Connecting Impact Pathways to Actual Impacts / Raccorder la trajectoire à l’impact

Researchers are crafting impact strategies in grant applications. Are they getting any help from their universities and their institutional research administrators?

Dans leurs demandes de subvention, les chercheurs mettent au point des stratégies d’impact. Reçoivent-ils de l’aide pour ce faire de la part de leur université et des administrateurs de la recherche?

Fast Track Impact logoMore from the world of impact in the UK, this time a reflection on a post by Mark Reed and Sarah Buckmaster from February 2016. Sarah and Mark compared the impact pathways from research teams who had been awarded the highest scores for impact in the Research Excellence Framework 2014. For more on REF 2014, see this journal club and last week’s post.

The seven studies presented span health, social sciences and humanities with impacts on policy, professional practice and culture – this diversity suggests the 10 common elements of impact pathways are not unique to any discipline or sector. The 10 common elements are: clear connectivity from overall vision to objectives and impact; specificity; tailor made impact; build in flexibility; assign responsibility – name names; demonstrate demand; highlight collaborative partnerships; don’t ignore sensitivities; think long term; record everything.

I’m not going to go into detail in each of these because Mark and Sarah have done that in their post.

ARMA logoWhat I will reflect on is the role of the university helping researchers craft these specific impact pathways in their applications. ARMA – the association supporting university research administrators (those people who are hired to help you craft your grant applications) – has a specific group interested in impact. It is not just the job of the grant applicant to ensure impact strategies incorporate these 10 key success elements. It is also the job of institutions to support researchers crafting their grant applications. How many ARMA members receive specific training not only as REF officers collecting the evidence of impact but also in supporting impact strategies in grant applications? This list of 10 key success elements could form a checklist for ARMA members to use to not only assess strategies at application review before submission but also to build capacity of researchers before they start writing the application (a new product idea for Fast Track Impact – you can thank me later, Mark).

At York University (Toronto, Canada), we have published on our process for supporting impact in grant applications. We also lead Research Impact Canada, a network of 12 universities building capacity to support impacts of research. We don’t have a formal impact assessment process like the REF but most Canadian funding programs require the equivalent of impact pathways. Because of this requirement we are sharing tools and building expertise to support impact at the institutional level. This is only now coming onto the radar of CARA (the Canadian ARMA) with an impact planning and assessment workshop I am delivering on May 7 at the CARA annual conference.

It would be interesting to ask the authors of these highly successful impact strategies what support they received from their institution during the grant application process. This would demonstrate if there is existing impact expertise in research administrators or if there is a skills gap and an opportunity for institutions to invest in capacity building to support impact which, in turn, will support success in the REF. It is a little late to start to build capacity to support impact in an application that won’t be funded until 2018 at the earliest and therefore won’t likely contribute to impacts in REF 2021. But Mark and Sarah advocate thinking long term. REF 2026 is just around the corner, at least in terms of impact which can take years after the funded grant project to manifest.

And don’t forget to call Canada. We are happy to share our supports for impact in grant applications and look forward to learning from UK experts as well. CARA and ARMA are already collaborating on accreditation for research administrators. Maybe impact could be part of this exchange. Just ask @JulieEBayley.

Watching Impact in the REF and How It Informs the Canadian Context / Le REF en observation : comment l’impact s’y manifeste, et son influence sur la situation canadienne

The Research Excellence Framework is a system wide research assessment exercise that includes assessment of the various non-academic impacts of research. As the UK prepares for REF 2021 Research Impact Canada is piloting impact assessment in Canada. Not because of any reporting requirement but because we should understand and communicate the impacts we are making. It’s the right thing to do.

