Why Is It So Hard to Evaluate Knowledge Exchange?; Comment on “Sustaining Knowledge Translation Practices: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis”

Document Type : Commentary

Author

Department of Health Services Research and Policy, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Abstract

Despite a growth in knowledge translation (KT) or exchange activities, and a smaller growth in their evaluations, it remains challenging to identify evidence of efficacy. This could be due to well-documented political and logistical difficulties involved in evaluating knowledge exchange interventions. By bringing in theory from science and technology studies (STS), Borst et al1 offer a new way of thinking about this problem. Most KT evaluations draw on health research traditions; centralising comparability, efficacy, and so on. Borst et al propose focusing on the work it takes to move knowledge over boundaries between these communities, seeing relationships as interactions, not just conduits for evidence. They show how ‘context’ can be understood as a mutual creation, not a static environment; and that institutions shape behaviours, rather than merely being sites or platforms for evidence mobilisation. Seeing KT as a creative, active practice opens new ways to design and evaluate KT mechanisms.

Keywords

References

  1. Borst RAJ, Wehrens R, Bal R. Sustaining knowledge translation practices: a critical interpretive synthesis. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(12):2793-2804. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.6424
  2. Boaz A, Davies H, Fraser A, Nutley S. What Works Now? Evidence-Informed Policy and Practice. Policy Press; 2019. https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/what-works-now. Accessed July 17, 2018.
  3. Oliver K. Hopkins A, Boaz A, Guillot-Wright S, Cairney P. What works to promote research-policy engagement? Evidence 2022;18(4):691-713. doi:10.1332/174426421X16420918447616
  4. Lightowler C, Knight C. Sustaining knowledge exchange and research impact in the social sciences and humanities: investing in knowledge broker roles in UK universities. Evid Policy. 2013;9(3):317-334. doi:1332/174426413x662644
  5. Watermeyer R. Issues in the articulation of ‘impact’: the responses of UK academics to ‘impact’ as a new measure of research assessment. Stud High Educ. 2014;39(2):359-377. doi:1080/03075079.2012.709490
  6. Knight C, Lightowler C. Reflections of ‘knowledge exchange professionals’ in the social sciences: emerging opportunities and challenges for university-based knowledge brokers. Evid Policy. 2010;6(4):543-56. doi:1332/174426410x535891
  7. Dobbins M, Hanna SE, Ciliska D, et al. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of knowledge translation and exchange strategies. Implement Sci. 2009;4:61. doi:1186/1748-5908-4-61
  8. Harvey G, Fitzgerald L, Fielden S, et al. The NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Greater Manchester: combining empirical, theoretical and experiential evidence to design and evaluate a large-scale implementation strategy. Implement Sci. 2011;6:96. doi:1186/1748-5908-6-96
  9. Kislov R, Wilson PM, Knowles S, Boaden R. Learning from the emergence of NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs): a systematic review of evaluations. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):111. doi:1186/s13012-018-0805-y
  10. Salter KL, Kothari A. Using realist evaluation to open the black box of knowledge translation: a state-of-the-art review. Implement Sci. 2014;9:115. doi:1186/s13012-014-0115-y
  11. Scott SD, Rotter T, Flynn R, et al. Systematic review of the use of process evaluations in knowledge translation research. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):266. doi:1186/s13643-019-1161-y
  12. Curran JA, Grimshaw JM, Hayden JA, Campbell B. Knowledge translation research: the science of moving research into policy and practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011;31(3):174-180. doi:1002/chp.20124
  13. Contandriopoulos D, Lemire M, Denis JL, Tremblay E. Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q. 2010;88(4):444-483. doi:1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00608.x
  14. Borst RAJ, Wehrens R, Bal R, Kok MO. From sustainability to sustaining work: what do actors do to sustain knowledge translation platforms? Soc Sci Med. 2022;296:114735. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2022.114735
  15. Lomas J. Using 'linkage and exchange' to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Aff (Millwood). 2000;19(3):236-240. doi:1377/hlthaff.19.3.236
  16. Oliver K, Boaz A. Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations. Palgrave Commun. 2019;5(1):60. doi:1057/s41599-019-0266-1

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 18 July 2022
  • Revise Date: 07 June 2023
  • Accept Date: 07 June 2023
  • First Publish Date: 10 June 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics