A theory-based model of translation practices in public health participatory research. Sociology of Health & Illness, 34, 791-805

Direction de Santé Publique de Montréal (Montreal Public Health Directorate), Canada Department of Sociology, University of Montreal, Canada.
Sociology of Health & Illness (Impact Factor: 1.88). 09/2011; 34(5):791-805. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01408.x
Source: PubMed


This article explores the innovative practices of actors specifically mandated to support interactions between academic researchers and their partners from the community during public health participatory research. Drawing on the concept of translation as developed in actor-network theory and found in the literature on knowledge transfer and the sociology of intermediate actors, we build a theory-based model of the translation practices developed by these actors at the interface between community and university. We refine this model by using it to analyse material from two focus groups comprising participants purposively selected because they work at the nexus between research and practice. Our model of translation practices includes cognitive (dealing with the contents of the research), strategic (geared to facilitating the research process and balancing power relationships among the partners) and logistic practices (the hands-on tasks of coordination). Combined, these three types of translation practices demonstrate that actors working at the interface in participatory research contribute to multidirectional exchanges and the co-construction of knowledge among research partners. Beyond the case of participatory research, theorising translation practices helps understand how knowledge is produced at the interface between academic and experiential (or lay) knowledge.

Download full-text


Available from: Yan Sénéchal, Apr 06, 2015
  • Source
    • "Conceptual work regarding the functioning of IKT-oriented public health partnerships is scant. Clavier et al. proposed that knowledge brokers or intermediary agents/organizations use three practices to facilitate KT in public health partnerships: cognitive, strategic, and logistic [13]. Cognitive practices ensure that knowledge of all partners is known and used, and contributes to activities such as shared formation of research questions and knowledge production. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Family violence is a significant and complex public health problem that demands collaboration between researchers, practitioners, and policymakers for systemic, sustainable solutions. An integrated knowledge translation network was developed to support joint research production and application in the area. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which the international Preventing Violence Across the Lifespan (PreVAiL) Research Network built effective partnerships among its members, with a focus on the knowledge user partner perspective. This mixed-methods study employed a combination of questionnaire and semi-structured interviews to understand partnerships two years after PreVAiL’s inception. The questionnaire examined communication, collaborative research, dissemination of research, research findings, negotiation, partnership enhancement, information needs, rapport, and commitment. The interviews elicited feedback about partners’ experiences with being part of the network. Five main findings were highlighted: i) knowledge user partner involvement varied across activities, ranging from 11% to 79% participation rates; ii) partners and researchers generally converged on their assessment of communication indicators; iii) partners valued the network at both an individual level and to fulfill their organizations’ mandates; iv) being part of PreVAiL allowed partners to readily contact researchers, and partners felt comfortable acting as an intermediary between PreVAiL and the rest of their own organization; v) application of research was just emerging; partners needed more actionable insights to determine ways to move forward given the research at that point in time. Our results demonstrate the importance of developing and nurturing strong partnerships for integrated knowledge translation. Our findings are applicable to other network-oriented partnerships where a diversity of stakeholders work to address complex, multi-faceted public health problems.
    Full-text · Article · May 2014 · Health Research Policy and Systems
  • Source
    • "Community-based participatory research methods have directly addressed the researcher and community relationship, and its role in the community intervention process [24]. Clavier et al. found that strategic translation supports the research process and facilitates the ongoing collaborative involvement of stakeholders [31]. A further point of congruence between KT and participatory action research is that community-based participatory research places significance on actionable knowledge, and knowledge produced through relationships and collaborative practice [29]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Population health research can generate significant outcomes for communities, while Knowledge Translation (KT) aims to expressly maximize the outcomes of knowledge producing activity. Yet the two approaches are seldom explicitly combined as part of the research process. A population health study in Port Lincoln, South Australia offered the opportunity to develop and apply the co-KT Framework to the entire research process. This is a new framework to facilitate knowledge formation collaboratively between researchers and communities throughout a research to intervention implementation process. This study employs a five step framework (the co-KT Framework) that is formulated from engaged scholarship and action research principles. By following the steps a knowledge base will be cumulatively co-created with the study population that is useful to the research aims. Step 1 is the initiating of contact between the researcher and the study contexts, and the framing of the research issue, achieved through a systematic data collection tool. Step 2 refines the research issue and the knowledge base by building into it context specific details and conducting knowledge exchange events. Step 3 involves interpreting and analysing the knowledge base, and integrating evidence to inform intervention development. In Step 4 the intervention will be piloted and evaluated. Step 5 is the completion of the research process where outcomes for improvement will be instituted as regular practice with the facilitation of the community.In summary, the model uses an iterative knowledge construction mechanism that is complemented by external evidence to design interventions to address health priorities within the community. This is a systematic approach that operationalises the translational cycle using a framework for KT practice. It begins with the local context as its foundation for knowledge creation and ends with the development of contextually applicable interventions. It will be of interest to those involved in KT research, participatory action research, population health research and health care systems studies. The co-KT Framework is a method for embedding the principles of KT into all stages of a community-based research process, in which research questions are framed by emergent data from each previous stage.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2013 · Implementation Science
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is a call for public health policies and interventions to be evidence-based. Also, using knowledge brokers to foster the use of research results is increasingly recommended. This article presents an exploratory synthesis of the current state of knowledge on this new strategy We conducted a scoping study by consulting the main databases. Nineteen articles were included in the analysis, which was designed with a grid developed iteratively. The synthesis shows that knowledge brokering initiatives include i) planning activities (stakeholder identification, creation of networks and partnerships, context analysis, problem identification, needs identification), ii) support to the brokers (training, technical support, development of a practice guide), and iii) the brokerage activities themselves (information management, liaison between knowledge producers and users, training of users). Only four articles presented empirical data on the effects of brokers' activities. Three were associated with increased knowledge in the target audience. No study showed any impact on clinical behaviours or on public policy content. This synthesis highlights the challenges involved in knowledge brokering activities, as well as the characteristics and skills a broker should possess. While knowledge brokering appears promising, efforts must now be made to evaluate it more systematically to demonstrate its effectiveness.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2012 · Santé Publique
Show more