One of the factors that can impede knowledge translation is knowledge valuation. The researcher and potential knowledge user expect to receive value in return for their involvement. Valuing knowledge and the time and resources that are required to transfer it can be complicated, especially when tacit knowledge is involved.
Literature review and conceptual framework development.
(View full citation)

Failure of a research network (or project) to clearly articulate and broadly communicate its goals and objectives can impede its progress. It can also cloud stakeholder’s abilities to evaluate network (project) outcomes.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation
(View full citation)

Organizational executives often state that they are exposed to more new ideas (research findings) than they have resources to explore. Researchers need to devise ways of getting their attention, communicating value and sourcing resources.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(View full citation)

Organizational executives often state they do not have the time to consider the applicability of new research findings. Researchers need to devise ways of getting their attention and communicating value.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(View full citation)

When executives deliberate about the value of applying research in their organization, one of the factors they often consider is the “replicability” of the research findings, especially in their setting. Researchers should clearly communicate “replicability.”
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(View full citation)

When organizational executives deliberate about the value of applying research in their organization, one of the factors they often consider is the “scalability” of the research findings. Researchers should clearly communicate “scalability.”
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(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)

Consider framing knowledge in a story. It can provide potential users with a powerful glimpse into the value of the knowledge. Most people love stories, especially one that include them.
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 instil in stakeholders a sense of urgency in association with the implementation of the research findings.
Literature review and single case study.
(View full citation)

Knowledge translation literacy — Establishing relevant research questions — Researchers tend to begin by observing a broad or abstract problem and then narrowing down to a very specific question that can be answered with confidence following a scientific method. In our experience, practitioners may take the inverse approach. They encounter a very specific or practical problem, and, in the course of framing research questions, their inquiry broadens and they see a whole family of interconnected issues that impinge on the question that also need to be addressed. In both cases, the process of defining the problem and the question are learning exercises. But the processes seem to move in opposite directions, and it can be challenging to execute a delimited project that makes sense and is meaningful to everyone. Involving stakeholders can help to isolate and hone the research question. They can be helpful in identifying policy nuances, complexities, contradictions, and systemic links that needed to be taken into account for the study to be comprehensive.
Literature review and experience.
(View full citation)

One of the factors that can facilitate the knowledge translation process is explaining to clients (stakeholders) how knowledge empowers them and the process.
Application of Graham’s Knowledge-to-Action Process model in occupational therapy.
(View full citation)

One of the factors that can facilitate the knowledge translation process is to explain relevant research knowledge in language that is plain language.
Application of Graham’s Knowledge-to-Action Process model in occupational therapy.
(View full citation)

Researchers can benefit from establishing ongoing partnerships with key knowledge users (stakeholder groups). As a researcher gets to know a stakeholder group, there is the potential to develop a trusting relationship, which can lead to greater openness and opportunities to better understand the issues that drive the stakeholder group and the kinds of important questions that remain unanswered and remain open to research.
Lessons learned from close researcher-stakeholder partnerships.
(View full citation)

Researchers should carefully define and communicate to stakeholders what they mean by “moving research into practice.” The starting point of the spectrum is research findings that are specific to a unique set of circumstances. The endpoint of the spectrum is research findings that can be generalized across an entire system. Correctly setting stakeholder expectations is crucial.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(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 clearly state the objectives of the forum. This can help to frame stakeholder expectations and participation.
Literature review and single case study.
(View full citation)

When executives embed external researchers in their organizations (especially in a team-based setting), the opportunities for direct, formal and informal interaction can enhance the communication of stakeholder project needs or the implications of research findings.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(View full citation)

When external researchers are embedded in an organization (especially in a team-based setting), there are opportunities to learn directly about operational systems and issues, which can enhance the researcher’s ability to ask or respond to real-world questions or issues.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(View full citation)

As part of the evaluation planning associated with a research project, the researchers should consider the context of the knowledge translation process. Useful questions to ask include, what is the issue being translated? what stage of knowledge translation is currently the focus? who are the key actors? what are characteristics of the setting?
Literature review.
(View full citation)

Knowledge Translation — A wide range of models contribute insights for increasing awareness, interest and use of knowledge generated through research activity, among targeted stakeholder groups. Categories of such models include: 1) Organizational Innovation; 2) Social Science Research Utilization; 3) Nursing Research Utilization; 4) Health Promotion.
Literature review, synthesis and author expertise.
(View full citation)

Action Cycle within the KTA Model — The second step involves adapting the validated knowledge to the local context. This involves valuing the utility of the knowledge to the problem, setting and circumstances, as well as tailoring the knowledge to the specific situation.
Summary of the Knowledge To Action Model and its application to knowledge translation.
(View full citation)

