No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Faculties of education and institutional strategies for knowledge mobilization: An exploratory study
Abstract
The goal to enhance the impacts of academic research in the ‘real world’ resonates with progressive visions of the role of
universities in society, and finds support among policy makers who have sought to enhance the ‘transfer’, ‘translation’, ‘uptake’,
or ‘valorization’ of research knowledge in several areas of public services. This paper reports on an exploratory study of
the strategies used by selected Canadian and international faculties of education to mobilize research knowledge. Drawing
on data from semi-structured interviews with senior administrators of 13 faculties of education, the analysis reveals several
themes. Academic leaders recognize knowledge mobilization as a desirable institutional mission, but they identify a number
of barriers to greater efforts in this area. Although a number of strategies are employed, changes across multiple organizational
dimensions to encourage and support knowledge mobilization were reported at only two institutions. These results are relevant
to faculty administrators, scholars, and policy-makers interested in understanding the role of academic institutions in the
mobilization of research knowledge to the broader education community.
KeywordsUniversities–Faculties of education–Knowledge mobilization–Organizational strategies–Research use–Knowledge transfer
... Although KMb advocates a systematic approach to accelerate evidence-based policy-making, empirical research on how research institutions build KMb capacity is ironically rare (Sá et al., 2010). This study aims to answer the need to fill such a knowledge-action gap and start accumulating empirical evidence for an effective KMb capacity development in public administration research. ...
... The existing literature has documented many cases of successful KMb (Powell et al., 2018;Sá et al., 2010;Trivellato et al., 2018), while the mainstream of KMb theoretical research proposes a systematic or programmatic approach of KMb beyond the level of individual research projects (Nutley et al., 2007). In this sense, KMb is often viewed as an institutional capacity or infrastructure (Bennet & Bennet, 2007;Gagliardi et al., 2012;Phipps & Shapson, 2009), with which individual researchers are motivated and empowered to maximize the research impact. ...
... Such acknowledgement can be a collective positive attitude and enthusiasm for KMb initiatives (Jacobson et al., 2004). Scholars may also benefit from formal ways of institutional support for the KMb endeavors, such as providing administrative support and infrastructure, specifying measurable targets or outcomes, offering seed funding (Jacobson et al., 2004;Sá et al., 2010), and institutionalize collaborative network with community partners (Innvaer et al., 2002). Furthermore, incentives and reward should also be built-in an institutional KMb support system (Nutley et al., 2007;Tornquist & Hoenack, 1996). ...
Knowledge mobilization (KMb) takes a programmatic approach to empower and motivate scholars to connect research with policy‐making through disseminating research to knowledge users, acquiring information from practitioners, and responding to the acquired information. The present study aims to investigate the influence of institutional‐level factors on researchers’ KMb activities. One hundred fifty‐five researchers in the field of public administration across China participated in an online survey study. The participants reported their KMb activities, perceived institutional support, and relational capital. The results demonstrate that both the strength of institutional support and relational capital are positively associated with researchers’ KMb activities. Moreover, the effect of institutional support tends to be stronger when an institution has more relational capital. The study highlights that research institutions should take programmatic approaches to empower their researchers to be actively involved in the knowledge co‐production process and make a systematic effort at the institutional level to build a well‐developed collaborative network. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
... Research impact (hereafter, impact) refers to "the influence scholarly and creative inquiry has upon wider society, intended as well as unintended, immediate as well as protracted" (Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, 2017, p. 13), and KMb refers to intentional efforts to achieve impact. Despite the increasing pressure, researchers and higher education institutions (HEIs) are struggling to build their KMb capacity (Cooper et al., 2018;Fischman et al., 2018;Sá et al., 2011Sá et al., , 2012. Recent studies find that institutionally embedded professional staff who operationalize KMb efforts may play a crucial role in improving the current situation (e.g., Cvitanovic et al., 2017;van der Graaf et al., 2019;Wye et al., 2019). ...
... Yet, to date, there are few empirical studies of how various expressions of these competencies take shape for different approaches to KMb or how they may relate to the effectiveness and impact of different approaches (MacKillop et al., 2020;Neal et al., 2021). Further complicating the impact landscape for individuals, multiple studies have found that KMb remains a peripheral concern for many Canadian researchers (Cooper, 2017;Cooper et al., 2018;Fischman et al., 2018) and without robust institutional backing (Cain et al., 2018;Cooper, 2015;Sá et al., 2011). Common critiques include the limited time for interactive KMb efforts, insufficient access to institutional resources, unrealistic expectations and work overload, scarce opportunities for professional support and development, and precarious working conditions for professional staff (e.g., Knight & Lyall, 2013;van der Graaf et al., 2019;Wye et al., 2019). ...
... Within the Canadian context, the NFRF, which provides just one example among a host of emerging initiatives in this area, intends to create lasting changes for scholarship and so- More broadly, the impact agenda and the ongoing expansion of mission-driven and assessment-driven systems implicates both individuals and institutions in the need to build KMb capacity and capture the impacts of research (Budtz Pedersen et al., 2020;Cooper, 2017). However, prior studies find that researchers and HEIs alike are struggling in these areas (e.g., Cooper et al., 2018;Sá et al., 2011). Cain et al. (2018), for example, found that some Canadian public criminology researchers perceived KMb "as an exercise of institutional governance to demonstrate accountability to the public, while not actually holding researchers accountable for publicly disseminating their work" (p. ...
Intentional efforts to advance the societal impacts of research are known as knowledge mobilization (KMb). Despite increas-ing pressure on researchers and higher education institutions (HEIs) to engage in KMb activities, capacity building in this area is constrained by a limited understanding of the role of HEIs from the perspective of embedded KMb professionals. This study presents findings from a developmental evaluation of Research Impact Canada’s efforts to build institutional capacity for KMb. Through semi-structured interviews (n = 20) with KMb professionals from 15 Canadian HEIs, we share (a) approaches for how KMb professionals can thrive in institutional environments, and (b) essential questions about KMb for the higher edu-cation sector. From that basis, we discuss how there is a need for skilled KMb professionals within HEIs and a need for (inter)national research and practice collaborations.
... According to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC, 2017a), KM is "an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of activities relating to the production and use of research results including knowledge synthesis, dissemination, transfer, exchange and co-creation and co-production by researchers and knowledge users" (para. 4). 1 In spite of widespread institutional efforts that encourage engagement with publics outside of the academy (see, for example, Morton, 2011;Phipps, 2012), existing research identifies a number of barriers that prevent researchers from actually engaging in the practice of knowledge mobilization, such as the institutional structure of academia and lack of support and recognition for KM activities (Brady, 2004;Chubb & Watermeyer, 2016;Sa, Li, & Faubert, 2010;Walker, 2008). However, less attention has been given to the way in which KM is perceived and understood within the academy and to its impact on the research process. ...
... While there is a push for researchers to engage in knowledge mobilization, existing research identifies a number of institutional barriers that inhibit the public mobilization of academic knowledge, including an enduring institutional reward system prioritizing more "traditional" outputs (Currie, 2007;Sprague & Laube, 2009), problems with articulation and synthesis of research findings among non-academic audiences (Feilzer, 2009;Mopas & Moore, 2012;Uggen & Inderbitzin, 2010;Young, 2012), and a lack of institutional support for KM activities (Barreno, Elliott, Madueke & Sarny, 2013;Sa et al., 2010). As literature indicates, institutional support for KM is vital to successful engagement in KM activities, yet it is lacking across many Canadian universities (Barreno et al., 2013;Phipps & Shapson, 2009). ...
... While many universities claim support for KM, a lack of professional recognition for KM activities indicates that this support is only partial. Further, many federal granting agencies require KM outputs to be detailed on grant applications, yet follow-up or accountability for pursuing public engagement is lacking (Chubb & Watermeyer, 2016;Sa et al., 2010). As such, it has been suggested that this element of the funding application (and research process) "may be more cursory than constitutive and more ambiguous than stable" (Chubb & Watermeyer, 2016, p. 3). ...
In Canada there are growing discussions concerning the role of publicly funded universities and the impact of academic research. The integration of neoliberal practices and market rationalities place pressure on universities to “go public” in order to demonstrate relevance and accountability. Researchers are encouraged or even required to engage the public through knowledge mobilization activities. Our study provides an empirical analysis of knowledge mobilization in order to understand its perceived impact on public criminology, and more broadly the production and dissemination of criminological research. We argue that the institutional shift toward knowledge mobilization is perceived as a tool of institutional governance to demonstrate organizational accountability that shapes the production and dissemination of criminological knowledge.
... The rationale behind impact movements is that publicly funded research should have tangible benefits for citizens and governments need to demonstrate a return on investment in relation to research. As a result, researchers and universities are under increasing pressure to share research more widely with non-academic audiences in more accessible formats to strengthen the impact of publicly funded research on policy and practice across sectors (Nutley, Walter, & Davies, 2007;Sá, Li, & Faubert, 2011). The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada refers to these efforts as knowledge mobilization (KMb) and articulates the underlying purpose of this global movement: ...
... These global trends-research impact and KMb-are changing the landscape of higher education (Hicks, 2012;Wilsdon et al., 2015). Historically, academia has been marked by the pursuit of publishing high-quality, peer-reviewed publications (Smith, 2010;Wilson et al., 2010); however, these trends are problematizing academic production, highlighting that academic journal articles usually fail to have an impact on those beyond the ivory towers (Sá et al., 2011). We surveyed researchers from Faculties of Education across Canada to explore their KMb practices and asked if institutional supports were available in their universities to support researchers with the growing demands of mobilizing research for non-academic audiences. ...
... The empirical evidence suggests that KMb is not well aligned with the priorities of academia, which focuses on generating publications within academic communities rather than making research accessible and useful to practitioners and policy makers (Hargreaves, 1999;Sá et al., 2011;Smith, 2010;Willinsky, 2000). The pressure on faculty members to produce peer-reviewed journal articles and continually chase grant funding, what Smith (2010) refers to as academic treadmills, is well documented (McGrail, Rickard, & Jones, 2006;Smith, 2010). ...
Researchers are under increasing pressure to disseminate research more widely with non-academic audiences (efforts we call knowledge mobilization, KMb) and to articulate the value of their research beyond academia to broader society. This study surveyed SSHRC-funded education researchers to explore how universities are supporting researchers with these new demands. Overall, the study found that there are few supports available to researchers to assist them in KMb efforts. Even where supports do exist, they are not heavily accessed by researchers. Researchers spend less than 10% of their time on non-academic outreach. Researchers who do the highest levels of academic publishing also report the highest levels of non-academic dissemination. These findings suggest many opportunities to make improvements at individual and institutional levels. We recommend (a) leveraging intermediaries to improve KMb, (b) creating institutionally embedded KMb capacity, and (c) having funders take a leadership role in training and capacity-building.
