KTA 2

KTA for projects terminated at completion of Invention Phase

Primary findings

Secondary findings

Primary findings

Barriers

In cases where multiple practice guidelines have been published (e.g., at the level of the country, region and internationally), knowledge users (e.g., clinicians) may find it challenging to decide which, if any, are consistent with their needs and complimentary to their practice. There may also be instances were inter-guideline comparisons reveal inconsistencies or outright disagreements with each other, which can be confusing for the knowledge user. Guideline producers should understand their stakeholders’ needs and respond to them.
Applying the Graham Knowledge to Action Process model in stroke rehabilitation.
(View full citation)

In knowledge translation, front-line workers can be a valuable source of knowledge, but they may be ignored by colleagues and/or managers. The disconnect between what front-line workers know and what others value, acknowledge and use may be attributable to perceived differences in levels-of-expertise or disagreements between professions. Knowledge translators should watch for, and address disconnects.
Case stories and theory development about the role of front-line workers in knowledge translation.
(View full citation)

In knowledge translation, front-line workers can be a valuable source of knowledge, but they may be ignored by colleagues and/or managers. The disconnect between what front-line workers know and what others value, acknowledge and use may be attributable to the inability of their colleagues or managers to acknowledge the need for change (or admit ignorance). Knowledge translators should watch for, and address disconnects.
Case stories and theory development about the role of front-line workers in knowledge translation.
(View full citation)

In knowledge translation, front-line workers can be a valuable source of knowledge, but they may be ignored by decision-makers. In large organizations, the disconnect between what front-line workers know and what others value, acknowledge and use may be attributable to their ‘distance’ from decision-makers.Decision-makers should watch for, and address disconnects.
Case stories and theory development about the role of front-line workers in knowledge translation.
(View full citation)

In knowledge translation, front-line workers can be a valuable source of knowledge, but they may be ignored by managers. The disconnect between what front-line workers know and what managers value, acknowledge and use may be attributable to differences focus, with front-line workers emphasizing practice and experience and managers emphasizing operations management and policy. Managers should watch for, and address disconnects.
Case stories and theory development about the role of front-line workers in knowledge translation.
(View full citation)

In knowledge translation, frontline workers can be a valuable source of knowledge, but they may be ignored by colleagues and/or managers. The disconnect between what front-line workers know and what others value, acknowledge and use may be attributable to a lack of organizational power, position or status. Knowledge translators should watch for, and address disconnects.
Case stories and theory development about the role of front-line workers in knowledge translation.
(View full citation)

Knowledge stakeholders typically have narrow decision-making timelines and specific informational needs. They usually are unwilling or unable to wait extended periods for applicable research results. Researchers need to take this into consideration as they plan, execute and mobilize their research projects.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(View full citation)

One of the challenges knowledge producers (e.g., researchers) may face when trying to translate their research findings and apply them in a knowledge user’s (e.g., practitioner’s) setting is aligning the new knowledge with the knowledge user’s context (and the knowledge user’s local knowledge, such as how work gets done and/or organizational constraints on how it must be done) and rendering the new knowledge applicable and usable.
Case stories and theory development about the role of front-line workers in knowledge translation.
(View full citation)

One of the factors practitioners may cite as an impediment to applying research-based knowledge is requirement for specialized skills or equipment, which may not be available.
Application of Graham’s Knowledge-to-Action Process model in occupational therapy.
(View full citation)

One of the factors that can impede knowledge translation is a lack of awareness or access to key knowledge and expertise. Indexes, search engines, expertise locators and social networks can help to remove these barriers.
Literature review and conceptual framework development.
(View full citation)

One of the factors that can impede knowledge translation is knowledge asymmetry. As one example, the knowledge user (in need) may know more about a particular issue, while the researcher (with interest) may know more about potential solutions. The knowledge user’s limited awareness of potential solutions may make them sceptical about the researcher’s confidence in the proposed solution. The researcher may feel undervalued. One approach the knowledge user and researcher could take to bridge the gap is to invest time in building a professional relationship and establishing mutual trust.
Literature review and conceptual framework development.
(View full citation)

One of the factors that can impede knowledge translation is knowledge incompatibility. This can occur when there is a disconnect between the new knowledge being considered and the receiving organization’s mission, historical context, values, skills, resources or prior investments in technologies.
Literature review and conceptual framework development.
(View full citation)

One of the factors that can impede the application of research-based knowledge (evidence) is the fact that relevant practitioners, or their entire profession, are not ready to adopt (or able to justify the use of) the new knowledge. This is referred to as ‘technology push.’ (The reverse may also occur, where the practitioner/profession has an identified need that researchers have not acted upon. This is known as ‘practice pull.’)
Literature review and professional reflections.
(View full citation)

One of the factors that knowledge users (e.g., clinicians) may site as an impediment to applying research-based knowledge is the absence of resources that provide a synthesis of the findings and context-specific vehicles for their application. Knowledge producers should directly link their finding to specific practitioner uses.
Applying the Graham Knowledge to Action Process model in stroke rehabilitation.
(View full citation)

Research-based scholarly publications rarely include information that itemizes associated costs and benefits, or facilitates planning and budgeting. Other common absences of information include implementation-related factors such as the availability of practice guidelines, staffing requirements, educational prerequisites, training needs, and performance life-cycles. Researchers often have many of the answers, but journals rarely consider the information to be within their scope of coverage.
Literature review and professional reflections.
(View full citation)

Research-based scholarly publications rarely include information that itemizes associated costs and benefits, or facilitates planning and budgeting. Other common absences of information include implementation-related factors such as the availability of practice guidelines, staffing requirements, educational prerequisites, training needs, and performance lifecycles. Researchers often have many of the answers, but journals rarely consider the information to be within their scope of coverage.
Literature review and professional reflections.
(View full citation)

Survey of 82 software development companies, showed a correlation between knowledge delivery factors and tea efficiency — that team efficiency could be increased if knowledge is delivered close to the time it is needed within the project.
Survey. Information dissemination independent of Context — When knowledge is pushed out to potential users, it is assumed that the knowledge being delivered is useful. Yet, in w real working environment, this assumption is problematic, because it is very difficult to forecast which knowledge will be useful in the future. Broadcasting de-contextualized information to end users is a push approach to dissemination. The push approach can be a barrier to communication by creating information overload among the target audience.
(View full citation)

Transaction Costs of Knowledge Utilization — the costs of actions and tasks required to ensure the use of knowledge by various target audiences. Transaction cost barriers are classified in four categories: 1) Public policies — such as scholarly incentives for knowledge use by academics but not for use by practitioners; 2) Absolute Cost Advantages — experienced scholars with high level of publications have more to offer users than new scholars; 3) Economies of Scale — when costs are large relative to the total demand by users; 4) Customization of Products — more customization increases cost while also decreasing the size of the user group.
A 38% response rate to a mail survey of 3,252 social science faculty members in Canada, yielded insights into the factors contributing to a progression through levels of use of research results by non-academics, as reported by the respondents.
(View full citation)

Transitioning a public research system and its stakeholders from traditional academically-focused, science-oriented production of knowledge (Mode 1 basic knowledge production — where scientists control their own means of production) to transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge (Mode 2 applied knowledge production — where a collaborative, heterogeneous, multidisciplinary group is involved in production, and often includes potential knowledge users) can be challenging. For example, formal disciplinary boundaries may reinforce Mode 1 knowledge production thinking and practices.
Literature review and case study of the transition from Mode 1 knowledge production to Mode 2 knowledge production.
(View full citation)

