In the first of a what promises to be a very interesting four-part series, Phipps introduces the concept of knowledge mobilization (KMb) or mobilisation – with an “s” as the British like to spell it – writing about the use of KMb within institutions to maximise the impact of academic research on public policy and professional practice.Phipps emphasizes the importance of Social Sciences & Humanities (SSH) within academia as a mode of research that can embrace KMb to help solve wicked problems – “such as poverty, housing, immigration, climate change, security, Aboriginal issues and social determinants of health” – to name a few. (See my previous blog for a further perspective on wicked problems).
Phipps rightly points out that universities are the main producers of new SSH research knowledge, but that they will not benefit society if scholars limit themselves to traditional academic approaches of communicating such new knowledge. Phipps states, “Knowledge mobilisation is the process of connecting academic SSH research to non-academic decision-makers so that this research informs decisions about public policy and professional practice. Knowledge mobilisation (the process) can enable social innovation (the outcome).”
Phipps writes from an academic perspective focusing on how universities and other formal institutions can benefit from KMb to create social innovation. Social innovation is for social benefit – combining existing knowledge to create new knowledge to overcome the wicked problems that continue to plague our world, and ultimately to make the world a better place.
My more informal and holistic approach asks how each one of us can mobilize our own knowledge to connect with others – even in more familiar environments – to contribute to this process of social benefit.
What are you doing in your own life to use your own knowledge to connect with the knowledge of others? What are you doing in your own life to combine your own knowledge with the knowledge of others to create new knowledge to overcome wicked problems?
The Phipps articles take the concept of KMb across the ocean – from Canada to the UK – hopefully promoting a valuable tool for social innovation and social benefit that perhaps might begin to spread globally to help address and overcome many of this planet’s wicked problems. The rest of the series takes a past, present and future approach to include the past origins of KMb, present KMb services, and the future of KMb with predictions on where the field is going or needs to go.
I agree with Phipps that traditional and formal academic approaches have not been successful in solving many of these social problems. Perhaps it’s time to also include informal and personal approaches to knowledge mobilization in each of our lives to address such social problems in order to make the world a better place for everyone.
I hope you’re looking forward to reading the rest of the articles as much as I am.
I recently attended two important events pointing forward to the future of collaborative knowledge mobilization. The first event was the Climate Change Policy and Research Day sponsored by ResearchImpactand theKnowledge Mobilization Unit at York University. The day profiled climate change work being done at municipal and regional levels with a discussion on the existing research to policy gaps, while exploring opportunities for collaboration between community stakeholders, policy makersand researchers. The event was live-tweeted by a number of participants with the hashtag #CCKMb. For a full transcript of the tweets, please see here. ResearchImpact also has a blog about the event here.
Melissa MacKay from the University of Guelph talked about the various roles in policy – including research and development – and what is needed to overcome the barriers to effective evidence-based policy making.
Phil Malcolmson, Director, Strategic Policy Branch from OMAFRA provided an example of the partnership that OMAFRA has with the University of Guelph to showcase the benefits of partnerships between government and academia.
Also among the list of guest speakers was Laurent Gémar from Health Canada’s Science Policy Directorate talking about the Science to Policy Interface in getting the most up-to-date evidence-based research to Canadian Federal Government Ministers. Gémar pointed out that timing is everything as parliamentary time restrictions often create barriers between getting a research answer to a Cabinet Minister and being able to go back to researchers to get the latest updates. He also spoke about the many ministries all seeking to work collaboratively within the political barriers that exist. Gémar stated that such political barriers create a limitation to the number of key research projects being selected. (For more on political obstacles to knowledge mobilization click here). Gémar also suggested some key objectives of health policy to address the complexity of issues within health and other ministries. He addressed the need for training scientists and policy makers together to create better science policy information and collaboration.
For a further interesting connection about building a knowledge-based government – and a great example of how social media can be used to facilitate open dialogue among stakeholders and interested participants – link to the recent Twitter tweet-chat titledGovChathere.
Among the list of international guest speakers was Alex Bielak from United Nations University who presented on The Evolution of Knowledge Mobilization and Knowledge Brokers. Bielak talked about the existing diversity of terminology to describe KMb, and the shift to unify terminology with the term K* (K-star). (For more on the problems of KMb terminology click here). Bielak pointed out that different stakeholders prefer to receive information in different ways. This presents a challenge to knowledge brokers who need to stimulate policy “pull” for greater knowledge impact and action with a more adaptive and collaborative approach.
The highlight of the workshop was the engaging lecture by Louise Shaxson, Director of the Delta Partnership, UK examining what is meant by evidence-informed policy making. Shaxson outlined some basic evidence and policy principles, and described specific tools and techniques that have worked well to help policy makers create more effective and informed decisions. Shaxson states that a suite of tools is required – not just one tool for policy making. She points out that today’s policy making is very different from the past, and that researchers must understand that the political process is an important part of the research process. Shaxson points out that the quality of the entire research to decision making process is as important as the evidence presented. Shaxson presented valuable and effective evidence mapping and social frameworks tools to assess the impacts of evidence and policy making throughout the stakeholder network. (See the brief video below of Shaxson speaking at a previous conference in Bogotá in 2010 about the importance of research communication).
The big difference between the Climate Change and the Evidence Policy events was the receptivity of using social media as a tool in the collaborative knowledge mobilization process. When I asked the Climate Change panel about how they’re using social media to bridge the gap between research and policy making, the group looked baffled and overlooked the opportunity to answer my question as if I just asked a group from the 1970s how they’re using email (before its popularity and use). At least the Evidence Policy participants were open to suggestions about how social media can be used as a knowledge mobilization tool, and the value of creating a social media strategy – even discussing the government restrictions currently imposed on employees to use such tools for knowledge communications.
Most importantly, both events brought together a diversity of stakeholders – including researchers, community agencies and actors, knowledge brokers and government policy makers – in the same room face-to-face. This is knowledge mobilization at its best!