... As the single largest producers of research evidence, universities (Cooper, Levin, & Campbell, 2009;Read, Cooper, Edelstein, Sohn, & Levin, 2013) are central to KMb processes Sá, Li & Faubert, 2011). Universities tend to emphasize, to varying degrees, the conceptual, symbolic, and instrumental uses of research with decision-makers using research in indirect ways rather than in instrumental and direct ways (Amara, Ouimet, & Landry, 2004). ...
... Universities predominantly engage in evidence production rather than the dissemination and communication of findings. Sá et al. (2011) found that universities focus on the development of research-based products, particularly on websites, as a means for disseminating research. Their research shows that websites are not being used strategically to facilitate a broader dissemination of research work. ...
... With concentrated and sustained efforts to influence policy and practice, research programs based out of universities have strong potential for KMb impact (Read et al., 2013). Yet, despite this potential, the processes taken to facilitate research use and uptake are limited (Sá, et al., 2011). ...
Using a multi-case design, this study draws on empirical evidence and literature to analyze the knowledge mobilization approaches in educational organizations. The sample consists of four different types of education organizations in Ontario, Canada: a school board, a university, a not-for-profit, and a professional association. Data sources include publicly available websites and documents (n = 63) and key informant interviews (n = 18). Although research impact was operationalized and observed differently in these organizations, measures of impact were found to be ineffectual in all cases. This article validates the findings of existing studies that have found that there are limited instrumental uses of research, wherein research directly influences policy and practice decisions. The study calls for a careful discernment and applicability of research impact.
... Another critical barrier of UTT is the time constraints experienced during the UTT process [25,31]. Sa et al. [56] suggested that UTT collaboration is risky for academics who are seeking promotion and tenure as it consumes their time away from research works. In addition, research has been given a higher priority in universities than commercialization activities [31]. ...
... Domain scholars illustrated that insufficient resources or lack of resources withheld the success of the UTT process [56]. If they were to provide a potential benefit to commercialization, universities must have access to essential resources [31]. ...
... Another barrier of UTT is that the knowledge developed by universities may be too theoretical for practical purposes [25,27,32,56]. Shen [25] pointed out that scholars admit that the research works they developed are not aligned with industries' needs and interests. ...
The University technology transfer (UTT) process is hindered by various barriers to achieving a successful translation of innovative technologies from universities to industries and other partners. Identifying these various barriers and understanding their interrelationships would provide a better understanding of the complex nature of the UTT process, which may be considered as inputs to crucial decision-making initiatives. This paper addresses this gap by holistically determining UTT barriers and their intertwined relationships. Using the Delphi method and fuzzy cognitive mapping, a case study in a state university in the Philippines was conducted to carry out this objective. The Delphi process extracts 24 relevant barriers of UTT, out of 46 barriers obtained from a comprehensive review of the extant literature. The results show that misalignment between research and commercialization objectives is the barrier that was influenced most by the other barriers. In contrast, high costs of managing joint research projects in terms of time and money and institutional bureaucracy have the highest out-degree measures or are the barriers that influence other barriers the most. These findings provide guidelines to various stakeholders and decision-makers in understanding the existence of barriers in the formulation of strategies and initiatives for a successful UTT process.
... Vzniklá propast mezi akademiky a učiteli je přemosťována pomocí transferu tak, aby se oba světy k sobě přibližovaly (např. Hubermann, 1990;Louis, 2005;Sá, Li, & Faubert, 2011). Transfer lze tedy považovat za přenos výzkumných poznatků mezi dvěma světy, při kterém je současně vyzdvihována užitečnost poznatků pedagogického výzkumu a zvyšována reputace pedagogického výzkumu (Kaestle, 1993). 1 Tvůrci mohou být i jiné osoby než jen akademici. ...
... Přestože se v současné době stále neví, jak přesně se poznatky předávají (Biesta, 2007b(Biesta, , 2015b, o užitečnosti transferu a využívání výzkumných poznatků se nepochybuje (Hammersley, 2013;Biesta, 2015c aj.). Z tohoto důvodu velký počet výzkumníků vynakládá své úsilí k měření, analýze a popisu transferu poznatků (Sá, Li, & Faubert, 2011;Nelson & O'Beirne;Newman, Cherney, & Head, 2016;Worton et al., 2017), čímž rozvíjí potenciál transferu směrem k jeho systematičnosti a úspěšnosti, nebo alespoň k povědomí o jeho významu u zainteresovaných aktérů. ...
... Rozhodování o tom, kam bude směřovat jejich produkce poznatků, bylo spíše otázkou kolektivního rozhodnutí, než věcí o které by rozhodlo vedení. Takový výsledek se ukázal i u australských akademiků(Sá, Li, & Faubert, 2011; z dřívějších prací jižLee, 1998). Pokud by se situace změnila a akademici by vnímali, že vedení systematicky pracuje s transferem poznatků do praxe, nebo je alespoň v tomto směru podporuje, tak by se proměnilo jak jejich vnímání procesu transferu, tak i jejich aktivity směřované k praxi(Rogers, 2003). ...
In my thesis, I concentrate on educational research knowledge transfer between the academics and the teachers. The objectives of my work were to explore how the Czech academics work at the faculties of education and how the teachers at the primary and secondary level of education system perceive the transfer of knowledge based on pedagogical research, its social context, knowledge attributes and their own characteristic that contribute to the process of knowledge transfer. To embed the objectives into a specific theoretical framework, I used the basic ideas from the sociology of knowledge and social constructivism. The theories by Rogers (2003) and Havelock (1971) and also the model transfer by Becheikh et al. (2010) enabled me to accomplish my objectives and answer the posed research questions. I conducted a widespread research survey by quantitative approach. The survey was driven by two complex research instruments that were developed and collected in random sample of 475 teachers (40 % response rate) and 129 academics (27 % response rate) in the Czech Republic. The psychometric properties of the questionnaires were verified in the pilot survey and in the main survey. The survey proved that the groups of the academics and the teachers perceive one another as coming from two different worlds, i.e. two different communication groups (Rogers, 2003). The teachers prefer personal communication (individual media) that were directed at their own practice and their colleagues´ or school´s experience. However, the media favoured by the academics, such as the academic articles, increased the teachers´ interest in knowledge. Teachers´ interest as an aspect of knowledge reception (together with searching, reading etc.) reached the lowest score out of the three phases (receiving, adopting, and utilizing) of the transfer. On the other hand, the academics concentrated mainly at creating the research knowledge for the practice (generating phase) without adjusting them (phase adapting) to the teachers' practice and effective diffusion (disseminating phase), i.e. communicating via effective media. It is therefore inevitable for the academics to adjust their scientific knowledge (writing in the scientific journals) to the language and knowledge volume to the teachers, or eventually to concentrate on the quality of the research papers (Cochran-Smith, 1999). The growth in the activities of the academics and the teachers in all six phases (generating, adapting, disseminating, receiving, adopting and utilizing) is achievable when the workplace supports this. With the group of academics, one of the aspects that influences their activities (dissemination phases) is the fact that their engagement in regional education. The respondents from the group of teachers demonstrate improvement in transfer activities only when the perceived themselves as adopters of research knowledge (as innovators and experimenters). The survey also shows that one of the key aspects of the transfer process is the attributes of the educational research knowledge. The teachers perceived all attributes (relative advantage, social advantage, complexity, compatibility, trialability, observability) in all types of knowledge (the process of education, the construct of education, the context of education, the subject of education, the outcome of education, the content of education) more negatively and critically than the academics. The teachers did not perceive any of the given types as directly applicable in their practice. It indicates low rate of adoption of all types of knowledge was low. Increasing the awareness about the benefits and opportunities of knowledge transfer with the academics and the teachers is an efficient way how to open the knowledge transfer process between them.
... Academic scholars play a vital role in incorporating sustainability knowledge into disseminating strategies for the purposes of fostering a link between knowledge and practice (Sá et al. 2011), obtaining substantial attention from targeted audiences, and better servicing communication platform users (Swani et al. 2014;Kaplan and Haenlein 2010). Building on marketing communication theories, this research investigates the role of social media in disseminating and promoting new knowledge related to the implementation of community sustainability plans. ...
... According to the diffusion of innovation theory (Estabrookset al. 2006), knowledge dissemination is often referred to the process of connecting research findings in academia to broader communities (Sá et al. 2011). Gainforth et al. (2015) define this process as "moving research into the hands of research users" (p. ...
... Castronovo and Huang (2012) suggest that the techniques used to measure marketing effectiveness depend on specific marketing objectives. Strategies employed for knowledge dissemination are usually determined by knowledge content, targeted audiences, dissemination techniques, and dissemination purposes (Sá et al. 2011). The effectiveness of various internet-based tools is measured by audience engagement (Curran and Lennon 2011), such as the viewership of different media as it varies over time (Newell and Dale 2015). ...
This study aims to provide social marketers and researchers with some innovative perspectives on the application of social media in disseminating and promoting new sustainability knowledge to targeted audiences including academics, community sustainability stakeholders, and policy-makers. An online survey was used to examine the audiences’ attitudes of and motivations for engaging in LinkedIn and Twitter sites that disseminate sustainability knowledge. Also, the fact-based measurements from LinkedIn and Twitter showing the participants’ reactions to the contents and formats were analyzed. The results suggest that the infographics message format received the highest engagement and response rates. Participants used Twitter to obtain general sustainability knowledge while being engaged in LinkedIn for specific advice on the implementation of community sustainability plans.
... According to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC, 2017a), KM is "an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of activities relating to the production and use of research results including knowledge synthesis, dissemination, transfer, exchange and co-creation and co-production by researchers and knowledge users" (para. 4). 1 In spite of widespread institutional efforts that encourage engagement with publics outside of the academy (see, for example, Morton, 2011;Phipps, 2012), existing research identifies a number of barriers that prevent researchers from actually engaging in the practice of knowledge mobilization, such as the institutional structure of academia and lack of support and recognition for KM activities (Brady, 2004;Chubb & Watermeyer, 2016;Sa, Li, & Faubert, 2010;Walker, 2008). However, less attention has been given to the way in which KM is perceived and understood within the academy and to its impact on the research process. ...
... While there is a push for researchers to engage in knowledge mobilization, existing research identifies a number of institutional barriers that inhibit the public mobilization of academic knowledge, including an enduring institutional reward system prioritizing more "traditional" outputs (Currie, 2007;Sprague & Laube, 2009), problems with articulation and synthesis of research findings among non-academic audiences (Feilzer, 2009;Mopas & Moore, 2012;Uggen & Inderbitzin, 2010;Young, 2012), and a lack of institutional support for KM activities (Barreno, Elliott, Madueke & Sarny, 2013;Sa et al., 2010). As literature indicates, institutional support for KM is vital to successful engagement in KM activities, yet it is lacking across many Canadian universities (Barreno et al., 2013;Phipps & Shapson, 2009). ...
... While many universities claim support for KM, a lack of professional recognition for KM activities indicates that this support is only partial. Further, many federal granting agencies require KM outputs to be detailed on grant applications, yet follow-up or accountability for pursuing public engagement is lacking (Chubb & Watermeyer, 2016;Sa et al., 2010). As such, it has been suggested that this element of the funding application (and research process) "may be more cursory than constitutive and more ambiguous than stable" (Chubb & Watermeyer, 2016, p. 3). ...
In Canada there are growing discussions concerning the role of publicly funded universities and the impact of academic research. The integration of neoliberal practices and market rationalities place pressure on universities to “go public” in order to demonstrate relevance and accountability. Researchers are encouraged or even required to engage the public through knowledge mobilization activities. Our study provides an empirical analysis of knowledge mobilization in order to understand its perceived impact on public criminology, and more broadly the production and dissemination of criminological research. We argue that the institutional shift toward knowledge mobilization is perceived as a tool of institutional governance to demonstrate organizational accountability that shapes the production and dissemination of criminological knowledge.In Canada there are growing discussions concerning the role of publicly funded universities and the impact of academic research. The integration of neoliberal practices and market rationalities place pressure on universities to “go public” in order to demonstrate relevance and accountability. Researchers are encouraged or even required to engage the public through knowledge mobilization activities. Our study provides an empirical analysis of knowledge mobilization in order to understand its perceived impact on public criminology, and more broadly the production and dissemination of criminological research. We argue that the institutional shift toward knowledge mobilization is perceived as a tool of institutional governance to demonstrate organizational accountability that shapes the production and dissemination of criminological knowledge.
... The rationale behind impact movements is that publicly funded research should have tangible benefits for citizens and governments need to demonstrate a return on investment in relation to research. As a result, researchers and universities are under increasing pressure to share research more widely with non-academic audiences in more accessible formats to strengthen the impact of publicly funded research on policy and practice across sectors (Nutley, Walter, & Davies, 2007;Sá, Li, & Faubert, 2011). The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada refers to these efforts as knowledge mobilization (KMb) and articulates the underlying purpose of this global movement: ...
... These global trends-research impact and KMb-are changing the landscape of higher education (Hicks, 2012;Wilsdon et al., 2015). Historically, academia has been marked by the pursuit of publishing high-quality, peer-reviewed publications (Smith, 2010;Wilson et al., 2010); however, these trends are problematizing academic production, highlighting that academic journal articles usually fail to have an impact on those beyond the ivory towers (Sá et al., 2011). We surveyed researchers from Faculties of Education across Canada to explore their KMb practices and asked if institutional supports were available in their universities to support researchers with the growing demands of mobilizing research for non-academic audiences. ...
... The empirical evidence suggests that KMb is not well aligned with the priorities of academia, which focuses on generating publications within academic communities rather than making research accessible and useful to practitioners and policy makers (Hargreaves, 1999;Sá et al., 2011;Smith, 2010;Willinsky, 2000). The pressure on faculty members to produce peer-reviewed journal articles and continually chase grant funding, what Smith (2010) refers to as academic treadmills, is well documented (McGrail, Rickard, & Jones, 2006;Smith, 2010). ...
Researchers are under increasing pressure to disseminate research more widely with non-academic audiences (efforts we call knowledge mobilization, KMb) and to articulate the value of their research beyond academia to broader society. This study surveyed SSHRC-funded education researchers to explore how universities are supporting researchers with these new demands. Overall, the study found that there are few supports available to researchers to assist them in KMb efforts. Even where supports do exist, they are not heavily accessed by researchers. Researchers spend less than 10% of their time on non-academic outreach. Researchers who do the highest levels of academic publishing also report the highest levels of non-academic dissemination. These findings suggest many opportunities to make improvements at individual and institutional levels. We recommend (a) leveraging intermediaries to improve KMb, (b) creating institutionally embedded KMb capacity, and (c) having funders take a leadership role in training and capacity-building.
... While the enactment of Taiwan's Fundamental Science and Technology Act in 1999, only a few domestic studies have noticed several deficiencies that existed in the mechanism of university-industry linkage in Taiwan (Tsai and Tsai 2007;Chiang 2009;Ken et al. 2009). In addition, these activities between universities and industries have initiated abundant studies concentrating on the performance drivers of university technology transfer (Foltz et al. 2000;Rogers et al. 2000;Jensen and Thursby 2001;Thursby and Kemp 2002;Di Gregorio and Shane 2003;Siegel et al. 2003;Friedman and Silberman 2003;Lach and Schankerman 2004;Link and Siegel 2005;Chapple et al. 2005;O'Shea et al. 2005;Chang et al. 2006;O'Shea et al. 2007;Clarysse et al. 2011;Hsu et al. 2015;Hu et al. 2016), the studies regarding obstacles to technology transfer from universities to industries are relatively scarce (Jones-Evans et al. 1999;Siegel et al. 2003;Siegel et al. 2004;Jacobson et al. 2004;Mosey et al. 2006;Belkhodja and Landry 2007;Bruneel et al. 2010;Gilsing et al. 2011;Sá et al. 2011;Tartari et al. 2012). While a domestic study reported that these barriers not only impede university technology transfer but also affect one another (Ken et al. 2009), the cause-and-effect interrelationships among them still lack for empirical analysis. ...
... Meanwhile, the tenure/ promotion criteria are considerable factors for faculty members to contribute to university technology transfer activities. Jacobson et al. (2004) and Sá et al. (2011) argued that the value placed on traditional academic output might cause the university-industry linking activities to be given low priority among individuals and academic units. ...
... The promotion/tenure criteria for university scientists in Taiwan also emphasise the importance of academic output. However, many scholars have mentioned time constraints, (Jacobson et al. 2004;Mosey et al. 2006;Gilsing et al. 2011;Sá et al. 2011). In addition, some university scientists may fear losing autonomy or independence during collaborations with firms (Tartari et al. 2012). ...
In recent decades, universities have been designated the role of generating and disseminating knowledge in an innovation system. Nevertheless, a multitude of barriers exist in the university technology transfer process. Moreover, a limited number of studies have noted that these barriers not only impede university technology transfer but also affect one another. Therefore, this study examines the inter-relationships among these barriers and identifies the key barriers by comparing different perspectives of key stakeholders with the decision making trial and evaluation laboratory method. With Taiwan as the research base, the key stakeholders in this study are university scientists, university technology transfer offices and entrepreneurs. The results indicate that the lack of mutual understanding regarding expectations and working practices is the most prominent barrier, while the rules and regulations imposed by universities or government funding agencies are the barriers with the highest influence on others. Furthermore, policy implications for Taiwan’s university technology transfer are provided.
... I den anvendte litteratur tages der endvidere udgangspunkt i forskellige typer af forbindelser mellem forskning og uddannelser. I nogle studier fokuseres der fx på de forbindelser, der opstår via anvendelse af forskningslitteratur i uddannelsesarenaen (Scheel & Skaanning 2015); mens andre studier fokuserer på de institutionelle rammer som formidlende af forbindelser (Sá, Li & Faubert 2011). Ud over at der i litteraturen er repraesenteret sådanne forskellige typer af forbindelser, har det heller ikke vaeret muligt at identificere forskning, der bestraeber sig på at udvikle en systematik på netop denne del af begrebsudviklingen. ...
... Det er desuden nødvendigt at arbejde med incitamentsstrukturer og kriterier, der i højere grad retter blikket mod samspillet mellem forskning og uddannelse (Healey 2005b). I en undersøgelse af hvilke organisatoriske faktorer der har betydning for, om institutioner har haft succes med at forbinde forskning og uddannelse, kommer Sá, Li og Faubert frem til følgende fem forhold: 1) Institutionel prioritet og støtte, 2) organisatoriske normer for akademisk arbejde, 3) understøttelse af systematiske forbindelser mellem forskere og potentielle samarbejdspartnere, 4) incitamenter og belønningssystemer og 5) aendringer af uddannelserne fx gennem nye kurser og aendret indhold (Sá, Li, & Faubert 2011). Nørgård og Mathiesen har i et nyt dansk studie vist, hvorledes man kan arbejde med undervisningsbaserede forskningskollektiver inden for rammerne af et traditionelt universitet, men peger samtidig på, at det udfordrer en mere grundlaeggende forestilling om universitets formål (2018). ...
In 2013, the University Colleges in Denmark was legalized as research-based institutions and the nexus between research and education is therefore rather unexplored in the area of universities of applied science. The demand of being research based educations combined with limited research based knowledge of nexus between research and education call upon development of clear concepts. The study show that the arena of education is mainly positioned as recipient in relation to the arena of research and the article argues for a mutual optic on the nexus. In the research literature there is a lack of systematic conceptualization of the different types of connections between the two areas. The article suggests a three-piece typology: a materialized, an actor and an organizational connection.
... Even though "positive impacts on policy and practice is generally embraced as desirable by academic institutions", 71 many institutions currently lack the necessary support systems for such activities. 71,72 Among the most common institutional barriers are money and time constraints, absence of measurable targets for KTA strategies, or Personal View difficulty in communicating scientific findings. 71 Even if support for KTA exists, it has been found that researchers do not leverage these resources and spend less than 10% of their time on KTA activities. ...
... 71,72 Among the most common institutional barriers are money and time constraints, absence of measurable targets for KTA strategies, or Personal View difficulty in communicating scientific findings. 71 Even if support for KTA exists, it has been found that researchers do not leverage these resources and spend less than 10% of their time on KTA activities. 72 It follows that universities need to increase their capacity and that of their faculty, with regards to impactful KTA work. ...
Almost four decades of climate science have not yet led to transformative policy change at the pace and scale required to confront the climate crisis. Colleagues in the planetary health community attribute much potential to framing climate change as human health issue in order to create greater impact on policy makers. In this Personal View, we discuss the promise and limitations of this approach by drawing on insights from political science and public policy with regards to the complexity of these contentious policy issues. We argue that we, as academics, have a moral obligation to embrace an active role in the knowledge-to-action (KTA) sphere and that we would be well advised to expand our KTA approach to include evidence-based strategies, such as lobbying or civil resistance. As scientists, we can no longer wait to embrace the realpolitik insights of political science to move our evidence into policy action.
... Haber et al., 2018). It is also important to note that while sharing research beyond academia may be increasingly expected in higher education institutions, many barriers may exist to its support and implementation, and explicit rewarding of such work in faculty incentive systems may be relatively rare in many academic contexts (Sá et al., 2011). ...