Identify a problem that needs addressing; Identify the need for change; Identify change agents (i.e., the appropriate actors to bring about the change); Identify target audience; Assess barriers to using the knowledge; Review evidence and literature or develop or adapt innovation; Select and tailor interventions to promote the use of the knowledge; Link to appropriate individuals or groups who have vested interests in the project; Implement; Evaluate; Develop a plan to evaluate use of the knowledge; Pilot test; Evaluate process; Evaluate outcomes; Maintain change or sustain ongoing knowledge use.
Results from a knowledge synthesis
(View full citation)

Researchers generate new knowledge while working in communities of research, health professionals operate in communities of practice, patients operate their own communities of support. Interacting with all three communities are formally organized governmental organizations, as well as health care industry organizations.
Literature review grounded in practical experience of health care professionals.
(View full citation)

The study mapped out what the research findings would mean to different groups of actors (stakeholders) involved. In the process they identified six Stakeholder Groups: 1) Clinicians; 2) Consumers; 3) Researchers; 4) Policy Makers; 5) Information Brokers; 6) Manufacturers.
Comparative analysis of policy-related research results and the expectations of policy-makers regarding information useful for application in their decisions.
(View full citation)

When intending to implement change, one also needs to consider the impact of the following factors to fully understand what is involved in completing each of the steps: 1) nature of the evidence or knowledge, 2) attributes of change or innovation, 3) who the audience is, 4) organizational context and culture in which the change is to take place, 5) the organizational resources and support for the proposed change, and 6) implementation-related factors.
Results from knowledge synthesis
(View full citation)

Culture, language, perceptions, attitudes, mindsets, etc., play a very important part in terms of how the products and services are designed, integrated and marketed to the end customer.
Researchers observations with companies
(View full citation)

Develop a strong Knowledge Management system within a complete New Product Development Strategy and the New Product Development Performance will be more effective.
Survey. T-Tests and Multiple regressions were performed on each component of Knowledge Management and New Product Development Strategy to New Product Development Performance. All results were found to be significant and positive.
(View full citation)

Knowledge brokering — a significant portion of the broker’s time should be allocated to relationship- and capacity-building. These are complex processes and often mirror the complexity of the project and its environment. They are processes that are foundational to effective brokering. The time requirement is often under-estimated, which can place considerable pressure on the broker and the stakeholders.
Description of knowledge broker roles.
(View full citation)

Knowledge brokering — high frequencies of face-to-face interaction between the broker and a broad cross-section of stakeholders may hasten relationship-building and capacity-building, and may optimize the tailoring of brokering services and support.
Description of knowledge broker roles.
(View full citation)

Knowledge brokers can act as bridging agents, helping researchers to understand stakeholders and their environment and helping stakeholders to understand researchers and the research project — and the mutual benefits associated with their involvement. Knowledge brokering is demanding and often difficult work. Knowledge brokers can benefit from the availability of a formal support infrastructure, adequate resourcing, and allocations of time that enable them to build and sustain an understanding of researcher and stakeholders operations. Knowledge brokers may also be good candidates for co-authorship of scholarly papers and co-presenters at workshops or conferences.
Lessons learned from close researcher-stakeholder partnerships.
(View full citation)

Knowledge translators should adopt conceptualizations of knowledge, evidence, and KT as human processes fraught with all of the challenges of human subjectivity, dynamic interaction, and change within a complex context.
(View full citation)

One of the benefits of stakeholder involvement in research projects is that they can learn about research. Learning can be evidence-oriented (e.g., stakeholder appreciation of research techniques and application of research findings, etc.), process-oriented (e.g., greater stakeholder awareness of data/information/knowledge sources and access protocols) attitude-oriented (e.g., a change in stakeholder views about, involvement in, and expectations of research projects and deliverables). While the researcher and stakeholders are typically explicitly focused on the evidence-oriented aspects of the project, the process- and attitude-oriented aspects may be particularly empowering and transformative for stakeholders. Indirect value may also be accrued when stakeholders take the opportunity to apply these learnings to the benefit of their own organizational contexts.
Project evaluation findings.
(View full citation)

Researchers (and research networks) can enhance stakeholder receptivity to the application of research findings by establishing stakeholder advocates — members of the stakeholder community that are recognized as leaders and respected by their peers.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(View full citation)

Researchers are usually required to obtain advance approval from independent ethics boards prior to engaging in research that involves human subjects. Knowledge users (stakeholder groups) are often unfamiliar with requirements associated with informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, data access and data management. Ensure these requirements and their implications for participation, process and practice are understood at the beginning of the project.
Lessons learned from close researcher-stakeholder partnerships.
(View full citation)

