Netherland’s Research Impact Assessment Exercise / Exercice d’évaluation de l’impact de la recherche aux Pays-Bas

The UK has the Research Excellence Framework. Australia launched the Engagement and Impact Assessment exercise. And the Netherlands has the Standard Evaluation Protocol. Canada can learn from these and from the Research Impact Canada network as we implement our own tool for research impact assessment.

Le Royaume-Uni s’est doté d’un cadre pour l’excellence en matière de recherche, le Research Excellence Framework. L’Australie a mis en place un exercice d’évaluation de la participation et de l’impact dans ce domaine, l’Engagement and Impact Assessment. Et les Pays-Bas disposent d’un protocole d’évaluation normalisé, le Standard Evaluation Protocol. Le Canada peut tirer des enseignements de ces modèles et exploiter le Réseau Impact Recherche qui existe déjà au pays afin de mettre en œuvre son propre outil d’évaluation de l’impact de la recherche.

There is increasing global interest in creating socioeconomic impacts from academic research. National networks such as Research Impact Canada and the National Alliance for Broader Impacts (US) invest in methods to create impacts but neither have national systems of impact assessment. The UK and Australia have national research impact assessment (RIA) exercises but no formal structures to create impact.

And new for me is the Netherland’s RIA process called the Standard Evaluation Protocol (no snappy title points for the Dutch…maybe it suffered in translation). Every six years NLD research institutions are required to self-assess and present to external committees on the research from the past six years and plans for the subsequent six years. The assessment returns a rating of unsatisfactory, good, very good or excellent. The submission, the committee report and the institutional response are posted on line creating public accountability.

The assessment reviews research quality, relevance to society and viability (the “extent to which the organization is equipped for the future”).

For readers of this blog the relevance to society will be of greatest interest. Go straight to Appendix D Table D1 which provides a selection (not an exhaustive list) of indicators for societal impact:

Demonstrable products: reports (for example for policymaking); articles in professional journals for non-academic readers; instruments, infrastructure, datasets, software tools or designs that the unit has developed) for societal target groups; outreach activities, for example lectures for general audiences and exhibitions.

Use of products: Patents/licences: use of research facilities by societal parties; projects in cooperation with societal parties; contract research

Marks of recognition: public prizes; valorisation funding; number of appointments/positions paid for by societal parties; membership of civil society advisory bodies

The SEP submissions are reviewed by committee assessing the narratives of research quality and societal relevance. This is similar to the REF. A significant difference is the committee review happens as a site visit to the submitting unit. This face to face element of the assessment creates greater opportunities for evaluation than an arm’s length committee assessing a submission as in the REF.

What is also similar to the REF and the Australian pilot is that the method and the indicators are predicated on the academic research institution describing the impact of the research. But we know that it isn’t the researchers who are making the products, developing the policies or delivering the services that have an impact. Research partners from the private, public and non-profit sectors make the products, policies and services are the ones making the impact. Yet we ask the research institution to step in and tell someone else’s story of impact. That’s ok so long as the indicators come from the non-academic partners; however, the indicators in the SEP all of which are academic centric.

How long before Canada jumps on the research impact assessment (RIA) bandwagon? Alberta Innovates is implementing the Canadian Academies of Health Sciences’ RIA framework. The co-produced pathway to impact is being implemented by some of the Networks of Centres of Excellence including Kids Brain Health Network, MEOPAR, AllerGen, Cell Can and PREVNet who helped conceptualize the pathway. However, these are pathways that help to guide the progress from research to impact. They are not research impact assessment protocols.

Research Impact Canada is undertaking an RIA pilot which we riffed off the REF as explained in Mobilize This! on April 12, 2017. We have used our RIA tool on one example of impact from York’s Knowledge Mobilization Unit. Based on that experience we revised the interview questions we derived from Sarah Morton’scontribution analysis. We are revising the guidelines and will develop it as an RIA tool that can be used along your pathway to impact, not just ex post research impact assessment (at the end).

When Canada is ready for a national impact assessment process we will be ready with a validated tool. But Canada, please call us first. Let us help you develop a Canadian research impact assessment exercise.

We Know So Much

Tabitha McGowan was the poet in residence at the UK Knowledge Mobilization Forum 2015 in at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. Inspired by the 500 years history of the building and its library as well as some helpful hints from Google on the practice of medicine over the years, Tabitha listened for two days and presented this poem at the wrap up of the Forum. We are pleased to publish this poem with her permission. 

Tabitha McGowan était poète en résidence au Royal College of Physicians d’Édimbourg pendant le Forum sur la mobilisation des connaissances du Royaume-Uni de 2015. Inspirée par les 500 ans d’histoire de l’édifice et de sa bibliothèque, et par un coup de pouce de Google sur la pratique de la médecine au fil du temps, Tabitha a tendu l’oreille pendant deux jours. Lors de la clôture du Forum, elle a présenté ce poème, que nous publions ici avec sa permission.   


Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh

Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh

All Knowledge is Mobile: Royal College of Physicians, 2015

Tabitha McGowan 


We know so much.

We know that miasma makes malaria,

That plagues are a punishment,

That an ill-humoured gentleman may be cured of his affliction by application of leeches and letting of blood,

And women should be watched for signs of Too Much Knowing as there is a fine line between learning and devilment.

So if in doubt, incinerate.

We know that we know as much as there is to know.


We know so much.

We know that pustulent matter can prevent the pox,

That all cures can be found between alcohol and opium,

That scurvy can be broadsided by ingestion of limes,

And that knowledge should be captured and kept safe from the grasping hands of The Wrong Sort.

So if in doubt, isolate.

We know that there are others who know things we know to be false.

But we know that we know as much as we can know.


We know so much.

We know that Knowledge is best owned and maintained by bewhiskered white men, for the good of the benighted masses,

That we can sanitise the human race,

That cocaine will cure your baby’s toothache,

And that hysteria can be fixed with good vibrations.

But if in doubt, incarcerate.

Now we know that we know more than we knew.


We know so much.

We know that the mind can be unwrapped and mapped and if antibiotics can fix the physical, lobotomies can fix the mental,

That as one disease is dealt with another will take its place,

That there is a need for breeding to weed out the weak,

And if in doubt, eliminate.

We know we should know better.


We know so little.

But we know that facts can act as traps for the mind,

That what we know today can be blown away with tomorrow’s news.

Today we sit under the gaze of the thinkers of their age, each convinced of the rightness of his universe,

Even as it shifted beneath his feet.

But if we know we know a little, each of us can throw our tiny fragments of imperfect wisdom into the crucible.

And if in doubt, collaborate.

We know the way.


About Tabitha

Tabitha McGowan is a writer of dark romantic fiction. She lives in the north east of England with a long-suffering husband and a surprisingly tolerant teenage daughter, as well as a small menagerie that currently includes three dogs, four cats, two ferrets, and a rabbit that’s allergic to being a rabbit. She has written professionally since graduating from university with a degree in Theatre Studies, and has worked as a scriptwriter for a theatre company, a writer-in-residence for the National Railway Museum and a copywriter.  She’s also a qualified teacher, and sings in a folk/acoustic band when not hunched, cursing loudly, over her laptop keyboard with a quadruple gin and tonic at her side.  Her hobbies include fire-breathing (yes, really…), and being a feminazi intent on destroying civilisation as we know it.

Her first novel, The Tied Man, was released in January 2013, and has been delighting/shocking/sickening readers (usually at the same time) ever since; she’s now working on ‘Unbound’, a sequel to The Tied Man, as well as planning the adventures – romantic and otherwise –  of the rather beautiful Immanuil and Tolly from her short story, ‘Healing’.

She can regularly be found on Facebook and Twitter (@Tabitha_McGowan), usually procrastinating wildly and providing links to cats doing amusing things, and blogs about her writing on Goodreads.



Post Cards from Congress – Day 2

Today was a day of international connections at the ResearchImpact booth. We met a group funded by the European Union that networks university researchers around knowledge exchange activities. Many of these activities are in KESS Seminars or supporting students working on knowledge exchange projects.

We also had a very engaging conversation with the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. Their Humanities Division has a particular interest in knowledge utilization. From their website: “To strengthen this development it is important that humanities researchers participate in and help to shape the debate about societal, cultural and scientific developments. Furthermore, researchers should actively engage in discussions with parties that use humanities research.”

On their website are stories of best practices and a manual titled “Knowledge Utilization in the Humanities” giving practical advice for humanities researchers seeking to engage their scholarship beyond the academy.

It was exciting to have two conversations about international knowledge mobilization activities on the same day at Congress 2016.

Day 3 will have some big KMboots to fill.

Krista Jensen (York U) at the RIR Booth, Congress 2015

Krista Jensen (York U) at the RIR Booth, Congress 2015

A Baskin Robbins of Knowledge Brokers / Un éventail coloré de courtiers en connaissances

Coming back from the UK Knowledge Mobilization Forum David Phipps saw university and community and government knowledge brokers. Just like ordering ice cream at Baskin Robbins, the 31 flavours of ice cream illustrates there’s a broker for every type of knowledge use.

David Phipps est de retour du Forum sur la mobilisation des connaissances du Royaume-Uni, où il a croisé des courtiers de connaissances des milieux universitaires, communautaires et gouvernementaux. Comme au comptoir de crème glacée, les nombreux parfums montrent qu’il y a un courtier pour chaque type de besoin en connaissances.

BRThe knowledge mobilization functions at the 11 ResearchImpact-RéseauImpactRecherche universities take many organizational forms including: community based research, extension, community service learning, public engagement and research services. Each model responds to local opportunities and constraints and works well in its own context.  This is the same situation in the UK where I saw many different forms of knowledge brokers

And these were just some of the brokers with whom I connected.

This diversity is a strength in that other organizations have many models to examine as a starting point for their own knowledge mobilization activities. This diversity is also a weakness as it challenges drawing conclusions about effective knowledge mobilization practice. Reflecting on some work I did with colleagues from Argentina, Ghana and Vanuatu in 2012 we can’t draw conclusions about implementing specific practices because effective knowledge mobilization practice will be context dependent. However, we can identify principles common across different contexts including:

  • Build trust
  • Build capacity
  • Understand the social and economic contexts of your partners
  • Enable knowledge to be co-constructed
  • Use a mix of knowledge mobilization methodologies
  • Use peer supports

Although these principles make sense across different contexts (community based research, public engagement, extension, community service learning etc) they are implemented in a context specific fashion. For example, all our practices are built on trust but how we develop that trust will vary depending on the local context. I might spend lots of time serving on a community agency committee to build trust. I might also provide a robust literature review to a provincial policy maker to build trust in my expertise. Building trust is a principle that transcends contexts. How we build trust is a practice and is context dependent.

There may be 31-derful flavours of ice cream at Baskin Robbins but they are all ice cream. Similarly although practice details vary there are common principles for knowledge brokering across different contexts and employed across different organizational structures. This diversity is equally apparent in Canada and the UK and that itself is evidence of common principles applying across diverse knowledge mobilization practices. However, principles notwithstanding, if we can’t make conclusions about effective practice across different settings then how do we build capacity for knowledge mobilization?

Look out ResearchImpact…here comes Africa / Attention, RIR… l’Afrique entre en scène!

David Phipps, RIR-York

Is it knowledge mobilization? Is it Research Uptake Management? If it walks like a broker and acts like a broker it probably is a broker. And some African universities are brokering to the mutual benefit of communities and universities.

S’agit-il de mobilisation des connaissancesou de capacité d’exploitation de la recherche?Si cette personne marche comme un courtier et se conduit comme un courtier, on ne risque pas grand-chose à l’appeler courtier!Certaines universités africaines font du courtage au profit mutuel des communautés et des universités.

INORMS is the International Network of Research Management Societies. Many countries have associations of professionals that help university researchers find and spend their research funding. In Canada this is the CAURA, the Canadian Association of University Research Administrators. Some universities in Canada, like those in the ResearchImpact-RéseauImpactRecherche (RIR) network, are helping their researchers by investing services that connect research to society. We call this anything from knowledge mobilization to community engagement to knowledge translation.

Well there’s another term that is new to Canada but is commonly used in African universities: research uptake which is the act of research being taken up and used by communities. Research uptake management is therefore the professional services provided by universities to support research uptake.

DRUSSA is Development Research Uptake for Sub Saharan Africa, a network of 24 African universities who are funded by United Kingdom Department for International DRUSSA logoDevelopment (DFID) and supported by the Association of Commonwealth Universities to build capacity among research service providers to help connect research to community partners. While there are lots of discipline specific research networks that strive to create social and economic benefits from university research DRUSSA and RIR are networks of universities who are focused on the practice of knowledge mobilization/research uptake at the institutional level. The only other one I know is the Mid-west Knowledge Mobilization Network. MKMN has its origins in education but now strives to build capacity for knowledge mobilization across disciplines.

Because of this synergy between RIR and DRUSSA, I have had the pleasure of participating as a member of the Leaders Network for the DRUSSA program. This has mostly involved commenting on curriculum (yes, they have developed a curriculum for to build capacity for research uptake managers!) but I was invited to INORMS to facilitate a workshop for delegates that included DRUSSA representatives. See the workshop agenda for more information on this session.

DRUSSA workshop 140410There were over 40 participants from 23 countries including countries from Europe, North America, Africa, Asia and Oceania/Australasia. What I found most interesting were the examples presented by the African universities. Many were around local agriculture and local poverty reduction such as the Community Integrated Rural Development Project (CIRDP) implemented among rural women in Ile-Ogbo, Osun State, Nigeria with University of Ibadan.

The key to many of these projects that I saw was the local element. I got the impression that these universities had developed close ties with their local communities. This is the feeling I get in the one university-one town model like in Lakehead/ThunderBay or Brock/St Catherine’s. These universities are naturally closely interwoven with the local cultural, social and economic fabric of their towns. Knowledge mobilization comes naturally to them.

Now imagine the situation where a university and a local community have developed a shared desire for knowledge mobilization/research uptake. And then layer on that a multi-year funded project with two critical components: 1) training and networking to build capacity for professionalization of research uptake management; and 2) leaders at each institution investing resources (funding, space, staff time) to support research uptake management. That is a recipe for success.

In Canada we have elements of these but we lack the multi-year funding to build capacity and provide incentives for institutional leaders to invest. Many universities have examples of successful knowledge mobilization and engaged scholarship but they are research/partner driven, often not supported by institutional capacity. The RIR universities are building institutional capacity but without incentives that come with external funding. Canada needs funding equivalent to the DRUSSA program to create a pan-Canadian capacity for knowledge mobilization. From 1995-2009, the tri-council IPM program funded the growth of Canada’s university technology commercialization sector. We need a similar program to build capacity for knowledge mobilization

It is working for African universities. Indeed African universities in the DRUSSA network are poised to become global leaders in research uptake management because of their local culture, their institutional leadership and the DFID funding and support from the Association of Commonwealth Universities.

But the question remains. Is it knowledge mobilization or research uptake? The answer is: yes.

Thanks to Christine Trauttsmandorff (@ChristineTrautt), SSHRC, for discussions at INORMS that contributed to this post.

DRUSSA workshop


Research Impact, the Long Way Round / L’impact de la recherche : patience et longueur de temps…

Lesley Kelly, Centre for research on Families and Relationships

Lesley Kelly works as a knowledge broker for GUS (Growing up in Scotland study) a longitudinal research study tracking the lives of thousands of Scottish children and their families from birth through to the teenage years and beyond. She is part of the KE team at the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships (

Lesley Kelly est courtière de connaissances pour le GUS (Growing up in Scotland Study), une recherche longitudinale qui récolte des données sur la vie de milliers d’enfants écossais et de leurs familles, de la naissance à l’adolescence et au-delà. Mme Kelly est membre de l’équipe d’échange de connaissances du Centre for Research on Families and Relationships (

Lesley Kelly

Lesley Kelly

No matter how hard we try to engage directly with stakeholders, sometimes research impact can happen in a more unplanned, circuitous way.

As part of my role in engaging a wide range of stakeholders with the Growing up in Scotland study, I recently sent out an electronic newsletter to our 1,500 research network members.   As usual, our newsletter featured links to new publications, including journal articles published using data from the study. In this case it included an article about ‘Early parental physical punishment and emotional and behavioural outcomes in pre-school children’. The article had been written over 3 years ago by a Public Health professional as part of a Postgraduate course of study but was only recently published on-line in the journal Child: care, health and development.

A freelance journalist who received the newsletter picked up on the article, particularly the finding that children living in Scotland whose parents had used smacking as discipline technique during their first 2 years were at increased risk of emotional and behavioural problems by age 4 years. The author uses the findings to argue for a change in the law to ban physical punishment of children and for more resources to promote positive disciplinary techniques amongst parents.

This set off a whole chain of awareness raising, debate and publicity.

The journalist wrote a short article for the Scottish newspaper The Herald ( and contacted one of Scotland’s leading children’s sector charities, who responded by releasing a statement in support of a ban on the use of physical punishment. This is an issue on which many NGOs have been campaigning for years  from a human rights based perspective, so were delighted to find new research providing further support for their argument.

Subsequently, ‘Should smacking be made illegal?’ was the subject of a debate on a high-profile programme on BBC Radio Scotland, featuring detailed input from one of the Directors of the children’s charity and many listeners who called in to express their views. While the research itself was given only a brief mention by the radio presenter it might be argued that sharing the research findings helped to raise the profile of the campaign to ban the physical punishment of children in Scotland.

So, the children’s charity, thousands of readers of The Herald and listeners to Radio Scotland were engaged in the issues of whether physical punishment of children should be banned. That group includes parents and carers, practitioners and policy-makers. In the world of Knowledge Exchange, we have to accept that no matter how hard we plan, there is always room for serendipity. Impact can happen by accident and is no less valuable than planned exchange.

Lesley Kelly
Dissemination Officer (Growing Up in Scotland study)
Centre for Research on Families and Relationships, University of Edinburgh

This is a simultaneous blog for CRFR and Mobilize This!

Knowledge Mobilization Down Under / La mobilisation des connaissances prend la route du Sud

David Phipps (RIR-York) recently took the message of ResearchImpact-RéseauImpactRecherche (RIR) down to Australia. There is a growing interest in knowledge mobilization as a means to enhance the economic, social and economic impact of university research. Six days. Four presentations. One workshop. Fourteen meetings. About 180 people.

Tout récemment, David Phipps du RIR-York a porté le message du ResearchImpact – RéseauImpactRecherche (RIR) jusqu’en Australie. La mobilisation des connaissances soulève de plus en plus d’intérêt en tant que moyen de décupler l’impact social et économique de la recherche universitaire. Six jours. Quatre présentations. Un atelier. Quatorze réunions. Presque 200 personnes.

David Phipps & Tamika Heiden

David Phipps & Tamika Heiden

Thanks to Tamika Heiden of the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research (TICHR in Perth, Australia) for securing funding from a variety of sources to bring the Canadian perspective in knowledge mobilization to our colleagues in Australia. Leaving Canada on November 5 and returning on November 18, I had the chance to meet with research administrators, senior research leaders and individual research teams. To a person there was interest in how universities could demonstrate various impacts arising from investments in university research. In general there was a lack of understanding how universities could support this impact.

TICHR has started on the right path. They have identified knowledge translation throughout their strategic plan 2013-2017.  In five years they will “Have developed the systems and processes to enable us to report on specific outcomes of our research during the previous five years, and to document how our work has contributed to improvements in health and health services”. This is underpinned by explicit knowledge “translation” goals throughout their strategic plan. Getting KMb/KT into your strategic plan is the first step. If it isn’t there then it is just marketing because the plan drives the investment of resources. Next TICHR needs to settle its organizational design and make those investments that will support the KT goals outlined in its strategic plan.



