knowledge Mobilization, I present a somewhat deeper (though still brief) analysis that takes into consideration the length of time each of these classic NCEs have used Twitter.

I used timeanddate.com to calculate the total number of days from the start date of each NCE Twitter profile to the 15^th of March 2013 (up to and including March 15th to be consistent with the first survey). Then the total number of tweets since each NCE joined Twitter was divided by the total number of days each NCE has been using Twitter to create a tweet-intensity score.

Each NCE was then ranked, showing the following results:

(Click on diagram above to enlarge)

Tweet-Intensity Ranking:

Allergy, Genes and Environment Network – AllerGen	@AllerGen_NCE (funding to 2019)	0.96
AUTO21 Network of Centres of Excellence	@AUTO21NCE (funding to 2015)	0.83
ArcticNet	@ArcticNet (funding to 2018)	0.81
Canadian Arthritis Network – CAN	@commcan (funding to 2014)	0.80
Stem Cell Network – SCN	@StemCellNetwork (funding to 2015)	0.73
Carbon Management Canada – CMC	@cmc_nce (funding to 2013)	0.47
Canadian Stroke Network – CSN	@strokenetwork (funding to 2015)	0.37
NeuroDevNet	@NeuroDevNet (funding to 2014)	0.34
Canadian Water Network – CWN	@CdnWaterNetwork (funding to 2015)	0.28
BioFuelNet	@BioFuelNet (funding to 2017)	0.13
Graphics, Animation and New Media Canada – GRAND	@GRAND_NCE (funding to 2014)	0.10
Canadian Photonic Industry Consortium – CPIC	Not Found (no longer funded)	0.0
GEOmatics for Informed DEcisions Network – GEOIDE	Not Found (no longer funded)	0.0
Marine Environmental, Observation, Prediction and Response Network – MEOPAR	Not Found (funding to 2017)	0.0
Mprime Network Inc.	Not Found (funding to 2014)	0.0
Technology Evaluation in the Elderly Network – TVN	Not Found (funding to 2017)	0.0

Although it’s still a simple calculation from the total number of tweets since each NCE started using Twitter, the current results show a more accurate tweet-intensity over time, with one of the NCEs – AllerGen – ranking first and showing a fairly impressive use of tweeting for the shorter amount of time on Twitter.
(It would be interesting to include the number of followers into the mix to see if that variable contributes to tweet effectiveness – but I’ll save that for a future blog post!).

However, results still show that the average number of tweets per day still remains well under the evidence that a minimum of at least ten tweets per day creates more valuable engagement and greater opportunities for knowledge dissemination. There’s still room for improvement to create greater social media engagement for more effective knowledge mobilization.

Just as a comparison, I decided to look at the results for Canada’s leading knowledge mobilization network ResearchImpact and my own KMbeing Twitter account.

Twitter Profile	Twitter Name	Twitter Start	Total Days On Twitter	Total Tweets	Tweet-Intensity Score
ResearchImpact	@researchimpact	May 15, 2009	1401	9450	6.74
KMbeing	@kmbeing	March 25, 2010	1087	9982	9.18

(Perhaps this is the reason why both ResearchImpact and KMbeing were voted in the top ten Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Influencers for 2011 and 2012).

Canadian policymakers and government agencies have recognized the value of drawing together leading researchers and research institutions into national research networks to support trans-disciplinary and multi-sectoral collaboration. The effectiveness of these research networks are also a great example to the rest of the world. It’s a first step towards incorporating knowledge mobilization into strategic planning to successfully increase communication and collaboration among a variety of stakeholders. It’s a changing research model using networking as part of the research process.

The next step for Canada’s flagship Science & Technology networks is to increase the use of social media for knowledge mobilization. Again, social media is not a fad, and the use of social media for academics and institutions is becoming more incorporated into strategic planning. Many researchers and academic institutions are recognizing the value of using Twitter in a more consistent and productive manner for knowledge mobilization.

As David Phipps, Executive Director of Research and Innovation Services at York University (and ResearchImpact) pointed out in a keynote address to the Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Forum in 2012 (and posted on the blog MobilizeThis!), the future of knowledge mobilization and research engagement will depend on social media, but researchers and knowledge mobilizers are still trying to figure out how to effectively use social media to do this.

“15-20 years ago IT folks had to develop a business case to convince corporate leaders to invest in an enterprise e mail system. Today e mail is a fact of life (unfortunately). Many of us are now using social media as a broadcasting tool and a large portion are also using it as a listening tool. We are now starting to figure out how to use social media as a tool for engagement but we’re not there yet. These trends will accelerate.”

Just as email changed society, so too is social media changing the traditional models of research, dissemination and engagement. Social media provides new modes of knowledge exchange and broader public input, creating a further research resource in the current KMb world as a way of providing broader participation in discussions around research topics. Social media also breaks down international barriers to share academic research in a way that is more friendly and immediate to a wider audience. Yet, social media is still a tool that needs to be used correctly to be effective (see my previous blog for tips on how to do this).