Transitioning a public research system and its stakeholders from traditional academically-focused, science-oriented production of knowledge (Mode 1 basic knowledge production — where scientists control their own means of production) to transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge (Mode 2 applied knowledge production — where a collaborative, heterogeneous, multidisciplinary group is involved in production, and often includes potential knowledge users) can be challenging. For example, institutional ethics approval committees, which are typically guided by Mode 1 logic, could find it difficult to respond to research proposals that are structured with Mode 2 logic.
Literature review and case study of the transition from Mode 1 knowledge production to Mode 2 knowledge production.
(View full citation)

Transitioning a public research system and its stakeholders from traditional academically-focused, science-oriented production of knowledge (Mode 1 basic knowledge production — where scientists control their own means of production) to transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge (Mode 2 applied knowledge production — where a collaborative, heterogeneous, multidisciplinary group is involved in production, and often includes potential knowledge users) can be challenging. For example, it may be simplistic to think that system-wide, stakeholder-specific Mode 2 knowledge production could replace all instances of Mode 1 knowledge production. It is more likely that Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge production would co-exist and co-mingle, with contradictory logics at play — across and within stakeholder groups. This can lead to ‘artful mobilization’ and ‘taken-for-granted practices,’ where stakeholders commit to Mode 2 knowledge production, but take advantage of contradictions inherent in the co-mingling to reinforce Mode 1 knowledge production
Literature review and case study of the transition from Mode 1 knowledge production to Mode 2 knowledge production.
(View full citation)

Transitioning a public research system and its stakeholders from traditional academically-focused, science-oriented production of knowledge (Mode 1 basic knowledge production — where scientists control their own means of production) to transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge (Mode 2 applied knowledge production — where a collaborative, heterogeneous, multidisciplinary group is involved in production, and often includes potential knowledge users) can be challenging. For example, project-related progress reporting, evaluation, and performance assessment criteria for Mode 2 production would be radically different from those currently associated with Mode 1 production.
Literature review and case study of the transition from Mode 1 knowledge production to Mode 2 knowledge production.
(View full citation)

Transitioning a public research system and its stakeholders from traditional academically-focused, science-oriented production of knowledge (Mode 1 basic knowledge production — where scientists control their own means of production) to transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge (Mode 2 applied knowledge production — where a collaborative, heterogeneous, multidisciplinary group is involved in production, and often includes potential knowledge users) can be challenging. For example, research governance bodies, whose practices are often guided by Mode 1 logic, could find it difficult to provide oversight on research proposals that are structured with Mode 2 logic.
Literature review and case study of the transition from Mode 1 knowledge production to Mode 2 knowledge production.
(View full citation)

Transitioning a public research system and its stakeholders from traditional academically-focused, science-oriented production of knowledge (Mode 1 basic knowledge production — where scientists control their own means of production) to transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge (Mode 2 applied knowledge production — where a collaborative, heterogeneous, multidisciplinary group is involved in production, and often includes potential knowledge users) can be challenging. For example, transitioning to a Mode 2 way of thinking may produce its own internal contradictions that could trigger retrenchment to Mode 1 practices.
Literature review and case study of the transition from Mode 1 knowledge production to Mode 2 knowledge production.
(View full citation)

Transitioning a public research system and its stakeholders from traditional academically-focused, science-oriented production of knowledge (Mode 1 basic knowledge production — where scientists control their own means of production) to transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge (Mode 2 applied knowledge production — where a collaborative, heterogeneous, multidisciplinary group is involved in production, and often includes potential knowledge users) can be challenging. When more than one government department is involved, which is often the case, competing mandates (e.g., health’s requirement for applied research, industry’s demand for commercialization and an overall government need to demonstrate legitimate public engagement) or cumulative mandates (as opposed to a joint, over-arching mandate) may challenge the capacity and resources of parties considering the submission of research proposals.
Literature review and case study of the transition from Mode 1 knowledge production to Mode 2 knowledge production
(View full citation)

Transitioning a public research system and its stakeholders from traditional academically-focused, science-oriented production of knowledge (Mode 1 basic knowledge production — where scientists control their own means of production) to transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge (Mode 2 applied knowledge production — where a collaborative, heterogeneous, multidisciplinary group is involved in production, and often includes potential knowledge users) can be challenging. While stakeholders may support the transition, they often need additional time and facilitation to adequately align their thinking, adjust their organizational cultures, and render associated processes and practices compliant.
Literature review and case study of the transition from Mode 1 knowledge production to Mode 2 knowledge production.
(View full citation)

Variables that do not contribute to knowledge use among non-academics. The technological model — or science push — stresses the supply of research findings as the major determinant of knowledge use. However, the three derived explanatory variables: 1) focus on advancement of scholarly knowledge; 2) quantitative versus qualitative method applied; 3) intrinsic attributes of science, did not predict increased levels of knowledge use by practitioners.
A 38% response rate to a mail survey of 3,252 social science faculty members in Canada, yielded insights into the factors contributing to a progression through levels of use of research results by non-academics, as reported by the respondents.
(View full citation)

When using the Knowledge to Action Process model to effect an evidence-based change (e.g., in a clinical practice), it is critical to identify potential barriers that may interfere with the successful application of the new knowledge. One way to identify potential barriers is to conduct focus groups with key stakeholders.
Applying the Graham Knowledge to Action Process model in stroke rehabilitation.
(View full citation)

When using the Knowledge to Action Process model to effect an evidence-based change (e.g., in a clinical practice), it is critical to identify potential facilitators that may contribute to the successful application of the new knowledge. One way to identify potential facilitators is to conduct focus groups with key stakeholders.
Applying the Graham Knowledge to Action Process model in stroke rehabilitation.
(View full citation)

Carriers

In many cases, the knowledge transfer (knowledge translation) needs of small companies change over time. It is also rare that they possess as complete a skill set (or the time available) as they need to develop all aspects of their business. In addition to the creation or co-creation of new ideas, knowledge transfer can be viewed as a business process, or set of interconnected processes, with the potential to enhance commercialization. The overall process needs planning both generically (in the sense that different ‘standard’ route maps for a firm’s development might be developed) and individually (in that different firms might need to call on different kinds of support at different times). A more structured yet flexible approach to planning for knowledge transfer support should be able to foresee and accommodate the differing support needs of entrepreneurs at different times in the commercialization process.
Literature review and longitudinal case study results.
(View full citation)

A research project steering committee with equal representation from the research organization and key stakeholders can help with the creation of a project vision, deliberation strategies, and promotional activities. Together, members commit to a goal established by the committee and coordinate action in the direction of that goal.
Project-based learnings.
(View full citation)

Conference proceeding reports results of a survey involving 200 respondents regarding their knowledge transfer activity, with much of the content drawn from a 2007 peer-reviewed paper by Landry, Amara & Ouimet in the Journal of Technology Transfer. Study of new population has similar results: transfer determined by linkages with knowledge users and study focused on topic relevant to knowledge users.
Survey. Facilitating Knowledge Transfer — Guidelines, reports, articles in trade journals, and presentations to professional groups, are all tools that researchers can use to communicate research findings to non-academic audiences.
(View full citation)

Convening an interactive forum (a knowledge translation event that brings researchers and knowledge users together to jointly interpret research findings) can provide opportunities for stakeholders to network with each other and gauge how others are using (or intend to use) the research findings. These inter-stakeholder discussions often extend beyond the forum.
Literature review and single case study.
(View full citation)

