The “Guide of Guides” Series for Knowledge Translation

This week’s guest post comes from Anneliese Poetz, KT Manager, Kids Brain Health Network (formerly NeuroDevNet).

Kids Brain Health Network (formerly NeuroDevNet) is a Network of Centres of Excellence funded by the Federal government of Canada. There are three discovery programs focused on the early diagnosis and treatment of: Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder, and Cerebral Palsy. Three Cores serve the researchers and trainees within the Network as well as the other Cores: Neuroethics, Neuroinformatics, and Knowledge Translation (KT). The KT Core is hosted by York University’s award winning Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) Unit and provides 7 services within the Network:

1- Knowledge Brokering
2- Support for KT Events
3- Support for KT Products
4- KT Capacity Building
5- Evaluating KT
6- Support KT Planning
7- Stakeholder Engagement

A couple of years ago, one of our researchers asked us for guidance for using social media for KT. We realized while searching for what was ‘already out there’ that there are a lot of guides for social media, but not all of them are targeted towards use by researchers. In collaboration with York University’s KMb Unit, we produced our first “Guide of Guides” that is a compilation of carefully selected and vetted guides for social media that are relevant. The “Guide of Guides” format resembles an annotated bibliography, where the reference information is provided for each guide along with a summary paragraph about the tool, how it can be used and why you may wish to use it. The “Social Media Guide of Guides” became the start of a series. This post serves as a “guide” to the “Guide of Guides” series.



Soon after, we produced the “KT Planning Guide of Guides”. We were doing a search for existing KT planning guides because another project we were working on was to provide KT planning support for 4 key projects within the Network and we wanted to see if there was a tool out there that we could use. What we ended up doing was creating our own, that was specific to our own needs (the Hybrid KT Planning and Project Management tool). However, we had conducted an exhaustive search of existing KT Planning tools so we reviewed and vetted them for quality and relevance, and created a similar “Guide of Guides” for KT Planning.



We received several requests from researchers for support and resources for creating infographics. After searching for existing guides, we realized that surprisingly there weren’t any guides for researchers about infographics, only blog posts. So, we vetted the blog posts, searched the literature and wrote a comprehensive evidence-based guide, followed by an annotated list of what we deemed were the best blog posts on infographics. Some blog posts pointed to examples of infographics, while others explained step by step how to create an infographic and what tools were available (usually free, online) for creating your own. While the content wasn’t really a “Guide of Guides” per se, we titled this product the “Infographic Guide of Guides”. We were fortunate to have one project team pilot test a draft of this guide and provide feedback before it was finalized and posted. This is the first guide that included an appendix with form-fillable fields to help research teams work through the process of creating an infographic.



Finally, we produced a “Stakeholder Engagement Guide of Guides”. There are many guides for doing stakeholder engagement, and it is becoming more important for KBHN to do stakeholder engagement in a more formalized way. After searching, reviewing, and vetting guides available online, we created a similarly formatted “Guide of Guides” for stakeholder engagement that also included a form-fillable appendix to help facilitate planning. Since there are many different reasons (goals/objectives) for engaging with stakeholders and many different formats for doing so, we created a summary table at the beginning of the guide that separates the types of engagement into three tables: mostly sharing information with stakeholders, sharing and listening, and mostly listening. The list of specific formats within each category was visually coded so that the user can easily find the corresponding guide for detailed information.



The KT Core may produce one more “Guide of Guides” on evaluation methods for KT.

Mobilizing Knowledge to Give Children and Families the Best Start: Research and Knowledge Mobilization Sub-Committee of Durham’s Best Start Network

This week’s guest post comes from Darren Levine, Manager of the Innovation and Research Unit in the Social Services Department of the Regional Municipality of Durham, on behalf of the Research and Knowledge Mobilization Sub-Committee of Durham Region’s Best Start Network.

Durham Region logoOver the past several months, the Research and Knowledge Mobilization Sub-Committee of Durham Region’s Best Start Network has begun to mobilize local EDI (Early Development Instrument) data to inform practice across Durham’s early learning community. This sub-committee is comprised of representatives from The Region of Durham’s Social Services Department, Innovation and Research Unit, and Health Department, local academic organizations including the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and Durham College, and community agencies.

EDI data is gathered every several years to examine school readiness in young children and is led by the Offord Centre. Following each gathering of the data, a research report is written and is used to inform planning. Our sub-committee has taken recent EDI research and, earlier this month, completed our first two resources – an at-a-glance poster to be placed on the walls of early learning centres, and a two page “research-to-practice” highlight to be circulated amongst early learning professionals. These resources translate areas of the EDI that suggest opportunities for improvement into tangible, evidence-informed strategies for early learning professionals. These initial prototype resources have been very well received and we have begun to receive requests to put up the posters and distribute the summaries in early learning and childcare centres across Durham Region.

We are very excited and, in the new year our sub-committee will be scaling up to translate and mobilize other parts of Durham Region’s EDI data into tangible products for early childhood professionals, as well as explore digital platforms to support and enhance this work. We will also be exploring ways in which we might evaluate the impact of our work. Equally exciting is the very strong academic-community relationships that have been formed, and the shared leadership to co-create these resources that has emerged from all members of our sub-committee. Knowledge mobilization is truly a team effort!

Our sub-committee could not have gotten here without inspiration and all that we have learned from York University’s Knowledge Mobilization Unit!

Members of this sub-committee include:

Darren Levine – Innovation and Research Unit, Durham Region Social Services Department (Co-Chair)
Ann LeSage, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (Co-Chair)
Alison Burgess, University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Denise Cashley, Resources for Exceptional Children and Youth, Durham
Erin O’Dacre, Durham Farm and Rural Family Resources
Gloria Duke-Aluko, Innovation and Research Unit, Durham Region Social Services Department
Jackie Dick, PRYDE Early Learning Centres
Jane Thompson, YMCA of Greater Toronto
Jason Warga, Resources for Exceptional Children and Youth, Durham
Julie Gaskin, Durham Region Children’s Services
Karen Chartier, Lake Ridge Community Support Services
Laura Stephan, Innovation and Research Unit, Durham Region Social Services Department
Lorraine Closs, Durham College
Mary Lennon, Lake Ridge Community Support Services
Nicole Doyle, Durham College
Pam Douglas, Durham College
Susan Mace, Durham Region Heath Department
Taryn Eickmeier, Durham Region Children’s Services
Terra Mucci, Resources for Exceptional Children and Youth, Durham
Tracey Hull-Gosse, Durham College

2017 Call for Content for the Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Forum

This week’s guest post comes from the Institute for Knowledge Mobilization announcing their call for content for #CKF17.

PDF: CKF17 Call for Content & Fillable WORD CKF17 Call for Content Form

Call for Content #CKF17

The Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Forum was created in 2012 as a professional development forum for practitioners and professionals working in knowledge mobilization across fields and sectors.

It has become recognized as a premiere learning and networking event in Canada – friendly, open, limited in size, and creative. Events have been held in Ottawa (2012), Mississauga (2013), Saskatoon (2014), and Montréal (2015), Toronto (2016), and is scheduled for May 17-18, 2017 in the National Capital Region of Canada, Ottawa-Gatineau.

The theme for 2017 is:

Connections and Partnerships: Collaboration as a Key to Knowledge Mobilization

From the very start of the conversation about Knowledge Mobilization in Canada, connections and partnerships have been part of the narrative. Collaboration is a key component of many, if not most activities in Knowledge Mobilization. True to the meaning of the word, collaboration is often hard work. It requires us to co-labor together, to co-construct priorities, programs, policies, processes that lead to the use of evidence. Together, we build better communities and societies.

The theme for 2017 focuses us on how to be better together. We invite participation that will push thinking and engagement of the knowledge mobilization community further. The Forum will be hosted at the Canadian Museum of History and the Sheraton Four-Points Gatineau Hotel.

We are seeking presentations, posters, workshops, and open-space activities that facilitate active participation, networking, reflection and learning.

We are driven by an objective of allowing you to design your own conference experience that reflects your interests, experience, priorities and learning styles. Drawing on the assets of the National Capital Region, leaders in knowledge mobilization from all across Canada and beyond, it is our hope you will come away from CKF17 enriched, energized and engaged in this field like never before.

Our objectives are:

    Build on the past successes of CKF make this a preeminent event to learn and engage about knowledge mobilization in Canada
    Build capacity for knowledge mobilization
    Learn about work in other sectors to enable partnerships and collaboration
    Engage with leaders to influence future directions
    Meet the next generation of leaders and create opportunities to mentor and coach
    Access the latest tools, techniques and opportunities.

The 2017 Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Forum is seeking contributions for content, which addresses the overall theme of Connections and Partnerships: Collaboration as a Key to Knowledge Mobilization, and links to the subthemes of:

Subtheme 1: Structures – What (for example: operating structures supporting partnerships, agreements, management systems, office layouts enhancing collaboration )

Subtheme 2: Processes – How (for example: tool boxes, networks, communities of practice, training)

Subtheme 3: Technology – Technology and Tools (for example: social media, apps, software, knowledge boards, database mining, CRM programs)

We are continuing to use the “The Knowmo Scale”. Here, we’re seeking presenters to consider their audience. Consider this our own unique variation of the Scoville Unit scale.

Is your presentation focused around skill development? If so, you would check off Knowmo 1.

Will you present on where we are in terms of KMb? If so, you would check off Knowmo 2.

Does your presentation focus on innovation in/for KMb? If so, please check off Knowmo 3.

We are seeking the following:

1) Catalyst Presentations of 10 minutes each

For each session, a small group of presenters will each engage the audience with a focused 10-minute presentation. Feel free to be provocative or pose questions. This will be followed by a 30-minute group discussion of the ideas presented, the connections that emerge, and implications for knowledge mobilization practice. People can apply individually or identify other presentation proposals they would like to be considered grouped with.

The value of these sessions emerges from the EXCHANGE of all participants. The presenters create a catalyst to conversation. Each session will be moderated by a session Chair.

2) Poster Presentations

Recommended max poster size is 36”/92cm high by 60”/152 cm wide. The posters will be juried by an expert panel of knowledge mobilization practitioners. Posters will be profiled at a specific event and you will have two minutes to share ‘what you need to know’ about your poster with all participants.

3) Professional Development Workshops to enable creativity of 50 minutes each

Workshops are an opportunity to share methods and tools useful to the practice of knowledge mobilization professionals in an interactive and engaging format. The aim is to help participants to improve their skills and understanding of KMb and to become better mobilizers.

Alternatively, people are welcome to submit presentations which are less interactive and more informative. For both, participants are welcome to consider non-traditional approaches for this exchange process: Fireside Chat; Debate; Panel Presentations or others.

4) Open Space – Approx. 45-60 minutes

Open Space is the only process that focuses on expanding time and space for the force of self-organisation to do its thing. Although one can’t predict specific outcomes, it’s always highly productive for whatever issue people want to attend to. Some of the inspiring side effects that are regularly noted are laughter, hard work which feels like play, surprising results and fascinating new questions.

— Michael M Pannwitz, Open Space practitioner

Participants are encouraged to take a leadership role in prompting and facilitating open space mini-conferences within the more structured program. In order to create appropriate spaces, we ask participants to indicate their intention and potential topic areas for discussion.

Review

All contributions will be reviewed by an independent selection committee and judged for quality of content, the opportunity to advance our understanding of knowledge mobilization, and relevance to the theme of the 2017 Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Forum.

The deadline for contribution is March 15, 2017.

Please fill the Call for Content Form and send to: peter@knowledgemobilization.net

Note: Selected content must be presented by a registered participant at the 2017 Canadian

Knowledge Mobilization Forum in Ottawa-Gatineau, May 17-18, 2017.

Further details will be posted on the Institute for Knowledge Mobilization’s website:

www.knowledgemobilization.net/forum.

Building an impact literate research culture: Some thoughts for the KT Australia Research Summit

This week’s guest post is from Julie Bayley, Coventry University. It was originally published on her blog on November 12, 2016 and is reposted here with permission.

Julie BayleyI was delighted to be asked to speak at the KT Australia Research Impact Summit (November 2016). In my talk, I discussed many of the challenges of introducing an impact agenda into the academic community, and how impact literacy can help. An extended version of my slides are here, but let me talk through the key points below.

Consider impact. A small word. A simple, standard part of our vocabulary meaning influence or effect. But go from (small i) impact to (big I) Impact, and you’ve suddenly entered the domain of formal assessment and causal expectations. Arguably the UK have been the first to really take the Impact bull formally by the horns through the Research Assessment Framework 2014, but of course efforts to drive research into usable practice are far from unique to this little island. Whilst every country is rich with learning about how knowledge best mobilises within its own context, the UK probably offers a unique insight into the realities of impact assessment at scale and the multiple, non-prescribable pathways connecting research to effect.

First principles: impact is the provable effects of research in the real world (see slides 2 and 3). It’s the changes we can see (demonstrate, measure, capture), beyond academia (in society, economy, environment) which happen because of our studies (caused by, contributed to, attributable to). Dissemination, communication, engagement, knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange and knowledge mobilisation are all vital in getting research into practice, but in its truest form, ‘impact’ is the protected description of the resulting change.

Largely speaking, impact has three main drivers (slide 4): funders (who increasingly require impact plans for research to be judged competitively), centralised assessment (eg the Research Excellence Framework, UK) and the individual academic’s commitment to social, economic or environmental change. Formal sector expectations such as the REF are a double edged sword. On one side they legitimate engagement and outreach activities which can be disregarded in income/publication focused environments. On the other however, they can confer unrealistic expectations on those disciplinary areas (eg. fundamental research) whose work does not naturally connect directly to ‘real world change’. Even where academics are personally committed to impact, the weight of complying with assessment rhetoric can corrode even the most impassioned resolve.

Impact offers challenges to academics and the institution alike (slide 5). For the academic, weaving impact into already pressured environments can be exhausting, and the unease of meeting expectations for impacts that are ‘significant’ enough for external assessment can trigger anxiety and anger. For the institution, staffing, resourcing and embedding impact within existing structures whilst ensuring assessment requirements are met is extremely tough. Similarly we must remember and address the challenges for the beneficiaries themselves. The ‘users’ of our work are concerned with how well the research fits their needs, and how accessible and useful it is. Unless work is appropriate and suitable for the audience, it’s unlikely to achieve its impact aims and will just introduce more burden into the user community.

So how can we do impact well? After several years in impact I’ve enjoyed/ burned my fingers on a considerable volume of training, planning/strategy building, designing information management systems and building impact into a university culture, alongside academic research in the area and (health psychology) research submitted to REF. It’s hard to disentangle the discrete elements of the impact process, which probably explains why I’ve had my fingers in quite so many pies. I have discussed the challenges still facing the impact community before, and how a reductionist, assessment driven approach can lead to impact short-sightedness. However, academics have an amazing and very privileged opportunity to make a genuine and meaningful difference to the ‘real world’. For this, the research community needs to understand how to make impact happen. The research community needs to be impact literate.

Impact literacy (slide 6, a term coined by myself and Dr David Phipps, York University, Toronto) describes individuals’ ability to understand, appraise and make decisions with regards to impact. Impact literacy involves understanding how the what (type, indicators and evidence of benefit), how (activities and engagement processes) and who (individuals’ skills and roles) of impact combine to produce effects. Impact literacy supports good decision making, clear planning and realistic methodologies. Impact can be pursued without being literate, but this is likely to lead to poor execution, missed opportunities, poor resource use and misaligned or underachieved targets. A person is only literate if they understand each of the three areas. If one is missing, thinking is incomplete:

    How + Who (without What) gives poor consideration to endpoints/effects
    How + What (without Who) neglects the importance of individual efforts and skills
    Who + What (without How) overlooks the need for appropriate engagement methods

We can and should also extend literacy beyond the individual and build an impact literate research culture (slide 7). With all the challenges to delivering impact within a pressured academic environment, it’s essential that institutions align their internal structures to supporting delivery. Bluntly put, you can only measure what you create, so start working together from the start. Academics need to build partnerships and translate research into suitable formats, whilst the institution values, resources and builds strategic connections beyond the institution (‘How’). Academics and research managers also need to recognise their own skills/training needs, and share/partner with others, whilst the institution must commit to professional development and clarifying roles (‘Who’). Academics must work with end-users to establish suitable goals and ways to measure them, whilst the institution must offer the strategic and systems support to manage this information (‘What’).

The process of building a positive and impact-literate culture is of course beyond the scope of one talk. It is an ongoing process and takes continued strategic and individual commitment. But if we really want impact, and good impact at that, we must focus on improving the knowledge, skills and confidence of academics and research managers across the institution. An impact literate culture is one in which people know what’s needed and how they contribute. A positive culture is one in which they know that contribution is valued.

So if you’re trying to build impact into your institution, my top tips would be (slide 8):

    Embed impact into the research process. If you’re going to create real benefits, impact has to be integrated from the start and not treated as a post-project add-on.
    Recognise one size doesn’t fit all. Impact cannot be templated. It is always unique to the project, discipline and it’s place along the fundamental-to-applied continuum. Tailor your thinking.
    Harness and build skills within the institution. Create your ‘impact agency’ by developing impact literacy, competencies and connections between colleagues.
    Engage not enrage. Impact is a small word with big implications. Give people time to adjust and build a strong approach together.

Remember (slide 9): Impact is achievable. But it’s not simple. Value the people involved and their efforts, support the processes and connect researchers, users and research meaningfully. Just imagine what’s possible if you do 🙂

Day 1 – Blueprint: Affordable Housing

This guest post first appeared on ventureLAB’s blog on October 19, 2016 and is reposted here with permission.

communityBUILD Design Lab brings out passion and fierce competition for the best solutions that address affordable housing

communitybuild1On October 15, 2016 over one hundred high school students, post-secondary students, housing experts, entrepreneurs, designers, advocates and educators gathered at Seneca College, Markham Campus for Blueprint: Affordable Housing, a two-day design lab that works towards solutions to create affordable housing, an issue that affects many communities across Canada.

It would be an understatement to say that this was a significant step forward to solving this ever-persistent issue. There was tangible passion and energy in the room throughout day one, from participants, facilitators, data analysts and design thinkers. It was clear that creating solutions for affordable housing was a passion for all who attended.

The goal of Blueprint: Affordable Housing is to generate solutions from York Region residents and organizations, in an effort to solve the global issue. On day two, on October 22nd , the top three ideas will be selected to participate in a three month incubator, provided by the communityBUILD program within ventureLAB.

Last Saturday, participants were taken through a series of design thinking exercises by Kelly Parke and Jennifer Chan, that would help inform solutions for the three challenges posed by the champion organizations, The Regional Municipality of York, Evergreen (GTA Housing Action Labs) and The Ontario Ministry of Housing. Each champion organization presented their challenges at the beginning of the day and participants were placed in to 13 teams to begin working on their ideas for solutions.

communityBUILD participantsFacilitators and data analysts assisted each team with solution development, and representatives from each champion organization provided additional insight into each challenge. Participants worked together to develop plans and strategies until 4:00 p.m., when teams left for the day. Before the day concluded, teams exchanged contact information and created DropBox accounts to work throughout the week on their solutions.

On October 22, 2016 participants will return for another full day of design thinking and solution development for their assigned challenges. Teams will be treated to a keynote presentation by Neil Hetherington, CEO of Dixon Hall in the morning, and in the afternoon they will present their solutions to the judges who will select three ideas to move forward in the communityBUILD incubator.

If day one was any indication, there will be some fierce competition this coming Saturday! Stay tuned to hear the results next week.

Blueprint supportersHuge thanks to our sponsors, including The Regional Municipality of York, Ontario Centres of Excellence, the Ontario Ministry of Housing, Evergreen, TranQuant and the J.W. McConnell Family Foundation who supported the event.

The J.W. McConnell Family Foundation

Systems Thinking as Part of a Knowledge Translation (KT) Approach

How Our NeuroDevNet Team Used Systems Thinking to Improve Our Production of Research Summaries

by Anneliese Poetz

Knowledge Translation. Anneliese has experience writing plain language research summaries for policymakers, parents and teachers at the Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network and, in her most recent work for the National Collaborating Centre for Infectious Diseases, she facilitated national stakeholder consultations, and developed stakeholder-and evidence-informed products to improve public health practice. For more on Anneliese and her work click here. This post originally appeared on the KNAER-RECRAE Blog and is reposted here with permission.

I recently had the pleasure of being able to present at the recent Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Forum (#CKF16) conference in Toronto, Ontario. It was a 7-minute presentation entitled “Systems and Processes for Knowledge Translation” and focused on one of the examples of how I use systems thinking to inform my work in Knowledge Translation (KT).

Several years ago, I met a business analyst who informed me that what I was doing in my job in the field of KT was essentially what a business analyst does: use stakeholder input to inform the design (and/or re-design) of products and processes. When you think about it, everything we do in KT is either a product or a process. The products I worked on included evidence-informed tools for health care practitioners to apply to their work, and guides for researchers to help them “do” KT. One of the processes that we needed to improve was for our production of clear language summaries called ResearchSnapshots.

Wondering what the difference is between Knowledge Mobilization, Knowledge Translation, and other like terms? Visit Gary Myers’ KMbeing blog post and join the conversation on KMb: Definitions & Terminology.

If you look at slide #6 in the above presentation, you will see a framework that outlines the key concepts in business analysis, according to the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge (BABOK v.3). These are: 1) Need 2) Change 3) Stakeholder 4) Solution 5) Value 6) Context

Each of these is of equal importance, and all must be represented. One of the things we did wrong with our initial process for the ResearchSnapshots was that we transferred the existing process (and writing staff) used by York’s KMb Unit without consideration of the differences in context within NeuroDevNet.

One of the ‘tools’ within the field of Business Analysis is a methodology called root cause analysis. We conducted a root cause analysis in order to pinpoint what the root of the problem was, and create a targeted solution. We discovered the problem was that the writers used by York KMb’s Unit, although highly skilled in clear language writing, had social science expertise but were asked to summarize research papers that were basic science and clinical science based. The researchers complained that they had to rewrite most if not all of the content, and it was a lot of work for them to do so. The result was that we achieved customer satisfaction (buy-in) among the researchers for the new process.

What we did to improve the process was to first identify all the stakeholders directly and indirectly affected by the process. Then we gathered information about their needs (often in the form of the complaints we’d received from researchers) with respect to the process, which were then transformed into ‘requirements’. These requirements informed the re-design of the new process.

The process had to be easy for researchers, and create value for the Network. Since the projects within the Network were so diverse and often specialized, it would have been too difficult (and maybe impossible) to find writers who were content experts. So, the new process begins with the researcher nominating a paper that was produced as a result of one of their NeuroDevNet funded projects, along with one of their trainees (students) who is expert in the content area. Then, we provide training and support toward the production of a clear language summary of their paper that is ready for final review and sign off by the researcher. In this way, it is easy for researchers because they only have to make minimal edits to the draft, and it creates value for the Network not only because of the clear language summary that is produced but the transferrable skills that the trainee acquires.

Let’s break down how this method reflects ‘systems thinking’:

1) A system is composed of parts. The first thing we did was map out the stakeholders and where they were situated within the system (see slide #9).

2) All the parts of a system must be related (directly or indirectly). We mapped out the stakeholders as related, directly or indirectly, to the customer service issue (or ‘incident’).

3) A system has a boundary, and the boundary of a system is a decision made by an observer or a group of observers. The ‘system’ was what facilitated the execution of the process for creating clear language summaries (ResearchSnapshots). In other words, the boundary of the system was the affiliation of researchers as part of NeuroDevNet, and research papers to be summarized were those produced as part of NeuroDevNet funded research projects.

4) A system can be nested within another system, a system can overlap with another system. The ‘system’ for producing ResearchSnapshots within the KT Core with one researcher is nested within the larger ‘system’ of the NeuroDevNet pan-Canadian Network of researchers and projects.

5) A system is bounded in time, but may be intermittently operational. A system is bounded in space, though the parts are not necessarily co-located.We engage with researchers to co-create ResearchSnapshotsat the time that we receive a service request, usually after a researcher has published a new peer-reviewed paper. These requests are sporadic depending on the frequency and pace of publications arising from its pan-Canadian NeuroDevNet-funded projects.

6) A system receives input from, and sends output into, the wider environment. We receive requests but we will also offer services if we see an opportunity. Once the ResearchSnapshots are finalized, they are made available on the NeuroDevNet website.

7) A system consists of processes that transform inputs into outputs. The process for clear language writing of ResearchSnapshots is one of the processes that exist within the KT Core, that transforms inputs (peer reviewed publications, clear language summary drafts in word) into outputs (finalized draft of clear language summary, formatted onto ResearchSnapshot .pdf template, formatted for accessibility).

8) A system is autonomous in fulfilling its purpose. A car is not a system. A car with a driver is a system. Similarly, the KT Core as a department within NeuroDevNet is not a system. The KT Core with a Lead, Manager and Assistant, is a system.

As a systems thinker, remember that a system is dynamic and complex, and that information flows among the different elements that compose a system. For example, information flows among the KT Core Lead, Manager and Assistant. A system is a community situated within an environment. For example, the KT Core is a system situated within NeuroDevNet, and as a result, information also flows more broadly between the KT Core and NeuroDevNet’s community of researchers. Information flows from and to the surrounding environment, for example, the KT Core posts its finalized ResearchSnapshots publicly on the NeuroDevNet website.

The field of Business Analysis has identified (and published in BABOK) a common sense framework and practical methodologies, which I believe can advance the field of KT towards more meaningful and useful products and processes that are responsive to the systems in which they are intended to be used.

Knowledge into Practice Learning Network Launch Webinar

“If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go with others.”
(African Proverb)

Across the globe, in diverse professional fields, people are working to get knowledge into practice. However, it is well documented that despite widespread commitment in principle, many of the people and organisations who are undertaking knowledge into practice work face considerable challenges in accomplishing this aim.

Does your role involve linking knowledge and practice? Perhaps you’re a knowledge broker or knowledge mobiliser, researcher or practitioner, policy analyst, or a similar role. Whatever your title, whatever your field, the Knowledge into Practice Learning Network offers a rare opportunity to come together as an online community to learn and share advice, expertise, resources and opportunities, develop new international contacts and use our learning to improve our own practice and support each other to work most effectively.

In this launch webinar, you will have an opportunity to:

    find out more about this innovative global network,
    be introduced to the people behind the network,
    introduce yourself and connect with a new set of supportive colleagues,
    tell us about what you would like to get out of the network and the kind of resources and activities you would find useful

Date: 24 October 2016

Time: 16:00 (UK). To calculate your local time go to http://www.thetimezoneconverter.com/

Registration & joining instructions:
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/knowledge-to-action-learning-network-webinar-tickets-27623096425

We hope you will join us for this inaugural webinar and the launch of this network.

Strengthening impact through people. Or ‘Why REF is like your mother in law’ / Augmenter l’impact grâce aux personnes, ou Pourquoi le Research Excellence Framework (REF, organisme d’évaluation de la recherche universitaire au R.-U.) ressemble un peu à une belle-mère

Julie Bayley (Coventry University, UK) is collaborating with David Phipps (RIR-York) under a Fellowship from the Association of Commonwealth Universities. They are working on competencies for knowledge brokers and the new concept of “impact literacy”. This first appeared on Julie’s blog on June 22, 2016

Julie Bayley (Coventry University, R.-U.) et David Phipps (RIR-York) sont cochercheurs, boursiers de l’Association of Commonwealth Universities. Ils s’intéressent aux compétences des courtiers de connaissances et au nouveau concept de « littéracie de l’impact ». Ce concept est mentionné pour la première fois sur le blogue de Julie, le 22 juin 2016.

It’s clear that impact is growing swiftly within international research agendas.  I’ve had many discussions recently with colleagues across various ponds for whom the dark cloud of impact is looming. Many seem to be looking to the UK to learn from our REF experience, and to be frank that’s not a bad idea at all.  Where impact is concerned it’s fair to say the UK is both specialised and battle-worn in equal measure. Unlike many of our international peers, our sector has been driven by centralised impact assessment, rather than broader dialogues of ‘benefits’ and ‘knowledge mobilisation’.  It is an approach with pros and cons, many of which we’re still unpicking.  Certainly the wonderfully engaged discussion at the recent ARMA Impact Special Interest Group (SIG) meeting at the annual conference shows just how much we still need to do to integrate, normalise and support impact in its most meaningful terms.

Impact for many of us is a good thing.  We welcome the focus on positively influencing the world beyond the university walls, and let’s face it, this in itself is not a new agenda.  For applied researchers (myself very much included), we have always sought to qualitatively contribute solutions to social problems.  However the more formal assessment driven (REF) impact agenda shifts such virtuous rhetoric towards reductionism and selectivity. REF is a bit like your mother in law who manages to completely overlook the 6 hours of cleaning you’ve done and focus instead on the speck of dust you’ve left behind the TV. It’s a one-off assessment which ignores how frantically you’ve cooked, ironed, and incentivised-your-children-to-behave-less-like-chimps. And like REF, usually results in a large glass of wine.

I don’t say this to dismiss REF.  If anything, REF has accelerated the importance of impact within academia and for that I am thankful.  With the puerile analogy above aside, I strongly urge those for whom impact is emerging to really take time to consider how impact ‘works’.  A formal impact agenda raises challenges across the academic sector, arguably posing most difficulties for fundamental research and that with less easily measurable endpoints (eg. arts and humanities).  Assessment-driven approaches risk reducing impact value to a small subset of narrowly demonstrated effects.  Unless we approach impact literately* and meaningfullywe will only ever firefight paths towards social effects.

In all of this, it’s crucial too that we don’t ignore the people.  Obviously it’s vital that we engage stakeholders and consider wider public benefit, and there’s excellent thought-leadership in these areas. However here I’m referring to a different group – impact practitioners themselves, be they the academic driving their own work or a research manager supporting a broader programme of work.  The impact sector has grown rapidly within the UK, and – as demonstrated through the wealth of experience and expertise in the ARMA Impact SIG – the sector would be foolish not to recognise the skills and capabilities so fundamental to translating research into effects.

Reducing impact to a measured subset of effects obscures the expertise needed for knowledge brokerage, culture change, partnership management, strategic planning and reconfiguration and many other things in combination.  If we are to create ‘good impact’ we need to recognise and invest in professional development amongst all those supporting this agenda.  And avoid bolting impact on as an afterthought. And understand how assessment models may drive behaviour. And how this may be judged by a Mother-in-Law-dust-seeking review**.

Let’s make the research count.  Properly.

*Impact literacy paper to come with the brilliant Dr David Phipps!! (@Researchimpact)

**My mother in law likes me. At least she hasn’t said otherwise

Writing a Provisional Patent Application from a Student’s Perspective

Written by Jack Bauer.

York Region District School Board (YRDSB) was one of York University’s first Knowledge Mobilization partners in 2006. Ten years later, six YRDSB high school students attended a patent workshop as part of York’s programming for entrepreneurship, Launch YU. Three grade 12 students (Alicia, Jake, Kanav) and three grade 10 students (Bronx, Lei Lei, Mingze) were part of a growing collaboration between York University and YRDSB on entrepreneurship. Making connections between high school and university students supports engagement between York University and its local communities. Thank you to Jake Bauer for writing this post.

LaunchYU March 7, 2016

As the only high school students present, we felt unique and truthfully a little out of place at first sitting at the very front of the room at the LaunchYU Write Your Own Provisional Patent Application seminar on March 7. I was part of a group of six York Region District School Board secondary students who travelled to York University to sit in on this seminar.

The seminar was mostly geared towards people in university, people with previous entrepreneurial experience or people who had an idea and wanted to learn about the process to get it patented.  As everyone was going around the room introducing themselves, our only reaction was “Wow.” People from all walks of life were there. There was someone who had started previous companies and had a patent certificate with him. There was someone who worked on mass spectrometers and someone who worked in the biotechnology industry. Sitting right beside us was an accountant in a PhD program at York University. To us this was almost surreal; to be surrounded by incredibly smart and accomplished people while we were still in high school and still wondering about how to enter the “real world.”

We attended this seminar because of our own interest in getting our ideas out to the public and what was involved in making sure they were protected. We can definitely say that we learned a lot about patents and the many things that could go wrong during the patent creation process. The presenter, Andrew Currier of PCK Perry + Currier, was very friendly, funny and open to answering all the questions that people had, which made the seminar seem very personal and close rather than a session to absorb information.

One of the things that stood out was that, regardless of whether or not we would personally go on to need a patent, we learned a lot about how to properly and effectively express ideas so that they could be clearly understood by someone who has no clue about your idea or invention. We also learned how much money it would take to get a patent approved.

Opportunities like these are not often openly accessible to high school students; we heard about this through our principal because York Region District School Board is working with organizations like LaunchYU to try to make events like this more accessible. We are glad to have been part of the first steps towards opening up opportunities like this to other students in high school because it would make an unimaginable impact if every student took advantage of opportunities like these.

Thank you to David Phipps, Executive Director of Research & Innovation Services at York University for offering us this opportunity to share our experience through his blog.

CommunityBUILD: Social Venture Pipeline

This week’s guest post comes from ventureLAB

Applications are now open for the Social Venture Pipeline!

WHAT IS THE MISSION OF THE SOCIAL VENTURE PIPELINE?

To improve the success of social ventures in getting to launch and accessing funding and investment.

WHAT IS THE SOCIAL VENTURE PIPELINE?

VentureLab logo horz 4CThe Social Venture Pipeline is program of the communityBUILD initiative. It is a curated pathway for those ventures approaching launch into market and revenue generation consisting of a 4.5-month Accelerator program followed by a 3-month Incubator. Participants will be supported to move their businesses forward to launch through education, networking and mentoring provided by communityBUILD’s expert mentors.

Read more and apply now!

Canadian Science Policy Fellowship / Bourse pour l’élaboration de politiques canadiennes

The call for applications opens February 17, 2016, and closes March 31, 2016 at 5 p.m. PDT.  Fellowships begin in September 2016 and last for 12 months.

L’appel de candidatures débute le 17 février 2016, et prend fin le 31 mars 2016 à 17 h (HAP).  Les stages, d’une durée de 12 mois, commenceront en septembre 2016.

MitacsAbout the fellowship

Mitacs is committed to fostering policy leadership among Canada’s researchers. We have worked closely with the academic research and policy communities to identify ways to integrate academic research and evidence-based policy-making at the federal level. Mitacs and its partners are pleased to introduce the result of this collaboration, the Canadian Science Policy Fellowship.  

The fellowship helps government develop policy with advice from respected professors and postdoctoral scholars and will strengthen ties between the public sector and academia. The first of its kind in Canada, the fellowship is offered in partnership with the University of Ottawa’s Institute for Science, Society and Policy (ISSP), Mitacs’ university partners, and the Government of Canada.

The inaugural cohort of 10–12 fellows will be matched with federal host departments or agencies in Ottawa, where they will contribute to policy design, implementation, and/or evaluation.  Matches will align each fellow’s background and expertise with the identified needs of the host department.

The fellowship aims to:

  • Form mutually beneficial and robust relationships between government decision-makers and academic researchers in support of pressing policy challenges in Canada
  • Enhance science communication, collaboration, and policy capacity within government departments and agencies
  • Develop a network of external expertise in Canadian science policy that complements existing capacity within the public service

Click here for more information.

—————————————————————————–

MitacsAu sujet de la bourse

Mitacs s’est engagé à favoriser un leadership en matière de politiques parmi les chercheurs canadiens. Nous avons travaillé en étroite collaboration avec les milieux des politiques et de la recherche universitaire pour trouver des façons d’intégrer au niveau fédéral l’élaboration de politiques reposant sur des données probantes et la recherche universitaire. Mitacs et ses partenaires ont le plaisir de lancer le fruit de cette collaboration, la Bourse pour l’élaboration de politiques canadiennes.

Cette bourse a pour but d’aider le gouvernement à élaborer des politiques en tirant profit des conseils de chercheurs postdoctoraux et de professeurs respectés, et renforcera les liens entre le secteur public et le milieu universitaire. Première initiative du genre au Canada, cette bourse est offerte en partenariat avec l’Institut de recherche sur la science, la société et la politique publique (ISSP) de l’Université d’Ottawa, des universités partenaires de Mitacs et le gouvernement du Canada.

Les 10 à 12 participants de la cohorte inaugurale seront jumelés à des organismes ou des ministères d’accueil du gouvernement fédéral à Ottawa où ils participeront à l’élaboration, à la mise en œuvre et/ou à l’évaluation de politiques.   Chaque participant sera jumelé en fonction de son expertise et de ses antécédents, ainsi que des besoins soulevés par le ministère d’accueil.

Le programme de bourses vise les objectifs suivants :

  • établir des relations solides et mutuellement avantageuses entre les décideurs du gouvernement et les chercheurs universitaires à l’appui des défis urgents que doit relever le Canada en lien avec les politiques;
  • améliorer la capacité des ministères et organismes du gouvernement en matière de communications, de collaboration et d’élaboration de politiques;
  • mettre sur pied un réseau d’experts externes en sciences politiques canadiennes pour renforcer la capacité actuelle de la fonction publique.

Cliquez ici pour voir plus d’informations.

Who’s Got the Power? A Critical Consideration of Citizen Participation in Research

This week’s guest post comes from the KT Core-ner, NeuroDevNet’s KT Blog. It was first published on February 19, 2016 and is reposted here with permission. 

By: Anneliese Poetz, KT Manager, NeuroDevNet

It is common for KT activities to be limited to dissemination of KT products such as research summaries, infographics or research reports/articles. Sometimes these products are created without consulting the stakeholders who represent the intended target audience, and what is typically measured and reported on is the numbers of these products distributed.  Dissemination is necessary, but usually not sufficient, to create impacts from research.

The two main approaches to Knowledge Translation are end-of-grant (dissemination) and integrated Knowledge Translation (stakeholder engagement/consultation). The evidence on successful KT has demonstrated that iKT approaches are more successful at creating impact. When I think about iKT I am reminded of the topic of my PhD dissertation which focused on a process analysis of a stakeholder consultation approach for informing government decision-making.  One of the frameworks I cited in my literature review was Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of citizen participation in community decision-making within the context of the ‘broader power structures in society’. Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of citizen participation ranges from one extreme to the other, at one end citizens have all the power and at the other end they have no power at all.  Citizen power is sub-divided into “citizen control, delegated power, and partnership” (citizens have all/greater power) while tokenism is represented as “placation, consultation, informing” and non-participation in community decision-making is referred to as “therapy and manipulation” (non-participation, no power).

Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation

An iKT approach is important for maximizing the uptake and implementation of research, toward impact. Recently, I found myself wondering how Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation could map onto a research decision-making context.  For example, when a researcher takes an iKT approach to their work, they inform their research questions, methodology, KT products (type, key messages, delivery method, etc), workshops and other activities (toward moving their research findings into uptake and implementation) by using information about their stakeholders’ needs as a result of careful observation (of stakeholders as well as the current state of society, industry, government etc.) and listening to stakeholders.  However, as the subject matter and research process expert, the Principal Investigator/researcher (has to) use discretion in terms of how, where, and why stakeholder input contributes to the overall design and execution of their research (assuming stakeholders are non-researchers).  In this way, it is unrealistic to expect that citizens/stakeholders should be given complete control.  Even if stakeholders are researchers themselves, the Principal Investigator (PI) of the project has obligations (for example) to the funder of their research to reasonably deliver what was promised in their initial grant proposal.  In this way, the PI can be viewed as having more power than their stakeholders in terms of the research process.

However, in order for planned KT activities to result in successful uptake, implementation and impact of research, stakeholders need to feel that: they have been heard and their input is valued; their (information and other) needs are being met by the research project; the KT product(s) created will be useful/helpful to them and/or their clients.  In this way, stakeholders have potentially tremendous influence over the PI’s ability to achieve change through their research output(s). Persuading successful partnership engages stakeholders so that research can, should (and will, if possible given their organization’s capabilities) be used in practice and policy.  Often, they must surmount potential barriers such as stakeholders’ experiential (and other) knowledge, values and job descriptions as well as political and financial restrictions.

According to Arnstein’s ladder taking an integrated approach to KT helps to shift the power from researchers toward stakeholders, and into the “partnership” stage during which both stakeholders and researchers (PIs) redistribute power.  Stakeholders become more open to using research in practice and PIs become more able (through understanding stakeholder needs) to make the necessary adjustments to their research and KT approaches to enable uptake and implementation by these stakeholders.

It is reasonable then to say that effective, integrated KT takes place at the “partnership” level of Arnstein’s ladder.

Webinar on Social Media for Knowledge Mobilization/Knowledge Translation

This week’s guest post comes from the KT Core-ner, NeuroDevNet’s KT Blog. It was first published on February 1, 2016 and is reposted here with permission. 

This past week on Wednesday January 27, 2016 NeuroDevNet’s KT Core hosted a one hour interactive webinar entitled “Social Media for Knowledge Mobilization” featuring KT Core Lead, Dr. David Phipps. David has been blogging since 2008 and is active on Twitter and LinkedIn as well (@researchimpact 6,950 followers, ResearchImpact Linked In group 550 members, Mobilize This! blog www.researchimpact.ca/blog over 150,000 views from 149 countries).  This was an event offered to NeuroDevNet researchers and trainees, and drew 33 participants.  Topics covered included: the benefits of using social media, how to build a social media strategy, selecting which social media platforms to use, and how to name and design your profile.  The slides are available on the NeuroDevNet slideshare account:

For those who were unable to attend the live event, the recording is available on the NeuroDevNet YouTube Channel:

A link to the KT Core’s publication, the “Social Media Guide of Guides” was provided as a resource for those interested in learning more about how to use KT for dissemination and stakeholder engagement. The Social Media Guide of Guides is an annotated bibliography of the most relevant resources for researchers to learn how to use social media for professional purposes, and is arranged from beginner to advanced.

 The event evaluation (n=15) yielded very positive results. In sum:

-100% of respondents said they would use the knowledge they gained from the webinar

-On a scale from 0 (poor) -100 (Excellent), David was rated at an average of 93.3% as a presenter

-On a scale from 0 (poor) -100 (Excellent), David’s knowledge about the use of social media for knowledge translation was rated at an average of 94.07%

-Participants reported that on a scale of 0 (Not at all) -100 (A lot), their knowledge about the use of social media for KT has increased by an average of 70.27%

Participants said the best part of the webinar was:

“The interactive component (e.g. questions, polls)”

“David’s knowledge, presentation skills, and responses to questions”

“Providing the information online during the webinar but the file to download after to read further”

“Breaking down how to think of strategy and selecting the right tools to reach objectives”

“I found the entire presentation very helpful. I really benefitted from the portion on how to determine which social media avenues to pursue as well as how to increase traffic to your channel.”

When participants were asked about the things they learned in this webinar that they will apply/do, they said:

“Look at the guide of guides!”

“Streamline my use of social media for KT based on the suggestions.”

“Get on twitter. Make a plan.”

“Finding which channels have traffic and becoming active in the current conversation as opposed to waiting for people to find us.”

“Write a little more confidently on KT initiatives for funding applications.”

Requests for future webinar topics included (in no particular order):

– Intro to using twitter

– Specifics regarding research blogs, twitter, facebook page that is relevant to target audience including concrete examples of the use of some popular social media for dissemination

– Tips and tricks (e.g. optimal times during the day that you should post/tweet)

– Writing KT plans for grant applications: what to include and what to avoid

If you are a NeuroDevNet researcher or trainee and would like a consultation about the use of social media for knowledge mobilization/translation, or if you have a suggestion for a future webinar topic or tool (such as a guide) that we could create to help you in your work, please contact the KT Core.

by: Anneliese Poetz, KT Manager, NeuroDevNet

Social R+D

This week’s guest post first appeared on SiG’s (Social Innovation Generation) website and is reposted here with permission. 

In July 2015, an emerging cross-sector alliance of social innovators, thinkers, activists, pragmatists and advocates came together to explore how R&D for social impact could become more accessible, supported, integrated, diffuse and intentional. The result? A Declaration of Action.

All are welcome to join this alliance of activity and inquiry – please email info@sigeneration.ca to sign this declaration for a robust, networked and cross-sector social R&D ecosystem and/or to sign-up for news & updates as the ecosystem develops.

An audacious opportunity

 As an emerging alliance of front-line innovators, professionals, advocates, academics, nonprofit and foundation leaders, entrepreneurs, and public policy professionals: We declare a commitment to generate intentional, networked, and shared Research & Development (R&D) capabilities for lasting, positive social outcomes.

Our view is Canada’s innovation culture and ecosystem requires a networked, cross-sector R&D approach if we are to achieve the positive social outcomes we seek.

Creating the conditions for innovation requires our collective commitment to enable and advance R&D for social impact.

Canada’s upcoming 150th birthday in 2017 is an audacious opportunity for this country to lead the world in advancing breakthroughs in complex social, economic and environmental challenges through open, networked and distributed R&D for societal well-being. Over the past 12 months, a common call has been heard at gatherings, in research, around milestones and in working groups across the country around tackling entrenched challenges by animating cross-sector innovation and R&D.

We see R&D as complementary and reinforcing activities that unleash continuous process, product, policy, service, structural, and systems innovation across society.