... Despite growing emphasis on the importance of research outputs for both academic and non-academic audiences, it cannot be assumed that institutions provide balanced support in each area (e.g. Sá et al., 2011), and recent research has found that there may be notable differences in scholarly communication behaviours between nations (Jamali et al., 2020). In addition, ECRs may need support from multiple levels within academia to optimise the volume and quality of translational outputs they produce regardless of audience. ...
There is increasing expectation that research be communicated broadly to share knowledge across industry, professional, governmental, and public spheres. Scholarly publishers can benefit from the sharing of research beyond academia since the potential for societal impact encourages fur- ther support from both industry and governmental funders. This paper draws on qualitative in-depth interview data from Australian- and Japanese-based early career researchers (ECRs) to investigate how higher education institutions support the development of diverse communication skills needed by ECRs to effectively share their research both in academia and beyond. We found that sharing research for academic and other diverse audiences is often perceived as valued but may not always be supported. Output valuing was communicated in performance manage- ment, but there were compelling differences between the two nations, with Japanese-based ECRs reporting a stronger expectation of research outputs for non-academic audiences than their Australian counterparts. There were also indications that institutional support for both academic and translational outputs may change in response to nations’ shifting research priorities.
... The commercialization venture in UTT also creates time constraints for university stakeholders, as it may have potential con°ict and resistance between doing UTT activities and performing academic duties [Mosey et al. (2006); Rasmussen et al. (2006); Shen (2016)]. In addition, a lack of resources is also another challenge of UTT since public funds subsidize most universities, and most technology developed by academics requires additional funding [Jones-Evans et al. (1999); Mosey et al. (2006); Belkhodja and Landry (2007); Gilsing et al. (2011);S a et al. (2011);Shen (2016)]. Further, there are also insu±cient resources to manage collaborations with external organizations [De Beer et al. (2017)], as well as the lack of human resources for R&D activities. ...
... Industries have a lower dependency on universities as a source of knowledge since most universities are more engaged in basic research than applied industrial research [Marsili (2001)]. Consequently, the university's knowledge being too theoretical for practical applications is another challenge of UTT [Bruneel et al. (2010); Gilsing et al. (2011);S a et al. (2011);Shen (2016)]. Another considerable challenge of UTT is the rewards given to university domain scholars for participating in the UTT process [Jones-Evans et al. (1999); Jacobson et al. (2004); Siegel et al. (2004); Belkhodja and Landry (2007); Shen (2016)]. ...
Translating university technology via the university–industry route faces an array of challenges. Subsequently, understanding the interrelationships of these challenges hopes to provide a better outlook on the complex nature of the university technology transfer (UTT) process. Such an agenda remains a gap in the domain literature. To advance this oversight, this study intends to identify the UTT challenges and determine their complex contextual relationships. The interpretative structural modeling, together with the MICMAC analysis, was sequentially adopted to derive the overarching structure of the challenges of UTT. A case study in a public university in the Philippines was conducted to carry out these objectives. Findings show that time constraints, knowledge being too theoretical, high costs of managing joint research projects, complex organizational structure, institutional bureaucracy, geographic distance, and lack of national benchmark are driving challenges that influence other challenges in impeding UTT in the representative Philippine university. These findings provide policy insights to key decision-makers and stakeholders on the success of technology transfers.
... Human resource development suppose not only rational faculty management but technology transfer staff support as well. Some researchers argue that there is a need for internal incentives for scientists and departments to develop links between the university and industry (Jacobson, Butterill, & Goering, 2004;Sá, Li, & Faubert, 2011). It is important to encourage scientists for cooperation in the licensing of technologies, scientists' international mobility, knowledge and technology transfer activity (Siegel, Wright, & Lockett, 2007;Edler, Fier, & Grimpe, 2011;Kireyeva, Mussabalina, & Tolysbaev, 2018). ...
... Styhre & Lind (2010) showed that the university system is organized in a bureaucratic way, characterized by a functional organization of faculties, schools, departments and research groups, and a hierarchical order both in the structure of the university and including executive level (Shen, 2017) The lack of financial resources to substantiate the concept or attract experienced technology transfer staff to the university is another critical obstacle for university scientists. For university scientists who are mainly engaged in basic research, additional funding is required to proof the concept of their inventions (Sá, Li, & Faubert, 2011). Meanwhile, for university TTOs, hiring professionals with sufficient marketing skills, technical skills, and bargaining is expensive. ...
Despite the strong efforts of the government of Kazakhstan in building innovation infrastructure, there is a low level of innovation activity, a great number of technologies remain unclaimed by industries, and universities have difficulties to incubate and commercialize their technologies due to the unadjusted internal ecosystem. As a result, less than 5% of university inventions are transferred into the industry, most of university R&D efforts end with publications and conference speeches. As a result, Kazakhstan has low indicators on the Global Competitiveness Index: 97th place in the sub-index of the innovation potential, 66th place in cooperation between universities and businesses in the field of R & D and technology commercialization. The purpose of this study is to identify the barriers of university and industry cooperation and to develop recommendations for the internal ecosystem of technology commercialization. The research method used is a survey of three categories of experts from 9 universities of Almaty (researchers, technology transfer managers, spin-off-owners ) – the largest metropolis of Central Asia. The results of the expert survey showed that the main barriers for cooperation between university and industry are: lack of resources to build university-industry links, lack of time due to high teaching load, poor qualification of technology transfer managers, and lack of networking with industry. Based on the results of the expert survey, it is proposed to develop the ecosystem for the commercialization of university-based technologies, for which the following activities are important: human resources, financing, intellectual property management system, and intermediary infrastructure. The results of this study can be applied in developing the strategies and policies for universities, public research organizations, as well as for national R&D and higher education policies.
... Table 1 indicates which of the five factors each college addressed. All three colleges addressed at least three of the factors, in contrast to limited evidence about other North American colleges of education, suggesting that each participating college had established a relatively comprehensive KM agenda (Cooper 2016;Cooper et al., 2018;Levin, 2004;Sá, Li, & Faubert, 2011). Following best practices for internet surveys (Fan & Yan, 2010), 66 faculty from these three colleges of education responded to an online survey (Zuiker, Piepgrass, Tefera, & Fischman, 2018). ...
... In order to understand efforts to document (and eventually standardize) KM efforts, the survey considered tools that faculty use to understand how others engage with their scholarship (Konkiel & Scherer, 2013;Piwowar & Priem, 2013;Qi & Levin, 2013). In order to characterize internal policies (e.g., promotion and tenure), the survey also considers stability and change in organizational influences on research, teaching, and service (Hargreaves, 1999;Sá et al., 2011;Willinsky, 2000). ...
This study examines emerging efforts by three colleges of education to contribute to and benefit research use through public systems of knowledge exchange among researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and other education stakeholders. Often labeled knowledge mobilization (KM), such organization- and individual-level agendas seek to enhance, expand, and sustain engagement with educational research. Colleges of education with public KM agendas signal formal, local efforts at a time when KM remains weakly integrated field- and sector-wide in education. The study therefore illuminates the interdependent opportunities and challenges that accompany individual and organizational capacities for such change. Drawing on faculty survey responses (n=66), findings resolve scholarly practices in terms of both knowledge production and mobilization as well as in relation to individual and organizational agendas, which are considered in terms of four general tensions that influence efforts to extend the reach and impact of scholarship in colleges of education.
... Estas interrogantes, al no estar completamente resueltas, se convierten en el punto de partida de los investigadores que se han interesado en el KM en educación (Arsenijević, 2011;Cooper y Levin, 2010;Cooper et al., 2009;Cooper, Rodway-Macri y Read, 2011;Gaudet, 2013;Levin, 2004Levin, , 2008Levin, , 2011Levin, , 2013Levin y O'Donnell, 1999;Moss, 2013;Qi y Levin, 2013;Sá, Li y Faubert, 2011). Si bien es un concepto en proceso de construcción, y relativamente actual en el ámbito educativo, se encuentran disponibles algunas investigaciones con datos empíricos sobre el KM, que resulta importante explicitar. ...
... Sugerencias del KM para disminuir la distancia entre la investigación y la práctica educativa Algunos de los autores que trabajan sobre la movilización del conocimiento realizan una serie de sugerencias para lograr que los conocimientos estén más cerca de la práctica educativa, impacten en ella y disminuyan la brecha histórica entre ambos conceptos (Cooper, 2012;Cooper y Levin, 2010;Cooper et al., 2009;Fenwick y Farrell, 2011;Gaudet, 2013;Levin, 2004Levin, , 2011Levin, , 2013Moss, 2013;Qi y Levin, 2013;Sá et al., 2011). Estas sugerencias se enfocan principalmente en dos elementos. ...
This article analyzes the concept of knowledge mobilization from its importance as a novel term in the contemporary educational context. The ways in which knowledge is transmitted to the educational community generated the emergence of a growing line of research that analyzes how these knowledges are mobilized from universities and research centers to educational agents and society. Through an exhaustive theoretical review, this paper presents the fundamentals of the concept, describes empirical studies that address it and mentions the suggestions that researchers of the subject themselves made to improve the impact of the mobilization of knowledge in the educational reality.
... Typically, knowledge mobilization has been viewed as "getting the right information into the hands of the right people at the right time so as to influence decision-making" (Dobbins, Rosenbaum, Plews, Law, & Fysh, 2007, p. 9). This viewpoint, though, assumes that the knowledge required is communicated and pushed to the end user (Cooper et al., 2009;Sá, Li, & Faubert, 2011;Dobbins et al., 2007;Levin, 2012). However, the acquisition of formal or informal knowledge to support decision-making by individuals also falls under the purview of knowledge mobilization. ...
... In the health care sector, two comprehensive reviews reported infrequent use of evidencebased decision-making (Mitton, Adair, McKenzie, Patten, & Perry, 2007;Pentland et al., 2011). The relatively limited education-based literature has focused on how research-based knowledge is directed toward end users (Cooper et al., 2009;Sá, Li, & Faubert, 2011;Dobbins et al., 2007;Levin 2012). Very few studies have examined the knowledge acquisition process from the perspective of the end user (Davies et al., 2000;Levin, 2008;Levin, 2010). ...
In the past five years, there has been considerable interest in the decision-making process of school board officials in the field of education. However, a paucity of research exists on how these leaders use online resources to inform decision-making. Through an online survey and face-to-face interviews, this study examined the use of online resources by school board trustees (n =164) to support board-level decisions. Trustees used online articles (news, research articles, journals) twice as much as social media (Twitter, Facebook, blogs) or repository services (clipping services, Google Scholar). Almost 70% of trustees used three or more resources to inform their decision-making. Seventy-five to 85% of trustees rated online articles and repository services as being useful. Trustees actively checked the trustworthiness of online resources by evaluating sources, crosschecking data, and asking colleagues. Key barriers to using online resources included lack of time, finding reliable or relevant information, and negotiating conflicting results. Some trustees wanted access to a third-party repository of valid, reliable information.