Convening an interactive forum (a knowledge translation event that brings researchers and knowledge users together to jointly interpret research findings) can raise stakeholder awareness of the research findings. A forum can also serve to explicitly place the usage of research findings on the formal organizational agenda for action.
Literature review and single case study.
(View full citation)

Convening an interactive forum (a knowledge translation event that brings researchers and knowledge users together to jointly interpret research findings) is one way to broaden stakeholder learning about research findings.
Literature review and single case study.
(View full citation)

Determinants of Level of Knowledge Transfer — Two determinants were common across six science/engineering fields studied: 1) Established linkages between researchers and research users provided audiences as targets for communication; 2) Focusing the research study on established user needs, ensured that the findings were relevant to that audience.
Survey of 1,554 researchers funded by NSERC in Canada to assess level of knowledge transfer among scientists and engineers.
(View full citation)

For research project evaluators, a knowledge translation (or knowledge-to-action or knowledge transfer, utilization, dissemination, or implementation) lens can help them to answer questions about the experience of the various actors as they interact. It also helps evaluators to answer questions about how knowledge may have informed the project or intervention and how knowledge flows into, within, and out of these activities over time.
Literature review.
(View full citation)

In many cases, the knowledge translation process is cyclical. Repeated interaction between researchers and knowledge users has the potential to continually and positively influence the direction, progress, and results of research. This typically enhances the relevance, meaning and applicability of the findings to knowledge users.
Editorial commentary about knowledge translation.
(View full citation)

Independent research project advisory boards, with equal representation from community and academic institutions, can help to draw out relevant policy and practice implications of research findings.
Project-based learnings.
(View full citation)

Not all researchers need to adopt integrated knowledge translation. In cases where there is very strong evidence that the research findings will have significant beneficial effects if applied in the real world, more intense knowledge translation may be warranted to make the results accessible and to facilitate their implementation. Generally, the intensity of knowledge translation should depend on factors such as the potential importance or impact of applying the findings, the amount and strength of the evidence supporting the findings (often determined by synthesis), the target audience(s), what is known about effective strategies to reach the audience(s), what is practical and feasible to do under the circumstances and considerations of who else should be involved in KT efforts.
Integrated knowledge translation recommendation based upon evidence and experience.
(View full citation)

Survey of 82 software development companies, showed a correlation between knowledge delivery factors and tea efficiency — that team efficiency could be increased if knowledge is delivered close to the time it is needed within the project.
Survey. Knowledge Transfer in Context  — By applying the demand pull approach, new knowledge is generated within the context of the knowledge needs of the target users. Users will know what knowledge they seek, and will take initiatives to to search for such knowledge. In the demand pull approach, there is no gap between learning and working. It is a learning-on-demand approach because what is learned is what is needed to accomplish the work task at hand.
(View full citation)

To induce knowledge use beyond awareness among non-academics, researchers need to focus on two variables: 1) External funding — securing funding external to their institution which implies their work has value to others and the funding is sufficient to generate a critical volume of publications; 2) User's Context - conduct research pertinent to non-academics by addressing the needs and expectations of receptive audiences who deem the researcher credible, and deliver results in a timeframe relevant to their need.
A 38% response rate to a mail survey of 3,252 social science faculty members in Canada, yielded insights into the factors contributing to a progression through levels of use of research results by non-academics, as reported by the respondents.
(View full citation)

When convening an interactive forum (a knowledge translation event that brings researchers and knowledge users together to jointly interpret research findings) it is important to consider the value of providing stakeholders with tools and techniques they can use to apply the research findings.
Literature review and single case study.
(View full citation)

When external researchers are embedded in an organization (especially in a team-based setting), it can be extremely helpful to have an internal champion that has sufficiently senior standing and operational knowledge and is able to make commitments regarding forms of collaboration and data/resource sharing.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(View full citation)

When planning, implementing or evaluating a knowledge translation (innovation) process, diffusion theory strongly advises that you be prepared for the potential for locally-driven, contextually-motivated modifications to be made to the new knowledge in order to assure fit and continued use.
Literature review and synthesis.
(View full citation)

When planning, implementing or evaluating a knowledge translation (innovation) process, diffusion theory suggests that one of the factors that can influence the appeal of new knowledge to a potential knowledge user is the relative advantage of the new knowledge in relation to existing knowledge and related practices. Generally, adoption strength increases with increasing value of the knowledge. Stakeholder perceptions are equally important. Newness counts as a value.
Literature Review and Synthesis.
(View full citation)

When planning, implementing or evaluating a knowledge translation (innovation) process, diffusion theory suggests that potential knowledge users typically go through a five-stage adoption process. Under ideal circumstances, the first stage is awareness, followed by persuasion, then adoption, next implementation and finally confirmation.
Literature Review and Synthesis.
(View full citation)

When small businesses co-locate in a university research and development setting, it can help them to become more focused and strategic in their planning and draw on university-based expertise in order to do. The companies can also gain a better appreciation of strategic planning and focus their business activities. This can translate into a greater emphasis on business planning at the strategic level (the future development of the business) as well as a more sophisticated understanding of knowledge transfer as a two-way process and an increased interest in the social and political impact of collaborative efforts.
Literature review and longitudinal case study results.
(View full citation)

When small businesses co-locate in a university research and development setting, there are opportunities for university academics to experience, first-hand, real-world business needs and challenges.
Literature review and longitudinal case study results.
(View full citation)

Models

A community-based knowledge translation conceptual framework — that synergistically combines elements of participatory action research (PAR), the Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU) and the knowledge-to-action (KTA) conceptual framework to optimize community stakeholder involvement in the creation, translation and application of new knowledge. Participatory action research and elements of the KTA are used to engage community stakeholders in the creation of knowledge that is relevant and useful to them. Adaptations of the OMRU and the KTA, both originally developed for healthcare settings, are used to guide community stakeholder knowledge implementation and use. The intent of PAR is to co-create knowledge collaboratively and act on that knowledge to address an issue raised by the creators that may result in social change at the local level. The intent of OMRU/KTA is to implement evidenced informed knowledge and then evaluate how that knowledge is adapted and adopted by users. In essence, PAR generates knowledge that the OMRU and KTA translate and disseminate.
Literature review and synthesis.
(View full citation)

A knowledge transfer process model — that combines elements of communication and translation theory to explore four factors that are critical to effective knowledge transfer: where the knowledge is, the knowledge source’s willingness to share knowledge, the knowledge receiver’s willingness to receive the knowledge, and the absorptive capacity of the receiver.
Literature review.
(View full citation)

Conceptual Model of Technology Transfer — Resources enabling a researcher to engage in knowledge transfer include the attributes of the knowledge itself, sources of funding, organizational assets such as institutions size and professional obligations, relational linkages with non-academic users; and personal experience of the investigator. These can be combined into a conceptual framework for transfer as shown in Figure 1 page 565.
Survey of 1,554 researchers funded by NSERC in Canada to assess level of knowledge transfer among scientists and engineers.
(View full citation)

Levels of Knowledge Utilization — Authors created a questionnaire to record the progression of research findings use by non-academics, containing six levels of use: 1) Transmission to users; 2) Cognition by users; 3) Reference to findings by users; 4) Efforts to adopt; 5) Influence on decisions; 6) Applications and extensions by users.
A 38% response rate to a mail survey of 3,252 social science faculty members in Canada, yielded insights into the factors contributing to a progression through levels of use of research results by non-academics, as reported by the respondents.
(View full citation)