These activities include, but are not limited to:

Looking:

Exploring, community-led inquiry, ethnography, lit review, case studies, data sourcing

Thinking:

Brainstorming, generating hypotheses, leveraging small, big and open data

Developing:

Designing and testing, piloting, prototyping, evaluating, designing feedback loops, co-production

Diffusing:

Building/sharing capacity, aggregating/sharing lessons from success, failure and process development, leaping by learning

A cross-sector social impact R&D approach will significantly enhance the work of Canada’s innovation ecosystem and propel us towards long-term social and economic prosperity.

Declaration

Now is the time to seed and lead a vibrant ecosystem of public good R&D-enabled innovation across corporate, academic, public and community sectors to generate lasting positive impact.

We believe that an advanced R&D approach necessarily:

  • Focuses on transforming entrenched structures, policy and systems
  • Designs for thriving communities and enriched lives at all stages of life
  • Strives to be open, networked and distributed, supporting all contributors from the passionate amateurs to the large-scale innovation hubs
  • Operates in a spirit of abundance
  • Activates various forms of capital including data, talent, knowledge, infrastructure, finance and social capital (networks)
  • Pursues connection by diffusing from, to and across the margins, the grassroots, the labs, the R&D “arms,” and ongoing organizational silos
  • Targets systems innovation, engaging in the complementary co-development of institutional, scientific/technological, business, and social innovation
  • Facilitates social organizations and enterprises to pursue a “fifth dimension” of core activity: innovation
  • Leads from a new ethical framework for R&D for public good

This declaration is a living document. It serves as a reminder of our commitment to action. We invite others to join in the development of this R&D approach to enable lasting impact.

Declaration Participants:

Tim Draimin SiG National

Vinod Rajasekaran – Impact Hub Ottawa

Kelsey Spitz – SiG National

Lee Rose – Community Knowledge Exchange  

Sarah Schulman – InWithForward

Andrew Chunilall – Community Foundations of Canada

Stephen Huddart – The J.W. McConnell Family Foundation

Jason Pearman – Public Servant, Co-Founder Impact Hub Ottawa

Rohit Ramchandani – Antara Global Health Advisors/ColaLife

Amy Mapara – Canadian Red Cross

Anil Patel – Grantbook

Jess Tomlin – MATCH International Women’s Fund

Indy Johar –  00:/

Dave Farthing – YOUCAN

Andrew Taylor – Grand Challenges Canada

Bruce MacDonald – Imagine Canada

Jean-Noé Landry – Open North

Ben Weinlick – Skills Society & Think Jar Collective

Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation

Marilyn Struthers – Consultant, Former Eaton Chair in Social Innovation, Ryerson University

David Phipps – York University, ResearchImpact-ReseauImpactRecherche

Liz Mulholland – Prosper Canada

Claire Buré

John Brodhead

Reading Resources:

The Top 8

  1. Doing Good Better: Upping Canada’s Game with an R&D Engine By Tim Draimin & Vinod Rajasekaran (2015)
  2. Conference Board April 2013 Public R&D Spending By The Conference Board of Canada (2013)
  3. Introducing Kudoz & Fifth Space By InWithForward + partners (2015)
  4. Netiquette 2.0: Moving Forward at the Speed of Trust By Marilyn Struthers & Penny Scott (2015)
  5. Fueling Nonprofit Innovation: R&D Vigor Trumps Randomized Control Trial Rigor By Peter York (2011)
  6. Impact by Design: Making R&D Work for the Social Sector By Meg Long (2012)
  7. Making Evidence Practical for Development By Joe Dickman & Samir Khan (2015)
  8. The point of no return By Sarah Schulman (2015)

And…

Partnerships for Impact: Making Research Partnerships Work

CRFRThis week’s guest post comes from CRFR (Centre for Research on Families and Relationships) located in Edinburgh, Scotland . It was originally published on October 1, 2015 on the CRFR blog and is reposted here with permission.

The Centre for Research on Families and Relationships in consultation with ResearchImpact in Canada and the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) have developed a Manifesto for Partnerships between Universities and Non-academics. Here Executive Director Sarah Morton explains what’s in the manifesto and how it can be used.

There is broad agreement amongst research funders in the UK (http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/pe/embedding/) that if academics work more closely with partners from outside the academy their work is more likely to have impact. It helps to embed research in real world issues, creates a group of willing and ready stakeholders, linked to wider networks and can help academics learn about the kind of language and methods required for effective take-up of research. At CRFR we often work together with range of public and third sector partners. We wanted to draw together what we have learned from this and make it more widely available. A partnership manifesto was the way we decided to do this.

Where did the manifesto come from?

In my own research (Creating research impact: the roles of research users in interactive research mobilisation) I investigated partnership and found that there were many ways in which CRFR working in partnership with ChildLine Scotland had led to the impact of that research. I presented these findings about impact to the Scottish Third Sector Research Forum in 2014, and the level of interest led to the idea for a manifesto for partnership research.

Findings from my research were discussed at a workshop at the NCCPE national conference in 2014, with a range of experienced researchers and KE professionals adding their experience. It was then discussed by the Scottish Knowledge Exchange Community of Practice and the ResearchImpact network in Canada:

“At ResearchImpact we were happy to be invited to collaborate on the Manifesto.” says David Phipps, Executive Director, Research & Innovation Services, York University, Canada. “We shared it among our members who provided feedback to Sarah and her CRFR team. Working closely with partners creates the conditions for research to have an impact beyond the academy. The manifesto provides guidance and tips to help support community-campus collaborations.”

The final version has taken on board all comments received and we are confident it is based on the most recent research and informed by the key experts in this field.

What is in the partnership manifesto?

The manifesto takes a process approach to thinking about partnership. It looks at identifying partners, and then goes through the stages of partnership research: starting partnerships, developing funding bids, developing partnerships, and sharing research findings. Advice includes being explicit about what both sides in a partnership can gain, and what commitment is needed, recognising knowledge and resources, and being clear about the difference between research, evaluation and commissioning. A few final comments suggest the need to choose partners carefully where possible, create spaces to reflect on what is and isn’t working, and to include impact assessment so that everyone can show what difference is being made.

How can the partnership manifesto be used?

We hope that the manifesto will provide a useful tool for people interested in research partnerships, whether from third or public sector organisations, or researchers themselves. Whatever stage of partnership people are in, we imagine the manifesto being a useful tool for discussion, development and reflection during partnership research. It can be a means of ensuring everyone is on the same page, by setting out key considerations for open discussion. When partnerships are not going well it might be a tool for reflecting together or separately on what the issues are and how they might be addressed.

Download a copy of the partnership manifesto