Knowledge mobilization is a theoretical construct describing the process through which research findings move from the research community into other communities, where they produce practical outcomes.
At least, that’s the working definition we use at Clarity Connect.
As a concept, knowledge mobilization (or KMb for short) has been much contested. Back in 2006, researchers identified 100 terms to describe the process of moving research from peer review into practice.[1] And that was just within health care literature.
Since then, concepts have started to consolidate, and within Canada “knowledge mobilization” has become the most widely used term. This is the label now preferred by all the Tri-Agencies, the three main federal funders of research (Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada).[2]
An ever-morphing concept
KMb is a broad, umbrella concept that includes many of the other concepts previously used to capture what it takes to translate research into practical outcomes.
Some of the narrower terms you may have encountered include research utilization, knowledge translation (KT), knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE), research dissemination, and knowledge brokering.
The language is still, however, new and changing.
In Canada, the mandate to transform research into practical results didn’t really become mainstream until 2000, when the CIHR was founded with a dual mission to both produce knowledge and translate it into improvements to the health system.[3] Thanks largely to CIHR’s leadership, many Canadian researchers adopted their terminology, which is now shifting from KT to KMb.
Globally, conversations about turning research into impact still involve a confusing array of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs), each with their own lingo.
Seven Important Things to Know About KMb
As you dive into KMb, here are a few things you should know about how the concept has evolved and is evolving.
- KMb is a journey through complexity. Once upon a time, many researchers believed that moving research from peer review into practice was simply a matter of broadcasting, or “disseminating,” information in lay language. We now know that the process is multi-dimensional and that information-sharing is just a part of the puzzle. Two-way communication through various channels, relationship-building, stakeholder engagement and management, and advocacy can all play critical roles in gaining the attention and trust of collaborators outside the research community.
- KMb has a longer history than you might think. Before researchers started using language like “research dissemination” and “knowledge translation,” many scholars were finding ways to share their knowledge with communities beyond the lab and library. Some of these scholars have engaged, for example, in participatory research, community-engaged research, evidence-based medicine, or technology transfer.
- KMb is a global priority, but the language is local. KMb is being practiced around the world: in the US, Australia, the UK, Africa, India, and many other regions. In 2024, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a “global research agenda on knowledge translation and evidence-informed policy-making.”[4] Initial consultations included scholars from around the world.
Notice, though, the language WHO chose for this initiative: “knowledge translation” (KT) and “evidence-informed policy-making” (EIP). WHO’s head office is located in Geneva, Switzerland. If it had been located in Canada, the project would likely have focused on KMb. If it had been located in the US, however, it probably would have kept the term “knowledge translation” or used another phrase, such as “knowledge exchange” (KE), or knowledge transfer. - KMb is a theoretical construct, not a playbook. Researchers love to design, and redesign, theories. This penchant for crafting intricate models explains why we now have more than 60 different frameworks theorizing how KMb could and should work. None of these is meant to serve as a step-by-step guide, and many have not been tested for validity and reliability.[5] From a practical point of view, it’s wise to consider most of the models as speculative rather than instructive.
- KMb is a scientific concept. Much of the thinking about KMb has been developed by thinkers with a background in health research, natural sciences, or social sciences. The current conceptualization of KMb tends to be disconnected from theories and models well established in fields outside these domains, such as rhetoric and composition, literature, and communication studies. Consequently, the multi-faceted role of communication in KMb has typically been underestimated and undervalued.[6]
- KMb is becoming the norm. All three of the Tri-Agencies now require grant holders to engage in some form of KMb, and other research funders are exerting similar pressure. When CIHR was founded in 2000, it was created with a double mandate that seemed radical at the time—to both conduct research and mobilize it. Today, that dual purpose is increasingly a basic expectation for researchers across disciplines, in higher education, health care, and independent research institutions.
- KMb is still developing. As a widespread practice and as a field of research, KMb is still in its infancy. As you start engaging in KMb, it’s important to stay in touch with current developments. Many knowledge mobilizers find it helpful to join or form a community of practice where they can reflect with others on challenges, successes, and lessons learned.
One of the most significant shifts in the last few years has been the increasing emphasis on “implementation science” as a new field of scientific inquiry encompassing KMb.
Implementation science examines how KMb works (or doesn’t work). As the Implementation Science Program at the University of Washington puts it, this growing field attempts to answer this question: “How do we get ‘what works’ to the people who need it, with greater speed, fidelity, quality, and relevant coverage?”[7]
Why Definitions and Frameworks Matter
At Clarity Connect, we’re communication specialists, not KMb theorists. We help researchers navigate the real-life complexities of KMb, not diagram them.
But if you’re new to KMb, we recommend that you get familiar with some of the most common TMFs and the logic underpinning them. This background knowledge is useful because:
- The frameworks provide useful tools for thinking about KMb strategy.
- As you engage in KMb, you’ll find that other researchers often refer to the frameworks.
- Understanding the frameworks helps you appreciate their gaps, the places where communication skills and practices must come into play to make KMb happen
In the next article in this series, we’ll explore a few of those frameworks so you’ll have the context and confidence you need to develop KMb strategy.
[1] McKibbon et al. (2010). A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel? Implementation Science, 5 (16).
[2] As of this writing, you’ll still find the CIHR website using an earlier phrase, “knowledge translation,” but since 2023 they have been transitioning to replacing their popular knowledge translation framework with a new Knowledge Mobilization Framework and Action Plan.
[3] Check out the Act of Parliament that created the CIHR, a document that put Canada on the world map as a leader in the new field of knowledge translation: https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-18.1/page-1.html. The CIHR’s framework for KT, which the organization is now developing into a KMb framework, has served as a guide to researchers around the globe.
[4] WHO. (2024, March 22). Global Research Agenda on Knowledge Translation and Evidence-informed Policy-making. WHO News. https://www.who.int/news/item/22-03-2024-world-health-organization-leading-a-collaborative-effort-to-develop-a-global-research-agenda-on-knowledge-translation-and-evidence-informed-policy-making
[5] Increasingly, researchers are paying attention to the need to validate KMb frameworks and find ways to accurately measure their effectiveness. In their 2024 article, Ziam et al. summarize some of this valuable work. (A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies. Health Research Policy and Systems, 22 (8).
[6] A frequently cited article used to describe the role or communication in KMb is Barwick et al. (2014). Knowledge translation and communications: Unpacking differences and similarities for scholarly and research communications. Scholarly and Research Communication, 5 (3). https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/24e9d784-a2b7-4e8a-b0fa-8e188df0cb00/content . As is typical among KMb practitioners and scholars, the authors consider strategic communication as “a corporate function that disseminates and reinforces messages in support of an organization’s strategic plan.” This contracted definition ignores many other functions and dimensions of communication essential to KMb, including interpersonal communication.
[7] University of Washington Department of Global Health. (n.d.) What is Implementation Science? https://impsciuw.org/implementation-science/learn/implementation-science-overview/
Comments