KMbeing

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

Tag Archives: Ontario Knowledge Transfer and Exhchange Community of Practice

Whose Knowledge Is It Anyway?

Leave a Comment Posted by 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A (Very Very) Brief History & Highlights Of Knowledge Mobilization In Canada

5 Comments Posted by on January 1, 2011

“To know and not to do is not to know”

-Proverb

If you’re reading this blog, chances are you’ve heard about Knowledge Mobilization (KMb), and know about all of the various terms used to describe elements of KMb, such as Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Exchange or Knowledge Utilization. (For more information about terminology, please see my previous blog).

If not, here’s a little history lesson…

When considering a (very very) brief history and highlights of Knowledge Mobilization in Canada there are many individuals, institutions and agencies that have greatly contributed to developing KMb in Canada. This blog points out only a few of these that I consider knowledge beacons shining their bright lights on the still-emerging pavement of the KMb highway. This is not to exclude all of the many great practitioners and contributors who have also been influential in the development and process of KMb in Canada. My purpose is only to present a brief outline.

A good place to start for an historical background is with a paper written by nursing scholar and researcher Carole Estabrooks. She has written a very thorough and excellent literature review exploring the early links and development in the field. In a longitudinal analysis paper, Estabrooks and colleagues have traced the historical development of the knowledge transfer field between 1945 and 2005 with an author co-citation analysis of over 5,000 scholarly articles.

In 2000, the foundational passage of The CIHR Act (Canadian Insitutes of Health Research) by the Canadian Federal Government enshrined knowledge translation as a research mandate to create and translate knowledge in Canada.

Over the past decade, the evolving understanding of the multi-directional links, activities or influences among researchers and research-users in the multi-production of new knowledge makes the more limiting (and linear-thinking) term knowledge translation now seem outdated.

Knowledge Mobilization is becoming more of an accepted umbrella term to describe knowledge transfer or exchange. Along with CIHR (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) there are two other Federal government granting councils; SSHRC (Social Science and Humanities Research Council) – who prefers the term knowledge mobilization – and NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council) who,  although they have used knowledge mobilization in some of their documents, does not necessarily use the term officially.

The seminal year for KMb in Canada is 2003, with two men sharing the same initials - J.L. Sounding more like a law firm (but working independently), Lavis and Lomas are two key Canadian KMb developers.

John Lavis published his article Measuring The Impact of Health Research in the Journal of Health Research Services & Policy developing the idea of knowledge push-pull & exchange.

John Lomas helped develop the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF). He worked in the emerging KMb profession as a knowledge broker and contributed to the 2003 report The Theory and Practice of Knowledge Brokering in Canada’s Health System. Lomas also wrote the influential paper, The in-between world of knowledge brokering, published in the British Medical Journal in 2007.

While it may appear that the research focus has been primarily in health, KMb has two major knowledge streams – health and education. Another key Canadian leader in studying and understanding KMb in education is Ben Levin. Levin is former Ontario Deputy Minister of Education and current Professor and Canada Research Chair in Education Leadership and Policy at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE). Levin’s experience in both education and government has given knowledge mobilizers insight into working with government for knowledge mobilization (for a look at Levin’s take on the political obstacles to Knowledge Mobilization click here). Levin has recently set up Research Supporting Practice in Education (RSPE), a knowledge mobilization program in and from education.

KMb is about participatory connecting, informing and being informed by a variety of knowledge contributors. Knowledge Mobilization is about fluid knowledge – the flow of knowledge as it is constantly transforming and being transformed for greater good in society.

The KMb process includes a diverse range of knowledge contributors from the Community/Voluntary Sector – including “everyday” individuals given a voice to tell their own stories and experiences; Academic Institutions; the Private Sector, and Government – all working with each other and contributing to overall knowledge for the greater benefit of society.

The history of KMb in Canada includes such leaders, individuals, organizations, academics, practitioners, business, and government agencies working together from all of these sectors (to name only a few):

From the Community/Voluntary Sector, The United Way of York Region is a great example of Canadian KMb contributions at the grass-roots level (see Mobilize This! blog for many examples of their KMb collaboration). Community-based projects like Mind your Mind provide services (many of them interactive web based) for young adults exploring mental health support services. Health charities like the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada, along with the Canadian Cancer Society take research and use it to inform policy and practice, while also listening to and sharing the stories of individuals affected to inform further research.

Connecting across sectors is the Canadian Alliance for Community Service-Learning involving students, educators and communities in community service as an educational experience. There is also Community-Based Research being done at Community Based Research Canada (CBRC) and places like the Wellesley Institute that contribute to research that are inherently change-oriented from and for the community.

From Academic Institutions, the development of the KMb Unit at York University has brokered many projects between all sectors, and helped create ResearchImpact – Canada’s knowledge mobilization network, which now includes Memorial University, UQAM, University of Guelph, University of Saskatchewan, and the University of Victoria.