I met with the University of Western Australia industry liaison/technology transfer office and their research services group. It is clear that both the industry liaison office and the office of research services are measured by funding and investments brought into the university. In knowledge mobilization money is a metric we count but it shouldn’t be the goal of our activities. Money is a tool that enables us to accomplish goals such as maximizing the impacts of research but it is only a vehicle to support impact. It is not itself a measure of impact.

I presented to the Western Australia chapter of the Australian Research Management Society (ARMS). There were 21 people in this group and while a Toronto example of the impact of urban heat on vulnerable citizens didn’t resonate in a country that every year sees plus 45 degrees Celcius, nonetheless, they were interested in a broader conceptualization of research support services that complement the pre-award and industry liaison activities currently underway. Edith Cowan Unviersity reached out and asked for more information as they consider with how to support researchers and maximize the economic, social and environmental impacts of research.

Curtin University has a long tradition of engaging in research partnered with industry; however, coming from a tradition of extension work (a close cousin to knowledge mobilization practiced primarily in the agricultural and international development sectors) they have also had ad hoc examples of researchers working with communities and local governments to inform social services.



A national conference, Knowledge Commercialization Australasia, heard I was “in town” so I dropped by and participated in a panel on models of commercialization for the 21st Century. I learned of one Australian university that was supporting social enterprises mainly from student startups…one example being a student group that is selling sustainably made socks with a portion of each sock sold helping to feed or school children in developing countries.

Many Australian researchers are already doing knowledge mobilization. Some are working closely with non-academic partners throughout the research process. Some are seeking to connect the outputs of their research to decision makers. None of them had either the frameworks or the literature to describe their work. Much of my time with research projects was sharing ideas and literature to help them describe their work in grant applications…something York’s Knowledge Mobilization Unit does and has helped to attract over $33M in research funding for researchers and partners over the last 7 years.

So lots of interest and good will in Australia. Good on ya, mate! But what seemed to be wholly missing from the Australian context was the understanding that there is an entire science backing the practice of KMb/KT. There appears to be a globally developed practice of technology transfer with some but little formal scholarship to support this practice. For KMb/KT it is the opposite. There is lots of scholarship but compared to ubiquitous institutional investments in university technology transfer there appears to be very little institutional KMb/KT practice that is informed by KMb/KT scholarship.

See Knowledge Hypocrites for more on this.

Australia has kangaroos, quokkas, koalas and amazing sunsets. It also has a great appetite for knowledge mobilization. And Canada is happy to help. Give us a call…anytime. We’re only 35 hours travel from Toronto to Perth!

For more on extension as one “flavour” of knowledge mobilization please see: Ward, D. & Stone, K. (1992) Serving the state: the Wisconsin Idea revisited. Educational Record, 73 (2), 12-16.

Engaged Social Science in New Zealand / Des sciences sociales engagées en Nouvelle-Zélande

David Phipps, RIR-York

David Phipps (RIR-York) is a little obsessed with international aspects of knowledge mobilization. He blogged about his trip to the UK. He blogged about international examples of knowledge mobilization arising from a tweet chat. Here he writes about engaging the social sciences in New Zealand, which was absent from earlier writing.

David Phipps (RIR-York) est un peu obsédé par la question de la mobilisation du savoir à l’international. Il a blogué sur son voyage au Royaume-Uni ; il a blogué sur des exemples internationaux de mobilisation des connaissances suite à un discussion sur Tweet. Le voici maintenant qui évoque l’engagement des sciences sociales en Nouvelle Zélande, qui était absente de ses écrits précédents.

Flag of New Zealand

I bumped into @eSocSci on twitter recently. Their twitter profile describes them as “The new social science website for Aotearoa New Zealand”. Their website describes them as deriving fromBRCSS (Building Research Capability for the Social Sciences: Hui Rangahau Tahi) network was a highly successful online research community, developed to support emerging social science researchers in New Zealand’s eight universities. BRCSS demonstrated the value of networks and collaborative social science across universities – eSocSci extends these benefits to a wider audience.” eSocSci is hosted at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand.

With ResearchImpact-RéseauImpactRecherche’s interest in connecting research (not just social science research but much of what we connect is social sciences) to partners to generate, identify and progress strategic research priorities with public benefit, eSocSci peaked my interest. Again, from their website, “eSocSci facilitates research for innovation in social and economic policy, social services delivery, the community sector and business. We assist participants to identify social research gaps and future priorities through online forums and collaboratories designed to discuss research agendas. The key goals of eSocSci are as follows:

  • connect social science research with collaborators and users in other sectors
  • broaden relationships between and beyond the universities
  • profile research expertise, new research activities and emergent findings”

eSocSci has a focus on research done ‘by Māori, for Māori’ – a key similarity with much work with Canadian First Nations communities . This is also similar to a recent article that featured some of our work, “Nothing about us without us”.

Their members include universities and wānanga (a publicly owned tertiary institution that provides education in a Māori cultural context); research agencies and networks; central, regional and local government; non-government organizations; community groups; research advisory bodies; and funders. So they have membership from academic and non-academic partners which is key to achieve their mandate of connecting to a wider audience.

“Engaged Social Science︱Hui Rangahau Tahi (eSocSci) emphasises our role as an online knowledge space for facilitating engagement and collaboration in social science”. This appears to be a key difference in their work as theirs is an online space whereas the ResearchImpact-RéseauImpactRecherche universities use online spaces (such as O3 and Yaffle) as tools to support in person knowledge brokering and knowledge mobilization.

eSocSci logo

Some of their website is still under construction. But there are spaces for policy makers and community partners to request research be undertaken or seek for previously completed. They post events from their members and they have a chat forum so members can discuss different research and policy issues online. There are also spaces for profiles of research in disciplines such as communications, education, employment and diversity. This is similar to Memorial University’s Yaffle.

My only question to eSocSci is how they are engaging non-academic partners in their operations. All the staff and the steering committee members are university based. The majority of the partners appear to be university based except maybe Māori Association of Social Sciences.  If any members of eSocSci are reading this feel free to comment and let us know more about your group.

Knowledge mobilization is found around the world in developing countries and industrialized nations. There are growing numbers of university based services to create a more engaged academy. K* started a global conversation about knowledge intermediaries but few of the participants represented universities as institutions. Perhaps it’s time for universities to have a conversation about engaging scholarship to maximize the economic, social and environmental impacts of research.

There and Back Again… a Broker’s Journey to England / Un aller-retour… le voyage d’un courtier en angleterre

David Phipps, RIR-York

I’m not a Hobbit going to the Lonely Mountain to reclaim a hoard of gold from a grumpy dragon for a bunch of dwarves (I loved there and back again... a hobbit's tale by Bilbo BagginsTolkein as a kid and still do)… but I did go to England recently to speak about institutional knowledge mobilization.

