KMbeing

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

Tag Archives: David Phipps

140 Twitter Characters To Knowledge Mobilization – Revisited

1 Comment Posted by 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.

NCE Logo

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 14th February 2013 to the 15th 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 15th 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:

Twitter Intensity Scores NCEs

 

                  

(Click on diagram above to enlarge)

Tweet-Intensity Ranking:

  1. Allergy, Genes and Environment Network – AllerGen
 @AllerGen_NCE

(funding to 2019)

0.96
  1. AUTO21 Network of Centres of Excellence
 @AUTO21NCE 

(funding to 2015)

0.83
  1. ArcticNet
 @ArcticNet

(funding to 2018)

0.81
  1. Canadian Arthritis Network – CAN 
 @commcan

(funding to 2014)

0.80
  1. Stem Cell Network – SCN
 @StemCellNetwork

(funding to 2015)

0.73
  1. Carbon Management Canada – CMC
 @cmc_nce

(funding to 2013)

0.47
  1. Canadian Stroke Network – CSN 
 @strokenetwork

(funding to 2015)

0.37
  1. NeuroDevNet
 @NeuroDevNet

(funding to 2014)

0.34
  1. Canadian Water Network – CWN
 @CdnWaterNetwork

(funding to 2015)

0.28
  1. BioFuelNet 
 @BioFuelNet

(funding to 2017)

0.13
  1. Graphics, Animation and New Media Canada – GRAND
 @GRAND_NCE

(funding to 2014)

0.10
  1. Canadian Photonic Industry Consortium – CPIC 

Not Found

(no longer funded)

0.0
  1. GEOmatics for Informed DEcisions Network – GEOIDE 

Not Found

(no longer funded)

0.0
  1. Marine Environmental, Observation, Prediction and Response Network – MEOPAR 

Not Found

(funding to 2017)

0.0
  1. Mprime Network Inc.

Not Found

(funding to 2014)

0.0
  1. 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

researchimpact

KMbeing logo

(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.

David Phipps

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

1 Comment Posted by on March 24, 2013

storytelling

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.

Sherlock Holmes hat     donuts

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Relevant-Signal To Data-Noise Ratio

Leave a Comment Posted by on December 10, 2012

signal noise

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 , , , , , , , , ,

Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) Clear Language Research Field Note: My Contribution

Leave a Comment Posted by on October 23, 2012

I’m excited to announce the recent publication and my contribution as co-author of a Field Note Describing the Development and Dissemination of Clear Language Research Summaries for University-Based Knowledge Mobilization

Along with Dr. David Phipps, the Director of Research Services and Knowledge Exchange at York University in Toronto, and Krista Jensen, York University’s Knowledge Mobilization Officer,  and Michael Johnny, Manager, Knowledge Mobilization at York University, I was privileged to be part of the research and writing team. It was a great honour to work with David, Krista and Michael – especially during my time volunteering in the Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) Unit at York University.

David, Krista and I also had a recent publication in which I was able to contribute as a co-author of an In-Tech Book Chapter entitled “Applying Social Sciences Research for Public Benefit Using Knowledge Mobilization and Social Media“.

As a Community-based participant and contributor to Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) it is my hope that these works will help promote the continued use of KMb for everyone to make the world a better place for everyone.

announcements, Individual Knowledge Mobilization, knowledge, knowledge brokers, research, social media tools , , , , , , , , ,

David Phipps: Promoting KMb-Knowledge Mobilization (Or Mobilisation) Across The Ocean

3 Comments Posted by on March 9, 2012

David Phipps, Director of Research Services & Innovation Services at York University in Toronto has recently been published as a guest writer in the Higher Education section of The Guardian newspaper in the U.K.

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.

Individual Knowledge Mobilization, knowledge, policy, social collaboration , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Knowledge Hypocrites: Take Two!

4 Comments Posted by on February 3, 2012

A recent controversial blog that has been getting much attention is by York University’s David Phipps of ResearchImpact - titled Knowledge Hypocrites. In it Phipps makes the pointed claim that “We are all knowledge hypocrites.”

Phipps includes himself when he states that “neither researchers nor knowledge brokers practice what we preach.” Phipps concludes that “until researchers receive time and incentives for making their research broadly accessible and knowledge brokers receive time and incentives for accessing that research we shall remain hypocritical. Well-meaning indeed, but hypocritical. The system won’t change overnight but it won’t change at all if we don’t start to seek out KMb/KT researcher/practitioner collaborations.”

Well-said! Although I am not a researcher or a knowledge broker (although I have been called a theoretical knowledge broker) my holistic approach to Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) has always attempted to promote greater social collaboration across knowledge sectors to include community voices of knowledge. I believe all of us have knowledge from our life experiences to share for greater social benefit – not just within academic or more formal research institutions – to influence decision/policy makers to make the world a better place. Isn’t making the world a better place the most important incentive? Only when all knowledge voices are given an opportunity to speak for benefit can hypocrisy ever end. Knowledge brokers can provide those links across knowledge sectors for social benefit as I have shown in the following diagram.

A hypocrite is defined as a person who professes certain ideals – but fails to live up to them.

Ideals are all about making things better – but ideals are also something that remain just out of reach, waiting to be turned into reality. So how do we turn ideals into reality? For starters we need to continue to break down barriers and preconceived notions or beliefs. That’s what David Phipps is calling us to do – especially researchers and knowledge brokers who are considered the “experts” in knowledge.

It’s been said that a cup is useful only when it’s empty – a mind that is filled with rigid beliefs or dogmas is really a closed and hypocritical mind.

How many of us have missed wonderful opportunities for learning and sharing knowledge because of preconceived notions or beliefs that we’ve adopted from others because we thought we were “right”? How many times have we rejected people who might have been great knowledge sources because they believed something that we didn’t believe, or didn’t believe what I believed? I have mentioned in my previous blog that there are many “truths”.  What is most important is being open to and sharing knowledge regardless of how “truth” is perceived.  What is most important is creating new knowledge – combining knowledge from many knowledge sectors – for social benefit.

I’ll take Phipps’ challenge even further beyond just researcher/ practitioner collaborations to include all social collaborations that include knowledge voices beyond an institutional capacity. As Phipps says, “the system won’t change overnight but it won’t change at all if we don’t start to seek out…collaborations” – even in unexpected places within various community knowledge sectors. Only then, when we break down these barriers – and the ideal can be turned into reality to make the world a better place – will we no longer be knowledge hypocrites.

knowledge, knowledge brokers, policy, research, social collaboration, Today's Knowledge Inspiration , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Merry Knowledge Mobilization (KMb)

Leave a Comment Posted by on December 20, 2011

I recently took to the ice to teach some knowledge brokers from York University’s KMb Unit how to curl – very, very basic lessons like how not to fall flat on your ass when on the ice.  It was part of their annual KMb Summit.

Curling – like knowledge mobilization (sharing knowledge for social benefit) – is another of my hobbies in life.

To all of my dedicated KMbeing blog followers and to new followers – I wish you all the very best for the holiday season and all the very best for knowledge mobilization in 2012!

And from KMbeing.com !

announcements, knowledge brokers , , , , , , , , ,

KMbeing.com Named Among Top Knowledge Mobilization Influencers In Canada

1 Comment Posted by on September 29, 2011

Gary Myers (KMbeing.com)

It’s with great appreciation and pleasure that my KMbeing website and twitter feeds (KMbeing) were named among the top five Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) influencers in Canada.  I am truly humbled and honoured by this recognition. Much thanks to my many dedicated KMbeing blog readers and KMbeing twitter followers.  Although my recent posts have been fewer than usual due to recent time constraints, this recognition makes me realize the importance of ramping up again with more frequent blog & twitter postings to continue spreading the word of Knowledge Mobilization for social benefit. Thanks again to my KMb peers and followers – and I hope you will continue to spread the word of KMb and KMbeing!

The following article appeared in York University’s YFile on September 28, 2011 and is reposted.

David Phipps, director of York’s Research Services and Knowledge Exchange, has been named the most influential knowledge broker in Canada, according to a report by Knowledge Mobilization Works, a consulting and training company based in Ottawa.

The Canadian Knowledge Mobilization 100, a survey run by Knowledge Mobilization Works, asked respondents to rank the biggest influences of their knowledge mobilization practice. Phipps, who leads York’s Knowledge Mobilization Unit and ResearchImpact-RéseauImpactRecherche, Canada’s knowledge mobilization network, topped the list.

                        Left: David Phipps

Also mentioned among the top influencers in Canada were Peter Levesque (Knowledge Mobilization Works), Melanie Barwick (Hospital for Sick Children), Ben Levin (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education) and Gary Myers (KMbeing.com).  The survey collected responses from Jan. 5 to June 15, and results were released by Knowledge Mobilization Works on Monday (26 Sept 2011).