Methods

Activities of Knowledge Transfer — The literature suggests that the transfer of research results can take seven different forms: 1) Transmission; 2) Presentation; 3) Participating in work groups; 4) Consulting; 5) Contributing to development of products or services; 6) Involvement in business activities; 7) Commercialization.
Survey of 1,554 researchers funded by NSERC in Canada to assess level of knowledge transfer among scientists and engineers.
(View full citation)

An important aspect of knowledge transfer is enhancing the knowledge application process. This can be achieved through rich communication and collaboration (theory of communication). A knowledge transfer process model can encourage knowledge users to answer some key questions, such as: Who needs the knowledge (receiver)? What organizational units are involved in the knowledge transfer process? What is the most appropriate “source” to acquire the required knowledge (awareness)? What is/are the type(s) of knowledge to be transferred? How should it be transferred (modes of knowledge transfer)? What are the factors that will influence the process of knowledge transfer and what are their potential impacts? What can be done to enhance the factors that positively influence the process of knowledge transfer and what can be done to avoid/lessen negative impacts? What approaches can the receiver take to apply the knowledge? Did the knowledge transfer process achieve its goals (performance measurement)?
Literature review.
(View full citation)

As part of the evaluation planning associated with a research project, the researchers should consider: the definitions of how the knowledge translation process is framed by the actors themselves; the decision-making processes that should exist; and the critical events that should take place.
Literature review.
(View full citation)

Conference proceeding reports results of a survey involving 200 respondents regarding their knowledge transfer activity, with much of the content drawn from a 2007 peer-reviewed paper by Landry, Amara & Ouimet in the Journal of Technology Transfer. Study of new population has similar results: transfer determined by linkages with knowledge users and study focused on topic relevant to knowledge users.
Survey. Drivers of Knowledge Transfer — The adaptation of knowledge, the accessibility of research publications, established linkages with users, focusing studies on user's needs, publication productivity of scholar, being a scientific professional with extramural grant funding, and working in an applied field, all contribute to the level and intensity of knowledge transfer activity.
(View full citation)

Embedding a researcher in the target practice setting can achieve a number of benefits. Knowledge users have an opportunity to observe how the researcher works (how they translate and apply knowledge) and not just what the researcher knows (as evidenced by the end product of their work). The knowledge is made visible and more amenable to adaptation and application.Knowledge users can also immediately see the relevance and value of the knowledge in the context of their own work.
Case study.
(View full citation)

Knowledge Transfer by Researchers — Researchers are more active in transfer prior to the creation of intellectual property, and independent of commercial applications, when there are obviously fewer constraints on their ability to communicate externally. Evidence of knowledge transfer increased as the number of publications increased, suggesting that translation activities did not hamper their scholarly productivity.
Survey of 1,554 researchers funded by NSERC in Canada to assess level of knowledge transfer among scientists and engineers.
(View full citation)

Knowledge application is considered by many to be the most significant stage of the knowledge transfer process.It is the phase during which acquired knowledge is brought to bear on a specific problem or opportunity. Value is created only when knowledge that is transferred from its original site is successfully applied where it is needed.
Literature review.
(View full citation)

Mentoring is one approach that can be applied to building capacity for knowledge translation research and practice. Some of the factors that should be considered when developing a mentorship program include the goals of program (research or practice focused, kinds of knowledge to be translated), participation enablers (mentorship training and incentives, mentor commitment, mentee choice), characteristics of the mentor and mentee (stage in career, specialization) mentor roles (expert, champion), program design and format (formal/informal, individual/group, in-person/remote), program delivery (frequency, duration, sequencing, screening, orientating, matching, executing), program support (tools, infrastructure) and program evaluation (changes in attitude, skill, behaviour, relationships, application, productivity). Factors that may complicate mentoring include finding appropriate mentors, negotiating mentoring processes, setting mentoring boundaries and scheduling mentoring activities.
Literature review.
(View full citation)

Provided that both receiver and source have the willingness and the ability to do so, facilitate the knowledge acquisition process. This refers to “an organisation’s capability to identify and acquire externally generated knowledge that is critical to its operations.” Zahra and George introduce three main attributes that can influence the process of knowledge acquisition, i.e. intensity, speed, and direction. The intensity and speed of an organisation’s efforts to identify and gather knowledge can determine the quality of a knowledge acquisition process. The greater the effort, the more quickly the organisation will build its knowledge-base. Sometimes, there are limits to an organisation’s ability to achieve this speed. The direction of accumulating knowledge can also influence the paths that the organisation follows in obtaining external knowledge. These activities vary in their richness and complexity.
Literature review.
(View full citation)

Typically, acquired knowledge requires some sort of a conversion in order to make it “useful” for the knowledge receiver. This is a complicated process as it involves ensuring that the knowledge receiver has a knowledge-base heterogeneous enough to be able to take in new knowledge while still making sure existing knowledge is well leveraged and developed.The process of converting knowledge into “useful” knowledge at the receiver’s end involves two steps. The first step is “knowledge transformation.” Transformation of knowledge can be accomplished by simply adding or deleting knowledge or by means of “translation.” The second step of knowledge conversion involves relating the transformed knowledge to internal needs of the organisation. This step is called “knowledge association.”
Literature review.
(View full citation)

When using the Knowledge to Action Process model to effect an evidence-based change (e.g., in a clinical practice), one approach that can be taken to identifying a problem (phase 1 of the model) with a practice is to formally survey knowledge users (clinicians) about their use of research knowledge in their practice.
Applying the Graham Knowledge to Action Process model in stroke rehabilitation.
(View full citation)

When using the Knowledge to Action Process model to effect an evidence-based change (e.g., in a clinical practice), one approach that can be taken to identifying a problem (phase 1 of the model) with a practice is to conduct focus groups with knowledge producers (researchers) and knowledge users (clinicians) to explore why there are gaps between the availability of research evidence and its application in a clinical setting.
Applying the Graham Knowledge to Action Process model in stroke rehabilitation.
(View full citation)

Measures

Considering the return on investment in university-based research activity — 2003 data shows an investment in Canadian university research of $7.5 billion, generated monetary returns of $19.1 million — two tenths of one percent. We hypothesize that the indicators used to calculate the return do not capture the value of knowledge spillovers resulting from external access to research knowledge by people in corporations, government agencies and other non-academic organizations.
Survey of 1,554 researchers funded by NSERC in Canada to assess level of knowledge transfer among scientists and engineers.
(View full citation)

When evaluating a knowledge translation process, one of the questions an evaluator can asks is: In what ways do the appliers of the new knowledge differ from the resistors (or non-appliers)?
Literature review and synthesis.
(View full citation)

When evaluating a knowledge translation process, one of the questions an evaluator can asks is: What were the attributes of the process that facilitated or impeded application of the new knowledge?
Literature review and synthesis.
(View full citation)

Tips

Allegiance to a specific knowledge process (e.g., knowledge translation) can be institutionalized. Stakeholders should make sure they understand the context and implications associated with this form of commitment.
Literature review and application of knowledge processes to evaluation.
(View full citation)

Do not always assume that embedding external researchers in an operational environment will immediately lead to the adoption of research findings. As one example, the complexities of the environment and/or research findings may require substantial time and resource commitments to achieve organizational buy-in.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(View full citation)

Evaluators can use a diffusion lens to look at knowledge use when their primary objective is to understand how the knowledge spreads across the targeted setting and how the characteristics of knowledge adopters can vary with time. [p11,para2] Special attention is paid to the mechanics of how the knowledge moves between stakeholders.Evaluators should work closely with stakeholders to identify and account for spread and time-related influences.
Literature review and application of knowledge processes to evaluation.
(View full citation)