Je ne suis pas un hobbit allant à la Montagne solitaire afin de réclamer un amas d’or à un dragon grincheux au nom d’une bande de nains (enfant, j’ai adoré Tolkein et je l’aime encore aujourd’hui)… mais je suis bien allé en Angleterre récemment afin de parler de la mobilisation des connaissances au niveau institutionnel.

There is a growing interest in institutional knowledge mobilization – not just researchers doing it as part of their scholarship but how institutions make it a priority and support it. The University of Sheffield Research Exchange for Social Sciences (RESS) calls it Co-Production. The National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) calls it…not surprisingly… public engagement. I had the pleasure of speaking with both organizations during my visit July 8-14. While we implement differently because of the very different higher education funding mechanisms and the social services and community sectors are organized differently (there is no equivalent to our United Way) we share similar goals and drivers for our work: to maximize the impact of academic research on society. I also had the pleasure of meeting with Welcome Trust Engagement Fellow (now that’s a cool fellowship to have!) Erinma Ochu who tweets as Manchester Beacon (@mcrbeacon).

RESS logo

My slides as presented to Sheffield and NCCPE (mostly but not 100% the same) are posted on Slide Share, but more interesting than what I presented is what I learned:

The University of Manchester has an Associate Dean of Engagement in each Faculty. This represents a significant investment in academic leadership for engagement by the university. I don’t know of any university in Canada with this model but if it exists please comment below.

The Research Excellence Framework 2014 is driving a lot of public engagement activity in the UK. The Higher Education Funding Council for England will be basing part of their institutional funding on the extra-academic impacts of research. Universities have created units of research impact to create the REF case studies. Institutions are required to write a one REF case study for every 10 faculty members from all disciplines. In addition to driving block grants this process is forcing institutions to think about the impacts of research beyond academic quality. This will also create a rich resource of 6000 or so REF case studies which are raw material for scholars of the impact of research such as Claire Donovan (@ClaireDonovan).  We don’t have a REF exercise in Canada – but don’t hold your breath…some form of assessment is sure to come our way on day.

Paul Manners, Director NCCPE, said of the visit, “What a treat it was to host the visit by David and Gary: at the NCCPE, we are always looking for new ideas and examples of practice toNCCPE logo  stimulate innovation and fresh thinking. The Canadian experience of Knowledge Mobilization provides a fascinating context in which to think about creative ways in which universities can both respond to and help to build capacity and innovation in wider society. There are some similarities with what’s going on in the UK – but fascinating differences too, for instance in the ways that graduates and interns are involved in Canada. Delegates at the workshop were really inspired by what they heard, and the session generated a lot of lively discussion and debate. The only down-side was that it was over so quickly – we are very keen to find ways to continue the conversation and to build more structured ways to share experience and expertise across national boundaries.”

It was also great catching up with @CuppBrighton colleague @Dave Wolff again. He and his community partner, Paul Bramwell, were also presenting at the Sheffield Co-Production seminar. And I traveled with Gary Myers (@KMbeing) who presented on social media as a tool for knowledge mobilization. He presented 92 slides in 14 minutes. Yes 92 slides in 14 minutes. My slide decks had 12-16 slides and I had 30-40 minutes. The contrast was wonderful for us as presenters and for the audience.

We went there and came back again, and like Bilbo in The Hobbit, we came back with more than we left with. Thanks to @KatePahl and Anne Pittard of RESS for all their efforts funding and organizing the visit.

International Knowledge Mobilization / Mobilisation des connaissances à l’international

David Phipps,  RIR-York

On May 23, 2013, Gary Myers (@KMbeing) posted a blog on the KMb tweet chat (#KMbChat) held that day. The tweet chat was on international knowledge mobilization. We named a number of examples of international knowledge mobilization that you will read below in this cross posting of Gary’s blog; however, we were short on US examples. I recently read a paper titled “Bridging town and gown through innovative university community partnerships. The paper can be found online here. It provides a number of US examples of knowledge mobilization.

Le 23 mai 2013, Gary Myers (@KMbeing) a rédigé un billet de blogue à propos du KMb tweet chat (#KMbChat) qui s’est tenu le jour même. Le tweet chat portait sur la mobilisation des connaissances à l’international. Nous avons évoqué plusieurs exemples de mobilisation des connaissances à l’international que vous pourrez lire ci-bas dans ce billet faisant écho à celui de Gary. Cependant, nous avions peu d’exemples américains. J’ai récemment lu un article intitulé « Bridging town and gown through innovative university community partnerships ». Cet article est accessible ici : . Il fournit un certain nombre d’exemples américains de mobilisation des connaissances.

This paper provides seven methods of achieving these partnerships including-1) service learning, (2) service provision, (3) faculty involvement, (4) student volunteerism, (5) community in the classroom, (6) applied research, and (7) major institutional change.

US Flag

Each of these are illustrated with examples of community university partnerships from US universities.

These examples include:

  • Northwestern University (or Northeastern university… both were used in the same example!)
  • West Philadelphia Campus of University of Pennsylvania
  • Advanced Policy Institute of the University of California – Los Angeles
  • College of William and Mary
  • Neighbourhood Technology Centre of Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Center for Community Partnerships at the University of Central Florida.
  • Center for Urban Progress at Howard University and the Howard University Community Association

Anne Bergen (RIR-Guelph) also provided some additional references including US examples of knowledge mobilization including:

Peter Lemish at U. Southern Illinois is also coordinating the Mid-Western Knowledge Mobilization Network, a group of 6 universities connecting around knowledge mobilization.

So a heartfelt KMb apology to our US knowledge mobilizers for not representing you well on the tweet chat. This should make up for that but if you have more examples to share feel free to add them in the comment feature of this blog. If you wish to join the KMb Tweet Chat it happens noon Eastern Time on the last Thursday of every month. Join in using and #KMbChat. Next tweet chat is Thursday June 27 and will be hosted by @abbaspeaks.

Gary Myers’ original blog is re-posted below and can be found with links to all these international knowledge mobilization organizations here.


Another successful #KMbChat on Twitter this month!  Each second-last Thursday of the month, knowledge mobilizers, knowledge brokers, knowledge workers and anyone else interested are invited to tweet together (12pm EST) to discuss a variety of topics about knowledge mobilization (KMb). I have had the privilege of moderating two of these KMb Tweet Chats and have never been disappointed with the response, the knowledge exchanged and the great ideas generated.

The topic for this month’s KMbChat (known as #KMbChat on Twitter) was about International Knowledge Mobilizationand focused on best practices of KMb from around the world.  Starting the conversation I asked, “What are your top examples of KMb from the following global regions? United States; Europe; Africa; Australia; South America; Asia/Southeast Asia”

And why?

