Merry Mobilizing!

2017 Merry Mobilizing Card

Merry Mobilizing from the Knowledge Mobilization Unit at York University!

From left to right:

Simon Landry, Knowledge Mobilization Officer, VISTA

Anneliese Poetz, Manager, KT Core, Kids Brain Health

Sarah Howe, Director, Innovation York

Rebecca Giblon, Research Translation Assistant, KMb Unit

David Phipps, Executive Director, Research & Innovation Services

Stacie Ross, KT Assistant, KT Core, Kids Brain Health

Jeannie Mackintosh, KT Assistant, KT Core, Kids Brain Health

Asam Malik, Design Communications Assistant, KMb Unit

Krista Jensen, Knowledge Mobilization Officer, KMb Unit

Michael Johnny, Manager, Knowledge Mobilization, KMb Unit

#ShitDavidSays About Impact #7: If Impact Occurred but No One Was There to Measure It… / #ShitDavidSays About Impact, no 6 : s’il y a un impact, mais que personne n’est là pour le mesurer…

If impact occurred but no one was there to measure it did anything ever really happen? In this 7th and final post in this series, David speaks about the importance of assessing research impacts because if we don’t how can we demonstrate the value of research to end beneficiaries? He points out the irony of asking researchers to report on impacts in end of grant reports.

Si la recherche produit un impact, mais que personne n’est là pour le mesurer, est-ce qu’on peut dire qu’il a vraiment eu lieu ? Dans ce 7e et dernier billet de la série, David parle de l’importance d’évaluer les impacts : comment prouver la valeur des recherches aux utilisateurs finaux si l’on n’a rien mesuré ? Il souligne aussi l’ironie qu’il y a à demander aux chercheurs de faire état des impacts dans leurs rapports finaux.


In Canada, we are developing a culture of creating impacts. This is evident through grant applications that require a knowledge translation (CIHR, health charities), knowledge mobilization (SSHRC) or commercialization (NSERC) strategy. SSHRC also requires an outcomes statement that is a prediction of the difference the funded project will make on Canadians. As identified by the Canadian Federation of Humanities and Social Sciences, this could be an impact on scholarship and training as well as an impact on the economy, society and culture or public policy.

But if we don’t assess the impacts beyond scholarship and training how can we fulfil these obligations in our grant applications?

The UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 collected 6,679 case studies of research impact and assessed them by panels of academic and non-academic experts in 36 Units of Assessment (i.e. examples of impact arising from history were not compared to impacts arising from chemistry). Research on the REF identified 3,709 unique pathways to impact.


Let me say that again. 6,679 stories of impact and 3,709 different ways to make impact.

That’s right. There is no cookie cutter approach to either creating or assessing impact. In my closing address to C2UExpo 2017, I pointed out how hard it is not only to plan for impact but also to assess impact but being hard was no excuse not to do either. I observed that we didn’t give researchers tenure so they could do something easy.

Get out there an assess the impact of your research because if you don’t then did you ever make a difference to anyone other than your academic colleagues? The UK has done it for the whole post secondary system, surely there’s something we can do in Canada?

Well yes there is, thank you for asking.

If you are effectively planning your impact strategy you are therefore also planning your impact assessment. Knowledge translation planning is ex ante research impact assessment. If you plan your impact you are inherently identifying the processes needed to move from research to impact including the indicators and data sources that will be the evidence of impact. Adapting a generic logic model of research impact (like the co produced pathway to impact) to your specific case will help guide your efforts for impact planning and impact assessment.

Research Impact Canada (RIC) is piloting a research impact assessment tool adapted from the REF. This tool provides a semi structured interview guide that creates consistency for collecting the evidence of impact and a case study template to create consistency for expressing the evidence of impact.

But here’s the thing about impact assessment…recall who is actually making the impact? SSHRC’s 2013 evaluation of their knowledge mobilization programs showed that it was primarily the partners of SSHRC funded projects that had the evidence of impact, not the researchers. This makes sense since it is the partners, not the researchers, who are making the products (industry), developing the policies (government) or delivering the social services (community) that have an impact on local and global citizens.

You need to use the interview guide in the RIC tool to gather the evidence of impact from partners and end users. And you need to do that long after the project has finished since the impact hasn’t usually happened within the course of a funded research project.

HEY FUNDERS…if we need to collect the evidence of impact from partners long after the project has ended why do you always ask researchers to report on impacts in their end of grant reports?

To return to the question in the title of this post, if a partner uses the evidence produced in a research project to help make impact but no one was there to collect the evidence of impact long after the grant ended then did anything ever really happen?

Go into the forest and see if that tree really did fall.

Job Opportunity – Senior Scientific Lead, Knowledge Mobilization – Canadian Partnership Against Cancer

Please see Canadian Partnership Against Cancer website for full details

Position: Senior Scientific Lead, Knowledge Mobilization
Reports to: Vice-President, Strategy
Location: Toronto (Downtown)
Status: Part-Time
Posting date: November 3, 2017

Overview of Role:

The Senior Scientific Lead, Knowledge Mobilization will report to the Vice-President, Strategy and provide advice and expertise on evidence-based policy and implementation practices, with a view to provide the necessary supports with partners across the country to adopt proven practices that have resulted in successful change and have sustainable impact. Working closely with the Director, Knowledge Mobilization, the Senior Scientific Lead will help guide the Knowledge Mobilization team’s approaches for increasing capacity to mobilize evidence into action, which also includes driving enhanced use of the Partnership’s digital ecosystem.


– Contribute broad, new thinking and, through connections with other senior cancer control leaders across Canada and internationally, inform the Partnership’s strategic direction to influence policy and to scale up successful implementation practices that are developed and tested in one part of the country and spread across the system to bring about real change at an organizational, community or system level.

– Provide strategic advice and expert counsel to the Partnership’s advisory committees and leadership team to support the planning, implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of knowledge mobilization initiatives to impact target system outcomes

– Support the Partnership’s senior leadership team to deliver on Board-approved plans in the area of developing a more sustainable cancer system and working to embed more sustainable knowledge mobilization practices in the work of the broader Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control Work across the organization with other Senior Scientific and Expert Leads to identify synergies across program of work initiatives

– Keep up to date on best practices in policy change, dissemination, implementation and evaluation strategies and keep the VP Strategy, Director of Knowledge Mobilization and other Partnership staff apprised of new developments that may affect knowledge mobilization practices

– Be an external ambassador for the organization, specifically on issues related to knowledge mobilization in cancer control, and providing expert opinions and advice on behalf of the Partnership

– Direct and participate in the development of strategies to enhance awareness of the Partnership’s strategic direction in the scientific, academic and medical communities nationally and internationally

– Participate as a member or co-chair of the Knowledge Mobilization Steering Committee

– Participate as a member of the Partnership’s Cancer Control Council to achieve the Partnership’s 2017–22 Strategic Plan commitments

– Provide leadership in coordinating, managing and participating in conferences and events to support and promote the strategic direction of the Partnership

For further details on this position, please see the full job description in the link below:
Senior Scientific Lead, Knowledge Mobilization

To apply, please forward your CV and cover letter to

For additional information, please visit our website at

The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer thanks all applicants; however, only those selected for an interview will be contacted.