Evaluators can use a knowledge utilization lens to look at knowledge use when their primary objective is to understand the context of knowledge use and how its use impacts practice. Evaluators should work closely with stakeholders to identify and account for contextual influences.
Literature review and application of knowledge processes to evaluation.
(View full citation)

Evaluators can use a transfer lens to look at knowledge use when their primary objective is to understand what knowledge is being moved, and why and how it is being moved. Special attention is paid to the characteristics of how the knowledge moves between stakeholders. Evaluators should work closely with stakeholders to identify and account for movement-related influences.
Literature review and application of knowledge processes to evaluation.
(View full citation)

Evaluators can use a translation lens to look at knowledge use when their primary objective is to understand fidelity-related characteristics of knowledge use.Special attention is paid to the language associated with knowledge use. Evaluators should work closely with stakeholders to identify and account for fidelity-related influences.
Literature review and application of knowledge processes to evaluation.
(View full citation)

Evaluators can use an implementation lens to look at knowledge use when their primary objective is to understand the socio-political aspects of knowledge use. Special attention is paid to the distribution of power among stakeholders and any related implications associated with negotiating knowledge value. Evaluators should work closely with stakeholders to identify and account for socio-political influences.
Literature review and application of knowledge processes to evaluation.
(View full citation)

Interactive forums (knowledge translation events that bring researchers and knowledge users together to jointly interpret research findings) tend to have more conceptual (changing the way knowledge users think) and symbolic (politically motivated) impacts than instrumental (concrete application of research findings to make specific decisions or changes).
Literature review and single case study.
(View full citation)

It is important to remember that knowledge translation is not a static process. Translating an idea (research) into practice typically involves the interaction of people, processes and structures. Each person brings their own understanding and evaluation criteria to the translation process. The final practice that emerges is often the result of multiple cycles of testing, negotiation, retesting and renegotiating — a co-constructed balancing of acceptance criteria — as participants’ understanding and evaluation metrics evolve. It is also helpful to remember that objects associated with the translation process may positively or negatively influence the translation process. As one example, a well-intentioned but poorly-constructed task relevance and prioritization questionnaire could distract participants and draw them into an irresolvable argument about power structures and responsibilities.
Single case study.
(View full citation)

Knowledge translation is a social process. Using socially-oriented processes and tools can enhance the likelihood of efficient and effective knowledge translation. As one example, ethnography is used in the social sciences and has a proven track record.
Case study.
(View full citation)

Many researchers expect a sequential and orderly progression in their research, from hypothesis to design, then application and results. Translation and application of knowledge often requires deviations that are a consequence of the unique attributes of the organizational processes associated with a target practice.
Case study.
(View full citation)

Membership in a research network can provide researchers with opportunities to influence the goals and priorities of the network as a whole, specific network members, or industry members that follow network activities. Networks should ensure they have an adequate support infrastructure.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(View full citation)

Non-commercial knowledge transfer — Given the frequency of non-commercial knowledge transfer, more attention should be paid to this type of communication. Technology transfer offices could revise their mandates to encourage the sharing and promotion of non-commercial knowledge, as it could signal external partners about research expertise relevant to their own proprietary commercial activities.
Survey of 1,554 researchers funded by NSERC in Canada to assess level of knowledge transfer among scientists and engineers.
(View full citation)

One of the factors that is associated with productive knowledge management (knowledge translation) is that knowledge creation is partly associated with knowledge destruction. Knowledge destruction is the ability to eliminate pieces of knowledge or disentangle the interconnectedness of pieces of knowledge. Two examples of knowledge that are frequently targeted for destruction include professional behaviour based on experience and organizational routines.Knowledge destruction frequently paves the way for knowledge creation and innovation.
Literature review and conceptual framework development.
(View full citation)

One of the factors that is associated with productive knowledge management (knowledge translation) is that knowledge integration is dependent on knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer. Knowledge integration is the capacity to transform an organization’s knowledge resources (tacit, explicit, individual, organizational, internal, external) into actionable knowledge by taking into accounts the organization’s strengths, weaknesses and opportunities as well as threats to the organization. Knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer are transformation enablers.
Literature review and conceptual framework development.
(View full citation)

One of the factors that is associated with productive knowledge management (knowledge translation) is that knowledge replication is related to knowledge protection. Knowledge replication is the capacity to identify the attributes of the knowledge that are replicable, how these attributes can be recreated, and the characteristics of the contexts in which they can be replicated successfully. Let’s use the example of replicating practice templates or guidelines. Often, in each new organizational context there are differences between the attributes of the knowledge and the context of the action and decisions described in the templates and guidelines. The knowledge that is shared rarely covers every possible local need. The many idiosyncratic features of the local context make precise replication of templates and guidelines difficult. Knowledge replication should be guided by the attributes of the local context.
Literature review and conceptual framework development.
(View full citation)

One of the factors that is associated with productive knowledge management (knowledge translation) is the presence of internal knowledge mapping and external knowledge acquisition capabilities, which complement each other. Internal knowledge mapping enables an organization to become aware of, and understand what it knows. Knowledge mapping helps an organization to identify knowledge gaps, which may be resolved by internal knowledge creation and/or external knowledge retrieval. External knowledge acquisition enables an organization to identify new sources of knowledge. Skills that are critical to effective knowledge mapping and knowledge acquisition include locating, accessing, valuing and filtering pertinent knowledge; extracting, collecting, distilling, refining, interpreting, packaging and transforming the captured knowledge into usable knowledge; and transferring the usable knowledge within the organization for subsequent use in decision-making or problem solving.
Literature review and conceptual framework development.
(View full citation)

Research execution: Establish a stakeholder-representative Advisory Committee to act as project champions and to receive timely project updates and provide authoritative advice regarding project productivity, risk and budget.
Applying integrated KT in Mental Health research.
(View full citation)

Research execution: Setup a study management team to oversee logistics, track progress and make decisions.
Applying integrated KT in Mental Health research.
(View full citation)

Research networks (and projects) should ensure that they are adequately resourced for broad dissemination of research results.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(View full citation)

Researchers can benefit from the involvement of frontline personnel of knowledge user groups (stakeholder groups), the individuals directly involved in applying the knowledge in their projects. Frontline personnel are often acutely aware of current client demographics and have first-hand evidence of existing knowledge/practice deficits.This enables them to ask important questions that others may not have anticipated. Participation can be a welcome break from their regular responsibilities, an opportunity to learn new skills, an exemplar of how to move evidence into practice, and stimulate professional renewal and inspiration. Involving frontline personnel also helps to bridge communications with researchers.
Lessons learned from close researcher-stakeholder partnerships.
(View full citation)

Researchers can benefit from the involvement of graduate students in their projects. Students are often in direct contact with stakeholder participants and can contribute valuable insights about the effectiveness of the research process. They also can gain important insights about research instruments they use and how the instruments are being received by stakeholder participants. Students also have an opportunity to gain experience in the field and establish a network of contacts that may be useful in advancing their career. Involving students also helps to bridge communications with stakeholders.
Lessons learned from close researcher-stakeholder partnerships.
(View full citation)

Researchers should move out of their familiar context and into the context of the user group to gain insights for effective knowledge translation.
Literature review and synthesis.
(View full citation)

