KMbeing

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

Tag Archives: collaboration

Sharing Knowledge Strengthens Understanding

Leave a Comment Posted by KMbeing on May 16, 2013

Every act of knowledge sharing for social benefit creates new knowledge and strengthens understanding to make the world a better place.

knowledge, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, making the world a better place, Quick Knowledge Thought, social collaboration action, change, collaboration, diversity, global knowledge, helping others, humanity, individual experience, individual knowledge, KMb, knowledge, knowledge connections, knowledge creation, knowledge differences, knowledge diversity, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, knowledge value, learning, life, making a difference, making the world a better place, new knowledge, open-minded, openness, personal experience, sharing knowledge, social benefit, social connections

Start With The Knowledge You Have

Leave a Comment Posted by KMbeing on April 11, 2013

Remember, changing the world and harmful social conditions doesn’t depend on who you are or what you own – it depends mostly on the knowledge you share – whatever that knowledge is – if it’s intended for benefit and not for harm. You change the world by using even the “limited” knowledge you have. Start by being you with the knowledge you have…and keep going.

knowledge, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, making the world a better place, Quick Knowledge Thought, social collaboration action, benefit, change, collaboration, diversity, global knowledge, helping others, humanity, individual experience, individual knowledge, individuality, KE, keep going, KMb, knowledge, knowledge connections, learning, life, make a start, making a difference, making the world a better place, new knowledge, no harm, open-minded, openness, personal experience, personal knowledge, sharing knowledge, social benefit, social connections, value

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.

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

Not Sharing Your Knowledge

Leave a Comment Posted by KMbeing on April 3, 2013

Not sharing your knowledge for social benefit is easy – but that’s not what knowledge is for.

social collaboration, Quick Knowledge Thought, inspirational, knowledge, knowledge mobilization, KMb, making the world a better place, knowledge exchange collaboration, knowledge, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, social benefit, individual knowledge, new knowledge, change, personal experience, knowledge creation, openness, knowledge sharing, knowledge connections, knowledge differences, personal knowledge, individual experience, open-minded, action, knowledge diversity, making the world a better place, sharing knowledge, helping others, making a difference, what is knowledge for?

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.

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

Equality Of Knowledge vs Equity Of Knowledge

1 Comment Posted by KMbeing on March 15, 2013

Not all knowledge is of the same value – but all knowledge for social benefit can contribute to making the world a better place. The difference between equality of knowledge and equity of knowledge is providing opportunities to level the playing field in sharing knowledge.

Individual Knowledge Mobilization, knowledge, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, making the world a better place, Quick Knowledge Thought, social collaboration action, change, collaboration, diversity, helping others, humanity, individual experience, individual knowledge, individuality, KMb, knowledge, knowledge connections, knowledge differences, knowledge diversity, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, knowledge sharing, knowledge value, learning, life, making a difference, making the world a better place, new knowledge, open-minded, openness, personal experience, personal knowledge, sharing knowledge, social benefit, social connections

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 collaboration, knowledge, research, university, community, sources, ideas, knowledge barriers, helping others, academics, traditional knowledge, traditional, academic research, barriers, research knowledge, broken down, partnerships, collaborative, community-engaging, academic knowledge

Your Unique Knowledge Fingerprint

Leave a Comment Posted by KMbeing on February 16, 2013

A person’s knowledge may be called ignorant, useless, mocked and devalued, but our knowledge – stemming from all of our personal life experiences – is always knowledge, and is always our own knowledge.

Others can say all the negative things they want about you and your knowledge, but the only way that it will affect you is if you allow their words to affect you. Again, your knowledge is your own knowledge, all the good, bad and ugly of the experiences that make up all of your knowledge in your lifetime. Just as your fingerprint is unique to you – so too is your knowledge to share with others.

Your knowledge – any of it at anytime in your life experience – can always teach others something, whether you think it’s “limited” or not.

But knowledge on its own, without turning it into action is limited. It’s like having hands and fingers (and fingerprints) without ever using them.

It’s how we share our knowledge; combine our knowledge to make the world a better place that creates the most value.

Some people are so insecure that they try to hurt others by knocking even the slightest amount of knowledge that a person may have, to take away their dignity or self-esteem. But if we believe a cruel, insecure person’s view that our knowledge is useless, if we let them take away our dignity, what does that say about how we see our own knowledge, about how we see ourselves?

People have acquired knowledge in war, in prison, in concentration camps, in abuse, in difficult social situations, in loss, in love, in friendship, in ignorance, in education, in failure and in success – why shouldn’t we value any of the knowledge we have where we are, right here and right now?

But again, knowledge on its own, without turning it into action is limited.