The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer has a diverse workforce and is an equal opportunity employer.

#ShitDavidSays About Impact #6: Impact Is Measured at the Level of the User / #ShitDavidSays About Impact, no 6 : l’impact se mesure chez l’utilisateur

Probably the most important thing David says. Researchers don’t make impact, partners do. So why do we ask researchers to report on impact?

C’est sans doute la chose la plus importante que dit David. L’impact ne se produit pas au départ, chez les chercheurs, mais à l’arrivée, chez les partenaires. Pourquoi, dans ce cas, demandons-nous aux chercheurs d’évaluer l’impact ?

beneficiaryWait…what…researchers don’t make any impact? Of course they do. Researchers publish papers and build capacity by graduating students. Isn’t’ that impact? According to the Canadian Federation of Humanities and Social Sciences report on assessing impacts, research can contribute to building knowledge and building capacity but it can also contribute to cultural, economic, policy and social impact. It’s these latter impacts, those beyond the academy that are of interest to knowledge mobilization. But who really creates those impacts?

Not researchers.

Researchers don’t make products, industry does. Researchers don’t develop public policy, government does. And researchers don’t deliver social services, community organizations do. So if we want research to have an impact on local and global citizens we do so by supporting researchers collaborating with partners from private, public and non-profit sectors.

Think about it…it’s not researchers making those impacts.

“Now hold on, just a minute there…what about clinical research?” Sure, your research in a medical clinic, in a classroom or in a social work setting will definitely benefit those patients, students or clients. But the challenge of research in practice based settings is to scale it beyond your clinic or your classroom. How can your research based intervention scale through your district, province, country or globally? Whose job is that? Again, probably not the researcher who published the paper. That’s where school boards, clinical practice associations, colleges regulating professional practice and even unions play a role.

SSHRC found this in their 2013 evaluation of their knowledge mobilization funding programs. SSHRC wanted to collect the evidence of impact of the projects they funded. They had three data sources:

1. End of grant reports: no evidence of impact since the impacts usually hadn’t happened
2. Interviews with researchers: few had any knowledge of impact since they weren’t the one’s making it
3. Interview with partners: only when SSHRC interview partners did they find the evidence of impact

In one case, provincial tax law changed because of a SSHRC funded collaboration between a researcher and a policy maker but the researcher knew nothing about the impact beyond the scholarly publications and the graduated students. Because it wasn’t the researcher who was making tax law, it was the government partner.

So if funders want evidence of impact why do they continue to ask researchers to complete impact assessment reports? According to their website, Researchfish is “leading the world in research impact assessment”. “Over 100K researchers report to their funders the outcomes, outputs and impact of their research into Researchfish” Why? If researchers are not making impact why are they the ones reporting on it?

Impact needs to be measured at the level of the end user. Go ahead and ask a researcher what s/he thinks happened. But don’t forget to also ask the partner organization.

Intrinsically linked to this is the way academic research funding traditionally is managed. Academic research funding seeks to create impact beyond the academy. If we accept that it is our partners making the ultimate impact, then why must most academic research funding be managed by the academic institution of the principle investigator? By holding onto money academic institutions hold onto power in the research to impact collaboration.

It gets even more perverse when we require our non-academic partners to commit cash and in-kind resources to the project. Not only do we need you to make the impact and we can’t pay you for your role but we expect you to pay your own way while the funder pays for my participation.

Not an equitable partnership at all.

In a SSHRC world a researcher can share funding with a non-academic partner but only if s/he is made a co-applicant instead of being relegated to a second-class partner or collaborator status. However, to be a co-applicant the partner needs a SSHRC or Canadian Common CV.

If an academic researcher wants to create an authentic (i.e. equitable) partnership (that isn’t about supply and demand of knowledge) with a non-academic partner then help the partner make a CV and make them a co-applicant. That’s what we did in KMb York when we partnered with United Way York Region on a CIHR KT grant and a SSHRC Public Outreach Grant. We transferred 75% of the funding to UWYR and they hired the project coordinator and directed the project because we made a CV for the CEO UWYR.

Share money. Share power. Make authentic partnerships that will fund activities from research to impact.

Creating Public Value Through Networked Governance: 5 Lessons From NBSPRN

This week’s guest post first appeared on Medium and is reposted here with permission. Nick (Executive Director, Open Government and Innovation, Government of New Brunswick) was active in Research Impact Canada (RIC) when he was Executive Director of the New Brunswick Social Policy Research Network (NB SPRN). He recently joined an RIC panel at the Canadian Science Policy Research Network to discuss the research to policy interface using NB SPRN as a case study. He shares what he has learned working in this space.

Networked governance is an approach to problem solving that integrates the external capacities of organizations and individuals with government. In this sense, smart governments pull in the knowledge and experience of citizens to inform decision making and work with external actors to create value.

How networked governance and knowledge mobilization support a shift to an open government paradigm

How networked governance and knowledge mobilization support a shift to an open government paradigm

For over four years I developed and managed an organization dedicated to advancing a networked governance approach to policy development. As more and more organizations begin to take this approach I thought it useful to share some of our lessons learned. I hope this helps others accelerate their development.

If we knew then what we know now

1- We would have worked with government actors sooner to identify, prioritize, and frame the problems they want to solve; the problems requiring further research and engagement. Team role: government relations, strategic partnerships;

2- We would have invested in membership development, management, and engagement. As a member organization with a CRM tool you can position yourself to connect the right people, at the right time with the right projects. Developing a membership registration process that collects needed information and an orientation plan for new members is critical. Team role: outreach, engagement, member relations;

3- We would have built a knowledge translation and mobilization practice. Knowledge mobilization and brokering was identified early on as a strategic role of our network, however we did not invest in building the capabilities soon enough, nor in training our members. Joining Research Impact Canada really helped catalyze our thinking and capacity for knowledge mobilization. Team role: research, design, communications, digital media;

4- We would have developed a strong facilitation practice sooner. Bringing together diverse audiences and having them collaborate is no easy feat. It takes a special skill and intentionality to do this well. We invested in training our staff and partnering with outside facilitators to do this. Anyone who has been to a poorly chaired meeting knows how unproductive and frustrating they can be. It’s many times worse with larger groups of folks from a multitude of backgrounds. Team role: citizen engagement, facilitation, art of hosting;

5- We would have spent less time being transactional, chasing projects that would contribute to overly simplistic financial metrics. In an environment driven by financial contraints and crude success measures like return on investment, we spent a lot of time focusing on grant applications. This meant that rather than building infrastructure and systems that would meet the mission of advancing evidence-based policy development, we were focused on simply getting grant applications in. Success, especially into the long-term depends on far more than financial ROI. Investing in such infrastructure will actually contribute to a greater success rate in grants. Team role: systems thinking, strategic thinking, organizational design, network leadership.

A map of the networked governance ecosystem in New Brunswick

A map of the networked governance ecosystem in New Brunswick

One thing we did well from the beginning is collaborate generously. The Network’s founder once said: the only way to counter ego is to not have ego, and the only way to counter territorialism is to not be territorial. Our small fledgling team alone could not possibly build an ecosystem to change centuries old institutions. Everything we did required collaboration with others or facilitating collaboration between others. Networked governance means leading and working in unfamiliar, non-traditional ways. It means you cannot expect to fully own anything nor fully take the credit for anything. It means sharing or giving credit generously. It means your focal point remains on your transformative purpose, not small “p” politics, or personal glory.

In times of rapid change no one organization or government has the research and development capacity needed to be responsive. Investing in networks and the ability to work with actors from across sectors is a requirement to creating public value in the 21st century, not a nice to have.

#ShitDavidSays About Impact #5: Knowledge Hypocrites / Les idées de David sur l’impact, no 5 : l’hypocrisie en MdC

On February 1, 2012, David first wrote about knowledge hypocrites. The challenge that we are all knowledge hypocrites is as true today as it was almost 6 years ago.

Le 1er février 2012, David signait un billet au sujet de l’hypocrisie en mobilisation des connaissances. Presque six ans plus tard, son énoncé provocant selon lequel nous sommes tous des hypocrites de la MdC est toujours aussi vrai.

GoGo the cat sitting on a copy of the book Using Evidence


We are all knowledge hypocrites. I am a knowledge hypocrite. You probably are one also.

There is an evidence base to knowledge mobilization but are you reading it? Are you using it? Sandra Nutley (recently retired from the Research Unit for Research Utilisation at St. Andrew’s University in Scotland) wrote Using Evidence with her colleagues Huw Davies and Isabel Walters in 2007. For me this is a foundation text providing a deep and wide ranging review of the literature on how research is used to inform public services.

And it is still relevant today…because let’s face it…there really are no “eureka” moments in our field. We have learned much in the last 10 years but it is built on a foundation largely crafted by Sandra and her colleagues that she built on a foundation of pioneers in the field.

Have you read Evidence & Policy? You should. Sandra, Huw and their colleague Alison Powell told you so this year in a paper in Evidence & Policy (vol 13, no. 2: 201-213) titled “Missing in Action: the role of knowledge mobilisation literature in knowledge mobilisation practice”. They surveyed knowledge intermediary organizations to see who is basing their practice on the literature. They found we aren’t. We continue to be knowledge hypocrites.

What I mean by this is that KT/KMb researchers advocate that researchers make their research accessible in different formats and to actively facilitate the uptake of evidence in the context of its use…but they don’t (usually). There are few incentives and rewards for KT/KMb researchers to come to York’s KMb Unit and help us use their evidence in our practice. I recall one conversation I had with a KMb researcher in education. She never considered me an end user of her research even though I read all her work. She only thought that teachers were her end users.

But practitioners are also knowledge hypocrites. We tell policy and practice partners to engage with the evidence and reach out for research expertise in their field….but we don’t (usually). We often have neither the skills nor the time to read academic papers on KT/KMb. I try to give my KMb team one day/month to sit in the library but it always falls off their agenda because they are busy getting the job done. At performance review I don’t measure them on the number of articles they have read. I have not created incentives or rewards for them. I am a knowledge hypocrite.

That was the driver behind the Knowledge Mobilization Journal Club. In July 2011, I started a monthly on line journal club where I would post a summary of an academic article and make observations about the implications for knowledge mobilization practice. There are currently 67 journal club posts. It is a small attempt to close the loop between the scholarship and the practice of knowledge mobilization.

When we evaluated the journal club in 2016, we found it was highly valued by readers (“please keep it going even if we have to clone David”.

To over come the shame of being a knowledge hypocrite we need to build our skills for knowledge mobilization. My colleague Julie Bayley (@JulieEBayley) and I have recently published a competency framework for practitioners of research impact. Building our skills in both creating impacts (“how”) and in assessing impacts (“what”) will help us all build our research impact literacy, a concept that Julie and I are also building (see below).

So here’s my question: how will you build your impact literacy to avoid being a knowledge hypocrite?

Impact Literacy diagram

#ShitDavidSays About Impact #4: Impact Frameworks Are Like Toothbrushes… / Les idées de David sur l’impact, no 4 : les cadres d’évaluation de l’impact sont comme les brosses à dents…

With thanks to Karen Ritchie, Head of Knowledge and Information, Health Improvement Scotland, who first coined this phrase. This post examines the plethora of impact frameworks and their – usually inappropriate – use.

Merci à Karen Ritchie, chef du service des connaissances et de l’information de l’organisme écossais Health Improvement, qui a forgé cette métaphore. Ce blogue s’intéresse à la pléthore de cadres, structures et méthodes d’évaluation de l’impact et à l’usage – généralement inadéquat – qui en est fait.

“Impact frameworks are like toothbrushes. Everyone has one and no one wants to use anyone else’s”.

Co-Produced Pathway to Impact

Co-Produced Pathway to Impact

“Impact frameworks are like toothbrushes. Everyone has one and no one wants to use anyone else’s”.

Knowledge to Action Cycle, Canadian Academy of Health Sciences Impact Assessment Framework, Payback method, Co-produced pathway to impact (CPPI), SPIRIT Action Framework, etc., etc., etc.

See a recent review of the strengths and weaknesses of some of these models here.