Au Royaume-Uni, le Research Excellence Framework est un exercice d’évaluation de la recherche appliqué à l’ensemble du système d’enseignement supérieur, qui prévoit l’évaluation des nombreux impacts de la recherche en dehors de l’université. Tandis que ce pays prépare son REF de 2021, au Canada, le Réseau Impact Recherche réalise son propre projet pilote d’évaluation de l’impact. Non pas parce qu’une autorité quelconque nous l’impose, mais parce que comprendre et communiquer les effets que nous provoquons… c’est ce qu’il faut faire, tout simplement.

For 10 years Research Impact Canada (RIC) has been leading the development of institutional knowledge mobilization practices that create the conditions to maximize the social, economic and/or environmental impacts of university research. Our vision statement is:

We will maximize the impact of university research for the social, cultural, economic, environmental, and health benefits across local and global communities.

If we say we will maximize impact we needed to figure out a way to assess the impact of the research we were helping to mobilize. We looked to the UK Research Excellence Framework for inspiration (for more on REF and why it is important see this recent journal club entry). The REF required all UK universities to articulate the impacts of research using guidelines (page 26 here) and completing an impact case study template. There is much (not all) good about the REF. But there is much in the work of RIC that is not captured in the narrowly construed REF definitions of research and of impact. There is also a decoupling of the efforts made by institutions (as reported in the environment data) to support impact and the impact cases themselves.

The Evaluation Committee of Research Impact Canada did a deep dive into the REF and developed our own adaptation of the REF impact assessment guidelines and case study template. The major changes are summarized in the table below:

Changes between REF and RIC impact assessment table

View this table as a PDF

That’s what we have done. What are we doing?

We are piloting the RIC research impact assessment guidelines and impact case study template on one example from York’s Knowledge Mobilization Unit. We have also delivered our first impact assessment workshop to scientists and knowledge brokers at the research-policy interface at Eawag, the Swiss water research institute. We received good feedback from them and will be incorporating this into successive iterations of the guidelines and template. Ultimately we will roll this out through RIC member universities and beyond to provide a tool for researchers and institutions to collect the evidence of impact and inform different means of disseminating stories of impact so our various stakeholders (funders, partners, governments, and the public) can see the difference that universities make on society, the economy and/or the environment.

Our work in Canada is timely as HEFCE reports it has just finished consultations on REF 2021 and are about to review and analyze over 370 responses. We can continue to learn from each other. The Canadian and UK contexts are different. The main difference is the driver. We don’t have a REF in Canada so we have greater leeway to construct research impact assessment tools that work in our contexts. But our contexts are also not really that different. UK and Canadian funders require grant applicants to express the potential impacts of their research and the plans (and budgets) for creating those impacts. Now Canada also has a mechanism to facilitate the collection and reporting on the evidence of impact that was inspired by the REF but adapted to meet the needs of the Research Impact Canada network.

Give us a call, HEFCE. We’re happy to share as you pour through those 370 responses!

Event: March 29: The Australian KT Experience and Our Move to the Impact Agenda

The Knoweldge Mobilization Unit at York University looks forward to welcoming Tamika Heiden to YorkU for a talk this Wednesday. Please join us if you are in the area!

The Australian KT Experience and Our Move to the Impact Agenda

March 29, 2017

Tamika Heiden, Knowledge Translation Australia

Tamika HeidenThis talk has been organized by the Knowledge Mobilization Unit at York University. Knowledge mobilization
helps turn research into action.

Tamika Heiden, of Knowledge Translation Australia, has been driving change, advocating for Knowledge Translation (KT), and training researchers and research support staff in KT processes for the past three years. In a country yet to embrace KT and Impact, Tamika has been preparing for the inevitable change to research funding and reward. In 2017, the Australian government is undertaking its first Engagement and Impact Assessment Pilot, with the view to ongoing impact assessment beginning in 2018.

Join Tamika as she shares the KT practices that are happening in Australia and gives insights into the current research impact and engagement evaluation landscape. This conversational style session will look at Tamika’s entrepreneurial approach to KT, examine current KT roles and activities, and discuss the role of KT in the Australian Impact and Engagement agenda moving forward.