A person’s knowledge always has some value. Sharing our knowledge for social benefit creates greater value, and is always worth it. When we share our knowledge with this understanding and intention – we can use our own knowledge to make the world a better place.

inspirational, KMb, knowledge, knowledge exchange, knowledge mobilization, making the world a better place, social collaboration, Today's Knowledge Inspiration abuse, action, change, collaboration, concentration camps, context, cruel, devalued, dignity, diversity, education, failure, friendship, global knowledge, greater value, helping others, humanity, ignorance, ignorant, individual experience, individual knowledge, individuality, insecure, intention, KMb, knowledge, knowledge connections, knowledge creation, knowledge differences, knowledge diversity, knowledge mobilization, knowledge sharing, knowledge value, learning, life, life experience, limited, limited knowledge, loss, love, making the world a better place, mocked, new knowledge, open-minded, openness, personal experience, personal knowledge, prison, self-esteem, self-improvement, sharing knowledge, social benefit, social connections, success, teaching others, turning into action, understanding, value, war

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

A Knowledge New Year

Leave a Comment Posted by KMbeing on January 1, 2013

As we begin the New Year 2013, we continue to share knowledge through knowledge mobilization by embracing new social networks like Pinterest – while keeping up with the fast pace of others like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Sharing and mobilizing knowledge on such platforms makes our local to global communication and collaboration easier and more effective – and has delivered some very tangible national & international knowledge-networking results.

When it comes to today’s fast-paced world of knowledge sharing, there’s no better place for social collaboration than online. These social networks may have made it easier to expand our knowledge networks, but our society has changed from being a more personal, face-to-face world of localized collaborative knowledge sharing activity to a more impersonal and isolated world confined by our digital domains. We went from verbally discussing and sharing knowledge in our in-person environments, around the water-cooler, in meetings, retreats or at conferences to sharing knowledge in a much wider but secluded, online manner of pic-pins, tweets and blogs –away from the very people who we use to bounce ideas off of and exchange knowledge with face-to-face.

When social media advanced to make it possible and easier to automate and broaden our knowledge sharing, it provided valuable knowledge sharing tools – but there is a risk of returning back to the very reasons why online knowledge mobilization/transfer & exchange activities became important in the first place. In the past, we were often locked in the knowledge-silos of our professional disciplines and institutions where face-to-face knowledge sharing was more closed. There is now a risk that we can become locked behind digital knowledge-silos without face-to-face meetings – even though our knowledge sharing has become more multi-directional and networked.

Thankfully, in the past few years, in-person and online “networks connected to other networks” – such as EENet - and Communities of Practice (CoPs) connected with other CoPs – such as The Canadian Knowledge Transfer & Exchange CoP (formerly the Ontario Knowledge Transfer & Exchange CoP) have been created to broaden knowledge sharing and engagement. Such knowledge sharing organizations still keep alive – even expanding -opportunities for face-to-face knowledge interactions and collaboration with a variety of stakeholders – while also making use of the value of connecting knowledge online through social media.

Sadly, in the early race to create an online presence of knowledge links in the digital world, many organizations, institutions and individuals forgot about the value of face-to-face social interactions over social media interactions. The old discipline/institutional knowledge silos were soon replaced with new digital knowledge network silos.

Fortunately, the pendulum has swung back (although some individuals and agencies have yet to even begin to get on the social media page!), and more people recognize the value of both connecting by social media combined with connecting face-to-face to create even broader in-person and inclusive opportunities of knowledge sharing for multiple stakeholders .

In 2012, “social” media was all about collaboration and mobility of knowledge sharing. Now, by creating both physical and virtual knowledge sharing networks like EENet and communities like The Canadian KTE Cop in-house and remote knowledge sharing have been brought together.

Humans are social beings who enjoy sharing knowledge, and human behaviour will always trump any technology. Regardless of how sophisticated or user-friendly the technology may be, humans will always need to connect with others in-person. But, we must continue to recognize that we live in a world of diversity and extremes. On any social media platform, there are extreme users, non-users and those that fall in-between – And, there will always be some who feel more comfortable sharing knowledge in-person while others feel more comfortable sharing knowledge online. It makes sense that overly-focusing on one over the other creates missed opportunities. Combining and expanding both in-person and online connections will enhance the knowledge sharing experiences and increase engagement.

As we begin the New Year 2013, I’d like to wish all of my online and in-person knowledge connections a very happy, healthy and social year of online and in-person knowledge mobilization (KMb)!

Community of Practice (CoP), digital technology, Individual Knowledge Mobilization, inspirational, knowledge, social collaboration, social media, social media tools, Today's Knowledge Inspiration 2012, 2013, collaboration, communication, CoP, digital knowledge, digital technology, diversity, EENet, extremes, face to face, face-to-face; conversations, Facebook, fast-paced, global, human behavior, human behaviour, humans, in-person, international, KMb, knowledge, knowledge mobilization, knowledge sharing, knowledge silos, KTE, KTE CoP, local, local to global, multi-directional, national, networked, networking, online, opportunities, Pinterest, social, social collaboration, social media, social media platform, social networks, society, stakeholders, technology, The Canadian Knowledge Transfer & Exchange Community of Practice, Twitter, user-friendly, virtual knowledge, YouTube

← Older posts

KMbeing

Tag Archives: collaboration

Follow Me On Twitter

Blogroll

Recent Posts

Tags

Categories

Archives

Meta

Follow “KMbeing”