In Canada, the KTA Cycle dominates. Many networks, programs and projects cite the KTA Cycle as their framework without knowing that the KTA authors themselves never expected It to be used in whole by any single organization. In a review of papers citing KTA, only 10/146 actually implemented a portion of it and only one employed KT methods to move from one stage to the next.

No pathway is perfect which is why everyone creates a new pathway or new modification to a pathway to solve the one thing that doesn’t work for them despite the many things that do work.


But with a plethora of pathways – a veritable plentiful profusion of pathways – how does one go about choosing a pathway that’s right for your research to impact project? NIHR asked me this in 2016 and I came up with the following five criteria for impact pathway assessment (as published in this blog on May 5, 2016).. Does the pathway:

1. Accommodate and enable collection of evidence for patient benefit?

2. Support engagement of end users (incl. patients, policy, service providers) throughout?

3. Work at the level of the project, the program, the organization, the system?

4. Enable planning by providing general logic informing specific adaptation?

5. Drive uptake/adoption?

In the May 5, 2016 post, I reviewed three pathways: KTA, Payback and the CPPI. Acknowledging bias as I am the author of CPPI (yes, even I made another damn framework!), the CPPI came out on top on these five criteria.

But here’s the thing about any pathway. It is at best generic. No framework can be specific to every project implementing the framework. The CPPI can be used to monitor the progress from biomarker identification to successful clinical microarray test as it can be used to monitor the progress from understanding needs of at risk youth to successful implementation of a life skills training program. Clearly these two pathways will be very different. At York in 2016 we had supported 121 large scale grant applications of which 42 (35%) had been successful attracting $47M in external research income. Each one had a different pathway to impact.

Of the 6,679 impact case studies in the UK Research Excellence Framework there were 3,709 unique pathways to impact (see here).

With this diversity, clearly even the best impact frameworks can only be generic. The best advice any funder can give is generic (for example the guidance on knowledge mobilization strategies from SSHRC). It is up to the researchers, partners and the research impact practitioners who support them to use planning tools to develop a specific (or bespoke as @JulieEBayley likes to say) impact pathway for every research to impact project.

Since almost all grant applications require some form of impact pathway seek out your local research impact practitioner to help secure your next research grant.

#ShitDavidSays About Impact #3: Engaged Scholarship NOT Knowledge Transfer / Les idées de David sur l’impact, no 3 : On parle d’érudition engagée, pas de transfert de connaissances

David Phipps is writing about his lessons after more than a decade of impact. This third post encourages us to engage end users/beneficiaries as we move from knowledge transfer to engaged scholarship.

David Phipps partage les leçons qu’il a apprises en plus de dix ans dans le milieu de l’impact. Ce troisième billet nous incite à faire participer activement les utilisateurs finaux ou les bénéficiaires au mouvement, ce qui nous fait passer du simple transfert des connaissances à l’érudition véritablement engagée. Les détails à #ShitDavidSays About Impact.

Cambridge College

This is a picture of a college at the University of Cambridge. This image recapitulates the traditional scholarly orientation where knowledge (and power) is kept within the university and is disconnected from the external world. There is a single door way and gate that separates those who have knowledge and those who don’t (see the previous post about the knowledge of our non-academic partners). If we wanted to share information it would have to be translated and/or transferred to those who don’t have this knowledge. And for 600 years we have been working this business model.

But it needs to change.

I have heard from colleagues at the Rick Hansen Institute (spinal cord injury research) that when the Institute was being established they asked stakeholders about their priorities. Clinicians prioritized biomarkers and neuroimaging. People living with spinal cord injury and their families prioritized bladder control and erectile dysfunction.

If we’re not talking to those directly affected by the research then we are producing research knowledge that won’t be used (and that’s ok for basic/fundamental research). This includes talking to end users who use the research evidence for new products, policies and services and those end beneficiaries who will benefit from them. Bowan and Graham wrote in 2013 that the failure to bridge the knowledge to action gap was not a failure of knowledge transfer but a failure of knowledge production.

Let me say that again….it is not a failure of knowledge transfer but a failure of knowledge production. We need to stop trying to transfer knowledge end users/beneficiaries don’t want and start working on research they do want by practicing engaged scholarship.

This means that if we want our research to be used to inform products, policies and services we need to engage non-academic stakeholders at least to inform the research but also as collaborators as we seek to co-produce research evidence with them. Engagement is a necessary precursor to impact. You can engage without having impact but you can’t have impact without engaging. However, metrics of engagement are not a proxy for impact – think about that Australia as you run your Engagement and Impact Assessment pilot.

And one final critical piece that derives from the PARIHS framework. We know that making evidence accessible (i.e. on a website) is necessary but not sufficient to inform change (thank you Sandra Nutley). If you want your research evidence to be used you have to facilitate the uptake of the evidence in the context of its use. Once you have practiced engaged scholarship to produce your useful evidence don’t just send it to end users. Go to end users and actively facilitate the uptake of the evidence in the context of the end users. You can do this by giving a workshop with end users and/or by training end users in your new method/tool.

Get out of your academic research spaces and listen to end users/beneficiaries. Collaborate with them along the way. And then return to them and facilitate the uptake of evidence in their contexts.

That’s engaged scholarship not knowledge transfer.

Stay tuned as these seven posts about #ShitDavidSays about impact roll out. And if you want to see a webinar on #ShitDavidSays about Impact you can pay to attend a webinar sponsored by the Canadian Association of Research Administrators at noon Eastern on November 10, 2017. More info available here.

#ShitDavidSays About Impact #2: It’s Not About Supply and Demand / Les idées de David sur l’impact, no 2 : Ce n’est pas une question d’offre et de demande

David Phipps is writing about his lessons after more than a decade of impact. This second post recognizes that academics aren’t the only ones who do research. Knowledge mobilization isn’t about supply and demand of knowledge, it’s about finding complementary expertise.

David Phipps partage les leçons qu’il a apprises en plus de dix ans dans le milieu de l’impact. Dans ce deuxième billet, il reconnait que les universitaires ne sont pas les seuls à faire de la recherche. Mais la mobilisation des connaissances ne concerne pas l’offre et la demande en matière de connaissances – il s’agit en fait d’apparier des expertises complémentaires. Les détails à #ShitDavidSays About Impact.

"Community research is a mile wide and an inch deep while academic research is an inch wide and a mile deep" David PhippsThe first grant application that seeded the York U-UVic knowledge mobilization partnership on was written as a technology transfer application geared to the social sciences. All we needed to do was package up the excellent research at our universities, send it out and magically someone would use it. We had lots of dissemination strategies all predicated on universities having knowledge that someone else could use.