To increase knowledge use among practitioners, Policy Makers should invest more in the activities and tasks that scholars accomplish to customize their products to the needs of users, as well as the receptive capacity of users, dissemination efforts, and linkage mechanisms, to increase knowledge use among target audiences.
A 38% response rate to a mail survey of 3,252 social science faculty members in Canada, yielded insights into the factors contributing to a progression through levels of use of research results by non-academics, as reported by the respondents.
(View full citation)

When engaging in knowledge translation, researchers should try to avoid the simple messenger-receiver model of communication and explore approaches that involve stakeholder participation.
Literature review.
(View full citation)

Secondary findings

Barriers

In a practice context that requires research knowledge to be valued above all other forms of knowledge, practitioners may rebel and apply, in substitution and without disclosure, their own experience-based (tacit) knowledge.
Source: Whiteford (2009). In: Metzler, M. J. & Metz, G. A. (2010)

One of the factors practitioners may cite as an impediment to engaging in the knowledge translation process is a discomfort with evaluating research-based knowledge (evidence). As one example, limited understanding of statistical analysis can be an impediment.
Source: Bennett (2003); Metcalfe (2001). In: Metzler, M. J. & Metz, G. A. (2010)

One of the factors practitioners may cite as an impediment to engaging in the knowledge translation process is a discomfort with evaluating research-based knowledge (evidence). As one example, research-based knowledge (e.g., scholarly literature) may be scattered across multiple sources and it may be challenging for the practitioner to assess its relevance and applicability
Source: Metacalfe (2001). In: Metzler, M. J. & Metz, G. A. (2010)

One of the factors practitioners may cite as an impediment to engaging in the knowledge translation process is a discomfort with the perceived rigidity of some research products (e.g., clinical reviews, clinical practice guidelines, care maps and critical pathways). Practitioners may be concerned that the products will reduce their autonomy and supersede their clinical judgement.
Source: Metacalfe (2001). In: Metzler, M. J. & Metz, G. A. (2010)

Peer-reviewed journals can be challenging sources of knowledge for practitioners. One factor that can impede knowledge translation is a misalignment between the knowledge (evidence) context and a specific practice context.
Source: Cheater (2005); Grol (2003). In: Metzler, M. J. & Metz, G. A. (2010)

Peer-reviewed journals can be challenging sources of knowledge for practitioners. One factor that can impede knowledge translation is the practitioner’s ability to critically evaluate the available knowledge (evidence).
Source: Grol (2003). In: Metzler, M. J. & Metz, G. A. (2010)

Peer-reviewed journals can be challenging sources of knowledge for practitioners. One factor that can impede knowledge translation is the sheer volume of available knowledge (evidence).
Source: Grol (2003); Bannigan (1997); Cusick (2000). In: Metzler, M. J. & Metz, G. A. (2010)

Peer-reviewed journals can be challenging sources of knowledge for practitioners.One factor that can impede knowledge translation is the ability of the knowledge (evidence) to be applied in practice.
Source: Grol (2003); Straus (2009). In: Metzler, M. J. & Metz, G. A. (2010)

Systematic reviews are considered to be a trustworthy means of examining the rigour of evidence and its readiness to be translated into practice. Although there are several systems developed to evaluate the strength of evidence, there is no agreement in the research and healthcare communities as to what level of evidence justifies action. One issue associated with systematic reviews is that they generally focus on the research context rather than the practicalities of implementation. In spite of these potential shortcomings, basing knowledge translation efforts on rigorous systematic reviews can help to reduce bias, increase accuracy and be time-effective.
Source: Bannigan (1997); Straus (2009). In: Metzler, M. J. & Metz, G. A. (2010)

Carriers

Knowledge translation, in the form of a systematic review (a synthesis of existing research that typically address a broad array of effectiveness, cost, relational, attributable, and causal questions that a public policy maker — knowledge user — is likely to ask about a particular issue), can create an effective bridge between researchers and policy makers.
Source: Lavis (2004, 2005, 2006). In: Lavis, John (2006)

A knowledge-value chain typically moves from knowledge mapping and acquisition to the production and delivery of new or improved knowledge that delivers added value to its users. The mission, vision, goals and strategies of an organization drive the knowledge-value chain. The higher the knowledge performance, the higher the value generated.
Source: Lundquist (2003); Lee (2000); Holsapple (2001). In: Landry, R., Amara, N., Pablos-Mendes, A., Shademani, R. & Gold, I. (2006)

Actively involving knowledge users as partners in the research process is a strong predictor that the research findings will be used and that the research endeavor overall will achieve a greater impact.
Source: Lomas (2000, 2007); Denis (2003); Ross (2003); Kothari (2005); Minkler (2005). In: Gagnon, M.L. (2011)

Bringing together representatives from all sectors in a common space like a community forum can accelerate shared learning of practical experience and research findings, and the generation of new research questions and applications.
Source: Williams (2005). In: Williams, A., Holden, B., Krebs, P., Muhajarine, N., Waygood, K.,Randall, J. & Spence, C. (2008)

Factors affecting the efficiency of knowledge transfer include: clear language, the presence of a summary, the presence of variables manipulable by the users, the sensitivity to users' needs, the specific and operational nature of conclusions and recommendations, the profitability of results, the importance of supplying data on the efficiency of results, and the attractive aspects of documents (graphics, color, packaging).
Source: Amara, N, Ouimet, M & Landry R. (2004). New evidence on instrumental, conceptual and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication, 26 (1), 75-106.. In: Laroche, E., & Amara, N. (Eds.) (2008)

Interactions between researchers and policy makers (knowledge users) can increase the prospects for research use.
Source: Lavis (2005). In: Lavis, John (2006)

Involving the community (knowledge producers and users) in the research process and dissemination strategies can build accountability of the research organization as part of the community, and can help to solidify the link between researcher and community.
Source: Dunnett (2004). In: Williams, A., Holden, B., Krebs, P., Muhajarine, N., Waygood, K.,Randall, J. & Spence, C. (2008)

It is commonly accepted that research utilization and knowledge translation are highly social processes that can be more successful in the presence of positive social interactions between stakeholders.
Source: Amabile (2001); Lavis (2004a, 2004b). In: Ginsburg, L.R., Lewis, S., Zackheim, L. & Casebeer, A. (2207)

Knowledge brokers are a potential strategy for moving knowledge to action. The rationale for knowledge brokers is the need to provide an intermediary who could facilitate collaborations between researchers and research users and find research evidence to shape decisions, be able to assess this evidence, interpret it and adapt it to circumstances and identify emerging management and policy issues that research could help inform. Knowledge of marketing and communication and the capacity to span boundaries and understand the potentially disparate worlds that researchers and knowledge users live in is also needed. Based on this skill set, individuals with diverse experience in both the research and decision or policy-making worlds or organizations whose mandate is to span these worlds would be ideal knowledge brokers. From this description, it can be concluded that knowledge brokering is certainly not new. Relationship brokers exist in most organizations and sectors. What is new, however, are growing calls to recognize and formalize this role in the KT process not only to evaluate its effectiveness but also to capitalize on the benefits it can bring to the process while also learning more about its potential drawbacks
Source: Lawrence (2006); Lomas (1993, 2007); Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (2003, 2004); Lyons (2006); Dobbins (2009). In: Gagnon, M.L. (2011)

Knowledge exploitation (the transfer and adoption of knowledge and technology through commercialization) can be a complex process. It can benefit from simplification, through the sharing of best practice and use of specialist and expert facilitation.
Source: Lockett (2006). In: Lockett, N., Cave, F., Kerr, R. & Robinson, S. (2009)