... "Academic freedom has been misunderstood, used as an excuse for being disconnected from the outside world, and university autonomy as a way of not responding to social demands and needs." (Russell, 1993;Fuchs, 1969) These statements frequently appear in policy recommendations to universities, often named differently and hidden in phrases like responsible autonomy and social relevance of university work. The crucial questions presented by such statements are: What is meant by responsible autonomy and social relevance? ...
... The second interpret and adapt the knowledge so that the latter is better understood and the third interpret research projects and work to reduce the gaps between theory and practice. Their function implies a complex, interactive, and non-lineal social processes (Sá, Li, & Faubert, 2010). It is reminiscent of the criticism made by a university authority in one of the interviews when he reported that researchers are very bad at writing about the impact of their research in few words. ...
In recent years, a more sophisticated vocabulary has emerged in the field of higher education. Categories such as socially relevant research; knowledge mobilization; research impact; innovation; and university priorities have appeared. At first glance, these words may appear neutral, simple and free from conflicts of interest. However, I argue that each of them requires deeper analysis, especially in relation to current scientific and university public policies, as their use has consequences and/or impacts both at the institutional level (higher education institutions) and actor-level (scholars, project managers, etc.). Therefore, by shedding light on the fact that "social relevance" of university is a commonly addressed category in documents regulating university activities, I postulate that such categories indicate a reductionist notion of "relevance" that is used haphazardly as a substitute for the ideas of meaning, mission, and the aims of a university. In order to pinpoint and discuss these new terms and categories that are used as measures of academic knowledge, the paper focuses on public university systems in Argentina and Canada. From a comparative perspective, I aim at grasping a better understanding of the changes in knowledge mobilization.
... Therefore, institutional support in the form of funding and incentives is needed to maximize researchers' involvement in knowledge mobilization (Cooper et al. 2018;Bayley and Phipps 2019). However, under the influences of the publish or perish culture, universities and research organizations tend to place excessive importance on the productivity of researchers (interpreted solely as academic output) rather than on supporting knowledge mobilization to achieve broader impact (Sá et al. 2011). In fact, peer-reviewed papers are described as the "currency" of academia for obtaining research funds or promotions (Hering 2016). ...
Academic freedom is critical for the sound production and dissemination of new knowledge. However, the growing emphasis that research funders have placed on the societal impact of research has concerned some scholars, particularly with regard to its potential impact on their academic freedom. These concerns can be about pressures to research with immediate applications, scientific impartiality and reduced investment into fundamental research. However, we argue that these concerns can also relate to the ever-growing pressure to publish, experienced by most academics (the so-called 'publish or perish' culture). Understanding the dynamic between academic freedom and the impact agenda would be incomplete, we argue, without accounting for the effects of the publish or perish culture in academia. For this purpose , we first investigated the justification for academic freedom and the function it is supposed to perform. Our analysis then examined the relationship between academic freedom and the impact agenda on the fundamental level with a focus on societal impact, knowledge mobilization, and accountability in using public funds. Finally, this discussion paper highlighted the effects of the publish or perish culture in academia as they contradict the shared values of academic freedom and the impact agenda. Ultimately, these effects pose a serious threat to academic freedom by questioning its underlying justification and function. We conclude that addressing the effects of the publish or perish culture has more urgency and significance for academics in order to protect academic freedom.
... We use the broader term intermediary organizations based on its broader conceptualization to include a wider range of entities active in US higher education policy, such as think tanks, policy organizations, foundations, and member associations (Ness et al. 2018;Orphan et al. 2018). Previous research has also highlighted intermediary organizations' engagement with the "two communities" of researchers and policymakers that traditionally have different values, perspectives, and goals that limit their ability to work together effectively without the influence of external pressures (Benneworth and Jonbloed 2010;Birnbaum 2000;Dunn 1980;Hearn 1997;Ness et al. 2018;Sá et al. 2011). Research communities tend to value systematic rigorous analysis with an aim to inform decisions rather than promote specific policies. ...
Established in 2009, Complete College America (CCA) has emerged as one of the leading single-issue intermediary organizations advocating policy solutions to improve college completion in the USA. Although other entities that influenced the policy conversation at that time have ceased operation, CCA has maintained and, in fact, expanded its role in US higher education policy. Through a collective case study developed from archival data and interviews with CCA officials and respondents from three member states (Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas), this study examines the evolution of CCA as an organization and investigates how it has been able to challenge other actors within the higher education field. Findings suggest that CCA created and strengthened its influence through strategic identification of members, pointed communication, and intentionally aligning themselves with power brokers in both the completion sphere and targeted states. This study highlights the growing role and influence of intermediary organizations in higher education policy conversations and offers insights into how these types of organizations influence decision-making in state and national strategic action fields.
... The justification of this is that the training in groups fails to identify the unique capabilities that every individual possesses and that could significantly increase productivity while establishing a competitive advantage for the organisation (Sá, Li, & Faubert, 2011). The reward system is focused on employees as they directly share knowledge with others rather than contributing to the knowledge in databases (Bass, & Bass, 2009). ...
Introduction
Knowledge management (KM) is the procedure that a firm uses to handle its knowledge assets with the intent of creating value and attaining strategic requirements. KM encompasses initiatives and processes that maintain and augment the storage, valuation sharing, refinement, and construction of knowledge (Girard, 2015); therefore, KM is linked to organisational goals. Information is vitally useful in the corporate world today. Access to accurate information can aid a business to restructure its goods and services suitably. By doing so, the business will have favourable prospects. KM sources information from multiple sources and attempts to organise this information in an opportune approach that can be conveniently accessed by anyone that needs the information. KM and organisational learning (OL) are terms that are often used interchangeably, particularly at the practical level (King, 2009). There is no primary difference between the two concepts since OL also involves the learning, sharing, and storage of information within a firm. The only difference between the two concepts is in term of approach. OL focuses on learning with an emphasis on the individual, whereas KM focuses on learning with an emphasis on knowledge itself (King, 2009).
... Our rapidly changing landscape of research dissemination along with growing calls from the public and scholars are merging in ways that are forcing institutions of higher education to consider questions regarding relevance, access and impact. In this commentary, we offer knowledge mobilization strategies, including the use of altmetrics, social media tools and open access, to improve scholarly impact, but acknowledge the challenges this quest will likely evoke (see Jacobson, et al., 2004;Sá, Li, & Faubert, 2011). ...
The purpose of this commentary is to argue that a better way of addressing the centuries old criticisms about the ivory toweresque model is to stop complaining and engage with knowledge mobilization strategies (KM). Scholars engaging in knowledge mobilization seek to understand and increase the impact and usability of research by means of multi- dimensional, interactive strategies that target a wide range of stakeholders as an approach to meet the ethical obligation scholars have to ensuring the research produced in education is more accessible and ultimately impactful. We recognize, as well, the evolving tensions that this process will likely evoke in the quest to improving scholarly impact by making research more accessible and usable for the public.
... These associations are derived from participant responses on networks, communication, and sociopolitical influences. Similar concerns to those raised in our findings occur globally and their contribution to the gap in effective knowledge exchange is well researched by numerous fields including communication sciences, sociology, health, and governance (Moser 2016;Sa et al. 2011). However, issues we discuss pertain exclusively to climate action experts and could benefit from well-evaluated, incremental shifts to diversify vertical and horizontal networks and assist knowledge mobilization in the NCR. ...
This research examines climate change responses by experts from government, national agencies, civil society organizations, and private firms in Metro Manila. We found that highly bonding social capital, often forged through more familiar relationships, reduces organizational interactions and the potential for efficient knowledge mobilization. Specifically, results show deficiencies in information delivery (inconsistent lexicon) and support systems (knowledge sharing, partnerships, and resources), situations known to hinder climate change action. Despite ambivalence toward changing the current system, experts expressed (a) undertones of displeasure in how the system operates, and (b) a clear desire for more institutionalized action and mandates at various institutional scales. A predominance of bonding social capital can preclude participation from outside actors resulting in the exclusion of innovations needed to advance climate response. Therefore, we propose incremental shifts to existing social capital as a means to achieve transformations, arguing that a synergy of horizontal and vertical networks could increase efficiencies in information processes, strengthen collaborations, and enhance governance to confront climate change in this context.
... The role of academic managers has been analysed by Sá et al. (2011), who used semistructured interviews with senior administrators of 13 faculties of education in Canada to explore their institutional strategies for knowledge mobilisation. They found that academic leaders recognise knowledge mobilisation as a desirable institutional mission, but few faculties have dedicated institutional supports and infrastructure for such activity. ...
This paper presents results from a survey of Romanian education researchers on their experience of research uptake and transfer to policy makers and practitioners. A range of variables are analysed in order to understand the factors they perceived to influence the use of educational research. The researchers’ context was analysed, including factors such as conceptions of the academic role, funding, type of research and collaboration in research. An adaptation of the research utilisation scale (Knott and Wildavsky in Knowl Creat Diffus Util 1(4):537–578, 1980; Cherney et al. in Int J Educ Res 56:23–34, 2012) survey was administered to a sample of 115 academics from 17 public universities in Romania, representing 31% of the total number of academics in schools of education. The quantitative data were complemented with qualitative data derived from in depth interviews with 14 university managers from the main research-intensive universities. The results indicate that researchers’ context is a determinant key of research mobilisation in practice. Despite the importance given to this aspect by the researchers, the lack of institutional coherent strategies to enhance the research transfer and use could represent constraints and challenges that are often faced when academics engage in research aimed at influencing policy and practice.
... Los indicios concuerdan con los de Broekkamp y van Hout-Wolters (2007) cuando muestran que las iniciativas de difusión por parte de los investigadores no pueden surgir de manera aislada sino que deben contar con el apoyo de las universidades donde se desempeñan. Nuestros resultados mencionan la importancia de que las universidades mejoren los mecanismos de producción y de transferencia de los conocimientos que allí se producen, lo que se relaciona con las aportaciones de las investigaciones centradas en el concepto de movilización del conocimiento (Cooper et al., 2009;Sá et al., 2011). ...
This study seeks suggestions from primary and secondary school teachers on how to improve their relationship with research in their field. We developed focus groups with teachers with similar characteristics: level (primary or secondary) and experience with educational research. The teachers focused their suggestions on four elements: the need for researchers to publish studies relevant to teachers, the role of education administrations in the dissemination of research findings, the changes in teacher
... Given this reality, it is surprising that faculties of education still only score moderately on KMb efforts because research and its importance have perhaps been longer on their radar than on the radars of other kinds of organizations. It is difficult on most university websites even to ascertain what research is being done by whom (Sá et al., 2011), let alone what the implications of that research might be for sector stakeholders that might apply that knowledge. ...