It never occurred to us that they might not want it. It never occurred to us to ask them what they wanted. We had the knowledge supply and they had a demand for our knowledge.


In fact, within months our community partners, York Region District School and the Human Services Planning Board of York Region, asked us to stop pushing our research on them. After a few more conversations we needed to move to a “pull” model where we responded to the needs of our non-academic partners.

Non-academic organizations do research. Industry does applied research to turn ideas into products. Governments do research so policy decisions are based (in part) on evidence. Community organizations do research to understand their communities so that services are aligned with the needs of citizens.

Knowledge mobilization isn’t about supply and demand. It is less about transferring knowledge (although this is also important) and more about understanding needs to enable co-producing collaborations based on complementary expertise.

One of the first conversations we have at KMb York when we are seeking a researcher to speak with a non-academic partner is, “remember, you don’t know it all”. Academic researchers have one type of knowledge. It is valuable. But so is the knowledge and expertise in community, industry, governments, and especially in those with lived experience.

If an academic researcher can’t appreciate the value of other forms of knowledge and expertise we will celebrate and support their excellent academic scholarship. But that doesn’t make them an excellent partner for a knowledge mobilization opportunity.

There are three conditions that need to be satisfied to make a good knowledge mobilization opportunity:

1- When the research is “right”: when the research has the potential to have a life inside a company making a product, a government making a policy or a community organization delivering a service.

2- When the researcher is “right”: we are not only seeking an excellent researcher but an excellent researcher who appreciates s/he doesn’t know it all.

3- When the partner has the capacity to participate authentically: Industry (usually if a large corporation) and government (often) have embedded research capacity. Community organizations do research but on a very tight budget (time, money, other resources). How can we in the academy help build capacity (i.e. make time) for our partners to participate in an authentic manner.

Knowledge mobilization is facilitated when these three conditions are met.

Stay tuned as these seven posts about #ShitDavidSays about impact roll out. And if you want to see a webinar on #ShitDavidSays about Impact you can pay to attend a webinar sponsored by the Canadian Association of Research Administrators at noon Eastern on November 10, 2017. More info available here.

Canada’s Impact Agenda is Everyone’s Agenda

This week’s guest post was first published on October 7, 2017 on the Canadian Science Policy Centre’s website. It is reposted here with permission.

Research Impact Canada will be featured in two sessions at the Canadian Science Policy Conference Nov 1-3, 2017. Robert Hache and David Phipps (York), Bill McKenzie (UNB) and Cathey Edwards (Carleton) will speak along with Matthew McKean, from Conference Board of Canada, an RIC partner.

Robert Hache and David Phipps
October 7, 2017

By: Robert Haché and David Phipps

Vice-President Research & Innovation
York University

Executive Director, Research & Innovation Services
York University

Canada’s impact agenda is everyone’s agenda

Academic research delivers economic, cultural, social, health and environmental impact. This fact was highlighted in the final report from Canada’s Fundamental Science Review (“the Review”), chapter two. However, the Review was silent on a consistent and proven way to ensure this impact occurs – more specifically, how to create impact – and a way to measure the impact.

There is a new forum for these vital discussions: This year, the 2017 Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) is creating new spaces to discuss impact. In this conference, York University and Research Impact Canada are participating in two key panels the common goal of which is to unpack precisely how impact is created, with special attention on the science-policy interface and the challenge of assessing impact.

Where does Canada fit in internationally?

Unlike the United Kingdom, Australia and the Netherlands, which have centralized impact assessment systems, Canada does not yet have an impact agenda. No one is debating the need for one. The time is now, as both Federal and Provincial governments are starting to require an impact component in funding. Proposed research, in today’s context, requires this vital component as well as the ability to measure it.

CSPC is aligned with this pressing necessity. Its impact agenda includes “measuring what difference science makes,” which clearly speaks to the value of science, and “creating the conditions for impact.”

Academic research provides foundation for impact

Partnerships are essential to maximizing impact. Academic research can’t operate in a vacuum when it comes to impact – a reality that was hinted at in the Review. Research needs to work in conjunction with policies that government develops guided by research and evidence; social services that non-profit organizations, including the health and education sector, deliver, bolstered by research; and products that industry builds, again based on the evidence provided by research. This is an ecosystem in which research provides the foundation. Only by working in collaboration with partners from the private, public and non-profit sectors will academic institutions create the conditions to maximize the impact of research.

This does not mean that all research must be applied. On the contrary, the roles of basic research, academic scholarship and artistic creation are evermore important. Fundamental research provides a base from which evidence-based policies, services and products can emerge.

Impact has almost limitless breadth

Far-reaching impact crosses disciplines and countries. For example, climate change is not merely a natural science occurring in one country; Indigenous issues are not confined to social science; and mental illness is just a health science.

Due to this remarkable breadth, which clearly speaks to many kinds of impact, to maximize research-borne impact, we need policy and institutional frameworks that acknowledge the following: science is more than science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM); partnerships are more than industry; and impact is more than commercialization.

Leading the charge in impact maximization

Innovation York, York University’s innovation Office, leads the University’s efforts to maximize the impacts of our research. Innovation York has diversified beyond commercialization to include entrepreneurship, industry liaison and knowledge mobilization that has helped to create impact. Examples include services for at-risk youth in Peterborough, shelters for victims of domestic violence in Ontario, services for immigrant settlement in York Region and bullying prevention services reaching over 400,000 children across Canada every year.

These are just a few examples from York. Thirteen other Canadian universities have joined York working collectively as Research Impact Canada to develop and share the best methods of creating and measuring impact. Launched by York and the University of Victoria in 2006, Research Impact Canada now includes universities that span the spectrum from those with a polytechnic tradition, such as Kwantlen Polytechnic University, to U15 universities such as UBC, Western, McMaster, Saskatchewan and Université de Montréal.

With this shared goal around impact, these universities are developing institutional supports for knowledge mobilization that include undergraduate service learning, graduate student internships, collaborative research, public engagement and science Communications strategies for dissemination of information that spurs engagement with audiences, stakeholders and influencers. All efforts are designed to connect sciences to the private, public and non-profit organizations.

Impact truly is everyone’s job.

Learn more about Canada’s emerging impact agenda

Join us at Research Impact Canada on these dates:
Thursday, November 2, 3:30 pm: Mobilizing research for policy impact (Panel #304)
Friday, November 3, 1 pm: Realizing the impact chain (Panel #409)

To learn more about Research Impact Canada, visit the website. For more information on Innovation York, visit the website or watch the video.