Many decision makers (knowledge users) consider interaction-focused approaches to be valuable ways to facilitate knowledge utilization.
Source: Innvaer (2002). In: Ginsburg, L.R., Lewis, S., Zackheim, L. & Casebeer, A. (2207)

Meaningful dialogue amongst community forum participants (knowledge producers and users) can enable communities and organizations to gain greater control over the direction of policy initiatives that apply to the community, in turn contributing to appropriate engagement and participation strategies. Engaging the community through community forums can be an integral part of their contribution and participation in the direction for change, sending the clear message that community involvement is essential for successful outcomes. This approach has been shown to encourage active citizenship, strengthen communities, and facilitate partnerships in the innovation and delivery of public services.Research findings can be a learning tool for the community.
Source: Stoker (2004). In: Williams, A., Holden, B., Krebs, P., Muhajarine, N., Waygood, K.,Randall, J. & Spence, C. (2008)

Networks, including communities of practice, knowledge networks, and soft networks, are potentially effective mechanisms for knowledge dissemination and application because their principal purpose is to connect people who might not otherwise have an opportunity to interact, enable dialog, stimulate learning, and capture and diffuse knowledge. A community of practice is a group of people who share a common concern, a set of problems, or interest in a topic and who come together to fulfill both individual and group goals usually focused on improving professional practice. Although communities of practice tend to be relatively informal, a knowledge network is a more formal community consisting of groups of experts from different fields who come together around a common goal or issue. Finally, a soft network is a large referral system whereby members sign onto a LISTSERV primarily for the purpose of making connections. Each type of network can play a role in the dissemination of knowledge.
Source: Birdsell (2003); Wenger (2002); Cambridge (2009); Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (2009). In: Gagnon, M.L. (2011)

Some of the factors that can facilitate the successful implementation of research based knowledge (evidence) include: a focused and complementary organizational vision (supported by strong leadership, a positive organizational climate, and an aligned philosophy of care);positive staff buy-in (and motivation); a supportive and receptive client (patient) base; and available organizational capacity (e.g., facilities, equipment and personnel).
Source: Simpson (2002). In: Ginexi, E. M. & Hilton, T. F. (2006)

Success factors for integrated knowledge translation (which brings together researchers and knowledge users for the purpose of generating, exchanging, and applying knowledge to understand and address an issue) include: a process to develop a shared perspective, common language, and common understanding about the issue that stakeholders will be focusing on; a plan for collaboration with explicit description of roles and responsibilities and a commitment to regularly assess its effectiveness; participants with competencies and experiences in building, negotiating, and maintaining effective research and knowledge translation collaborations; a strategy for ensuring that trusting relationships among stakeholders are maintained and conflicts are resolved appropriately when they arise; and institutional support, including incentives in both academic and knowledge user environments, could also facilitate success.
Source: CIHR Institute of Health Services and Policy Research (2006); Denis (2003); Ross (2003); Kothari (2005); Minkler (2005); Ducharme (2003); CIHR Institute of Population (2006); Walter (2003); Golden-Biddle (2003); Roussos (2000); Cousins (1996); Watson (2007); Israel (1998); Butterfoss (2006); Parry (2009). In: Gagnon, M.L. (2011)

Systematic reviews (syntheses of existing research that typically address a broad array of effectiveness, cost, relational, attributable, and causal questions that a public policy maker is likely to ask about a particular issue) can be useful to policy makers (knowledge users). They often provide a multi-study, transparent perspective for a given subject, saving policy makers considerable research time and synthesis effort.
Source: Lavis (2005). In: Lavis, John (2006)

The existence of an overarching relationship (historical or longstanding) between a researcher and relevant decision makers (knowledge users), where research utilization is only one activity in the larger, ongoing relationship, can be important for the utilization of research findings.
Source: Goering (2003); Mohrman (2001); Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (2002); Golden-Biddle (2003). In: Ginsburg, L.R., Lewis, S., Zackheim, L. & Casebeer, A. (2207)

Timing and timeliness can increase (and poor timing or lack of timeliness can decrease) the prospects for research use.
Source: Lavis (2005). In: Lavis, John (2006)

When planning, implementing or evaluating a knowledge translation (innovation) process, diffusion theory suggests that one of the factors that can influence the appeal of new knowledge to a potential knowledge user is its clarity (absence of perceived or unnecessary complexity). Generally, adoption strength increases with the understandability and implementability of the new knowledge.
Source: (Rogers, 2003). In: Ashley, S.R. (2009)

When planning, implementing or evaluating a knowledge translation (innovation) process, diffusion theory suggests that one of the factors that can influence the appeal of new knowledge to a potential knowledge user is its observability. Generally, adoption strength increases with the increased visibility of the new knowledge being applied and benefits demonstrated.
Source: (Rogers, 2003). In: Ashley, S.R. (2009)

When planning, implementing or evaluating a knowledge translation (innovation) process, diffusion theory suggests that one of the factors that can influence the appeal of new knowledge to a potential knowledge user is the compatibility of the new knowledge with respect to past practices, current values, and existing needs. Generally, adoption strength increases as the fit with the current context increases.
Source: (Rogers, 2003). In: Ashley, S.R. (2009)

When planning, implementing or evaluating a knowledge translation (innovation) process, diffusion theory suggests that one of the factors that can influence the process and outcome is the social system – the contextual space in which the knowledge is expected to be used (e.g., individual, institutional, political, and environmental factors). As one example, one set of factors that can determine how and if new knowledge will reach its intended audience are the characteristics of the individuals that are involved, including personality traits and communication behavior.
Source: Brown (1981). In: Ashley, S.R. (2009)

When planning, implementing or evaluating a knowledge translation (innovation) process, diffusion theory suggests that one of the factors that can influence the process and outcome is the social system – the contextual space in which the knowledge is expected to be used (e.g., individual, institutional, political, and environmental factors). As one example, one set of factors that can determine how and if new knowledge will reach its intended audience is the past history of potential knowledge users (e.g., previous practices, the felt needs or problems experienced, their innovativeness, and the norms of the social system in which they are embedded).
Source: (Damanpour, 1991); (Kimberly & Evanisko, 1981); (Tornatzy & Fleischer, 1990); (Wolfe, 1994); (Brown, 1981); (Mohr, 1969); (Moch&Morse, 1977); (Abrahamson, 1991). In: Ashley, S.R. (2009)

Methods

Knott and Wildavsky created a scale conceptualizing knowledge transfer as s series of activities supporting the decision-making process. They suggest that knowledge use must be examined at various stages, where each is a link in a chain of knowledge use.
Source: Knott, J & Wildavsky, A (1980). If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1 (4), 537-578. In: Landry, R., Amara, N., and Ouimet, M. (2007)

Knowledge Value Chain — The application of knowledge progresses from acquisition and mapping, to performance and innovation with a firm. Knowledge must go through all of these phases, starting with acquisition by a user group.
Source: Landy, et al (2006). The knowledge-value chain: a conceptual framework for knowledge translation in health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84 (8), 597-602. In: Laroche, E., & Amara, N. (Eds.) (2008)

One knowledge transfer planning guide offers five questions researchers should consider when undertaking knowledge dissemination: (1) What is the message? (2) Who is the audience? (3) Who is the messenger? (4) What is the transfer method? (5) What is the expected outcome?
Source: Reardon (2006). In: Gagnon, M.L. (2011)