There are few tools that exist to measure knowledge mobilization (KMb), the process of connecting research to policy and practice, across diverse organizations and sectors. This article reports on a comparison of KMb efforts of 105 educational organizations: faculties of education (N = 21), intermediary organizations (N = 44), school districts (N = 14), and ministries of education (N = 26). This study used an instrument that analyzed KMb efforts along two dimensions -- (1) research dissemination strategies (products, events, and networks) and (2) research use indicators (different types of indicators, ease of use, accessibility, collaboration, and mission) – using data available on organizational websites. Findings: Intermediaries and faculties of education are producing stronger efforts in relation to knowledge mobilization than school districts and ministries of education; however, even faculties and intermediaries generally have modest efforts. Most KMb efforts are product based, with network strategies usually being the weakest KMb strategy utilized.
... Perines, F.J. Murillo / Revista de la Educación Superior xxx(xx) (2017) xxx-xxx 13 las universidades donde se desempeñan. Nuestros resultados mencionan la importancia de que las universidades mejoren los mecanismos de producción y de transferencia de los conocimientos que allí se producen, lo que se relaciona con las aportaciones de las investigaciones centradas en el concepto de movilización del conocimiento (Cooper et al., 2009;Sá et al., 2011). Los cambios en la formación inicial en investigación aparecen como otro de los elementos citado por los profesores, tópico que también es recurrente en los estudios de Gitlin et al. (1999), MacDonald et al. (2001) y Demircioglu (2008. ...
Esta investigación busca conocer las sugerencias que realizan los profesores de primaria y secundaria para mejorar su relación con la investigación educativa. Para ello se desarrollaron grupos de discusión con docentes de características homogéneas: el nivel educativo y la experiencia que tienen con la investigación. Los resultados apuntan a que los profesores centran sus sugerencias en cuatro elementos: la necesidad de que los investigadores publiquen estudios cercanos a las necesidades de los catedráticos, el rol de las administraciones educativas en la difusión de la investigación, los cambios en la formación de los docentes en el interior de las universidades y el análisis crítico de las actitudes de los profesores hacia la investigación.
... However, after numerous attempts, at the end of our first year only 8 researchers had submitted summaries to the OERE. Interestingly, this kind of lack of researcher interest in knowledge mobilization has been reported by at least one other KMb intermediary in Ontario (Phipps & Shapson, 2009) and has been identified as a barrier to knowledge mobilization by other KMb researchers (Meagher, Lyall, & Nutley, 2008;Sá, Li, & Faubert, 2011). Lack of researcher interest in submitting summaries led us first to offer to write and edit summaries in collaboration with researchers and, in the end, to write summaries independently of researcherscontracting researchers only to seek approval on fully written summaries. ...
The field of Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) investigates ways that research, policy and practice can become better connected. While multiple strategies can be used to link these three domains, this paper focuses on common barriers that prevent practitioners (such as teachers, principals, and vice principals) from accessing knowledge derived from formal research, and outlines our team’s experience developing an online database of research summaries to provide educators with free access to current research at their convenience and in an accessible format. Although research repositories of this kind have often been called for, our paper outlines the many challenges that can emerge when implementing this relatively simple idea, and suggests ways that these challenges can be addressed.
... The study had two phases. In the first (Sá, Li &Faubert, 2011), we interviewed deans and other leaders in 15 faculties of education about their KM practices. We found that very few had serious organized efforts to extend their research sharing beyond the usual academic vehicles of publications and conference presentations. ...
This paper describes the history and development of the ‘Research Supporting Practice in Education’ research program at OISE. Its purpose is to contribute to the literature on knowledge mobilization but also to the literature on the development of university-based research teams and programs that have both an applied and an academic focus.
... La noción de movilidad o movilización del conocimiento que surge en principio para ser una categoría desde y para las ciencias sociales y las humanidades a diferencia de la mentada transferencia tecnológica, refiere a la puesta a punto del conocimiento para su aplicación práctica (LEVESQUE, 2009;SÁ et al, 2011;QI et LEVIN, 2013;FISHMAN, 2014). Mientras que la difusión (dissemination) no implica compromiso alguno con la responsabilidad en el proceso que conduce hacia el canal de llegada del conocimiento elaborado, la movilidad o movilización del conocimiento implica un paso intermedio entre el resultado arribado y su aplicación práctica. ...
En este artículo presentamos resultados de investigación en torno al impacto de propuestas que objetivisan la investigación científica hacia formas de conocimiento que contri- buyan a la solución de problemas sociales, demandas socio-productivas y prioridades definidas por los organismos de ciencia y tecnología. Indagaremos un nuevo instrumento de política científica que se propone en 2012. Se trata de los Proyectos de Desarrollo Tecnológico y Social (PDTS), enmarcaremos dicho análisis en algunos de los nuevos conceptos estelares (Braslavsky, 1999) como son las categorías de movilización del conocimiento y de innovación social, la innovación para la inclusión social y la innovación responsable.
... This reflects our observational understanding from looking at all these sites that on the whole KM practices, at least as revealed on websites, are not very strong in most organizations. This finding is also consistent with a review of KM practices of 18 major research universities based on interviews with university leaders (Sá et al., 2011). Of course we did see some outstanding practices here and there but rarely consistently either in a particular category or for a particular organization. ...
This paper presents a framework for evaluating efforts by organizations to share research as exemplified on their websites, then reports the result of an evaluation of these efforts in 100 organizations. The result shows that the overall research sharing efforts of these organizations are modest and not well aligned to evidence on effective practice in this area. Organizations tend to devote more efforts to making products available while interpersonal strategies, though more effective, are less used. Most efforts involve one way communication to potential users. The paper concludes with suggestions for practice and for further research.
... Numerous studies have highlighted the advantages of using research to inform policy decisions (Nutley, Walter, and Davies 2007;Howlett 2009;S a, Li, and Faubert 2011;Brown 2012). The movement around researchinformed policy-making follows from an increased emphasis on the use of evidence to help guide public policy (Weiss 1979;Nutley, Walter, and Davies 2007;Stevens 2011;S a, Kretz, and Sigurdson 2013). ...
Despite advances in research-informed public policy, research remains underutilized in government. To develop a firmer understanding of governmental capacity to use research in decision making, we investigate Canadian provincial ministries overseeing education, higher education, and science and technology. The findings from semi-structured interviews indicate that capacity to generate and access research is limited. However, we find evidence of a recent change in which provincial agencies sought to bolster capacity with research use strategies and by leveraging relationships with researchers. Leaders’ support for well-coordinated research use initiatives also seems critical to instilling a culture of research-informed decision making in government agencies.SommaireMalgré les progrès réalisés dans la politique publique fondés sur les études, la recherche demeure sous-utilisée au gouvernement. Pour mieux saisir la capacité gouvernementale à utiliser la recherche dans la prise de décisions, nous avons étudié les ministères provinciaux canadiens qui contrôlent l’éducation, l’éducation supérieure et les sciences et la technologie. Les résultats d'entrevues semi-structurées indiquent que la capacité à générer de la recherche et à y accéder est limitée. Nous avons également trouvé la preuve d'un récent changement selon lequel les organismes provinciaux cherchaient à renforcer la capacité en ayant recours à des stratégies pour l'utilisation de la recherche et en tirant parti des relations avec les chercheurs. Il semble essentiel que les leaders appuient des initiatives bien coordonnées d'utilisation de la recherche pour susciter une culture de la prise de décisions fondée sur la recherche dans les organismes gouvernementaux.
The diffusion of evaluation systems based on research excellence has been confronting scholars with the dilemma of how to combine the different activities and roles characterizing the academic profession. Besides research, other types of knowledge transfer and academic citizenship, i.e., the service activities and roles carried out on behalf of the university within and outside organizational boundaries, are in fact cornerstones of universities’ functioning that allow for their thriving and need to be valued. This study investigates the complementarity, substitution, and independence effects between the various types of knowledge transfer and academic citizenship in a sample of 752 Italian academics working in business schools. We collected data combining different sources including CVs, publication records, and national datasets. Multivariate path analysis was employed to measure covariances between knowledge transfer and academic citizenship. We contribute to the debate on academic citizenship by showing that public and discipline-based service are complementary to knowledge transfer activities, while institutional service is independent from knowledge transfer. Remarkably, journal papers are research outcomes complementary to most academic activities, and the same holds true for dissemination at workshops and conferences. Running counter dominant rhetoric, this study testifies to the likelihood of faculty being “all-round” professionals. We disclose that activities and roles are influenced by academics’ previous pathways and research grants and discuss the need to value academic citizenship in performance measurement systems.
This chapter reviews current knowledge about the relationship between research, policy, and practice, with a focus on the field of education, summarizing the current state of evidence and knowledge and suggesting areas for further study and development.
Universities are increasingly expected to produce scientifically robust research that has the propensity to deliver societal benefits. However, disconnect between the production of research in universities and its real-world application is apparent in Africa. Knowledge translation (KT) unlocks the potential of academic research to yield the widest possible benefits to society. We explored the supports and barriers to KT in a single case study of Makerere University using semi-structured interviews with administrators and academic researchers. We corroborated interview data with documents review. Thematic analysis of data revealed comprehensive strategic intent to foster KT through system innovation and system optimization at the institutional level. But, at the disciplinary units, strategy aspirations were out of alignment with actual practice. The traditional linear logic of knowledge transfer remained the defining concept. The nature of research funding, the reward and recognition system, work structure, and weak linkage mechanisms impeded KT endeavours. We conclude that the state of KT at the university was nascent, but core enabling conditions have to be established in the university before KT can take a foothold. We compiled the set of fundamental conditions into a framework of KT enablers that could feed into the future strategic direction of universities in Africa.
There is a growing expectation that doctoral candidates and early career academics publish research outputs such as journal articles and conference papers, and that they share their findings with key stakeholders beyond academia. However, it is not known if these expectations are being coupled with support from mentors and peers within institutions. Through interviews with recent PhD graduates working as early career researchers in Australia and Japan, this paper investigates if mentor and peer support for producing both academic and translational outputs was forthcoming during their doctoral candidature and beyond. It also investigates kinds of supports provided in doctoral candidature and early career. Thirty early career researchers in Australia and Japan took part in this qualitative study involving in-depth semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of re- spondents. Researchers made translation support available for Japanese respondents so that those with limited English could take part. Findings suggest that mentor and peer support were not universal, and some respondents did not have a mentor or significant peer influence supporting their production of academic or translational research outputs. Support for sharing research with audiences beyond academia could be limited, with production of outputs for academic audiences consistently a greater focus of support. There were no mentoring supports for translational outputs that had salience across Australia and Japan within the sample. While limited attention has been given to the role that peer influence may play in supporting research output production of early career researchers the more even power relationship between peers as opposed to the peer-/mentor dyad can allow unique supports to flourish. Where institutions expect growing and diverse research output production by doctoral candidates and early career researchers, they should also ensure that support is provided through facilitating mentoring and peer relationships.