#ShitDavidSays About Impact: A 7-Part Blog Series / #ShitDavidSays About Impact : Un miniblogue en 7 billets pour savoir ce qu’en dit David

After more than a decade of building systems of research impact at York University and across Canada with the Research Impact Canada network David Phipps has learned a thing or two (actually…six things) about impact. Each form a fundamental of impact. Put them together and this is some of the #ShitDavidSays about impact

Après avoir passé plus de dix ans à mettre sur pied des systèmes d’amplification de l’impact de la recherche, à l’Université York et dans tout le Canada avec le Réseau Impact Recherche, David Phipps a appris une ou deux petites choses (six, en fait) sur le sujet. Chacune est fondamentale pour l’impact de la recherche. Prises ensemble, ça donne euh… les idées de David sur l’impact, pour le dire gentiment. Vous les trouverez ici : #ShitDavidSays.

I was recently invited to open the New Zealand Rehabilitation Conference where the theme was the impact rehab research can have on rehab practice. I have no expertise in rehab research, practice or impact so I needed to keep the story high level but make it relevant to the NZ rehab context. I needed to share some big concepts and illustrate them with examples from practice. I was inspired by an amazing talk given by Dr. Mae Jemison who spoke at the National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA) annual conference in Washington DC in August 2017. Dr. Jemison was the first African American woman to travel in space when she went into orbit aboard the Space Shuttle Endeavour on September 12, 1992. Her talk was great, but her presentation was my inspiration. She showed a single picture with a single quote or statement and then spoke about that slide.

Pictures. Few words. Lots of stories.

That’s what I imagined as I reflected on my decade plus work in impact [sidebar: actually, I have been involved in impact since the mid-1990s when we identified a possible marker of HIV infection during my post doctoral research. I learned the craft of technology commercialization and joined the University of Toronto Innovations Foundation.] As I developed my slides “After a decade of impact…” I realized I was going a very long way for this talk, so why not make it even more memorable.

I asked conference chair Nicola Kayes if I had to be terribly serious as I opened her conference. After consulting with her program committee, I got permission to change the title to “#ShitDavidSays about Impact”.

In the next six posts of this series I will present some themes that have permeated my work over the years. The headlines for each post are:

• It’s not about supply and demand: Who has what knowledge and the importance of acknowledging power in our research collaborations

• Engaged scholarship NOT knowledge transfer: Dissemination is necessary but not sufficient to create change

• Impact frameworks are like toothbrushes: What are the important elements of any impact framework and how to adapt them to your context

• We are all knowledge hypocrites: There is a science underpinning knowledge mobilization and impact and how are we (or aren’t we) using it?

• Impact is measured at the level of the user: Who really makes impact and where/when do we measure it?

• If impact occurred but no one was there to measure it…: the importance of impact assessment and some stuff related to the UK Research Excellence Framework

Stay tuned as these roll out for details on these six themes. And if you want to see a webinar on #ShitDavidSays about Impact you can pay to attend a webinar sponsored by the Canadian Association of Research Administrators at noon Eastern on November 10, 2017. More info available here.

Living Knowledge 8 Call for Proposals

This post first appeared on the Living Knowledge website at


Call for Proposals

The 2018 edition of the Living Knowledge Conference will be hosted by the Corvinus Business School, Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary, from 30th May to 1st June. On 28th and 29th May pre-conference events and an accredited summer school are welcoming you.

The LK8 Conference is inviting academics, practitioners, activists, social innovators, research funders, science educators and communicators, citizen scientists, policy-makers, non-governmental organisations, artists, interested community groups and citizens to share their views and experience on innovative activities at the science-society interface.

The last Living Knowledge conference hosted more than 250 participants from 25 countries.

To receive all news and updates, please visit the LK8 Facebook event. Format related guidelines are in the Proposal Guide.

The Theme of LK8

Enriching Science and Community Engagement

In order to build on and enhance the public engagement in research practices, the conference would like to bring together the existing networks of action research and action learning, citizen science, community-based research, engaged scholarship, open science, science shops, participatory action research, participatory governance, RRI (responsible research and innovation), and social innovation. Different communities often use such umbrella terms inside and outside science and research encompassing various transdisciplinary and public engagement practices. Even though these practices meet renewed societal interest in Europe and attract considerable acknowledgement from a range of disciplines and research cultures, in most societies, such democratic spaces remain only rare exceptions.

In recent years such participatory arrangements have run parallel and become pervasive in science-society interactions. In fact, they are regarded almost a compulsory step in the promotional cycle of scientific production. Does this help a true engagement with science and communities? This question warrants the need to revisit opportunities of renewal that these different approaches can offer in the changing landscapes of scientific culture in Enriching Science and Community Engagement. In general, they all aim to let citizens, policymakers, industry and the education community catch a glimpse of magic behind the research scenes; imply an evolving role of “society in science” and “science in society”, and share a focus on a shift in how knowledge becomes legitimised in society. Nonetheless, their interactions have been limited to date. The conference would like to contribute to a wider learning across silos and will offer active and interactive spaces to build on the potential synergies between these community-based approaches and facilitate transposition or convergence of emerging participative and inclusive solutions.

Participants are invited to critically reflect on public engagement challenges, on the complex impacts of their science-community partnerships, on social acceptance of research and innovation processes. E.g.

How can science shops better connect with civil society?

How to move beyond the existing practices to engage all RRI stakeholders and also marginalized groups and communities?

How citizen science could truly involve people to live up to the expectations of scientific citizenship and empowerment?

How could action research and participatory methods contribute to the shaping of responsible research and innovation agendas?

What is the epistemological importance of science and community engagement activities?

How can researchers live up to the societal expectations in community engagement settings? What are the long-term and real benefits?

How do researchers lower the barriers to participation or build trust among participants with different worldviews?

What new arrangements, governance models exist or can be created/practised addressing the instrumentalisation of these practices at the personal, organisational, and funding levels?

The LK8 programming is facilitated by the Steering Committee members and representatives of conference Local Organising Committee (LOC). If you are unsure how to start, please read our Proposal Guide first. To get the feeling, please watch the videos recorded in and programmes of previous Living Knowledge conferences, see below.