Date:
Wednesday, March 29

Time:
1:00pm to 3:00pm

Location:
Room 519, Kaneff Tower
York University, Keele Campus
4700 Keele Street, Toronto

Knowledge Mobilization Officer Position Opening at York University

We are excited to share this job opportunity for a Knowledge Mobilization Officer to lead the VISTA, Vision: Science to Applications program at York University. Here is a summary of the position:

YorkULogoVer(large)Application Deadline: April 5, 2017 Full position details

Purpose:
Under the general supervision of the Manager of Knowledge Mobilization, the Knowledge Mobilization Officer (KMb Officer) works within knowledge mobilization team and more specifically, will be the knowledge mobilization lead for VISTA, the Vision: Science to Applications program. The knowledge mobilization team is part of Innovation York, the innovation unit within the Division of the Vice-President, Research & Innovation (VPRI) at York University.

KMb Officer coordinates the various KMb functions in order to provide effective and efficient service and support to VISTA faculty members, trainees, students, and external VISTA partners in the administration of the University’s practices relating to knowledge mobilization. KMb Officer will advance knowledge mobilization activities for VISTA researchers, specifically VISTA core members by: creating and maintaining effective working relationships with VISTA faculty, trainees and students in order to understand ongoing research projects, assist in creating opportunities for research partnerships with external organizations, work with new and existing research partnerships, and assist with the creation and dissemination of communications materials for VISTA research projects.

KMb Officer will provide outreach to policy makers and decision makers, as well as external organizations, in order to disseminate communications materials and maximize the impact of VISTA research.

Education:
Minimum undergraduate degree is required, preferably in the sciences or communication/journalism.

Experience:
Minimum two years of experience working with a specific knowledge mobilization or communications mandate, either in a university research administrative environment or in the equivalent in government, NGO, community or voluntary agency, in a research or policy environment.

Skills:
Excellent presentation skills. Ability to work independently as well as in a team environment; excellent judgment, oral and written communication, interpersonal, problem-solving and organizational skills; ability to multitask, set priorities and meet tight deadlines; strong analytical skills; professionalism, tact, sensitivity and diplomacy in interactions with internal and external constituencies; flexibility, self-directed and demonstrated initiative, creativity; high level of accuracy and attention to detail; comfort with ambiguity. Knowledge of University research and financial policies and procedures an asset. Demonstrated advanced skills in MS Office, intermediate skill and experience in web design software (such as HTML or Dreamweaver) and basic database software (such as MS Access). Demonstrated experience using and instructing on the use of social media (O3 Platform, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube) required, preferably in a research environment. Ability to work with databases and web content management systems. Demonstrated ability to use Google analytics and other web metrics.

Salary: Annual salary of $59,565 will be prorated based on the number of weeks worked.

Position Start Date: April 17, 2017 Position End Date: March 31, 2023

Application Deadline: April 5, 2017

For full position details, visit http://webapps.yorku.ca/nonacademicpostings/summary.jsp?postingnumber=10366

Éthique de la recherche et du terrain en contexte autochtone – 12 Avril

Éthique de la recherche et du terrain en contexte autochtone (aussi en webdiffusion)

https://t.co/kuHqQN6uXH

Boîte à outils des principes de la recherche en context autochtone12 Avril 2017
13h00 à 15h00

Pavillon Roger Gaudry – Université de Montréal
Salle S-116
2900, boul. Édouard-Montpetit, Montréal
Montréal (Québec) Canada H3T 1J4

Prix: Entrée libre, places limitées

L’objectif de cet atelier est d’examiner les outils existants en matière de gestion et de pratiques de la recherche de manière à respecter les aspirations des communautés et instances autochtones en matière de recherche les concernant. Lors de cet atelier, nous passerons à travers les différentes étapes permettant d’établir une relation de recherche respectueuse et équitable en vue de recueillir des données pertinentes et d’organiser un transfert de connaissances efficace.