Although most of the participants were from Canada and the United States, our tweeting group of KMbers appeared to be well informed about some of the outstanding knowledge mobilization efforts taking place in other countries:


We were fortunate to have @slagosky joining us from Spain who started us off by mentioning that Fundación para la eSalud – FeSalud or The Foundation for E-Health (@FeSalud on Twitter) is a non-profit organization that engages in technological methods of KMb with private and public organizations, mostly related to e-health and developing technology.

Soon the KMbChat generated some great examples of effective KMb work being done in a variety of places in the world:

The United States

Research into Action is an example of a Knowledge Translation program from the United States hosted in the School of Public Health at the University Texas (@KTExchange on Twitter)

Community-Campus Partnerships for Health is a US based organization (which also has a presence in Canada) and is an important player in Community Based Research (@ccph2010 on Twitter)

The United Kingdom

The important KMb work of Sarah Morton and colleagues from the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships  based at the University of Edinburgh

The important work of Angie Hart and colleagues from the Community University Partnership Programme at the University of Brighton

The Beacons for Public Engagement are university-based collaborative centres set up in 2008 to support, recognize, reward and build capacity for public engagement

Another great UK resource for KMb is the London School of Economics Impact of Social Sciences blog

European Union

The Science Shop Model – a European Union initiative – is part of The Living Knowledge Network


The EU Science Shop Model is also practiced by the University of Guelph at the Institute for Community Engaged Scholarship


Telethon Institute for Child Health Researchwas among the first to adopt a multidisciplinary approach to major health issues: clinical research, laboratory sciences and epidemiologists all under the one roof, to tackle complex diseases and issues in a number of ways

Social Innovation Exchange Australia is a non-profit company formed to find better ways of tackling social problems, and responding to growing community needs and opportunities

South Pacific

Pacific Institute of Public Policy located in Vanuatu is a leading independent think tank serving the Pacific islands community. For info on a KMb panel with @pacificpolicy @CIPPEC and @MwananchiGhana see this MobilizeThis! blog


The International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilitieshas a global focus and is the first and only world-wide group dedicated to the scientific study of intellectual disability while also keeping knowledge mobilization front and centre

South America

Center for the Implementation of Public Policies Promoting Equity and Growth (CIPPEC) is a non-profit organization that seeks to create a more efficient, just and democratic State that improves the quality of life


Development Research Uptake in Sub-Saharan Africa (DRUSSA)is a network of 24 universities that focuses on evidence-based policy making that aims to improve the accessibility, uptake and utilization of locally contextualized development research evidence on climate change and environment, health, information, education, governance, food security, livelihoods for children, women and men in Africa, to inform Sub-Saharan and global development policy and practice

Evaluation of a knowledge transfer strategy from a user fee exemption program for vulnerable populations in Burkina Faso is a research paper (although from researchers at the Université de Montréal in Canada) that analyzes one example of a knowledge transfer strategy aimed at improving the use of research results that could help reduce the vulnerability of certain populations in Africa

One of our KMbChat participants @abbaspeaks pointed out that language is often a barrier to effective knowledge exchange/mobilization, which sparked some great conversation about overcoming KMb language barriers as a challenge to connect us internationally.  This included using technology such as diagrams and images along with internet translation programs that can assist us with international knowledge mobilization.  There was also great discussion about the possibility of creating an undergraduate or graduate course about International Knowledge Mobilization.

All in all it was another informative hour of bringing people together to tweet about KMb! You can link here for further analytics about the KMbChat.

Do you know of any knowledge mobilization projects from across the globe? Please let us know.

Hope to tweet up with you as we invite you to join us for our next #KMbChat on Twitter Thursday, June 27th, at 12 noon EST moderated by @abbaspeaks.

Peer-to-Peer Networking: Still Trying to Get it Right / Red de pares de la Universidad de York : Buscando un mejor funcionamiento

David Phipps, RIR-York

David Phipps (RIR-York) was invited by colleagues at CIPPEC (Centro de Implementación de Políticas Públicas para la Equidad y el Crecimiento) to write on some aspect of his practice that was not successful. The following was first posted in Spanish by CIPPEC on June 25, 2013 and is re-posted here in Spanish and English (following).


La Universidad de York (Toronto, Canadá) cuenta con una Unidad de Movilización de Conocimiento (Knowledge Mobilization Unit).Nuestro objetivo es facilitar colaboraciones entre investigadores académicos o estudiantes universitarios y personas del sector público y del sectorsin fines de lucro para que la investigación realizada informe decisiones sobre políticas públicas y servicios sociales. La movilización de conocimiento es un proceso que permite la innovación social y provee investigación útil a la sociedad.

Una de nuestras principales actividades de desarrollo de capacidades es la red de pares “KMb Peer to Peer” (P2P). La red reúne a estudiantes, investigadores y socios de la comunidad y los involucra en un activo intercambio bidireccional de información y experiencias entre creadores y usuarios de conocimiento. Desde su primera reunión en 2008, la red incluyó investigadores con intereses diversos (desde la falta de vivienda hasta el bullying entre los jóvenes). También ha involucrado a numerosos estudiantes de posgrado que, mediante donaciones hechas posibles por la Unidad de Movilización de Conocimiento, ahora trabajan con agencias de la comunidad en toda el área metropolitana de Toronto. En resumen, el objetivo de la red “P2P KMb” es forjar relaciones que permitan maximizar los beneficios de la investigación canadiense.

A pesar del gran esfuerzo que le hemos dedicado, la red ha tenido un éxito limitado. Diversos  coordinadores de investigación de la Universidad de York y empleados de la comunidad universitaria nos han dicho que la falta de tiempo, y no la falta de interés, es la barrera principal para el trabajo en red. Queríamos desarrollar una reden la universidad porque varios proyectos de investigación estaban colaborando con asociados, y el equipo de investigación estaba trabajando como movilizadores de conocimiento (knowledge brokers). El equipo no solo les proveía a los asociados conocimiento de investigación, sino que también sostenía esas asociaciones críticas para una colaboración exitosa. La red sería coordinada por la Unidad de Movilización de Conocimiento, aprovechando a su vez la experiencia de los miembros de la red.

¿Por qué la red “P2P Kmb” no funcionó? Además de la falta de tiempo, hay que considerar otros factores:

  • Liderazgo. No fue la falta de liderazgo: la Unidad de Movilización de Conocimiento de York es vista como líder en la movilización de conocimientos en la universidad y a nivel nacional. Incluso le pedimos a uno de los compañeros/colegas que lleve a cabo una sesión con la esperanza de que atraiga a más miembros – pero no hubo suerte.
  • Calidad. No fue la falta de material de calidad: York tiene una variedad de herramientas de movilización de conocimientos, documentos revisados por expertos que describen la práctica de movilización de conocimiento, y un sitio web llamado Knowledge Mobilization Journal Club.
  • Demanda. No fue la falta de demanda: las personas y grupos de investigación con los que hablamos quisieron asistir, pero terminaron sin presentarse, incluso aquellos que habían confirmado su asistencia.
  • Infraestructura. No fue la falta de infraestructura de la organización: la Unidad de Movilización de Conocimiento estaba lista para llevar a cabo la planificación y la organizaciónde los eventos.

Como hemos mencionado, la causa principal fue la falta de tiempo, pero es probable que otros factores hayan influenciado también:

  • Identidad. Muchos no se ven a sí mismos como movilizadores de conocimiento a pesar de que esto es parte de su trabajo. Si no existe un fuerte alineamiento entre su identidad y los beneficios de la red, los miembros de la red no priorizarán las actividades.
  • Incentivos y premios. Ninguno de los miembros del equipo de investigación que trabajan con los socios son evaluados en su desarrollo personal y profesional. Si no se los evalúa ni se los recompensa ​​por su trabajo, ellos no le darán al proyecto la prioridad que este requiere.

¿Qué estamos haciendo ahora? Hemos comenzado sesiones de aprendizaje[1] formales en la universidad. Estas sesiones de aprendizaje están abiertas a cualquier persona involucrada en el proceso de investigación, independientemente de su papel. Creemos que estas sesiones, al ser más estructuradas, son más exitosas que la intencionalmente desestructurada red P2P. Sin embargo, estas sesiones no conforman una red de pares, sino que posicionan como “experta” a la Unidad de Movilización de Conocimiento. En ello, se pierde la oportunidad de aprender de las experiencias de los demás. Pero las personas que sí asisten con regularidad terminan conociéndose entre sí. A la larga, es posible que las interacciones que tienen lugar en estos eventos creen el clima para la creación de una nueva red. Si bien esto puede tomar más tiempo que la formación de una comunidad planificada, es probable que una comunidad “espontánea” sea más duradera debido al interés original de sus  miembros.

Por último, me gustaría compartir algunas recomendaciones para aquellos que buscan facilitar la creación de redes entre pares (recuerde que todas estas son conjeturas ya que todavía no hemos tenido éxito)

1. Genere la oportunidad, pero no maneje la agenda.

2. Busque personas locales que han tenido éxito y trabaje en un segundo plano.

3. Sea paciente. Tiene un montón de otras cosas que hacer mientras siga empujando la idea adelante.

Para obtener más información sobre la Unidad de Movilización de Conocimiento de York consulte o contacte a David Phipps (

Background: York University (Toronto, Canada) runs an institutional Knowledge Mobilization Unit. Our goal is to broker collaborations between university researchers or students and partners from the public and non-profit sectors so that research can inform decisions about public policy and social services. Knowledge mobilization is a process that enables social innovation. Knowledge mobilization helps make research useful to society.

We have previously described how we help make research useful to society [Phipps, David. (2011). A Report Detailing the Development of a University-Based Knowledge Mobilization Unit that Enhances Research Outreach and Engagement. Scholarly and Research Communication, 2(2): 020502, 13 pp.]

Towards the end of this paper we talk about what hasn’t worked for us. We say, “Not everything has worked. Peer-2-Peer KMb networking has had limited success, despite much effort. We have been told by York University’s diverse research coordinators and research employees who work in some form of community- university setting that lack of time and not lack of interest is the principal barrier to Peer-2-Peer KMb networking.”  We wanted to develop a Peer-2-Peer network on campus because there were an increasing number of research projects that were collaborating with partners and for which the research staff were working as knowledge brokers. They were not only working to get research knowledge out to partners but they were also supporting those partnerships that were critical to the collaborative success of the project. The Peer-2-Peer network was to be coordinated by the Knowledge Mobilization Unit but draw upon the expertise of the network members.

So why didn’t it work? We said in the paper that it was lack of time not interest and I believe that. But there are other factors to consider:

  • Leadership: It was not a lack of leadership – York’s Knowledge Mobilization Unit is seen to be a leader in knowledge mobilization practice on campus and nationally. We even asked one of the peers to lead a session in the hopes that a peer led session might attract more members – but no luck
  • Quality: It was not a lack of quality material – York has a variety of knowledge mobilization tools, peer reviewed papers describing knowledge mobilization practice as well as an online Knowledge Mobilization Journal Club
  • Demand: It was not a lack of demand – everyone and every research group we talked to wanted to attend but they never showed up even when they had confirmed their attendance
  • Infrastructure: It was not lack of organizational infrastructure – the Knowledge Mobilization Unit was ready to undertake the planning and hosting of the events.

It is a lack of time as we mentioned, but likely is also more than that:

  • Identity: Many don’t see themselves as knowledge brokers even though is part of their job. Without a strong alignment between their identify and the network benefits the network members will not prioritize the activities
  • Incentive and rewards: None of the research employees working with partners are measured on their personal and professional development. If they are not measured on it nor rewarded for it then they will not making it a priority

What are we doing now? We have started formal learning sessions on campus. These learning sessions are open to anyone regardless of their role in the research process. We find that these more structured learning sessions are more successful than the intentionally unstructured Peer-2-Peer network. They don’t create a peer network and they position the Knowledge Mobilization Unit as the “expert” so they miss the opportunity to learn from the experiences of others. However, regularly returning attendees do get to know one another at these learning events. Perhaps the group will be encouraged to self organize into a Peer-2-Peer network. An organically formed community may take longer to form than a planned, top down community, but it is also more likely to be sustained by the members.

Recommendations for those seeking to facilitate peer networking (and remember these are all conjecture as we have yet to be successful at this):

  1. Create the opportunity but don’t drive the agenda.
  2. Seek local champions and work in the background.
  3. Be patient. You’ve got lots of other stuff to do while you keep nudging the idea along.

For more information on York’s Knowledge Mobilization Unit please see or contact David Phipps.

The International School of Research Impact Assessment, Barcelona, September 15-19 / The International School of Research Impact Assessment, Barcelone, du 15 au 19 septembre

The International School of Research Impact Assessment will be held in Barcelona, Spain, on September 15-19, 2013. Kathryn Graham, a co-organizer of the five day school, shares some information about this exciting event in this guest post.

La première rencontre de « l’École internationale d’évaluation de l’impact de la recherche » a eu lieu à Barcelone, en Espagne, du 15 au 19 septembre 2013. Notre blogueuse invitée, Kathryn Graham, coorganisatrice de l’événement, nous renseigne ici sur cet atelier de cinq jours qui s’est avéré très stimulant.

There’s an increasing demand from governments and funding agencies to not only demonstrate the impact of their research investments but to optimize or get the most value out of those investments, particularly when taxpayer dollars are involved. This demand, in turn, requires skilled people to assess the impact or returns on investment.