7th Living Knowledge Conference 2016 in Dublin (Video)
6th Living Knowledge Conference 2014 in Copenhagen (Video)
5th Living Knowledge Conference 2012 in Bonn (Video)
4th Living Knowledge Conference 2009 in Belfast (Video)
3rd Living Knowledge Conference 2007 in Paris (Video)
2nd Living Knowledge Conference 2005 in Seville (Proceedings)
1st Living Knowledge Conference 2001 in Leuven (Project Output)

Be prepared to contribute and debate in interactive and hands-on sessions, workshops and other types of activities. Get in contact with the LOC members to assist you in joining a proposal team or write to the Steering Committee members for assistance, advice and direction or the LK national contact points for finding partners to your session idea!

If you are not part of an academic organisation that is capable of funding your participation, we will do our best to assist you. The LOC is working on sponsoring opportunities and will offer partly funded passes to speakers bringing new ideas or perspectives especially from civil society.
Key dates

Deadline for contributions: 5 January 2018
Deadline for summer school applications: 2 February 2018
Notification of acceptance/rejection of contributions and summer school applications: 23 February 2018
Online registration opens: 23 February 2018
Early bird rate by 30 March 2018

Further information:

Proposal guide
LK8 Facebook event

UK Knowledge Mobilisation Forum – Call for Content

This week’s guest post was first published on the UKKMbF website and it reposted here with permission.

UKKMbF call for contentThe UK Knowledge Mobilisation Forum is a space for collaborative learning and reflection amongst those engaged in the art and science of sharing knowledge and ensuring that it can be used. We are now inviting contributions from anyone with a story, method, resource or insight to share about knowledge mobilisation. If you have got something to share, we would love to hear from you! To contribute, please read the details below, download the submission form (at the bottom of the page) and email it to us at by Friday 13th October. We aim to notify all contributors by the end of October 2017.

Contributions should cover one of the areas listed below. Please indicate which area your contribution fits into on the submission form.

– Knowledge mobilisation practice – examples and case studies of knowledge sharing practices and activities. The emphasis here is on sharing practices, experiences (good and bad!) and learning about the practice of knowledge mobilisation.

– Knowledge mobilisation research & evaluation – examples of research into knowledge mobilisation and the evaluation of knowledge sharing initiatives and approaches. The emphasis here is on sharing insights and results from the study of knowledge mobilisation.

– Knowledge mobilisation training & development – examples and case studies of knowledge mobilisation training and development activities. The emphasis here is on sharing experiences and practices of educating and training people (researchers, practitioners and the public) in the art and science of knowledge mobilisation. This could include activities to support informal learning and development amongst knowledge mobilisers.

In this year’s programme we have created opportunities for the following types of contribution.


Two interactive poster sessions will take place during the Forum. During the first, you will simply need to display your poster and provide an opportunity for your fellow delegates to leave (written) comments and questions. Posters should be A0 or A1 size and can be either portrait or landscape. During the second session, you will have an opportunity to respond to the comments and questions which have been left by your fellow delegates and to develop a shared conversation about your poster. Note – you will not need to ‘present’ your poster, but simply respond to the comments and questions which have been raised.


When we say short – we mean short! Presentations should last no more than 7 minutes in total, slides should be light on words and heavy on images and should advance automatically after 15-30 seconds. Resources to help you prepare (and work out if it’s for you) can be found here ( and here (


Workshops should be both practical and interactive with an emphasis on collaborative learning. You will have up to 45 minutes and could use the time to explore a topic in a bit more depth, give participants an opportunity to try something out, find out what people think about something you have developed or try out a new interactive or learning approach. The choice is yours – but the workshop should be both practical and interactive.


Market stalls provide an opportunity for you to ‘display your knowledge mobilisation wares’! This could include any kind of materials relating to your knowledge mobilisation practice, research or training & development activities. We particularly welcome stalls which will encourage interaction and conversations. You will be allocated a round table (approx 6ft diameter) to display your materials on, but if you need more space or would like to bring your own display boards, please indicate this on the submission form.

2018 submission form

Research Impact Canada Leaps onto International Stage, Welcomes Three New Members / Réseau Impact Recherche saute sur la scène internationale et accueille trois nouveaux members

This week’s guest post first appeared in the September 2017 edition of the CARA Connection newsletter and is reposted here with permission.

Ce récit a été publié la première fois dans le bulletin Connexion de l’ACAAR, septembre 2017. Il est repris ici avec permission.

Robert HacheOn August 11, 2017, Dr. Robert Haché, Vice-President Research & Innovation at York University and Chair of the Executive Lead Committee of Research Impact Canada, announced that three new institutional members have joined Canada’s expanding knowledge mobilization network.

“We are pleased to welcome the University of British Columbia (UBC) and Western University as new institutional members. Additionally, we welcome the first international affiliate member: the United Kingdom’s University of Brighton,” said Dr. Haché. “These universities bring unique strengths to the network with expertise in knowledge mobilization, community engagement and research collaborations with partners from the public, private and non-profit organizations,” he added.
Research Impact Canada is a network of 14 universities stretching across Canada from Memorial University of Newfoundland to the University of Victoria. The addition of the University of Brighton represents a leap onto the international stage. The network’s goals are to support the engagement of faculty, students and their non-academic research partners which in turn maximizes the social, economic, health, cultural and environmental impacts of research. This vital work will ultimately inform decision-makers, policy-makers, and practitioners, working in community, industry and government partners.

New Members Bring Unique Expertise

Research Impact Canada provides a unique opportunity for institutions to learn from each other and build competencies. In this spirit, the three new members have much to offer the network, for example:

– UBC’s long standing commitments such as the UBC Learning Exchange and more recent knowledge mobilization initiatives such as the Policy Studio in the new UBC School of Public Policy and Global Affairs

– Western University’s “knowledge stewardship” program, a collaboration between the research office and libraries; and

– The University of Brighton’s internationally recognized Community University Partnership Programme, which supports the many ways in which the University and community can work together.

Benefits to Joining

Research Impact Canada bridges the gap between research and real-world application and impact, a core value in today’s academic environment. The Report from the Advisory Panel on Federal Support for Fundamental Science articulated this best: “Research is essential to the health, prosperity, and security of Canadians and to our efforts to foster a creative, inclusive, and vibrant society.”

In line with this thinking, successful grant applications often link research to impact; programs such as the Networks of Centres of Excellence and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Partnership Grants are built on an expectation that research will have a lasting impact on Canadians.

McMaster University provides a prime example of the benefits of joining the network. This University won the 2017 SSHRC Award of Excellence for Communications (May 31, 2017). It did this through modifying the ResearchSnapshot clear language summary series that Research Impact Canada had piloted. McMaster adapted the formatting and created an award-winning social media strategy for their “Research Snaps.”