Process-oriented knowledge management — Delivery of Context-sensitive Organizational Knowledge (DECOR) applies a business process-oriented approach by integrating knowledge acquisition and delivery with business process management, powered by automatic workflow engines, so that context-specific knowledge is delivered to users when they need it.
Source: Abecker, et al (2001). Busines-process oriented delivery of knowledge through domain ontology. Second International Workshop on Theory and Applications of Knowledge Management. Munich, Germany, 3-7. In: Ajila, S.A. (2008)

Process-oriented knowledge management — Minimally Invasive Long-term Organizational Support (MILOS) structures knowledge according to the processes that need to be carried out during the NPD process, so that staff have access to context-specific knowledge at the point in the process where that knowledge is relevant and needed.
Source: Maurer, F & Dellen B. (1998). An internet based sofware process management environment. ICSE 98 Workshop on Software Engineering over the Internet. Lost Alamitos, CA, 27-32. In: Ajila, S.A. (2008)

Measures

Indicators of knowledge customization for users — activities performed by knowledge creators to make their findings more useful: 1) Revising narrative to make reports easier to read and understand; 2) Restate conclusions and recommendations to make them more specific and operational; 3) Focus on variables amendable to interventions by users; 4) Improve format and graphics to make document more appealing.
Source: Huberman, M. & G. Thurler (1991). De la recherche a la pratique: Elements de base? Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang SA.. In: Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamari, M. (2001)

Tips

"Just in Time" knowledge delivery — a situation whereby knowledge is delivered soon enough to be applied within the appropriate situation, and late enough that the user does not have to go through training or information overload.
Source: Cole, K, Fischer, ) and Saltzman, P. (1997). Just-in-time knowledge delivery. Communications of the ACM. 40, 7, 49-53. In: Ajila, S.A. (2008)

Knowledge users (practitioners) should understand that researchers are often unable to test the applicability of new research-based knowledge across all possible permutations and combinations. In some cases, refinements and enhancements are garnered from increased or broader use of the new research-based knowledge. In other cases, adverse issues associated with the application of new research-based knowledge can trigger a suspension of its use and refinements to the original research protocol.
Source: Glasgow (2003); Green (2006); Dishion (1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2004). In: Ginexi, E. M. & Hilton, T. F. (2006)

New knowledge (evidence) and its translation into practice can validate, or even enhance professional integrity and values.
Source: Kinsella (2009). In: Metzler, M. J. & Metz, G. A. (2010)

New knowledge (evidence) should pass through a timely vetting process, which includes an assessment of implications for stakeholders and their environment. Only validated knowledge should be applied to practice.
Source: Bannigan (1997); Graham (2007). In: Metzler, M. J. & Metz, G. A. (2010)

One factor that can influence a knowledge user’s decision to become involved and play a role in a research project is the strength of relationship that exists between the knowledge user and the researcher.
Source: Ross (2003). In: Ginsburg, L.R., Lewis, S., Zackheim, L. & Casebeer, A. (2207)

One question researchers should consider when undertaking knowledge dissemination is: What is the expected outcome? The dissemination plan should consider what impact the proposed activities will achieve before it is implemented. This may enhance the plan’s success and facilitate evaluation of the plan. Reardon et al. identified three possible impacts: indirect use or changes in knowledge awareness or attitude, direct use or changes in behaviors, and tactical use or the use of research to validate or defend a decision that has already been taken for other reason.
Source: Reardon (2006). In: Gagnon, M.L. (2011)

One question researchers should consider when undertaking knowledge dissemination is: What is the message? Messages should include credible facts and data, findings, and conclusions, and/or a body of evidence that can be expressed as an actionable idea.
Source: Reardon (2006). In: Gagnon, M.L. (2011)

One question researchers should consider when undertaking knowledge dissemination is: What is the transfer method? Transfer methods need to be carefully considered in light of a number of factors, including the nature and size of the audience and available resources to devote to dissemination. Regardless of the audience, active engagement between researchers and those who can use the knowledge and packaging the messages for the particular audience will likely enhance uptake.
Source: Reardon (2006). In: Gagnon, M.L. (2011)

One question researchers should consider when undertaking knowledge dissemination is: Who is the audience? Messages should be developed with a particular audience in mind that is likely in a position to use the research-based information for decision-making purposes. Understanding audiences and their information needs is enhanced through ongoing relationships between the decision makers in question and those who are producing the research.
Source: Reardon (2006). In: Gagnon, M.L. (2011)

One question researchers should consider when undertaking knowledge dissemination is: Who is the messenger? Attention to messages is enhanced if the audiences regard the messenger as a credible spokesperson.
Source: Reardon (2006). In: Gagnon, M.L. (2011)

When designing a knowledge translation communication strategy, researchers should consider conducting a field test prior to full implementation.
Source: Herie (2002). In: Wilson, P.M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M. W. & Nazareth, I. (2010)

When designing a knowledge translation communication strategy, researchers should consider factors associated with the source of the communication (the individual delivering the message), their credibility, and any individuals that can assist with the dissemination.
Source: Winkler (1985); CRD (1994, 2009); National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (1996, 2001); Scullion (2002); Lavis (2003); Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (2004); European Commision (2004); Majdzadeh (2003); Harmsworth (2001); Bauman (2006). In: Wilson, P.M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M. W. & Nazareth, I. (2010)

When designing a knowledge translation communication strategy, researchers should consider what the best timing is to optimize dissemination activities.
Source: CRD (1994, 2009). In: Wilson, P.M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M. W. & Nazareth, I. (2010)

When designing a knowledge translation communication strategy, researchers should consider which communication channels (media) are most applicable and whether the news media should be involved.
Source: Winkler (1985); CRD (1994, 2009); National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (1996, 2001); Harmsworth (2001); Scullion (2002); Lavis (2003); Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (2004); European Commission (2004); Carpenter (2005); Bauman (2006); Friese (2009). In: Wilson, P.M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M. W. & Nazareth, I. (2010)

When it comes to knowledge application, sound decisions and professional practices should be based on multiple types and pieces of knowledge that bring complementary contributions to problem solving. Explicit and tacit knowledge are especially important with respect to knowing how to perform a particular task, solve problems and manage change in unique, complex or uncertain circumstances. Additionally, organizations are necessary to provide the infrastructure in which individuals can coordinate the integration of their specialized knowledge in order to solve problems.
Source: Foray (2004). In: Landry, R., Amara, N., Pablos-Mendes, A., Shademani, R. & Gold, I. (2006)

“Exchange” represents one form of knowledge translation. It often involves the establishment of partnerships between researchers and public policy makers (knowledge users) who are committed to asking and answering relevant questions together.
Source: Lomas (2000). In: Lavis, John (2006)

“Friendly front ends” represent one form of knowledge translation. Research is synthesized and presented in knowledge user friendly formats (e.g., 1 page of take-home messages, a 3-page executive summary, and a 25-page full report). Notifications about, and circulation of these materials can facilitate “user pull” — helping potential knowledge users to become aware of available and applicable research.
Source: Lavis (unpublished). In: Lavis, John (2006)

“Push” represents one form of knowledge translation. It involves researchers (or intermediary groups) bringing research evidence to the attention of public policy makers (or those who seek to influence them) — knowledge users — and can inform policy development and policy implementation processes.
Source: Lavis (unpublished). In: Lavis, John (2006)

“User pull” represents one form of knowledge translation. It involves ways of making it easier for public policy makers (knowledge users) to identify relevant research evidence. Knowledge users may formalize the pull process (e.g., the establishment of a receptor function — a formal and proactive process to seek and receive relevant new research; a one-stop shop; self-assessment tools.
Source: Lavis (unpublished). In: Lavis, John (2006)