“Knowledge mobilization is a key element of York’s research outreach strategy,” said Robert Haché, York’s vice-president research & innovation. “Through David’s efforts and leadership, York’s excellent reputation as a leading knowledge mobilization university in Canada continues to be strengthened. This recognition by his peers is well deserved.”

York piloted institutional knowledge mobilization in 2005 under a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Since then, York has grown its knowledge mobilization collaboration with the University of Victoria to include the other four ResearchImpact-RéseauImpactRecherche universities: Memorial University of Newfoundland & Labrador, Université du Québec à Montréal, University of Guelph and University of Saskatchewan. York also works closely with the United Way of York Region to deliver knowledge mobilization services to the York Region community, municipal and regional agencies.

Knowledge mobilization is a suite of services that connect university research and expertise to government and community agencies so that research can help these organizations make better informed decisions about public policy and social services. Knowledge mobilization is a process that results in social innovation.

“Knowledge mobilization has become very important for Canada,” said Steven Gaetz, professor in the Faculty of Education who leads both the Canadian Homelessness Research Network and the Homeless Hub. “David’s work and that of the knowledge mobilization unit is very helpful to those of us seeking to make research accessible to policy makers.”

Levesque, president and CEO of Knowledge Mobilization Works, undertook the survey to obtain a snapshot of who people see as influential in their knowledge mobilization practice in Canada.

“We think that knowledge mobilization as a concept and as a practice is growing. We think that we have barely scratched the surface of understanding what influences knowledge mobilization practice,” said Levesque.

Founded in January 2007, Knowledge Mobilization Works supports individuals and organizations to create incentives and infrastructure for knowledge mobilization.

For more information on York’s Knowledge Mobilization Unit contact Michael Johnny, manager, Knowledge Mobilization at ext. 88876. (Michael Johnny has also been featured on KMbeing.com)

To view the results of the survey, click here.

Uncategorized , , , , , , ,

Assessing Research Impact

1 Comment Posted by on June 17, 2011

For those of you who follow me on my KMbeing Twitter feed, you may have noticed a flurry of tweeting yesterday afternoon – June 17th, 2011.  My fingers were furiously flying on my laptop as I live-tweeted a presentation by Sandra Nutley, Professor of Public Policy and Management at the University of Edinburgh. She is also Director of the Research Unit for Research Utilisation (RURU) which investigates the use of social science research in public policy and service delivery settings.


Those of us in the Knowledge Mobilization field consider Sandra Nutley to be somewhat of a KMb celebrity. She along with Isabel Walter and Huw Davies wrote the highly-influential and important book Using Evidence: How research can inform public services. (She actually has KTE/KMb groupies who ask her to sign their copy of the book!  Thanks for your signature Sandra! )

Professor Nutley was addressing the Ontario KTE (Knowledge Transfer & Exchange) Community of Practice (CoP) (of which I am a member). I had the opportunity and privilege to mobilize some of her knowledge on Twitter as she presented on the topic Assessing impact of research & Knowledge Transfer & Exchange (KTE) activities. (KTE is another word used to describe the formal process of Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) -  I make the distinction between formal and informal or macro & micro KMb as well as the differences in use of terminology).

It was also a privilege to meet informally for dinner with Sandra after her talk, along with my husband and KMb partner David Phipps from ResearchImpact at York University (@researchimpact on Twitter), and Sarah Morton (@sasmort on Twitter),  Co-Director at the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships (CRFR) at The University of Edinburgh (@CRFRtweets on Twitter).  I also live-tweeted a presentation by Sandra on June 6th, 2011 titled Research Use in Different Contexts. You can expect an upcoming Mobilize This! blog from ResearchImpact on this event soon.

Sandra Nutley began by asking the important question Why assess research impact? Using a forward tracking and back tracking approach, Nutley pointed out the common reasons for the need to assess research impact such as addressing accountability, assuring value for money invested in research, setting priorities for research, assisting with learning and improving outcomes from research.

Within the scope of this forward/back tracking model are the various stakeholders that play a role in the research process: tracked back to ‘user’ communities – such as policymakers, practitioners, the media and other organizational use; while tracking forward with research stemming from either single studies, research programs or systematic reviews.

As part of an evaluation of research initiatives, Nutley reminded the group of the importance of their own KTE or KMb interventions (along with other centres) that play an important role in promoting research when assessing the impact of initiatives and increasing research use.

