A New Perspective on Emerging Knowledge Translation Practices; Comment on “Sustaining Knowledge Translation Practices: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors

1 School of Health Studies, Western University, London, ON, Canada

2 School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

3 Department of Social Work, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

Abstract

The critical interpretive synthesis by Borst and colleagues offered a new perspective on knowledge translation (KT) sustainability from the perspective of Science and Technology Studies. From our applied health services perspective, we found several interesting ideas to bring forward. First, the idea that KT sustainability includes the ongoing activation of networks led to several future research questions. Second, while not entirely a new concept, understanding how KT actors work strategically and continuously with institutional rules and regulations to sustain KT practice was noteworthy. We add to the discussion by emphasizing the importance of non-researcher voices (clinicians, administrators, policy-makers, patients, carers, public) in sustaining KT practice. We also remind readers that the health ecosystem is dynamic and interdependent, where one system level influences and is influenced by another, and that these constant adaptations suggest that understanding KT practices cannot be a one-off event but represent repeated moments for transformative learning.

Keywords

References

  1. Borst RAJ, Wehrens R, Bal R. Sustaining knowledge translation practices: a critical interpretive synthesis. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.6424
  2. Cameron J, Humphreys C, Kothari A, Hegarty K. Creating an action plan to advance knowledge translation in a domestic violence research network: a deliberative dialogue. Evid Policy. 2021;17(3):467-485. doi:1332/174426421x16106634806152
  3. Oliver K, Faul MV. Networks and network analysis in evidence, policy and practice. Evid Policy. 2018;14(03):369-379. doi:1332/174426418x15314037224597
  4. Fransman J. Charting a course to an emerging field of “research engagement studies”: a conceptual metasynthesis. Research for All. 2018;2(2):185-229. doi:18546/rfa.02.2.02
  5. Cameron J, Humphreys C, Hegarty K. Knowledge translation activity of a domestic violence research network: a scoping survey. Journal of Gender-Based Violence. 2021;5(2):349-362. doi:1332/239868021x16191835307584
  6. Powell A, Davies H, Nutley S. Missing in action? The role of the knowledge mobilisation literature in developing knowledge mobilisation practices. Evid Policy. 2017;13(2):201-223. doi:1332/174426416x14534671325644
  7. Davies HT, Powell AE, Nutley SM. Mobilising Knowledge to Improve UK Health Care: Learning from Other Countries and Other Sectors–A Multimethod Mapping Study. Health Services and Delivery Research. 2015;3(27). doi:3310/hsdr03270
  8. Langley A, Denis JL. Beyond evidence: the micropolitics of improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(Suppl_1):i43-46. doi:1136/bmjqs.2010.046482
  9. Cameron J, Humphreys C, Kothari A, Hegarty K. Exploring the knowledge translation of domestic violence research: a literature review. Health Soc Care Community. 2020;28(6):1898-1914. doi:1111/hsc.13070
  10. Bowen S, Graham I, Botting I. It’s Time to Talk About Our Relationship With Research. Ottawa: The Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network; 201.
  11. Banner D, Bains M, Carroll S, et al. Patient and public engagement in integrated knowledge translation research: are we there yet? Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5:8. doi:10.1186/s40900-019-0139-1
  12. Palmer VJ. The participatory zeitgeist in health care: it is time for a science of participation. J Particip Med. 2020;12(1):e15101. doi:2196/15101

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 July 2022
  • Revise Date: 15 November 2022
  • Accept Date: 15 November 2022
  • First Publish Date: 19 November 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics