Ward, V., Smith, S., Foy, R., House, A. & Hamer, S. (2010). Planning for Knowledge Translation - A Researcher's Guide. Evidence & Policy, 6(4), 527-541.

Format: Peer-reviewed article

Type: Research — Non-experimental

Experience level of reader: Fundamental

Annotation: The authors describe a researcher’s guide to planning for knowledge translation. They frame knowledge translation as a process that is dynamic, multidirectional and interactive, which moves away from the need to pose a specific series of activities or interventions that a researcher should carry out. The guide promotes flexible and creative thinking about knowledge translation, with the objective of tailoring knowledge translation activities to the unique attributes of each research project. The guide defines five essential elements of knowledge translation: the problem (the problem or issue to be addressed by the research/knowledge), context (the circumstances surrounding the user and researcher), knowledge (properties of the pre-existing knowledge/evidence about the problem or the generation of new knowledge/evidence), intervention (specific activities designed to translate knowledge/research into action), and use (ways in which the knowledge/research is or might be used). For each element, a series of questions is provided. Each question encourages the researcher to think broadly and deeply about the knowledge translation implications. Elements and related questions are evidence-based, which adds to their credibility.

Setting(s) to which the reported activities/findings are relevant: Government, University

Knowledge user(s) to whom the piece of literature may be relevant: Policy Makers, Researchers

Knowledge user level addressed by the literature: Individual

This article uses the Commercial Devices and Services version of the NtK Model

Method: According to the researcher’s guide to planning for knowledge translation there are five essential elements of knowledge translation, including: the problem (the problem or issue to be addressed by the research/knowledge), context (the circumstances surrounding the user and researcher), knowledge (properties of the pre-existing knowledge/evidence about the problem or the generation of new knowledge/evidence), intervention (specific activities designed to translate knowledge/research into action), and use (ways in which the knowledge/research is or might be used). For each element, a series of questions is provided. Each question encourages the researcher to think broadly and deeply about the knowledge translation implications. Elements and related questions are evidence-based, which adds to their credibility.
Knowledge translation guidance for researchers.
Occurrence of finding within the model: KTA Step 1.A, KTA Step 2.A, KTA Step 3.A, KTA Step 1.C, KTA Step 2.C, KTA Step 3.C, KTA Step 1.D, KTA Step 2.D, KTA Step 3.D, Step 3.1, Step 3.3, Step 3.2, Step 1.2

• If funding organizations want knowledge translation to be taken seriously, researcher reward systems should be changed to reflect the importance of knowledge translation. Current reward systems are more commonly based upon traditional metrics like frequency of peer-reviewed publication. One approach funding organizations can take to encourage alternate metrics and rewards is to advocate for, train for, and fund, a range of specific knowledge translation activities.
  Knowledge translation guidance for researchers.

• The inherently complex nature of knowledge translation implies that, to be comprehensive, there would need to be an equally complex set of knowledge translation guidelines. This is not practical for design or practice, as it could involve a significant number of permutations and combinations and could easily overwhelm a researcher — especially a novice one. One alternative is to provide a simple template that explains the essential knowledge translation guideline categories (e.g. problem statement, research context, knowledge objectives, possible research interventions, and potential knowledge uses) and associates sample questions and hypothetical examples with each category to reinforce deliberation, understanding and application.
  Knowledge translation guidance for researchers.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: KTA Step 1.A, KTA Step 2.A, KTA Step 3.A, KTA Step 1.C, KTA Step 2.C, KTA Step 3.C, KTA Step 1.D, KTA Step 2.D, KTA Step 3.D, Step 3.1, Step 3.3, Step 3.2, Step 1.2

• If funding organizations are going to require explicit identification of knowledge translation activities in research proposals, the funding organizations should ensure that researchers fully understand the purpose and processes associated with knowledge translation. Funding organizations should also strongly encourage researchers to consider the addition of relevant knowledge translation thinking and activities early in the research planning stages. It is important that researchers demonstrate awareness of the value and benefits of incorporating knowledge translation in their projects, and not just appear to be complying with funder requirements by ‘ticking-off-boxes.’
  Knowledge translation guidance for researchers.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Step 1.5, Step 3.4, Step 2.2, Step 1.1

Model: Existing knowledge translation frameworks typically take one of three forms: a linear progression with an identifiable start and end point (e.g. from problem identification to knowledge use); a cyclical process involving a linear progression that is repeated rather than reaching an endpoint; a dynamic, interactive and multidirectional process where elements of the process can occur simultaneously or in different sequences. (Ward [2009a])

• A guide to assist reviewers in assessing health research knowledge translation plans. (Georing [2010])
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Step 3.4
• The primary source for knowledge translation guidance in the UK is contained within the online electronic application used by all state-funded research councils. Additional advice is provided by the Natural Environment Research Council. Some universities also provide advice in response to impact plans. (BBSRC [2009]; AHHRC [2010]; EPSRC [2010]; NERC [2009a]; Imperial College [2009])
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Step 3.4