Canada’s Networks of Centres of Excellence are making a start. They just need to continue to take a few more steps forward into new modes of research and into the future of using social media – especially Twitter – for knowledge mobilization.

digital technology, KMb, knowledge, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, making the world a better place, policy, research, social collaboration, social media, social media tools, Today's Knowledge Inspiration, Uncategorized action, change, collaboration, David Phipps, digital technology, diversity, global knowledge, helping others, KMb, knowledge, knowledge connections, knowledge creation, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, knowledge sharing, knowledge value, learning, making a difference, making the world a better place, new knowledge, ResearchImpact, sharing knowledge, social benefit, social media, Twitter, value, York University

Growing Unlimited Knowledge

Leave a Comment Posted by KMbeing on April 4, 2013

Knowledge is never limited. Don’t waste your time trying to contain it. Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) is about building on knowledge, creating new knowledge from a variety of sources and individuals to continue growing unlimited knowledge.

digital technology, Individual Knowledge Mobilization, KMb, knowledge, knowledge exchange, making the world a better place, Quick Knowledge Thought, research, social collaboration building, creating, growing, helping others, knowledge, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, sharing knowledge, unlimited knowledge

Storytelling, Social Media, Equity, Knowledge Mobilization & Donuts!

1 Comment Posted by KMbeing on March 24, 2013

Sharing knowledge by telling a story can make a presentation, blog or conversation more interesting. Why?

When I was five years old, I was hit by a car. I fractured my collar-bone and was unconscious for nearly 48 hours. Doctors feared that I would suffer brain damage due to the impact of hitting my head against the pavement after being thrown forward by the force of the car. Fortunately, I was wearing one of those Sherlock Holmes-style winter hats for kids that my mother thought looked so cute on me. Thankfully, the hat cushioned the blow. I recovered, but my skull – though healed – still has a fracture line that I can run my fingers along.

I blame free donuts as the reason why I was hit by a car.

I crossed the busy street because it was the grand opening of a donuts shop – and I wanted free donuts. Being five years old, I wasn’t really paying attention to traffic and more to the opportunity for free donuts…and…bam…thrown in the air to land on the pavement into unconsciousness.

What’s interesting about this story is that you are more likely to be able to visualize this incident and remember the details of the story with its connection to free donuts because of an emotional connection you’ve made to the knowledge I’ve shared. You would probably be less likely to do so if I simply presented this story with a list of strict facts:

I was five years old
I was hit by a car
There were free donuts

Since the very first days of tribal story telling, exchanging knowledge through stories has been one of our most fundamental communication methods. We all enjoy a good story. Ask any teacher and they will tell you that using stories to share knowledge is a much more effective way of retaining what’s being told. There’s also a neurological reason for it as well. When we are given information, the language processing parts in our brain are activated. When we hear a story many more parts of the brain respond. When a person shares knowledge through a story we connect intellectually and emotionally.

Sharing knowledge through storytelling is still very much a part of Aboriginal culture. I was reminded of this at a three-day Knowledge Exchange (KE) Training event this past week attended by Regional KE leaders and team members from across the province of Ontario. Day one of the KE training focused on marginalized populations and how to engage with these various groups, such as those that are homeless, of low-income, racialized minorities, Aboriginal (First Nations, Métis, Inuit), or from LGBT communities who are marginalized based on sexual orientation or gender diversity. A session focusing on the use of the Health Equity Impact Assessment Tool (HEIA) presented how this tool can be used to identify and address potential unintended health impacts (positive or negative) when developing a policy, program or initiative with specific population groups.

I can certainly see the potential of incorporating HEIA into a knowledge mobilization (KMb) strategy as it helps us better understand context and equity. Yet, a broader and still underused knowledge mobilization tool to include the knowledge of marginalized populations is social media.

At the KE Training Event, I spoke with several knowledge brokers about how I use social media – particularly Twitter – as an effective knowledge mobilization tool. I was surprised to hear that many knowledge exchange leaders at the event are still not using social media as part of their own knowledge exchange work. Certainly, EENet, the Evidence Exchange Network is one step forward in using social media as a knowledge exchange tool. Yet, as I wrote in an earlier blog, the greater potential of using Twitter as a knowledge mobilization tool is still not clearly understood.

One of the more enjoyable presentations of the KE Training event was from closing keynote speaker David Phipps – a person who knows how to tell a great story to share knowledge. One of David’s MobilizeThis! blogs is a great example of the power of story telling using social media for knowledge mobilization. In David’s engaging presentation, he illustrated how understanding context is essential for effective knowledge mobilization.

Fundamentally, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Mobilization, Translation, Implementation, K* (K-Star) – whatever you want to call it – is about connecting the knowledge of PEOPLE. Each group has their own stories to tell in their own context – and each group can share knowledge through these stories. Knowledge doesn’t always have to be packaged in a formal, academic presentation or format. Sometimes simply being open-minded enough to listen to another person’s story – particularly those who are marginalized in our society – can be a powerful way of sharing and mobilizing knowledge.