Nutley also pointed out two common methods used to assess the impact of research:

1: the “payback” model – which focuses more on the value gained from research

OR

2: the “mapping” model – which describes and maps networks and flows of knowledge and the effects of any interactions from research.

(Research Unit for Research Utilisation (RURU) at The University of Edinburgh)

Nutley went on to describe the work being done by RURU to assess research impact which focuses on KTE or KMb intervention types – specifically on the underlying mechanisms involved such as dissemination, interaction, social influence, facilitation, incentives & reinforcement. This created some valued discussion within the room with Peter Levesque, founder and managing Director of Knowledge Mobilization Works asking “how do we best distinguish between the complexity of the research environment & mechanisms used?”  Melanie Barwick, Health Systems Scientist from Sick Kids Hospital, suggested the use of the term mechanism doesn’t always take into consideration the audience or goal for sharing knowledge and is a limiting term.

The presentation continued with Professor Nutley pointing out some common challenges and methodological issues when assessing research impact such as the types and use of research being done, the timing of assessment, the importance of context, along with attribution and additionality to research, and the importance of getting away from linear models (which I have pointed out in a previous blog about the multi-directional flow of knowledge from context to context).

The floor was briefly turned over to Sarah Morton who described an emerging approach to address attribution in research using John Mayne’s work on contribution analysis.  Sarah has been actively involved in applying this approach to her own important and recognized research on families and relationships at CRFR. (I hope Sarah and Sandra will return to Canada to present further on this valuable “contribution” to knowledge mobilization).

Professor Nutley discussed the use of Erica Wimbush’s work on the Theory of Change to assess research impact, showing the direct and indirect control and influences on the process of research – from inputs, activities & outputs (direct control & influence) through the process of reach/engagement, reactions & capacity (direct influence) to ongoing practice, behavior change & end results (indirect influence) – all as external influences gradually increase along each stage of the process.  (Sandra Nutley’s slide presentation has been posted on the KTE CoP website).

Sandra Nutley’s interesting and engaging presentation concluded by emphasizing some generic features of effective KTE or KMb practices that RURU suggests applying to any research process.

Although these are valuable insights into effective knowledge mobilization, Nutley pointed out there is still much work to be done. She states we must move away from:

–Poor documentation and under-evaluated KTE (KMb) activities
–Studies that focus only on the instrumental use of research (see KMbeing blog on this)
–An assumption that research is used and applied mainly by individual practitioners
–Studies that result only in a now familiar listing of barriers and enablers, especially where these are the barriers/enablers experienced by individual practitioners
I always try to use my KMbeing blog to provoke and inspire deeper questions and thinking to break down some of  the barriers that Sandra Nutley has mentioned – barriers that also exist between academia & community.  It’s my hope that in some small way my KMbeing blog creates more inclusive, theoretical but simple and common approaches to our understanding of knowledge and knowledge mobilization (KMb) for the benefit of society. I also hope that by showcasing some of our great knowledge mobilizers (such as Sandra Nutley & Sarah Morton) – and the professional work they do – it will provide an opportunity to connect people who would not normally connect their knowledge in multi-directional ways across many sectors and communities.
(KMbeing Model of Knowledge Mobilization)
Many thanks to Sandra Nutley and Sarah Morton for a great presentations and for coming to Canada to speak to the KTE CoP on valuable approaches to research and KMb process.
Perhaps now it’s time to go out on Steve’s boat (Sandra’s husband) for a well-deserved rest back home in Scotland – if he gets it fixed up soon!
Community of Practice (CoP), knowledge, policy, presentations, research , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chad Gaffield (President Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council SSHRC) Speaking at Annual Conference of Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences

1 Comment Posted by on April 11, 2011

Re-Imagining Scholarship In The Digital Age

David Phipps, Director of Research Services and Knowledge Exchange at York University in Toronto,  makes a cameo asking a question after Chad’s presentation. Chad Gaffield publically recognized David as a leader in Canada helping SSHRC think through knowledge mobilization in all its dimensions, and creating a knowledge mobilization Community of Practice.

David is becoming more recognized nationally and internationally as a Knowledge Broker and actively involved in Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) as a Knowledge Mobilizer at ResearchImpact – Canada’s Knowledge Mobilization Network.

Congratulations for the public acknowledgement David!

And thanks to Chad Gaffield for an terrific presentation!

Uncategorized , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 914 other followers