Also, The Harris Centre at Memorial University has contributed to knowledge mobilization for regional economic development for Newfoundland and Labrador. Their project yaffle has helped moved KMb into an online and accessible space.

From the Private Sector/Business, KMb between university and industry has primarily taken the form of technology transfer; however, broader concepts of knowledge transfer involving service learning, co-op placements and research contracts are emerging as principle methods of university/industry liaison.

One of the Canadian leaders within the Private Sector for KMb consulting, presenting and training is Knowledge Mobilization Works. I have had the privilege of recently been invited to work with founder and Director, Peter Levesque. He is a KMb leader in Canada, helping others learn and use knowledge to solve complex and current issues across many sectors.

From the area of Government, the development of Networks of Centres of Excellence of Canada (NCE) are federally funded national research and translation organizations working on particular research topics. NCEs like The Canadian Water Network, The Canadian Arthritis Network, and PrevNet (Promoting Relationships and Eliminating Violence), as well as organizations like Canadian Partnership Against Cancer,the Provincial Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health, and the Mental Health Commission of Canada all link research to practice. These government groups are focused on research knowledge and it’s translation into policies, products, processes or practices for everyone.

Of course assisting research through government funding are also the Granting Councils as mentioned above – CIHR (Canadian Institutes of Health Research), SSHRC (Social Science and Humanities Research Council), and NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council).

Finally, an important part of Knowledge Mobilization in Canada is the development of the Ontario Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Community of Practice (KTE CoP). KTE CoP is a group of diverse practitioners, researchers and individuals who share practices, experience and knowledge while building peer relationships for information exchange and support. The group was established in 2005, and appears to be the only such community of practice of this kind (so far) in Canada. It’s hoped other such CoPs will be established in other parts of the country…perhaps they might change the name to KMb CoP?

Regardless of the terms used to describe Knowledge Mobilization, Canada can be seen as an international leader in contributing to the development of KMb – and the greater benefit of our world. It’s a history to be proud of, filled with many knowledge contributors and knowledge mobilizers. As we embark on the next decade of knowledge mobilization, I’m sure there will be many others from all sectors who will be able to shine their own lights on the future KMb highway.

Community of Practice (CoP), knowledge brokers, policy, research, social collaboration , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Political Obstacles To Knowledge Mobilization

Leave a Comment Posted by on December 1, 2010

At a recent Ontario KTE (Knowledge Transfer & Exchange) Community of Practice (CoP) presentation, I had the opportunity to join a discussion with former Ontario Deputy Minister of Education, Ben Levin and Janet Mason, Assistant Deputy Minister of Planning & Research with the Ontario Provincial Government’s Cabinet Office. (Ben Levin is currently Professor and Canada Research Chair in Education Leadership and Policy at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education).

The topic of conversation was Research to Policy – how researchers inform government policy and how government policy informs research.

Ben Levin began by talking about his experience in the world of politicians. He jokingly says he was “coerced” to serve as Deputy Minister – first in Manitoba, then in Ontario – due to his extensive experience as an educator. Link to a previous presentation that Ben made at a KMb Seminar while in government here.

Levin suggests that the biggest obstacle to research becoming policy is the government system itself. Due to the very nature of the Canadian, partisan political system, a mindset exists that already inhibits any politician’s desire to make their opponents’ research interests their own. Levin says when promises are already made by politicians, it’s difficult to listen to research. A further point Levin made is that the time constraints of four-year political terms means politicians only pick a few issues during office – limiting the research that is actually selected for policy.

Levin also says a final obstacle is the electorate – the voters themselves – who may not necessarily be interested in the same research to policy agenda that the politicians are. Levin asserts that these three factors are the main obstacles to overcome to achieve policy results from research.

Janet Mason agreed with Levin and pointed out that the government process overly focuses on stakeholders and is one of the main barriers to knowledge mobilization in achieving research to policy. Mason suggests a need to get conversations in a “safe place” that isn’t politicized – which includes public consultations. When I asked her for clarification on where such a “safe place” might be, she was unable to answer directly, but suggested that the partisan nature of limiting research to policy needs to be momentarily put aside for the more significant issues that effect the general public (like education tuition and the environment) to become a priority.

Mason stressed the importance of public consultations in the political process while acknowledging the current political barriers that exist. The bottom line: if you can’t mobilize voters, you can’t mobilize knowledge.

Both Levin and Mason agree there is a political or policy window of opportunity in getting research to policy, with Levin quoting from John Kingdon’s  book Angendas and Public Policies for further information.

They provided a further lesson about the delicate political balance that politicans face in not being too far ahead of the electorate.

Although it may seem a rather gloomy prospect for any researcher to get their findings into policy based on such political barriers, Levin encourages researchers to continue with the process of research through knowledge mobilization for the value of evidence-based research itself with the hope that some of that research might make it over the hurdles of the political obstacles that continue to exist.

policy, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 914 other followers