Picture of a cartoon man scratching his head with a question mark appearing above his headOften, beleaguered research and program managers are the ones tasked to assess these impacts. But it’s a case of the demand for impact assessment outstripping the capacity for delivery. And there’s no formal school for this kind of training in the traditional academic setting.

This need was the inspiration for the creation of the first International School of Research Impact Assessment. The School will build capacity by teaching and equipping program, research and evaluation managers to deliver on the demand. It will provide the best advice, evidence and tools to assess the returns of investment, aka impact. The school is unique because it is international, practical (participants will walk away with a plan), broad in approach, high quality (roster of international experts as speakers and teachers), and a focus on impact. Although the focus will be on biomedicine, the knowledge gained will be applicable to other disciplines. Participants will come in with the needs of their own programs, which will span research activity across fields and sectors, and emerge with plans tailored to help their own organizations.

So who are we hoping will attend? All those who work in knowledge translation and program management in research and development for government, research funding organizations, academia, not-for-profits, industry or health industry.

Logo for The International School on Research Impact AssessmentAnd what can participants hope to gain? The goal of the curriculum is for participants to gain a broad knowledge of the “science of science”; develop and enhance skills for the planning and development of assessment studies, and understand how best to report and implement research impact assessments. Additionally, participants will have the opportunity to network and exchange best practices with peers from around the world.

We encourage anyone struggling or succeeding in the area of research impact assessment to apply by May 31. And for more information on how the five days will unfold, please see the Preliminary Programme.

See you in Spain!

Kathryn Graham, PhD,  Co-organizer

Jonathan Grant, PhD,  Scientific Director

Paula Adams, PhD,  Coordinating Director

Knowledge Mobilisers: Putting Research into Practice (and Policy)

The following was originally posted on The Guardian’s Higher Education Network blog on October 9, 2012 and is reposted here with permission.

Maximising the impact of research on society depends on universities brokering the right partnerships with public policy, says David Phipps – and Canada is leading the way.

Good research should have a ripple effect on society and knowledge mobilisation can push it out.

Earlier this year on the Higher Education Network, I introduced knowledge mobilisation as a university-based process that connects academic social sciences and humanities research to non-academic decision makers to inform decisions about public policy and professional practice, enhance social innovation and develop sustainable solutions to social, environmental, economic and cultural challenges.

I then reflected on its past – the roots of knowledge mobilisation as we now understand it. In this third installment, I return to the present to see how York University in Toronto is supporting collaborations between researchers and partner to maximise the impact of research on society.

We started York University’s knowledge mobilisation practice by trying to push out existing research results to find “receptors” and soon realised that we needed more interactive methods of closing the gap that exists between research within a higher education context and the policy and practice which could use it. Researchers and their partners need to find a middle ground in which to collaborate so that research not only meets the academic standards of scholarship but is also relevant to non-academic partners.

Today York University’s knowledge mobilisation unit uses a suite of services available to faculty and students from all disciplines across the university. Our knowledge mobilisation staff help faculty and partners identify and develop research collaborations through meetings support, student interns and the use of social media as a connecting channel. We have recently published a report on our full range of services.

Read More

Using Research to Influence Family Services and Policies

The following was first published on Centre for Research on Families and Relationships’ (CRFR) blog and is reposted here with permission.
CRFR co-director Sarah Morton and colleagues Sandra Nutley (Director of the Research Unit for Research Utilisation, and David Phipps (Director of Research Servics & Knowledge Exchange at York University, Canada) offer seven lessons, and associated challenges, to improve how research is used in policy and practice in a recent article in the new journal Families Societies and Relationships.
  1. Set realistic ambitions and expectations: Research is one form of knowledge that policy makers and practitioners will be using, but it is rare for research to have the definitive word.
  2. Improve research strategies to ensure they address relevant issues and expand our knowledge base rather than unwittingly replicate existing studies. Reviewing research and evaluation processes helps to ensure that research responds to relevant issues and address the main knowledge gaps.
  3. Shape – as well as respond to – policy and practice debates: Take up opportunities to influence policy and practice debates when they appear, – rather than waiting for opportunities to open up, work with advocacy organisations to raise issues of concern and get debates going.
  4. Create dialogue around research by pulling together different perspectives: Research on its own does not create change, but it can influence it. Encourage dialogues between people that recognises research needs to interact with practice experience and tacit knowledge.
  5. Recognise the role of dedicated knowledge broker organisations and networks: There are increasing numbers of knowledge broker organisations and networks who can help to facilitate the creation, sharing and application of research-based knowledge.
  6. Target multiple audiences to increase the reach and impact of your message: Disseminate research findings into wider political and public debate, alongside more targeted approaches. This might be targeting influential people, participating in media debates, speaking at policy and practice conferences and seminars or responding to consultation processes.
  7. Evaluate, learn, improve: Knowledge exchange is still an immature discipline; only through improved evaluation and learning will our understanding of effective strategies develop over time.
Don’t forget that challenges remain:
Read More

The Virtual Knowledge Broker / Le courtier de connaissances virtuel

David Phipps, RIR-York

On Tuesday September 25 , I cleared my morning so that I could be the only Canadian participant in a workshop on Policy Influence and Monitoring. The workshop was in Cornwall in the UK. I was in Toronto in Canada. WebEx and Skype connected us.

Le mardi 25 septembre, j’ai libéré ma matinée afin de pouvoir être le seul participant canadien à un atelier sur l’influence des politiques et le suivi. L’atelier avait lieu à Cornwall au Royaume-Uni. J’étais à Toronto, au Canada. WebEx et Skype nous ont mis en contact.

Knowledge intermediary work is a global phenomenon. Look at the K* conference in April 2012 that was attended by participants from 5 continents. There are well established practices to enhance the impact of research on policy and practice in developing countries seeded by international organizations like the International Development Research Centre (Canada) and the RAPID program of the Oversees Development Initiative in the UK plus many more. These organizations work with local Southern partners to enhance the impact of research on the lives of citizens in the Global South.

Figure 1

I was invited by the Global Development Network (GD Net) to take part in a workshop on Policy Influence and Monitoring sponsored by the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) who were working with a consortium lead by ODI and involving CommsConsult in UK and Zimbabwe, the Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA) in Sri Lanka and the Centro de Implementación de Políticas Públicas para la Equidad y el Crecimiento (CIPPEC) in Argentina. They came together to explore two questions:

  1. What is policy influence?
  2. How do we measure it?

There were about 20 participants in Cornwall plus Vanesa Weyrauch joining from Argentina, Peter da Costa joining from Kenya, Simon Batchelor based in the UK, also joining remotely and me… from Canada.

Read More