But how do we engage marginalized populations using social media to better understand their context when some may not even have access to a computer? Or – more importantly – how can knowledge brokers collaborate with these often unheard voices and use social media for more effective knowledge mobilization?

One way that comes to mind is through digital storytelling.

I think of another great storyteller, Peter Levesque from Knowledge Mobilization Works, who also uses story telling as a KMb tool. Peter points to digital storytelling as “one of the MOST important forms of knowledge mobilization available to community-based organizations and citizens”. Peter uses a specific example of Aboriginal storytelling combined with digital technology as an effective method for understanding context, and conveying these stories through social media.

Additional examples of using social media for great and effective digital storytelling can be found at MindYourMind and HomelessHub who use both YouTube and Twitter as knowledge mobilization tools.

As someone who strongly believes in the power of social media for knowledge mobilization, I see the combination of storytelling by marginalized communities using social media to convey context as an essential knowledge mobilization tool. If you’re a knowledge broker – how well are you incorporating this equity tool into your knowledge mobilization strategy?

Now, for some reason…I feel like having a donut!

digital technology, Featuring A Knowledge Mobilizer, Individual Knowledge Mobilization, KMb, knowledge, knowledge brokers, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, making the world a better place, policy, presentations, research, social collaboration, social media, social media tools, Today's Knowledge Inspiration Aboriginal, accident, context, David Phipps, digital storytelling, donuts, EENet, emotionally, equity, evidence exchange, First Nations, Health Equity Impact Assessment Tool, HEIA, hit by a car, HomelessHub, implementation, intellectually, Inuit, k, knowledge, knowledge broker, Knowledge Mobilization Works, knowledge translation, marginalized, Metis, MindYourMind, MobilizeThis!, Peter Levesque, Sherlock Holmes, social media, story, storytelling, teaching, Twitter

140 Twitter Characters To Knowledge Mobilization

4 Comments Posted by KMbeing on March 16, 2013

The use of Twitter as an effective social media tool for knowledge mobilization is still not understood. This was made clear to me by two things that happened this past week:

1) I was actively involved in a discussion with several members of EENet – the Evidence Exchange Network where the use of Twitter for research dissemination was called into question

AND

2) I performed a brief Twitter survey of the 16 classic Networks of Centres of Excellence in Canada (NCE) that focus on research-driven partnerships, and found that these NCEs are still not effectively using this valuable social media tool, despite the Government of Canada’s knowledge mobilization mandate for NCEs “to transform these discoveries into products, services, and processes that improve the quality of life of Canadians.”

First, the EENet Discussion:

Melissa Taylor-Gates, Social Media and Project Coordinator for the award-winning MindyourMind (@mindyourmind_ca on Twitter) was interested in hearing about what other members of EENet are doing “to engage in meaningful knowledge mobilization” and how people use social media to achieve this goal. She started the discussion-ball rolling. The conversation soon focused on the use of Twitter as a key social media tool for academic/institutional researchers to engage with a wider and more diverse audience about research being done. Melissa aptly called Twitter “the great equalizer” and demonstrated this point with an excellent graphic showing the difference between equality and equity (which I gratefully co-opted for one of my blog posts here), making a further point that using social media for research dissemination is “more than just making a paper available to everyone online, it’s translating the information into accessible means.”

Well said Melissa!

These comments sparked valuable discussion – especially around how to sift through the deluge of information to find accurate, evidence-based research findings and trusted sources on Twitter. (For more about sifting through what I refer to as data/information noise, see my previous blog post here). One member’s comment, “I devoutly hope that no-one would assume that they could get sound clinical research information from a tweet” and concerns about the limitations of 140 characters caused a flurry of counter-comments. Many EENet members pointed out how to find Twitter sources for relevant and useful research to credible peer-reviewed journals and Twitter profiles using hashtags and hyperlinks.

Some of the key messages that came out of this discussion are that Twitter is simply a tool – just another medium of sharing information, good or not so good, that can be used properly or not, requiring further learning and skill to effectively use social media for knowledge mobilization. In contrast to Marshall MacLuhan, in this case the medium is not the message – the content is the message. Yet, it’s an important social media tool that is no longer a fad or waste of time. Twitter is an effective tool for knowledge mobilization. For my practice as KMbeing, Twitter has successfully created knowledge networking connections with researchers and other stakeholders from Canada, U.S., U.K. and Denmark where we have continued knowledge collaboration offline and in-person at conferences and other events. Yet, like any social relationships, social media relationships also require time and regular tending.

Twitter survey of the core 16 of Canada’s Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE):

Using social media – especially Twitter – as an effective tool for knowledge translation and mobilization is being adopted more by academics and formal institutions as a way of contributing to greater social benefit. Each day sees an increase in the number of Twitter accounts being created by universities and research organizations, but simply having a Twitter account and only sporadically posting information is not an effective way of using Twitter for knowledge mobilization.