For more information, visit the Research Impact Canada website or contact David Phipps, Network Manager ( Follow the group on Twitter @researchimpact. To read the Report from the Advisory Panel on Federal Support for Fundamental Science, visit the website. For more context, read the Conference Board of Canada’s publication Beyond Citation.


Le 11 août 2017, M. Robert Haché, Vice-Président, Recherche et innovation à l’Université York et Président du Comité exécutif de direction du Réseau Impact Recherche Canada, annonçait l’arrivée de trois nouveaux membres institutionnels au sein du réseau grandissant de mobilisation des connaissances au Canada.

“Nous sommes ravis d’accueillir l’Université de la Colombie-britannique (UBC) et l’Université Western en tant que nouveaux membres institutionnels. De plus, nous souhaitons la bienvenue à notre tout nouveau membre affilié international, soit l’Université de Brighton, située au Royaume-Uni, » a déclaré M. Haché. « Ces institutions mettent leurs propres forces et leur expertise en mobilisation des connaissances , en engagement communautaire et en collaborations de recherche avec des partenaires du secteur public, privé et sans-but lucratif au service des membres de notre réseau, » a-t-il ajouté.

Le Réseau Impact Recherche Canada est un réseau de 14 universités situées à travers le Canada, de l’Université Memorial à Terre-Neuve jusqu’à l’Université de Victoria. L’ajout de l’Université Brighton propulse le réseau sur la scène internationale. Les objectifs du réseau sont d’apporter un soutien aux chercheurs, aux étudiants et à leurs partenaires de recherche non-académiques afin de maximiser les impacts sociaux, économiques, culturels, environnementaux et en santé de la recherche. Ce travail primordial en viendra à mieux informer les décideurs politiques et économiques ainsi que les praticiens qui travaillent de concert avec des partenaires communautaires, industriels et gouvernementaux.

Les nouveaux membres apportent une expertise unique

Le Réseau Impact Recherche Canada offre aux institutions une occasion unique de développer des compétences en profitant de l’expertise de ses membres. À cet effet, nos trois nouveaux membres ont beaucoup à nous offrir :

– L’engagement à long terme de l’Université de la Colombie-britannique sur des projets tels que le UBC Learning Exchange, ainsi que de récentes initiatives en mobilisation des connaissances telles que la création du Policy Studio dans la nouvelle UBC School of Public Policy and Global Affairs

– Le programme “gestion des connaissances”, une collaboration entre le Bureau des services de la recherche et les bibliothèques de l’Université Western; et

– Le Community University Partnership Programme, reconnu à l’échelle mondiale, de l’Université de Brighton, qui soutient les collaborations entre l’Université et la communauté de diverses façons.

Avantages de devenir membre

Réseau Impact Canada permet de combler l’écart entre la recherche et ses applications et ses impacts en contexte réel, une valeur clé dans l’environnement universitaire actuel. L’Examen du soutien fédéral aux sciences l’exprimait le mieux: “La recherche est essentielle à la santé, à la prospérité, et à la sécurité des Canadiens et des Canadiennes, et aux efforts qu’ils déploient pour construire une société créative, inclusive et dynamique. »

En concordance avec cette affirmation, les demandes de subvention gagnantes établissent un lien clair entre la recherche et son impact; des programmes tels que les Réseaux de centres d’excellence et les subventions de développement de partenariat Conseil de recherche en sciences humaines et sociales du Canada (CRSH) existent parce que nous nous attendons à ce que la recherche ait un impact durable.

L’Université McMaster offre un exemple probant des avantages de se joindre au réseau. Cette institution a remporté le prix d’Excellence en communications 2017 du CRSH (31 mai, 2017) en modifiant les résumés vulgarisés Research Snapshots, pilotés par Research Impact Canada, pour en faire une stratégie de médias sociaux fort réussie et primée intitulée « Research Snaps ».

Pour plus d’information, veuillez consulter la page Web de Réseau Impact Canada ou contacter M. David Phipps, gérant du réseau ( Suivez le groupe sur Twitter @researchimpact. Afin de lire L’Examen du soutien fédéral aux sciences en entier, veuillez consulter la page Web. Pour plus de contexte, veuillez lire la publication du Conference Board du Canada sur la page Beyond Citation.

Finding common approaches in a diverse practice domain: A Q-study of knowledge mobilization practitioners and researchers

This information was originally published on the KTECOP website and is reposted here with permission.

On Tuesday, August 22, 2017, Monica Batac and Dr. Charles Davis conducted a talk about their recent research study about knowledge mobilization work to the Toronto chapter of KTECOP.

Download the presentation slides:

Finding common approaches in a diverse practice domain: A Q-study of knowledge mobilization practitioners and researchers

Watch the webinar recording

Description of the Research Study

Knowledge Mobilization (KMb), or the application and use of research, is practiced in many fields, but there is little consensus on what KMb work actually entails. This presentation shares the findings from a recent Q-methodology study. Data were collected in two phases. First, interviews were conducted with 20 KMb experts from Canada and the UK. Second, 91 respondents completed the online q-sort and an activity-rating task, and answered open-ended questions about their work, background training, and perspectives on KMb practice. We identified four distinct approaches to KMb. This research improves our understanding of KMb practices from the perspectives of researchers, intermediaries, and practitioners across various domains.

About the Presenters

Monica BatacMonica Anne Batac is a PhD student at McGill University’s School of Social Work. During her time at Ryerson University, she was the first Research Intern for the Centre for Communicating Research, which sparked her involvement and research in knowledge mobilization. Her current and emerging research examines service delivery within immigrant-serving agencies. Committed to community-engaged research, Monica is involved in various Toronto-based initiatives that enhance supports for newcomer youth, immigrant families, and front-line workers in the settlement service sector.

Dr. Charles DavisDr. Charles Davis is the Associate Dean, Scholarly, Research and Creative Activities (SRC) for the Faculty of Communication and Design at Ryerson University. He is a Professor in the RTA School of Media and holds the Edward S. Rogers Sr. Research Chair in Media Management and Entrepreneurship. Previous to joining Ryerson, Charles held senior management and research positions with the Conseil de la science et de la technologie du Québec, the Science Council of Canada and the International Development Research Centre. He was also the holder of the NSERC/­SSHRC­-NB Power-Xerox Research Chair in the Management of Technological Change at the University of New Brunswick (Saint John).