{"id":12352,"date":"2012-03-04T00:00:29","date_gmt":"2012-03-04T05:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/researchimpact.ydsinc.ca\/flows-of-knowledge-expertise-and-influence-a-method-for-assessing-policy-and-practice-impacts-from-social-science-research\/"},"modified":"2025-04-01T14:30:57","modified_gmt":"2025-04-01T18:30:57","slug":"flows-of-knowledge-expertise-and-influence-a-method-for-assessing-policy-and-practice-impacts-from-social-science-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/researchimpact.ca\/fr\/archive\/flows-of-knowledge-expertise-and-influence-a-method-for-assessing-policy-and-practice-impacts-from-social-science-research\/","title":{"rendered":"Flows of Knowledge, Expertise and Influence: A Method for Assessing Policy and Practice Impacts From Social Science Research"},"content":{"rendered":"

Meagher, L., Lyall, C., & Nutley, S. (2008).\u00a0Flows of knowledge, expertise and influence: A method for assessing policy and practice impacts from social science research.\u00a0Research Evaluation,\u00a017<\/em>(3), 163-173. DOI: 10.3152\/095820208X331720<\/p>\n

Abstract<\/strong>
\nSocial science research undoubtedly does impact public policy and practice, but such non-academic impacts are rarely amenable to precise, quantitative metrics. In the interests of accountability, it is, however, possible to find proxy indicators of connectivity with research users, and these may form steps toward impacts. Understanding these connections can lead to a deeper appreciation of the factors that shape the processes leading to research uptake. This study adopted a detailed and largely qualitative approach to identify the flows of knowledge, expertise and influence that take place during the process of knowledge transfer in order to trial a method for assessing policy and practice impacts from social science research. As a corollary to this assessment, the study further identified five factors that can influence and enhance the process of knowledge exchange between researchers and users.<\/i><\/p>\n

The paper builds from an earlier paper by Meagher and Lyall in 2007.\u00a0In that paper, the authors identified that a \u00ab\u00a0small majority (57%) of award-holders<\/em>\u00a0[i.e. grant recipients from the Economic and Social Research Council]\u00a0who responded to the survey considered that their research had had an impact beyond the research community, although they found this difficult to document precisely<\/em>.\u00a0\u00bb<\/span> Two observations here: 1) It therefore follows that 43% of respondents were unable to articulate non-academic impacts of their publicly funded research; and 2) The authors asked the researchers to articulate their non-academic impact. The impact is more appropriately measured at the level of the user, not the producer. If they had asked downstream research users (policymakers, practitioners) to point to impacts derived from the ESRC-funded research, the results would likely have been lower.<\/p>\n

The authors critique the use of the term knowledge transfer but continue to use it without implying the linearity of the concept. Knowledge transfer is a general term used in the UK to support the economic impact of research \u00ab\u00a0with ‘economic’ defined broadly enough to include policy, practice and other dimensions of importance to society<\/i>\u00ab\u00a0. While the official definition of KT includes policy, in reality, KT in the UK is synonymous with technology transfer in Canada.\u00a0More recently, knowledge exchange has been used by the <\/span>Centre for Research in Families and Relationships<\/a> at the University of Edinburgh.<\/span><\/p>\n

What did they do? The authors surveyed 134 ESRC grant recipients as well as research users and knowledge intermediaries associated with these grants and used a range of qualitative research methods to investigate examples of impacts and processes by which these impacts were achieved. Kudos for interviewing end users and knowledge intermediaries. They were \u00ab\u00a0able to draw some lessons about the processes that seemed to accelerate research uptake. While these lessons are certainly not definitive,<\/i> [they] identified five factors that could have a particular influence on processes likely to lead to non-academic research impacts.\u00a0\u00bb<\/i>
\nThese five factors are:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The value placed upon\/incentives provided for the generation of impact<\/li>\n
  2. Supporting two-way interactions between researchers and users<\/li>\n
  3. Injections of financial support, dedicated staff, infrastructure<\/li>\n
  4. Facilitating role(s) of knowledge intermediaries<\/li>\n
  5. Communication\/increasing accessibility of research<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Key Points for discussion:<\/strong> There are two items for further discussion and reflection:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Review these five factors. As you build your KMb practice understand how these factors can influence the success of your KMb services.\n