As Canada’s preeminent Science & Technology investments, I was curious to see what type of presence the core NCEs have on Twitter and how they might be using this effective social media tool as one of the products and processes (mentioned on the NCE website) for knowledge mobilizing of multidisciplinary research from across Canada (and from around the world) as a mandate from Canada’s funding agencies:

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council – @NSERC_CRSNG on Twitter
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council – @SSHRC_CRSH on Twitter
Canadian Institutes of Health Research – @CIHR_IRSC on Twitter
Industry Canada – @industrycanada on Twitter
Health Canada – @HealthCanada on Twitter

Although my survey is only a very brief overview of average daily tweets, completed over a day on March 15^th, 2013, it does reveal that only 11 out of 16 classic NCEs are easily found on Twitter, and that only four NCEs tweet an average of just over one tweet per day – which is clearly insufficient for effective stakeholder engagement.

(click on diagram to enlarge)

(Note: Last tweet = number of hours since or date of last tweet)

Evidence shows that users who tweet between 10 and 50 times per day have more followers on average than those that tweet more or less frequently, and have greater opportunities for knowledge dissemination and engagement.

So what does this say about missed opportunities for increased research dissemination and collaboration between researchers and research users using social media for knowledge mobilization?

It appears that the Networks of Centres of Excellence have yet to fully embrace the potential of Twitter (and social media) as a valuable means of addressing key outcomes mandated for NCEs:

Mobilizing multi-disciplinary research capacity from across Canada
Engaging partners from multiple academic institutions and various public and private-sector organizations
Working with end users to accelerate the creation and application of new knowledge
Increasing collaboration between researchers in Canada and abroad

This is either because – like some EENet members – they’re not fully aware of the potential for research outreach and engagement using Twitter, or the NCEs have not identified this as a priority despite the evidence (presented in a book chapter that I co-authored) of using social media as a means of applying research for public benefit using knowledge mobilization.

For those still uncertain among Canada’s NCEs (and other researchers) as to how to best approach and develop a social media strategy using Twitter, here are some tips:

If your NCE doesn’t have one already – create a Twitter account. For nothing else, protect your brand by reserving your naming rights on Twitter.
Use a simple and descriptive name for your Twitter profile that will clearly identify your affiliation with your NCE and include a brief description of the research focus
To avoid what is referred to as “shiny object syndrome” – zoom in on pertinent subject matter by using Twitter hashtags which will also establish connections with topics, people and sites that are relevant to your research
Designate individuals within the NCE whose primary responsibility is for populating, maintaining and monitoring your Twitter account, ensuring they have the time and enthusiasm to consistently tweet and retweet several times throughout each day. This isn’t a full time job but needs to be someone’s job.
Don’t simply tweet without including links (unless you are engaging in the next bullet point)
Tweet with a 140 character conversation to connect with other national and international researchers and stakeholders in your discipline to facilitate the social in social media by engaging in dialogue and creating opportunities for further engagement online and offline
Regularly schedule a monthly evaluation of your Twitter account’s success and be prepared to realign your Twitter content and approach

Social media is not a fad, and the use of social media for academics and institutions is becoming more incorporated into strategic planning. Many researchers are now recognizing the value of using Twitter in a more consistent and productive manner for knowledge mobilization. Perhaps it’s time that some of Canada’s NCEs and mental health stakeholders do the same.

digital technology, KMb, knowledge, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, making the world a better place, research, social collaboration, social media, social media tools, Today's Knowledge Inspiration action, Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, change, collaboration, digital technology, EENet, equality, equality vs. equity, equity, Evidence Exchange Network, global knowledge, Government of Canada, Health Canada, helping others, humanity, Industry Canada, KMb, knowledge, knowledge connections, knowledge creation, knowledge differences, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, knowledge sharing, knowledge value, learning, making a difference, making the world a better place, Marshall MacLuhan, Melissa Taylor Gates, mental health, Mind Your Mind, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, NCE, Networks of Centres of Excellence of Canada, new knowledge, research dissemination, science, sharing knowledge, social benefit, social media, social sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council SSHRC, technology, Twitter

Breaking Down Barriers For Community-University Knowledge

Leave a Comment Posted by KMbeing on February 28, 2013

Universities have traditionally been perceived as the primary sources for research knowledge. Knowledge barriers have been broken down, and the idea of community-university partnerships is taking hold, as research knowledge is now more collaborative and community-engaging.

KMb, knowledge, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, making the world a better place, Quick Knowledge Thought, research, social collaboration academic knowledge, academic research, academics, barriers, broken down, collaboration, collaborative, community, community-engaging, helping others, ideas, knowledge, knowledge barriers, partnerships, research, research knowledge, sources, traditional, traditional knowledge, university

Brokering The Role Of The Knowledge Broker

Leave a Comment Posted by KMbeing on February 2, 2013

I recently had a conversation with a colleague about why it’s still a problem for knowledge brokers to be seen as credible to some senior scientists in many research/knowledge institutions, and how to overcome this barrier. My colleague mentioned that some senior scientists think the value of their research can stand on its own without any help from knowledge brokers, and often criticize the value of knowledge broker positions in the organization in the first place.