Focusing on the current situation of research in Romania, the aim
of this paper is to present several factors that emerge from the
process of transferring knowledge into practice at a national level.
Presenting and analyzing these potential factors is seen as a way of
understanding whether research outcomes are taken into
consideration when it comes to the development of educational
policies. Results show that in terms of financial factors the Romanian
research system is characterized by having a poor level of financing,
because the demand for research and development and innovation
(RDI) is low and has little or no connection with both the business
sector and the public sector. When discussing about the political
factor the main aspect is related to the quality of governance that is
determined by the administrative capacity, which is still rather weak
in comparison to other European countries. Furthermore, an analysis
of the research projects funded in the educational sector in the last 5
years in Romania is presented in order to create a picture of how
much has been done in Romania when it comes to the development of
research outcomes that will later be used to support future
educational policy.
Consequences of competition for global university rankings, such as changes in funding modes, have been extensively discussed in the field of higher education. However, few studies have reviewed its implications on knowledge production. This study provides a contextualised method for theorising the implications of this competition on the development of East Asian higher education, specifically teacher education. It identifies the new forms of knowledge being produced in two teacher education institutions in Hong Kong and Macau by reviewing the publications of new recruits in a five-year period. The study considers the following variables: author(s), date and form of publication, abstract, title, keywords, journal name, language, data source, research context and methods. The findings show that the dominant publication trends are towards quantitative research and multiple authors. Psychological research is the most popular area and studies of other long-term issues in teacher education are being marginalised.
Integral to both knowledge mobilization and action research is the idea that research can and should ignite change or action. Change or action may occur at multiple levels and scales, in direct and predictable ways and in indirect and highly unpredictable ways. To better understand the relationship between research and action or change, we delineate four conceptualizations that appear in the literature. Reflecting on our experiences as collaborators in a community–university action research project that set out to tackle a “wicked” social problem, we consider the implications of these conceptualizations for the project’s knowledge mobilization plans and activities. The major lessons point to the importance of building capacity by nurturing collaborative learning spaces, of drawing many others – situated differently and with varied perspectives – into dialogue, and of embracing change within the project itself.
Drawing on knowledge mobilization scholarship, this project reports the results of the first phase of a three-phase SSHRC funded project titled ―How Educators Access and Evaluate Research in Education.‖ Phase 1 consists of a systematic search of online research-based products in several subject areas, inductively mapping out a descriptive typology that draws insight into the kind of larger online research-based resource environment an educator is likely to encounter when searching for resources online. Our search results demonstrate a surprising array and range of products that claim to, though do not always appear to be, based in sound evidence.
In this paper we focus on the process of determining how best to organize and analyze data on website use from Google Analytics and the challenges involved in building this research project leading to a framework to evaluate the use of online research. Our findings suggest that the majority of visitors access web pages through search engines as opposed to through homepages. This has strong implications to the organization of an effective webpage. Linking websites together and increasing their profile on search engines, rather than building new webpages, may be a more impactful strategy to increase research use in practice. Studying websites as vehicles for research dissemination CSSE –
Le transfert des connaissances issues de la recherche s’impose comme un champ d’investigation incontournable dans plusieurs domaines. Tant en santé, en sciences sociales, humaines et appliquées qu’en éducation ou en gestion, des recherches visent à réduire le fossé entre les connaissances produites et ce qui est observé dans la pratique. Découlant d’une recension des écrits publiés entre 2007 et 2013, le présent article propose de situer le transfert des connaissances en éducation au regard de ce qui se passe globalement dans les autres domaines. Il en aborde les distinctions ainsi que les défis et les perspectives.
This chapter provides insights into what is meant by ‘knowledge mobilisation’ (KM) in the field of research and how we might think about the work and role of universities in sharing research knowledge. It discusses ideas about mobilising research knowledge generally and then reports on a study that explored the KM efforts of education faculties, showing how the findings illuminate the way that universities approach this work.
Although reading research can enhance instruction, this is not a frequent activity among adult ESL instructors (Borg, 2010). To fill this gap, we explored instructors' engagement with research; applied linguists' and instructors' conceptions of teacher-friendly, peer-reviewed research articles; and academics' commitment to their dissemination. Twenty-three academics completed a survey; eight adult ESL instructors read three articles, completed a questionnaire, and participated in a focus group interview. Despite a strong commitment to sharing their research with practitioners, academics in this study reported a number of constraints in their efforts to do so. We discuss differences in participants' perspectives and provide suggestions for academics to enhance practitioners' engagement with the research literature.
In this introduction we reflect on two key questions that initiated this special issue on qualitative inquiry: What can qualitative researchers do to regain their post-paradigm-wars cache? How do we avoid distracting "science wars" in the future? We suggest that the strong tendency to narrow the research methods accepted as "scientific" - because they adopt quantitative perspectives and are presumed a priori to be more rigorous - has created an educationalese, a narrative of rigid categories that has not necessarily contributed to more effective or persuasive educational research. The article ends by suggesting that the use of "knowledge mobilization" strategies would help to strengthen qualitative research and educational research in general. Keywords: educational research; qualitative methods; knowledge mobilization; Science Wars.
Can university-based scientific research contribute to the economic development of a region? Can it generate wealth for the university? American universities are under increasing pressure to maximize their economic contributions. Tapping the Riches of Science offers a rigorous and far-sighted explanation of this controversial and little-understood movement.
Just how do universities contribute to innovation in industry? How have state legislatures promoted local university commitments to economic relevance? And how has the pressure to be economically productive affected the core academic missions of teaching and research? Drawing from a range of social science analyses, campus interviews, and examples of university-industry partnerships, Roger Geiger and Creso Sá reveal the ways that economic development has been incorporated into university commitments.
Noting enduring cultural differences between the academic and business worlds, Geiger and Sá deflate both suspicious and overconfident views. They show how elusive success can be for embryonic discoveries with as-yet-unclear applications. Warning against promising—and expecting—too much, Tapping the Riches of Science nonetheless makes a strong case for the long-term promise of practical uses for academic research.
The 'knowledge agenda' has become a central part of development discourse. This paper addresses one aspect of this discourse - the use of policy research in the social sciences - and the dilemmas that have been encountered by both development agencies and researchers in communicating and making use of that research. Development agencies as well as NGOs have initiated work to evaluate and document the effectiveness of research partnerships, knowledge capacity building and (social) science policy impact. As a multilateral initiative, the Global Development Network (GDN), and especially its 'Bridging Research and Policy' project, provides a vehicle to address issues related to research impact. Twelve perspectives on improving research and policy linkages are outlined to reveal that how the problem is defined shapes policy responses. Taken together, these explanations provide a multifaceted picture of the research-policy nexus indicating that there are many possible routes to 'bridging' research and policy. These diverse perspectives will be categorised into three broad categories of explanation: (i) supply-side; (ii) demand-led; and (iii) policy currents. However, knowledge is part of the solution to many development problems but not of itself a panacea.
This paper a) Provides some context for the growing interest in research knowledge mobilization; b) Outlines current thinking on the topic and analyzes the strength of current empirical and conceptual work; c) Identifies key areas where current knowledge is inadequate; d) Identifies promising areas for further work, both in research and in KM activity.
The aim of this study is to revisit the major theoretical perspectives on research utilisation by public civil servants, to propose a new conceptual framework of the absorption of research knowledge by these civil servants and to provide a first empirical testing of the proposed conceptual framework. Some of the empirical findings are particularly interesting as they seem to converge with the well-known 'bounded' aspect of rational action. For example, they show a significant association between civil servants' educational level, on the one hand, and, on the other, their propensity to communicate with academic researchers and to acquire research evidence.
Knowledge mobilisation (KM) is our label for the emerging field of inquiry that seeks to strengthen connections between research, policy and practice across sectors, disciplines and countries. This paper first outlines the challenges associated with improving KM across public services. Next, it examines contributions from the health sector (findings and implications of empirical work on KM being conducted by two teams of Canadian scholars) in relation to the education sector and the broader field. Then, it outlines the Research Supporting Practice in Education (RSPE) programme (including products, events, networks and empirical studies), which attempts to increase KM in education. The paper concludes with some ideas and strategies that can be done quickly and easily to improve KM almost immediately in any organisation as well as with suggestions for further research.
Valorisation is at the centre of many debates on the future of academic research. But valorisation has largely become narrowly
understood in terms of universities’ economic contributions through patenting, licensing, spin-off formation and technology
transfer. This emergent restrictive definition of universities’ societal impacts is a worrying development, overlooking the
potential of universities’ knowledge in the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (HASS). Our hypothesis is that HASS disciplines’
disadvantage compared to the hard sciences (lesser policy attention and funding for commercialisation) arises because HASS
stakeholders are not sufficiently salient as stakeholders to universities. Using case studies of three policy experiments,
we argue that universities’ responsiveness to stakeholders does not evolve simply and functionally but in response to the
networks of relationships in which they are situated. This has important implications for how stakeholder research is used
in higher education research, and for the design and implementation of policies to improve universities’ societal contributions.
KeywordsUniversities-Knowledge transfer-Knowledge exchange-Universities’ societal contribution-Social compact-Stakeholder theory-Knowledge transfer policy
The last decade of education change has been characterized by the rise of evidence-based policy and practice agendas. Internationally,
we are witnessing efforts to increase and incorporate research use in public services. This article examines efforts in education
to address the research–practice gap through an emerging field we term knowledge mobilization (KM). We explore some of the
controversy surrounding the use of ‘evidence’, outline national and international KM initiatives and consider some of the
issues and challenges that arise from the increased interest in evidence and research use in education. We also assess the
current state and desirable future directions of efforts to strengthen the role of research and evidence in education.
Interest in strengthening the impact and value of education research has been growing around the world. Here I outline a view of the nature of “impact” and point to instances where research has had a positive impact in education, but always within a larger social and political framework. A three element “model” of research impact is developed and used as the basis to assess current situations and to suggest steps that could be taken to support a fuller contribution to education and learning from research.
For many management researchers, it is important that the knowledge they create is utilised and has some impact on managerial practice. Sustainable competitive advantage depends less on who has the information and increasingly on those able to make the best use of that information. This paper focuses on two key questions: what are the barriers to research utilisation and what are the most effective strategies for facilitating the use of research by managers in the public sector, based on research evidence? The approach entailed extensive searches of on-line databases in the fields of management, education and medicine, from the UK United States (US), Canada, Australia and Europe. Key themes to emerge from this review were the accessibility and relevance of research, trust and credibility; the gap between researchers and users, and organisational factors. Research use can be facilitated through: support and training; collaboration and partnership; dissemination strategies; networks; and strong, visible leadership.
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.