Researchers can benefit from establishing ongoing partnerships with key knowledge users (stakeholder groups). Each stakeholder group brings a unique and informed perspective that can positively influence research design and knowledge translation strategy.
Lessons learned from close researcher-stakeholder partnerships.
(View full citation)

Researchers can benefit from establishing ongoing partnerships with key knowledge users (stakeholder groups). It is important to ensure that all stakeholder groups understand the benefits they will receive as a result of their participation. One-sided benefits that favour the researcher could decrease the incentive for stakeholder groups to remain committed and involved.
Lessons learned from close researcher-stakeholder partnerships.
(View full citation)

Researchers can benefit from establishing ongoing partnerships with key knowledge users (stakeholder groups). One way to manage expectations and avoid surprises is to jointly establish objectives, goals and commitments regarding time and resource availability, at the beginning of the project. These could be documented informally or formally by way of a memorandum of agreement — whatever complements the stakeholder’s culture. Sharing the commitments broadly facilitates common awareness.
Lessons learned from close researcher-stakeholder partnerships.
(View full citation)

Researchers can benefit from establishing ongoing partnerships with key knowledge users (stakeholder groups). To avoid interruptions that could result from the departure of specific stakeholder group members, researchers should establish group- or institutional-level linkages.
Lessons learned from close researcher-stakeholder partnerships.
(View full citation)

Researchers should not assume that practitioners will see any direct connection between academic research and the practices of their organization. Researchers should take the time to help practitioners make the connection.
Case study.
(View full citation)

Stakeholder engagement strategies must be tailored to each stakeholder group. Strategies to engage strategic direction-setters will be different from strategies required to engage perception-influencers and/or adopters.
Literature review and case example.
(View full citation)

There is a huge gap to bridge between the kind of questions that policy makers would like to have answered, and the kind of answers that researchers can typically provide. For example, policy makers rarely transmit clear messages on their knowledge needs to inform a feasible and timely solution to a problem within their context. While researchers produce scientific evidence that is not always tailor-made for applications in specific contexts, while also being careful to qualify their findings and set the limitations of their interpretation.
Comparative analysis of policy-related research results and the expectations of policy-makers regarding information useful for application in their decisions.
(View full citation)

When a client (stakeholder) is involved in the knowledge translation process, the practitioner may solicit, validate and integrate client-supplied knowledge (about the client’s situation and environment) into the overall knowledge translation process.
Application of Graham’s Knowledge-to-Action Process model in occupational therapy.
(View full citation)

A research project-based policy entrepreneur can be a central force for coordinating and promoting collective policy learning.
Source: Stone (2001a). In: Williams, A., Holden, B., Krebs, P., Muhajarine, N., Waygood, K.,Randall, J. & Spence, C. (2008)

According to policy scientists, involving the target users of research information from the start of the process — such as policymakers and healthcare providers — would favor the eventual uptake and use of research results.
Source: C. Weis (1979). In: van Kammen, J., Jansen, C.W., Bonsel, G.J., Kremer, J.A.M., Evers, J.L.H., & Wladimiroff, J.W. (2006)

Helping research project stakeholders by translating the research into language that is understandable, with results that are relevant and applicable may improve their investment in the research.
Source: Martens ( 2005); Lavis (2005). In: Jansson, S. M., Benoit, C., Casey, L., Phillips, R., & Burns, D. (2010)

Involving stakeholders throughout the research cycle may improve their investment in the research.
Source: Martens (2005). In: Jansson, S. M., Benoit, C., Casey, L., Phillips, R., & Burns, D. (2010)

It is important to communicate research findings in a manner that can influence stakeholders. Quality and accessibility factors play important roles.
Source: Casebeer (2000); McColl (1998). In: Bowen, S., Martens, P. & The Need to Know Team (2005)

Mass dissemination through the local media can be critical to ensuring that beneficial development takes place. The more people that are aware of the research, the greater the likelihood that the findings and their implications will be discussed, and the better the interest and support for the practical applications of the results. Engaging the media can be a key factor. For research to have the desired impact on social consciousness and policy directives, research dissemination strategies should target both decision makers, as well as the general public.
Source: Miller (1999). In: Williams, A., Holden, B., Krebs, P., Muhajarine, N., Waygood, K.,Randall, J. & Spence, C. (2008)

One form of research utilization is conceptual. This involves a change in the way knowledge users think. Conceptual utilization is akin to the kind of "socialization" that Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) describe as one way to convert or transfer tacit knowledge (knowledge that is difficult to formalize and communicate). In this process, socialization involves the exchange of tacit knowledge through joint, face-to-face activities "in order to produce some form of shared mental model... that can serve as a framework for moving forward"
Source: Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995); Rynes (2001). In: Ginsburg, L.R., Lewis, S., Zackheim, L. & Casebeer, A. (2207)

One form of research utilization is instrumental. This involves a concrete application of research findings to make specific decisions or changes.
Source: Weiss (1979). In: Ginsburg, L.R., Lewis, S., Zackheim, L. & Casebeer, A. (2207)

Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU) — There are six essential elements in the design of a strategy to introduce research findings into practice: 1) the practice environment; 2) the potential adopters of the evidence; 3) the evidence-based innovation; 4) research transfer strategies; 5) the evidence adoption; 6) health-related and other outcomes. The systematic assessment, monitoring and evaluation of the state of each of the six elements is required before, during and after any efforts to transfer the research findings.
Source: Logan, J et al (1999). In: Estabrooks, C.; Thompson, D.S., Lovely, J.J.E., & Hofmeyer, A. (2006)

Participation of research project-based policy entrepreneurs in public policy networks can strengthen the linkages and exchanges between researchers and policy makers.They provide awareness of research and initiatives and facilitate social learning.
Source: Reinicke (1999, 2000); Kingdon (1984). In: Williams, A., Holden, B., Krebs, P., Muhajarine, N., Waygood, K.,Randall, J. & Spence, C. (2008)

Partnering with local media providers can allow research to be tailored to meet the needs and address the concerns of the local audience. Public and political perceptions of the value and creditability of research can be higher if it is local in context and is provided by local experts who have a commitment to sustained involvement and good communication practices, which in turn can create a higher degree of trust in research findings. Using well-established and credible messengers, such as local media, not only facilitates wider dissemination, but can also reinforce the importance of working with the community, as well as target audiences, in all stages of the knowledge transfer process.
Source: Cooke (1995); Maskell (1999); Tyden (2000). In: Williams, A., Holden, B., Krebs, P., Muhajarine, N., Waygood, K.,Randall, J. & Spence, C. (2008)

Providing stakeholders with adequate and regular opportunities for face-to-face conversations about the research can positively influence their openness and the longevity of relationships.
Source: Greenhalgh (2004). In: Jansson, S. M., Benoit, C., Casey, L., Phillips, R., & Burns, D. (2010)

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 timeframe over which they are expected to apply (adopt) the new knowledge. Initially, selective uptake can be common. [p41,para5] In many cases, a small set of the intended audience will apply (adopt) the new knowledge early in the process. Ideally, as more individuals become aware (exposed), the application (adoption) rate will increase, to the point of full implementation.
Source: Damanpour (1991); Wright & Charlett (1995); Backer & Rogers (1998); Scheirer (1990); Mahajan & Peterson (1985); Nutley et al. (2002); 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 institution involved (e.g., the degree to which power and control in an organization are concentrated in the hands of a few individuals, the availability of persons in the organization with a high degree of knowledge and expertise, the degree to which an organization stresses following rules and procedures, the interconnectedness of the organization in a social system, and the availability of slack resources to invest in the innovation).
Source: Mohr (1969); Moch (1977); Kimberly (1981); Abrahamson (1991). In: Ashley, S.R. (2009)

Researchers can benefit from the involvement of knowledge users (stakeholder groups) in their projects. One way to orientate stakeholders and get them up to speed on the project is to synthesize relevant existing research and share it with them.
Source: Davis (2003). In: Jansson, S. M., Benoit, C., Casey, L., Phillips, R., & Burns, D. (2010)

The sole act of rendering research results understandable by stakeholders may be of limited value. Real benefits are often derived from the application of research results that respond to a specific stakeholder need.
Source: Davis (1996); Golden-Biddle (2003). In: Bowen, S., Martens, P. & The Need to Know Team (2005)

When designing a knowledge translation communication strategy, researchers should consider clarifying the research priorities that are being addressed and the respective funding sources. Researchers should also clearly state their dissemination goals.
Source: Majdzadeh (2008); Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (2004). In: Wilson, P.M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M. W. & Nazareth, I. (2010)

When designing a knowledge translation communication strategy, researchers should consider relevant factors associated with the characteristics of the audience receiving the knowledge, any relationships that could enhance receptivity, ways to acknowledge and convey respect for audience knowledge and experience, and a minimal threshold for participation.
Source: Winkler (1985); CRD (1994, 2009); Hughes (2000); Harmsworth (2001); Scullion (2002); European Commission (2004); Bauman (2006); Zarinpoush (2007); Majdzadeh (2008); Friese (2009); Yuan (2010). In: Wilson, P.M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M. W. & Nazareth, I. (2010)

When designing a knowledge translation communication strategy, researchers should consider relevant factors associated with the setting in which the knowledge is expected to be received.
Source: Winkler (1985); CRD (1994, 2009). In: Wilson, P.M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M. W. & Nazareth, I. (2010)