Knowledge Mobilization is about putting knowledge into active service for social benefit – and knowledge brokers have an important role in connecting various knowledge stakeholders together from multi-directional influences of producer-push (researcher), user-pull (research-user), knowledge exchange (anyone), and the co-production of knowledge (anyone). The bottom line is that it’s always about people sharing knowledge to make the world a better place.

My colleague mentioned that knowledge brokers were not being taken seriously by some researchers because of a feeling of a lack of credibility. There are certain researchers who somehow feel that the importance of their research cannot be fully “trusted” in the supposed “inexperienced” hands of “unskilled” knowledge brokers. As such, these misguided researchers would rather go it alone and not make use of intermediaries to disseminate or further enhance their knowledge.

My colleague and I discussed that in such cases there is a need for other credible scientists or stakeholders to champion the cause of these knowledge brokers. Such champions can assist in bringing recognition to the valuable role of the knowledge broker, and ignite a passion for knowledge mobilization/knowledge exchange. In such cases the very role of the knowledge broker comes into play by connecting with these champions and acting upon these connections by engaging the champions in discussion about the organization’s current knowledge exchange challenges. This means constructing arguments for the champions to convince the skeptical researchers of the value of knowledge brokers.

If the skeptical researchers still see no value – and wish to go it alone – then the knowledge brokers need to be prepared to recognize such limitations and cut their losses while continuing to ignite awareness with other key decision-makers within the organization. Perhaps in this more indirect manner, skeptical researchers may eventually come around to recognizing the value of knowledge brokers for the institution – but never hold your breath.

The knowledge broker role itself is about finding ways to champion the current knowledge of the organization, continuing to inform institutional knowledge, and broker internal and external knowledge value among stakeholders on an ongoing basis. Knowledge brokers need to recognize that there may be barriers inherent in the organization that cannot be directly dealt with. Dealing with such barriers indirectly may mean ignoring them temporarily (or completely) while attempting to find other researchers or sources for knowledge exchange.

If knowledge brokers are not prepared to do this then you are not prepared to remain relevant to the organization. Knowledge brokering will continue to be a function that is misunderstood, and not seen as credible.

Quite frankly, it comes down to how you broker being a knowledge broker – whether you’re talking about organizational need, the benefits to the individuals who engage with the knowledge systems you create or the connections you’re developing for knowledge exchange. It comes down to how you ‘sell’ the role of the knowledge broker, your contribution and added value to the organization – as well as the people who fall within its influence.

As David Phipps points out, and we include in our co-authored field note, the role of the knowledge broker and knowledge mobilization is not new. Phipps references both Aristotle and the PARiHS framework to summarize three key concepts for a knowledge broker to think about when developing their role in any institution. (I have added my own thoughts in brackets to further expand the concepts).

evidence = logos (providing the logic or evidence)

facilitation = ethos (establishing credibility for facilitation)

context = pathos (connecting to the stakeholder’s emotional or value context)

These key concepts can be used as a framework to develop greater understanding to broker a knowledge broker role within the organization by providing the logic behind having knowledge brokers.

Evidence: Do you have evidence to substantiate the role of knowledge brokers within your organization? What is the logic of having knowledge brokers within your organization?

Credibility: How credible are the knowledge brokers in your organization? Can your knowledge brokers speak the ‘language’ of the organization? Do the knowledge brokers in your organization have champions to assist them with their roles and help them establish credibility? Do the knowledge brokers understand the individuals within the organization and recognize those that may be barriers or facilitators?

Context: Can the knowledge brokers connect to the various emotional contexts within the organizational system to identify barriers (and possibly risks to the organization)? Can the knowledge brokers speak to the values of the individuals within the organization as well as to the greater values of the organization as a whole? Does the knowledge broker have the ability to know how to work around barriers while continuing to align with the knowledge objectives of the organization?

The Knowledge Translation & Exchange Community of Practice (KTECop) often refers to the role of the knowledge broker as “closing the loop” as an apt description. If knowledge brokers are going to continue to deal with problems of credibility and criticism of their value, they must start with a framework that provides greater understanding to broker the role of the knowledge broker. If not, knowledge brokers must be prepared to deal with people who still don’t understand their role, what they can do, and the value they can bring – never being able to close the loop or overcome the barriers they face.

Community of Practice (CoP), KMb, knowledge, knowledge brokers, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, making the world a better place, policy, research barriers, co-production, collaboration, context, credibility, evidence, evidence-based, facilitation, framework, KMb, knowledge, knowledge broker, knowledge brokers, knowledge mobilization, KTE, KTE CoP, logic, logos, PARiHS, pathos, research, researchers, scientists, social benefit, stakeholder, value

Social Determinants of Health Explained

1 Comment Posted by KMbeing on January 31, 2013

As defined by the World Health Organization (WHO), social determinants of health are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age, including the influences of health systems. These circumstances are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels. The social determinants of health are mostly responsible for health inequities – the unfair and avoidable differences in health status seen within and between countries.