Multiversities are sprawling conglomerates that provide liberal undergraduate, graduate, and professional education. As well-springs of innovation and ideas, these universities represent the core of society's research enterprise. Multiversities, Ideas, and Democracy forcibly argues that, in the contemporary world, multiversities need to be conceptualized in a new way, that is, not just as places of teaching and research, but also as fundamental institutions of democracy. Building upon the history of universities, George Fallis discusses how the multiversity is a distinctive product of the later twentieth century and has become an institution of centrality and power. He examines five characteristics of our age - the constrained welfare state, the information technology revolution, postmodern thought, commercialization, and globalization - and in each case explains how the dynamic of multiversity research alters societal circumstances, leading to the alteration of the institution itself and creating challenges to its own survival. The character of our age demands reappraisal of the multiversity, Fallis argues, in order to safeguard them from so-called 'mission drift.' Writing from a multi-national perspective, this study establishes how similar ideas are shaping multiversities across the Anglo-American world. Ultimately, Multiversities, Ideas, and Democracy seeks to uncover the ethos of the multiversity and to hold such institutions accountable for their contribution to democratic life. It will appeal to anyone interested in the role of education in society.
This chapter introduces evidence-based policy and practice in public services and discusses the themes covered by the book. It presumes that there are two broad users of evidence: policy makers and practitioners. The book is organised first by exploring the role of evidence in different models of the policy process, and then by focusing on the role of evidence in specific public policy areas. The second half of the book then picks up some of the recurrent themes to explore cross-sectoral issues of evidence generation, before moving on to consider evidence implementation. The turn of the century has seen evidence embedded in the political and policy rhetoric of the day, and infused in the newly transformed professional ethic of many service professionals. Bringing such diverse accounts from across the public sector together under a coherent framework, the chapter suggests, will offer new insights and scope for cross-sectoral learning.
For many management researchers, it is important that the knowledge they create is utilised and has some impact on managerial practice. Sustainable competitive advantage depends less on who has the information and increasingly on those able to make the best use of that information. This paper focuses on two key questions: what are the barriers to research utilisation and what are the most effective strategies for facilitating the use of research by managers in the public sector, based on research evidence? The approach entailed extensive searches of on‐line databases in the fields of management, education and medicine, from the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and Europe. Key themes to emerge from this review were the accessibility and relevance of research, trust and credibility; the gap between researchers and users, and organisational factors. Research use can be facilitated through: support and training; collaboration and partnership; dissemination strategies; networks; and strong, visible leadership.
Knowledge transfer has become a priority for universities and other publicly funded research institutions. However, researchers working in these settings report certain structural barriers to engaging in knowledge translation activities. This article describes these barriers, situating them in the disjunction between current expectations and the historical tradition of disciplinary authority in academia. The authors review some of the organizational solutions that have been proposed to address this disjunction. This analysis of barriers and solutions suggests that five domains of organizational policy and practice—promotion and tenure, resources and funding, structures, knowledge transfer orientation, and documentation—may be critical to promoting researchers’engagement in knowledge transfer.
This is a time when more and more social scientists are becoming concerned about making their research useful for public policy makers and policy makers are displaying spurts of well publicized concern about the usefulness of the social science research that government funds support. There is mutual interest in whether social science research intended to influence policy is actually "used" but before that important issue can profitably be addressed it is essential to understand what "using research" actually means. A review of the literature reveals that a diverse array of meanings is attached to the term. Much of the ambiguity in the discussion of "research utilization"-and conflicting interpretations of its prevalence and the routes by which it occurs-derives from conceptual confusion. If we are to gain a better understanding of the extent to which social science research has affected public policy in the past and learn how to make its contribution more effective in the future we need to clarify the concept. Upon examination the use of social science research in the sphere of public policy is an extraordinarily complex phenomenon. Authors who have addressed the subject have evoked diverse images of the processes and purposes of utilization. Here I will try to extract seven different meanings that have been associated with the concept. (excerpt)
Discusses the dissemination of information, particularly relating to knowledge about public policy. Topics addressed include programs in government agencies to disseminate information; dissemination and knowledge utilization; transferring knowledge and information; knowledge and decision making; the amount of knowledge available; inattention and resistance by organizations; inaccurate information; and strategies of dissemination. (54 references) (LRW)
English
This article presents results from a systematic review of the effectiveness of different mechanisms for promoting research use across the health, social care, criminal justice and education sectors. Findings suggest that research use is enhanced by interactions between researchers and research users, and by providing a supportive context for the uptake of research or research-based practice. Strategies using multiple mechanisms to encourage research use are also often successful. More research is needed to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of other approaches or of combining specific strategies. Despite this, some key lessons emerge about effective methods for implementing evidence-based policy and practice (EBPP).
English
While we know of a lot about research–policy links in rich countries, there has been very little systematic work on those in the rest of the world. This article reports on the process, findings and implications of an initiative to collect and analyse 50 summary case studies on research–policy links from developing and transition countries. The discussion is structured around a framework of three interlinked domains: context, evidence, links. The article also refers to other issues that emerge from the case studies, particularly the role of external influences and donors. Finally, it emphasises the impor tance of translating the findings into practical recommendations for policy makers, donors and researchers.
The new government's policy on educational research is emerging in the light of recent reviews. This provides an opportunity to reflect on some of the lessons to be derived from the last half‐century's experience of the relations between social science research and public policy and professional practice. Implications for the future of educational research are considered in the light of this experience and the new government's approach
David Hargreaves has argued that educational research fails to provide a sound evidence‐base for teaching: it does not generate a cumulative body of knowledge; and it is not geared to resolving the classroom problems that teachers face. As a solution, he recommends that teachers play a more central role in setting the agenda for research and in carrying it out. I accept much of Hargreaves’ criticism of educational research as failing to develop cumulative knowledge, but I suggest that the problems involved in this are more difficult than he acknowledges, and that what he proposes is likely to worsen rather than solve the problem. I also question whether research can fulfill the direct role in relation to practice which Hargreaves envisages. He appeals to the example of evidence‐based medicine, but I suggest that this is problematic even in its own context. I conclude by raising questions about the sort of central planning of research that Hargreaves recommends.
Since its beginnings at the start of the 20th century, educational scholarship has been a marginal field, criticized by public policy makers and relegated to the fringes of academe. An Elusive Science explains why, providing a critical history of the traditions, conflicts, and institutions that have shaped the study of education over the past century. "[C]andid and incisive. . . . A stark yet enlightening look at American education."âLibrary Journal "[A]n account of the search, over the past hundred or so years, to try and discover how educational research might provide reliable prescriptions for the improvement of education. Through extensive use of contemporary reference material, [Lagemann] shows that the search for ways of producing high-quality research has been, in effect, a search for secure disciplinary foundations."âDylan William, Times Higher Education Supplement
Public policymakers must contend with a particular set of institutional arrangements that govern what can be done to address any given issue, pressure from a variety of interest groups about what they would like to see done to address any given issue, and a range of ideas (including research evidence) about how best to address any given issue. Rarely do processes exist that can get optimally packaged high-quality and high-relevance research evidence into the hands of public policymakers when they most need it, which is often in hours and days, not months and years. In Canada, a variety of efforts have been undertaken to address the factors that have been found to increase the prospects for research use, including the production of systematic reviews that meet the shorter term (but not urgent) needs of public policymakers and encouraging partnerships between researchers and policymakers that allow for their interaction around the tasks of asking and answering relevant questions. Much less progress has been made in making available research evidence to inform the urgent needs of public policymakers and in addressing attitudinal barriers and capacity limitations. In the future, knowledge-translation processes, particularly push efforts and efforts to facilitate user pull, should be undertaken on a sufficiently large scale and with a sufficiently rigorous evaluation so that robust conclusions can be drawn about their effectiveness.
Knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) is as an interactive process involving the interchange of knowledge between research users and researcher producers. Despite many strategies for KTE, it is not clear which ones should be used in which contexts. This article is a review and synthesis of the KTE literature on health care policy. The review examined and summarized KTE's current evidence base for KTE. It found that about 20 percent of the studies reported on a real-world application of a KTE strategy, and fewer had been formally evaluated. At this time there is an inadequate evidence base for doing "evidence-based" KTE for health policy decision making. Either KTE must be reconceptualized, or strategies must be evaluated more rigorously to produce a richer evidence base for future activity.
The choice of an appropriate social rate of discount is critical in the decision-making process on public investments. In this paper we review the literature on social discounting, and address in particular a recently growing field of related research, that is, individual time preferences. We argue that an explicit consideration and analysis of the behaviour of individuals regarding the concept and the use of an appropriate social discount rate are essential for balanced decision making in the public sector, especially, though not exclusively, in the field of resource or environmental policy.
Developing evidence-informed policy and practice in education Evidence based practice in education. Buckingham: Open University Press Meeting of SSHRC leaders Using knowledge: The dilemmas of 'Bridging Research and Policy
- J Sebba
Sebba, J. (2004). Developing evidence-informed policy and practice in education. In G. Thomas & R. Pring (Eds.), Evidence based practice in education. Buckingham: Open University Press. SSHRC–Social Science, Humanities Research Council. (2009). Meeting of SSHRC leaders. Ottawa, Canada: Author. Stone, D. (2002). Using knowledge: The dilemmas of 'Bridging Research and Policy'. Compare, 32(3), 285–296.
Making research matter more. Education Policy Analysis Archives
- B Levin
Levin, B. (2004). Making research matter more. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(56). Retrieved 14 October 2009, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n56/.
Using evidence: How research can inform public services
- S Nutley
- I Walter
- H Davies
Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services.
Bristol: Policy Press.
Bridging research and policy: Insights from 50 case studies. Overseas Development Institute What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services
- J Court
- J Young
- H Davies
- S Nutley
- P Smith
Court, J., & Young, J. (2003). Bridging research and policy: Insights from 50 case studies. Overseas Development Institute. Retrieved 14 October 2009, from http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/ 148.pdf. Davies, H., Nutley, S., & Smith, P. (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
How can research in education contribute to policy? Review of Australia
- B Levin
Levin, B. (2006). How can research in education contribute to policy? Review of Australia. Research in
Education, 6, 147-157.
If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization
- J Knott
- A Wildavsky
Knott, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1980). If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Knowledge:
Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1(4), 537-578.
Developing evidence-informed policy and practice in education
- J Sebba
Sebba, J. (2004). Developing evidence-informed policy and practice in education. In G. Thomas & R. Pring
(Eds.), Evidence based practice in education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Meeting of SSHRC leaders
SSHRC-Social Science, Humanities Research Council. (2009). Meeting of SSHRC leaders. Ottawa, Canada:
Author.
Evidence in education: Linking research and policy
- Oecd
OECD. (2007). Evidence in education: Linking research and policy. Paris: OECD.