Article

How Can Research Organizations More Effectively Transfer Research Knowledge to Decision Makers?

McMaster University.
Milbank Quarterly (Impact Factor: 3.38). 02/2003; 81(2):221-48, 171-2. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00052
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

Five questions--What should be transferred to decision makers? To whom should it be transferred? By whom? How? With what effect?--provide an organizing framework for a knowledge transfer strategy. Opportunities for improving how research organizations transfer research knowledge can be found in the differences between the answers suggested by our understanding of the research literature and those provided by research-organization directors asked to describe what they do. In Canada, these opportunities include developing actionable messages for decision makers (only 30 percent of research organizations frequently or always do this), developing knowledge-uptake skills in target audiences and knowledge-transfer skills in research organizations (only 20 to 22 percent frequently or always do this), and evaluating the impact of knowledge-transfer activities (only 8 to 12 percent frequently or always conduct an evaluation). Research funders can help research organizations take advantage of these opportunities.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: John N. Lavis, Jan 02, 2015
  • Source
    • "A concern with evidence for practice is associated with another development of significance for QR and teaching: the ascendance of practical, " actionable " knowledge over basic or pure knowledge. Here, we see the prioritization of research capable of producing knowledge of direct use to particular clinical or health system problems (Rossiter & Robertson, 2014;Sandelowski, 2004) and the emergence of " knowledge transfer " as a distinct specialization in the health research field (Lavis, Robertson, Woodside, McLeod, & Abelson, 2003). Emphasis on practical research has been used to justify a stepping back from theoretically driven or even theoretically informed QR. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Drawing on long experience as a sociologist in the health academy, I explore the challenges of practicing and teaching critical qualitative research in an environment dominated by very different scientific reasoning. I account for the transgressive positioning of qualitative research in the health sciences in terms of the role of social theory in interpretive research, rising interest in qualitative approaches among health professionals, research and educational doctrines that impede “value-added” analysis, and the ascendance of applied, post-positivist forms of qualitative research. Strategies for producing critical qualitative researchers who can both survive and thrive in the health arena include creation of institutional authority, prioritization of methodological depth over breadth, teaching pragmatic but non-compromising survival skills, and forging supportive communities of practice. I describe how one particular academic organization is engaging with these strategies and reflect on future prospects for educating critical qualitative researchers in the field of health.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2015 · Qualitative Inquiry
    • "Several research teams internationally have been working to understand more clearly how the traditional views of science communication and the fl ow of knowledge (e.g., from science producers to science consumers) are seriously fl awed (e.g., Cherney and Head 2011; Davies, Nutley, and Walter 2008; Harvey et al. 2010; Meagher, Lyall, and Nutley 2008; Ouimet et al. 2009). Lomas (2000) proposed a number of interactive methods for fostering linkage and exchange in public health, and this approach has been adopted and broadened in many spheres of research/policy interaction (e.g., Bowen and Zwi 2005; Lavis et al. 2003; Lomas 2007). "

    No preview · Article · Nov 2015
  • Source
    • "Others have explored the moral dimension of debates over harm reduction programmes for drug users (Keane, 2003; Rhodes et al, 2010). Lavis et al (2002), draw on literature from political science to identify ideas, interests, and institutions as key factors influencing the use of health services research in policy making (see also Lavis et al, 2003). Similarly, Smith (2013a) utilises both ideational and institutional theories to explain the use of evidence in recent UK health policy decisions. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Calls for evidence-based policy often fail to recognise the fundamentally political nature of policy making. Policy makers must identify, evaluate and utilise evidence to solve policy problems in the face of of competing priorities and political agendas. Evidence should inform but cannot determine policy choices. This paper draws on theories of 'good governance' to develop a framework for analysing and evaluating processes of evidence-informed policy making. 'Good governance' requires the use of appropriate bodies of high-quality evidence to inform policy and promotes decision-making processes that are transparent, accountable and open to contestation by the populations they govern. keywords: evidence-informed policy • good governance • knowledge translation
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2015
Show more