Social determinants of health can be divided into 12 categories that contribute to how healthy a person may or may not be.

1) Income and Social Status:

Generally, people are healthier when they are wealthier. Individuals with lower socio-economic status experience worse health outcomes than individuals with higher socio-economic status.
Income shapes living conditions, such as adequate housing and ability to buy sufficient quality food. When people have little control over their lives and few options, their bodies are more vulnerable to disease. Income also influences psychological functioning and health-related behaviours.

2) Education and literacy:

Education is closely tied to income and socio-economic status. People with higher levels of education tend to use preventative medical services more frequently, be more physically active, and generally have better health.
Low literacy has a negative effect on all aspects of health, including overall levels of life expectancy, accidents and chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer. Low literacy also has a negative impact on mental health and on the ability to prevent illness.

3) Employment/Working conditions:

Employment allows people to afford basic necessities such as appropriate housing, food, and clothing—all of which are essential for good health. Employment also provides a sense of identity and purpose, social contacts and an opportunity for personal growth.
Conditions at work can have a significant effect on people’s health and emotional well-being.

4) Social environments:

Social environments include immediate physical surroundings, social relationships and cultural environments within which groups of people function and interact.
Negative social environments and experiences of discrimination and homophobia is associated with high rates of suicide attempts by lesbian, gay and bisexual youth.
Positive social environments include elements such as safety and social stability, recognition of diversity, good working relationships and cohesive communities, and help reduce or avoid many potential risks to good health.

5) Physical Environments:

Exposure to contaminants in our air, water, food and soil can cause a variety of adverse health effects, including cancer, birth defects, respiratory illness and gastrointestinal ailments.
Factors related to housing, indoor air quality and the design of communities and transportation systems can also significantly influence people’s physical and psychological well-being.

6) Personal health practices and coping skills:

Personal health practices and coping skills refer to actions that individuals can take to prevent diseases and promote self-care, cope with challenges, develop self-reliance, solve problems, and make choices that enhance personal health.
Making personal health choices about such things as smoking, alcohol consumption, high fat diets, and regular dental health care all influence personal health.

7) Healthy child development:

The effects of early childhood experiences have strong immediate and longer-lasting biological, psychological and social effects upon health.
The quality of early childhood development is largely influenced by the economic and social resources available to parents.
Children living under conditions of material and social deprivation are at higher risk of health problems.

8) Biology and genetic endowment:

In some circumstances, genetic and biological factors appears to predispose certain individuals to particular diseases or health problems.
Examples of biological and genetic determinants of health include:
age—older adults are more likely to be in poorer health than adolescents due to the effects of aging
sex—women are at risk of pregnancy and birth-related health problems
inherited conditions—examples of inherited disease include sickle-cell anemia, hemophilia and cystic fibrosis
abnormal genes—carrying certain genes increases a person’s risk for breast and ovarian cancer

9) Health services:

One of the most crucial determinants of health is access to high-quality health services.
Men and women from higher income households who are more likely to have insurance are much more likely to self-report that they have visited a dentist within the past year than people with lower incomes.
Populations who are underserved by health services include Aboriginal People, members of the LGBTTIQcommunity, refugees and other immigrants, ethnically or racially diverse populations, people with disabilities, the homeless, sex trade workers and people with low incomes.

10) Gender:

Gender-based differences—in access to or control over resources, in power or decision making, and in roles and responsibilities—have implications for a person’s health status.
Research shows that women live longer than men, on average. Women have higher death rates, but men are more prone to accidents and also more likely to be perpetrators and victims of assault, reducing their overall life expectancy.

11) Culture:

Some individuals or groups may face additional health risks as a result of a socio-economic environment that is largely determined by dominant cultural values. These dominant values can contribute to conditions such as marginalization, stigmatization, the loss or devaluation of language and culture, and a lack of culturally appropriate health care and services.
Members of racialized groups, recent immigrants and Aboriginal People are often among the most marginalized groups in society.

12) Social support networks:

Evidence shows that support from families, friends and communities is a big contributor to better health.
The caring and respect that occurs in social relationships, and the resulting sense of satisfaction and well-being, seem to act as a buffer against health problems.
Racism is a prominent form of social exclusion. The experience of racial discrimination puts racialized groups at higher risk for physical and mental health concerns.