Webdiffusion : Connectez vous pour participer à l’atelier

Avec Karine Gentelet, Suzy Basile et Nancy Gros-Louis McHugh (en visioconférence depuis Wendake)

Introduction par Pierre De Coninck (UdeM), président du comité d’études nordiques de l’Université de Montréal.

Plan de l’atelier

    Les communautés autochtones du Nord du Québec
    Concept de santé globale.
    Histoire du principe de consentement et des protocoles autochtones de recherche.
    Lignes directrices pour les recherches portant sur les femmes et lignes directrice du groupe de travail des Premiers peuples.
    Responsabilité sociale du chercheur et le transfert des connaissances.
    Boîte à outils des principes de la recherche en contexte autochtone (2015)
    Questions et discussions.

Karine Gentelet est professeure en études autochtones au Département des sciences sociales de l’Université du Québec en Outaouais. Ses champs d’intérêt portent sur la reconnaissance des droits des Peuples autochtones, l’éthique de la recherche, la responsabilité sociale des chercheurs et l’anthropologie/sociologie du droit. Dernièrement elle a codirigé la “Boîte à outils de la recherche en contexte autochtone” à laquelle participaient Suzie Basile et Nancy Gros-Louis McHugh. Elle est fortement engagée dans la promotion et la défense des droits de la personne, notamment des droits des Peuples autochtones auprès d’Amnistie Internationale Amnistie Internationale depuis 2007.

Suzie Basile est professeure à l’Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue à l’École d’études autochtones. Ses champs de spécialisation sont l’anthropologie culturelle, peuples autochtones (Premières Nations et Inuit, femmes autochtones, éthique de la recherche et développement nordique.

Nancy Gros-Louis McHugh est gestionnaire du secteur de la recherche pour la Commission de la santé et des services sociaux des Premières Nations du Québec et a piloté la mise sur pied du Protocole de recherche des Premières Nations du Québec et du Labrador.

Cet atelier vise à rejoindre :

    les étudiants-chercheurs du Programme de formation scientifique dans le Nord (PFSN),
    les chercheurs désirant amorcer ou effectuant des recherches en contexte autochtone.

Cet atelier est présenté par le Bureau Recherche – Développement – Valorisation de l’Université de Montréal.

https://t.co/kuHqQN6uXH

Canada is looking for a Chief Knowledge Broker / Le Canada en quête d’un courtier de connaissances en chef

Canada is searching for a Chief Science Advisor. They are looking for someone with an outstanding track record of scholarship. What they really need is a Chief Knowledge Broker.

Le gouvernement canadien cherche à pourvoir le poste de conseiller scientifique en chef. La personne recherchée doit posséder un bagage de connaissances hors du commun. Ce dont le gouvernement a besoin, en fait, c’est un courtier de connaissances en chef.

See the full job ad here

Kirsty Duncan, Minister of Science

Kirsty Duncan, Minister of Science

>

Justin Trudeau and Kirsty Duncan are seeking a PhD scientist with a strong record of peer reviewed publications and research management. They are seeking a PhD scientist to “focus on how scientific information is disseminated and used by the federal government, and how evidence is incorporated into government-wide decision-making”. Sounds like knowledge mobilization to me!

To be clear, they are not looking for a PhD in implementation science (although that would be excellent). They are looking for one of Canada’s greatest molecular biologists, cosmologists, mechanical engineers, neuroscientists, nanotechnologists etc. to step into a role that defines knowledge mobilization. Tell me how someone with an H Factor of +50 is going to know the first thing about how scientific information is disseminated and used in government decision making?

To be fair they do consider that “experience in one or more of the following areas would be an asset:

• involvement in scientific reviews within legislative or regulatory processes;
• public scientific communication;
• promoting transparency and integrity in scientific research; and
• evaluation of scientific or research programs or projects.”

Public scientific communication and involvement in legislative processes are considered to be one of four things (hence optional) for a job that is all about “how scientific information is disseminated and used”.

Kirsty and Justin, these need to be at the top of your list of mandatory experience, not buried as an optional nice to have. You need to be looking for someone with expertise in the research to policy interface. Canada’s best particle physicist will not be able to provide much help when asked to advise on sensitive topics such as vaccines, GMO foods or First Nations. You don’t need a specialist PhD. You need a process specialist who has demonstrated excellence facilitating evidence use in all sorts of disciplines.

Good luck with the search. Don’t forget to come back to Research Impact Canada for advice on seeking science advice.

[Sorry gentle readers, the competition closed February 13, 2017. You don’t need to rush to update your resumé for this job. But maybe the Chief Science Advisor will see that a PhD in whatever actually needs a knowledge broker to be successful.]

The “Guide of Guides” Series for Knowledge Translation

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

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

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

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



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



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



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



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

Six Actions to Mobilize Knowledge / Six actions pour mobiliser les connaissances

On January 31, 2017, Bev Holmes and Allan Best summarized their recent paper in Evidence & Policy that seeks to make sense of the complexity of knowledge mobilization by pointing to six key actions that can be taken by initiative managers and key influencers.

Le 31 janvier 2017, Bev Holmes et Allan Best ont résumé leur récent article, paru dans Evidence & Policy, dans lequel ils cherchent à expliquer la complexité de la mobilisation des connaissances. Ils indiquent six actions clés qui sont à la portée des gestionnaires d’initiative et des grands influenceurs.

Puzzle piecesOn February 9, 2017, I wrote in Mobilize This! about a paper I published with colleagues that outline five determinants of successful knowledge brokering. Bev Holmes and Allan Best have done something similar. The paper I did was based on a transnational comparison of knowledge brokering practices. Holmes & Best come at it from complexity studies. They advocate working with complexity rather than trying to avoid it.

Their six key actions are: co-producing knowledge, establishing shared goals and measures, enabling leadership, ensuring adequate resourcing, contributing to the science of knowledge-to-action, and communicating strategically.

Our five determinants of successful brokering are: build trust; develop capacity; co-construct knowledge; understand the political, social and economic context; and build culture.

The differences are interesting but so are the similarities. Both articles reference co-producing/co-constructing knowledge. Ensuring adequate resources is similar to building capacity. Enabling leadership is part of building a culture of knowledge brokering. You need to understand the political, social and economic context (Phipps et al) before you can establish shared goals and measures (Holmes & Best).

What is also interesting from Homes & Best is they identify two types of knowledge mobilizers who can be involve in each of their six actions. They identify “those who: (1) are managing specific knowledge mobilization initiatives (initiative managers), and (2) are in a position to make the environment more receptive to change (key influencers).”

This distinction is important as we consider the increasingly professionalized cohort of knowledge mobilization practitioners. These different cohorts of knowledge mobilization practitioners are managing projects (initiative managers) and environments (key influencers) and this starts to create organizational structures for resourcing knowledge mobilization. This may not be relevant to the many knowledge mobilization practitioners who work as solo operators in their organization but for those working in units we will expect to see various “levels” of practitioners.

We will always need front line knowledge brokers – the initiative managers of Holmes & Best. But we will also see a managerial level and a leadership level. As we consider the key competencies for knowledge mobilization practitioners (a group @JulieEBayley and I call research impact practitioners) we will need to understand how these competencies map onto different levels of practitioners from the brokers doing the work, the people managing the brokers and the people who are leading systems of knowledge mobilization.

Will the competencies vary or will the types of work undertaken to practice the competency change?

How to Influence Policy / Pour influencer les politiques

Sending your research to policy makers will have little influence on their decisions; however, if you understand these 10 elements then you have a better chance at creating the conditions where your research can inform policy.