KMb, knowledge, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, making the world a better place, research abnormal, Aboriginal, accidents, adverse health effects, air, air quality, alcohol, alcohol consumption, assault, behaviour, biological, biology, birth defects, cancer, cardiovascular disease, challenges, child development, choices, clothing, communities, concerns, contaminants, coping, culture, cystic fibrosis, death, death rates, dental, dental health, deprivation, devaluation, diabetes, disabilities, discrimination, diversity, economic, education, emotional well-being, employment, enthic, essential, exposure, food, gastrointestinal, gender, genes, genetic, good health, good heath, health, health services, hemophilia, high fat diets, higher risk, homeless, homophobia, households, housing, identity, illness, immigrants, income, KMb, knowledge, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, LGBT, LGBTTIQ, life expectancy, literacy, low income, marignalization, men, mental health, negative, networks, parents, personal growth, physical, physical environments, potential risks, prevention, psychological, purpose, racial, racism, research, respiratory illness, risk, risks, safety, self-care, sex trade, sex trade workers, sharing knowledge, sickle-cell anemia, smoking, social, social contacts, social determinants of health, social environments, social exclusion, social stability, social status, socio-economic status, soil, solve problems, stigmatization, strong, suicide, support, water, women, working conditions, World Health Organization

Relevant-Signal To Data-Noise Ratio

Leave a Comment Posted by KMbeing on December 10, 2012

In science and engineering we often hear about the signal to noise ratio – a concept that compares the level of a desired signal to the level of background noise. Although this is a technical term commonly used for electrical signals or biochemical signaling between cells, it can also be applied in the world of social media. In my own social media use I call this relevant-signal to data-noise ratio.

How often do we sift through Twitter feeds or Google search results to find what is relevant to our online research while also being inundated with data-noise? I always keep this in mind when I’m doing digital research. I can often find my Twitter feed filled with tweets that are relevant to digital research – and plenty more that are simply data-noise. Understanding the social media concept of relevant-signal to data-noise ratio can help us use social media in a more effective and productive manner and keep us focused on the more relevant information and knowledge sharing that makes using social media – especially for knowledge mobilization (KMb) – a better and more valuable experience.

As a community-based digital researcher, I was involved in a research project and book chapter publication with the Knowledge Mobilization Unit at York University, working with York University’s Executive Director of Research & Innovation Services, Dr. David Phipps and York’s KMb knowledge broker, Krista Jensen. Our research project looked at Applying Social Sciences Research for Public Benefit Using Knowledge Mobilization and Social Media. One of my contributions to this project was analyzing online profile keywords used on Twitter to advance our understanding of how individuals might use a social media platform like Twitter to connect and form collaborative relationships and like interests. Like interests are the foundation of communities of practice.

This important concept of relevant-signal to data-noise ratio can be conceptualized by the following equation:

R-S:D-N = A (amount) of relevant-signal

= A (amount) of data-noise = 50

Basically, what this formula means is that the relevant-signal to data-noise ratio is equal to the average amount of what is a relevant-signal divided by what is the average amount of data-noise. To use this equation, for example, on a Twitter feed of someone I’m following on Twitter, I will often seek the keywords that are relevant to my digital research on a page of profile tweets. This can easily be done using the Ctrl-F Find function on any computer. I type in the keywords I’m looking for and – for convenience sake – I hold the amount of data-noise is going to be at least half or fifty-percent – as in a 50-50 chance. This is why I have the amount of data-noise equal to 50.

When I find my keywords at least twenty-five-percent (25%) of the time or more (at least half of my 50-50 chance of finding data-noise), I will continue to follow this Twitter feed. If the amount is less than 25% – it’s filled with too much data-noise for what is relevant to my research interests, and I often make the decision to un-follow. I find this equation very helpful in making decisions about who to follow by weeding-out more of the data-noise.

All real measurement is disturbed by noise – and social media is no exception. As a research tool, social media is now being recognized as a valid part of gathering, exchanging and creating new knowledge, and as part of doing valid research. However, many are still not effectively using social media in the best possible way to do this, and are still being swamped by a deluge of information and data-noise not relevant to knowledge sharing interests. Or worse, people feel they need to connect broadly so as not to “miss anything”. Remember, social media is NOT a popularity contest. Attempts to measure or analyze your online success with what can be called as vanity metrics is irrelevant. It’s quality NOT quantity that counts in social media – so you may have to un-follow and eliminate some of that data-noise to find the relevant signal. I hope this relevant-signal to data-noise ratio equation is helpful for you in this process.

knowledge, research, social media, social media tools, Today's Knowledge Inspiration, Uncategorized data-noise, David Phipps, Google, KMb, knowledge mobilization, Krista Jensen, signal to noise ratio, social media, social sciences, Twitter

Whose Knowledge Is It Anyway?

Leave a Comment Posted by KMbeing on November 12, 2012

I was recently at a Knowledge Transfer & Exchange Community of Practice (KTE CoP) seminar in Toronto where a University of Sheffield scholar, Kate Pahl (above photo) was presenting a research project about a wide-range of meanings that a community park space in the U.K. has for different people in the park. Pahl was co-investigator on a project called SPARKS: Urban green-space as a focus for connecting communities and research funded by the Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Connected Communities programme which brought together anthropology, geography, linguistics, contemporary science and environment science to look at the role of public parks in language development.

Pahl’s KTE CoP seminar presentation showcased this university-community research collaboration project with an interview-style video (the video can be viewed here: http://youtu.be/7m27DmiBHFQ) showing the usage and values that such a park space have, and the language used to describe the park by both academics and community participants. (Pahl has also been a guest blogger writing about the value of stories and storytelling as spaces of unknowing and as works of art). The title of the KTE CoP presentation was “whose research is it anyway?” – illustrating the importance of understanding and valuing research (and knowledge) from within both the university and community sectors.