Le fait d’envoyer vos travaux de recherche aux décideurs aura peu d’influence sur leurs décisions ; mais si vous comprenez bien ces 10 éléments, vous saurez mettre en place les conditions dans lesquelles vos travaux auront de meilleures chances d’influencer les politiques.

10 Things to know about how to influence policy with research

For all the academic researchers (and their supporters and partners) in the audience, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) is the UK’s leading independent think tank on international development and humanitarian issues. I love this short but highly informative summary synthesizing many years of scholarship and practice on research to policy impact. Louise Shaxon is a co-author, someone who has worked on the ground in policy influence.

This document illustrates how difficult it is to influence policy makers and gives tips on how to overcome some of the barriers. The top 10 are below. Check out the document for tips on each of these that will help to move your research evidence towards policy.

1. Know what you want to influence
2. Know who you want to influence
3. Know when to influence – this is often harder to know than the first two
4. Build relationships and networks
5. Policy development is not a linear process
6. Policy making is inherently political
7. Plan your engagement
8. Focus on ideas (not problems) and be proposition (i.e. give them a solution)
9. It takes time
10. Monitor, learn and adjust along the way

A note on three of these:

#6. Policy making is inherently political. A senior bureaucrat said to me once, “Evidence doesn’t vote”. Evidence is only one input into the policy making process. This connects to #4 Relationships and Networks. You (and your evidence) won’t succeed alone. Make the connections to other parts of the broader policy system (advocates, associations, the public, media) to align policy advocacy efforts.

#7. Plan Your Engagement: This document recommends you go beyond dissemination methods to more engaged methods of uptake such as public events and meetings. I don’t think this goes far enough. We know from the PARIHS framework that uptake of evidence needs to be facilitated in the context of decision making. Meetings are good. Facilitated workshops of your evidence with policy makers, especially if the workshop is jointly facilitated by a policy maker, will create greater opportunities for policy makers to engage with your evidence. And yet I will go one step further. Seek opportunities to collaborate with policy makers to co-create the evidence that they need and is also important to your scholarship. This is not them contracting you to do their work (although that also has a role) but about finding areas of mutual interest that produce excellent academic scholarship that can also be used in decision making. See Bowen & Graham for more on engaged scholarship vs. knowledge transfer.

#10. Monitor, learn and adjust along the way. In addition to the actions in the document, I recommend you remain in touch with the policy makers so that you can capture the evidence of the impact of your efforts. You won’t know: 1) if your research was used; and 2) if it was did that use informed a change; and 3) if it did what difference did the change make to anyone. This doesn’t have to be onerous or formal. An e mail or phone call every six months reminding them of your engagement efforts and asking if the evidence was used, implemented and if it made a difference will help you track from your research to your engagement efforts to eventual policy impact.

Thank you, Louise and colleagues, for a concise and useful document to guide policy influence. It’s not an easy process but you have provided guidance to overcome some of the barriers.

The document can be downloaded from ODI here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Members of this sub-committee include:

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

2017 Call for Content for the Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Forum

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

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

Call for Content #CKF17

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

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

The theme for 2017 is:

Connections and Partnerships: Collaboration as a Key to Knowledge Mobilization

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

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

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

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

Our objectives are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are seeking the following:

1) Catalyst Presentations of 10 minutes each

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

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

2) Poster Presentations

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

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

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

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

4) Open Space – Approx. 45-60 minutes

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

— Michael M Pannwitz, Open Space practitioner

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

Review

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

The deadline for contribution is March 15, 2017.

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

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

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

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

www.knowledgemobilization.net/forum.

Challenging Perceptions by Changing Ourselves / Défier les à priori en nous transformant

“There has been a shift in focus over the last two decades or so, moving away from a concern around ‘productivity’ to an emphasis on ‘innovation’, and, as we have seen here in Canada with the federal government’s new innovation agenda, towards ensuring that considerations of social inclusion are included in any innovation strategies or frameworks.”

« Depuis 20 ans environ, on assiste à une réorientation des priorités qui nous éloigne du souci de “productivité”, pour nous rapprocher de l’“innovation” et – comme on l’a vu ici, au Canada, avec le nouveau programme du gouvernement fédéral – de l’inclusion des enjeux de la solidarité sociale dans toutes les stratégies et les structures d’innovation. »

This is how Mamdouh Shoukri, President and Vice Chancellor, York University, began his opening address to the 4th annual Post-Secondary Education & Skills Summit of the Conference Board of Canada on November 30, 2016. He charged the audience to “challenge perceptions by changing ourselves”. Seeking to set the tone for the ensuing two days, President Shoukri spoke of innovation, emerging technologies, mission driven research, talent and entrepreneurship to an audience made up of researchers, students, academic administrators, government and advocacy organizations.

ResearchImpact-RéseauImpactRecherche was there.

President Shoukri at Conference Board of Canada

President Shoukri spoke about “Beyond Citations: Knowledge Mobilization, ResearchImpact and the Changing Nature of Academic Work”, the Conference Board of Canada’s report on the ResearchImpact network, which we wrote about in this blog on October 25, 2016. That report called on Canada to go beyond narrowly construed notions of technology commercialization and industry liaison and also embrace knowledge mobilization to more fully contribute to inclusive concepts of innovation. The report concludes “Universities need to invest in institutional supports, such as dedicated knowledge brokers, for knowledge mobilization, as they currently do for technology transfer and industry liaison”.

President Shoukri referred to the ResearchImpact network as creating a culture of knowledge mobilization in Canada. He said, “As its name suggests, the ResearchImpact network has been working to build and advance Canada’s knowledge mobilization and research impact culture across all areas of university research, including humanities, social sciences and the arts, so that we are generating research that is of value to society, and so that our research is getting into the hands of policy-makers, practitioners and decision-makers. This is a new, people-centred approach to research that also complements research agendas that traditionally have focused exclusively on tech transfer and commercialization.”

President Shoukri ended with a snapshot of what success would look like. His vision included:

• “Research with social value or mission-driven research that complements research and development with the work of knowledge mobilization more broadly; and
• More university and college partnerships with governments, not-for-profits and civil society.”

He then invoked the concepts underpinning inclusive innovation by recognizing the key role of non-academic partners in mediating impacts of research and the interconnectedness of our campuses with the public, private and civil society sectors.

“For our teaching and research to be truly valuable to society, for our graduates to be ready for the workplace, colleges and universities must be integrated into our communities—with government, with industry, with civil society—rather than islands.

The government has traditionally regarded the three areas of: economic growth, social justice and environmental sustainability as separate, but is now recognizing, along with the rest of society, that a more integrated approach is more effective.

This represents a key opportunity and key role for colleges and universities.”

Knowledge mobilization enables inclusive innovation by creating the conditions for collaborations that will maximize the impacts of research on Canadians. That truly is a key opportunity for colleges and universities and even for Canada.

The full text of President Shoukri’s remarks can be found on his website.

Recapping the Top Five Most Popular Posts of 2016 / Résumé des 5 billets les plus populaire de 2016

Here’s a look at the top five most popular blog posts in 2016.

Revoici les cinq billets qui vous ont le plus intéressés.

#1 – 165 views

SSHRC Strategic Plan Sets the Stage for Knowledge Mobilization / Le Plan stratégique du CRSH met la table pour la mobilisation des connaissances

Congratulations SSHRC on a new strategic plan. Implementing this plan will help social sciences and humanities research have an impact on the lives of Canadians.

Toutes nos félicitations pour ce nouveau plan stratégique ! Grâce à lui, la recherche en sciences humaines et sociales aura encore plus d’impact sur la vie des Canadiens et des Canadiennes.

SSHRC strategic plan image

#2 – 154 views

The Co-Produced Pathway To Impact / La Trajectoire D’impact Codéterminée

York’s Knowledge Mobilization Unit regularly publishes peer reviewed articles on various aspects of institutional knowledge mobilization. The most recent publication describes a pathway from research to impact that can be used by research organizations seeking to monitor their projects as they progress towards impact.

L’Unité de mobilisation des connaissances de York produit régulièrement des articles scientifiques sur différents aspects de la mise en application du savoir universitaire. Sa publication la plus récente décrit un itinéraire permettant de passer de la recherche à l’impact, au moyen d’une démarche que les organismes de recherche peuvent employer pour superviser la progression de leurs projets vers l’impact souhaité.

CPPI from JCES

#3 – 110 views

The Who, What and How of Research Impact / L’impact de la recherche : le qui, le quoi et le comment

David Phipps has just returned from three weeks in the UK for his Fellowship funded by the Association of Commonwealth Universities. Working with his Fellowship partner, Julie Bayley (Coventry University), he became immersed in research impacts mediated through public engagement, commercialization, entrepreneurship, internationalization and knowledge exchange. This affords the opportunity for a trans-Atlantic comparison of the people who are creating and assessing the many impacts of research. You can help by participating in a survey to help us figure this out.

David Phipps rentre tout juste d’un voyage de trois semaines au Royaume-Uni, où il a avancé les travaux qu’il réalise à titre de boursier de l’Association of Commonwealth Universities. Avec sa partenaire de subvention, Julie Bayley (de la Coventry University), il s’est penché sur l’impact produit par l’engagement dans le domaine public, la commercialisation, l’entrepreneuriat, l’internationalisation et l’échange de connaissances.Cela ouvre la porte à une comparaison transatlantique des personnes qui créent et qui évaluent les multiples impacts de la recherche.Vous pouvez les aider à mettre de l’ordre dans tout cela en participant à un sondage.

Julie Bayley and David Phipps

Julie Bayley and David Phipps

#4 – 104 views

Critical Appraisal of Research Impact Pathways / Éloge critique des moyens d’amplifier l’impact de la recherche

The National Institute for Health Research (UK) and the Association of Medical Research Charities held an impact forum on April 27, 2016. We were invited to kick at some of the popular impact pathways by asking five critical questions.

Deux établissements britanniques, le National Institute for Health Research et l’Association of Medical Research Charities, organisaient un forum sur l’impact de la recherche, le 27 avril dernier. Nous avions été invités à poser cinq questions délicates afin de déboulonner les moyens populaires de mettre la recherche en action.

Pic of presentation slide

#5 – 81 views

Knowledge Mobilization, Research Impact, and the Changing Nature of Academic Work / La mobilisation des connaissances, l’impact de la recherche et la nature changeante du travail universitaire

That’s the title of a research article written by Matthew McKean, Conference Board of Canada. The article reviews the ResearchImpact network and the emerging importance of knowledge mobilization in Canada’s academic research enterprise and Canada’s inclusive innovation agenda.

Voilà le titre d’un article de fond publié par Matthew McKean, du Conference Board du Canada. L’auteur examine le Réseau Impact Recherche et l’importance de plus en plus affirmée de la mobilisation des connaissances, dans la conduite de la recherche universitaire au Canada comme dans le programme d’innovation inclusif que le pays s’est donné.

Conference Board of Canada logo

Merry Mobilizing!

Merry Mobilizing 2016

Merry Mobilizing from the Knowledge Mobilization Unit at York University!

From left to right:

David Phipps, Executive Director, Research & Innovation Services

Sarah Howe, Director, Innovation York

Rebecca Giblon, Research Translation Assistant

Krista Jensen, Knowledge Mobilization Officer

Meghan Terry, Design Communications Assistant

Michael Johnny, Manager, Knowledge Mobilization

Anneliese Poetz, Manager, NeuroDevNet KT Core

Stacie Ross, KT Assistant, NeuroDevNet KT Core