Interestingly, Pahl apologized several times to the mostly health-sciences audience for her somewhat “artsy” ethnographic research project after being questioned by several KTE CoP academics attempting to understand the significance, direction, scientific methodology and impact of the research project. Instead of recognizing the broader value and application of the project for community research participation and knowledge sharing – along with such diverse areas of academic research, including Urban Studies, Water Management, Social Work, Sociology, Linguistics, History, Recreation, Arts & Entertainment, to name a few- the seemingly narrowly-focused health-sciences group failed to look beyond their academic research silos to appreciate the broader fields of study and the more important university-community collaboration possibilities of knowledge transfer and exchange.

This event got me thinking about the idea of “evidence-based” thinking and ideas of “truth” in this world. There are many different people on this planet who think they have “the truth” or ultimate knowledge of life. Because they think that their knowledge is “the true” knowledge they’re always telling others what’s “right” and “wrong” – never being open to the knowledge of others, or learning how to share knowledge to create new knowledge for social benefit and ultimately make the world a better place. Alas, this seems to be the case even among academics purporting to be part of a community of practice open to knowledge transfer & exchange.

No one knows everything – there are many truths and many diverse paths in this life. Some of us do know more information than others, and some of us recognize the importance of evidence-based thinking. But information is not knowledge, and evidence-based thinking depends on circumstances and preferences that still remain subject to input from personal, political, philosophical, ethical, economic, and esthetic values. “Best” evidence thinking is now starting to shift into “best” practice thinking as we recognize that “evidence” that may work in one setting may not necessarily work in another.

“Truth” and Knowledge are two concepts that have less to do with information and “best” “evidence”, and much more to do with openness to other human beings, awareness of the diversity of life and circumstances on this planet, and compassion and empathy for others to make this earth better for everyone.

Sandra Nutley and colleagues, in their book Using Evidence, point out the diversity of research approaches and uses stating that “research use enhancement strategies that encourage a greater variety of voices in opportunities for dialoge have the potential to give research a substantial, sustained, and sometimes critical, role in debates about public services” and that “research goes much broader than the preoccupation with the ‘what works?’ type of instrumental knowledge central to the ‘evidence-based everything’ agenda.” (Click here for more on the difference between instrumental knowledge and conceptual knowledge).

In my experience, I’ve learned that all people have knowledge to share, and the idea of “truth” is realizing we can never know any sort of absolute “truth” because knowledge is something that is always changing and always evolving as we combine our knowledge with others throughout our human history and create new knowledge each day with each person in our lives – and throughout this planet.

The greatest knowledge we can reach is that of knowing and understanding we all have knowledge to share – whether we’re academics or everyday people in community. It’s how we find a common ground to share and collaborate with this knowledge that is important.

Knowledge is not about judging other people based on our own knowledge of life and living – or judging other people based on their knowledge of life and living. Knowledge is about being open to each others knowledge (no matter how limited or extensive) to combine our knowledge – not for ridicule or harm – but for social benefit. This is how we can make a difference on this planet. This is what Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) is all about.

At a more formal or institutional level, KMb is a collaborative process of exchanging knowledge among academics and non-academics to inform decisions about public policy and professional practice. At this level, KMb can enhance social innovation and develop long-term solutions to social, environmental, economic and cultural challenges – including many of the so-called wicked problems that continue to hold back our humanity.

At a more informal or personal level, KMb is also a collaborative process of exchanging knowledge – with every person we meet – to inform our personal decisions about “right” and “wrong” with the many truths that exist on this planet. At this level, KMb can enhance our social interactions and develop long-term solutions to the problems that stop us from connecting and finding common ground as human beings.

There’s a great difference between accepting others for who they are and judging them based on our own limited ideas of “right” and “wrong” and “evidence” – there’s a great difference between the many truths that exist on this planet and our own interpretation of “evidence” and “the truth”.

Community of Practice (CoP), Individual Knowledge Mobilization, knowledge, research, social collaboration, Today's Knowledge Inspiration "truth", academic research, academics, AHRC, anthropology, Arts & Entertainment, Arts & Humanities Research Council, best evidence, best practice, community, community of practice, conceptual knowledge, contemporary science, development, environment science, evidence-based, geography, health sciences, History, information, instrumental knowledge, Kate Pahl, KMb, knowledge mobilization, knowledge sharing, language, linguistics, making the world a better place, Ontario Knowledge Transfer and Exhchange Community of Practice, public parks, Recreation, research, research impact, right and wrong, Sandra Nutley, scientific methodology, social benefit, Social Work, Sociology, SPARKS, university, University of Sheffield, university-community, urban green-space, Urban Studies, Using Evidence, Using Evidence: How research can inform public services, Water Management, wicked problems

← Older posts

KMbeing

Category Archives: research

Follow Me On Twitter

Blogroll

Recent Posts

Tags

Categories

Archives

Meta

Follow “KMbeing”