Reflections on “Commitment Issues: Part 1”
The End-User Perspective on Common Pitfalls in Integrated Knowledge Translation
In a previous post, I talked about integrated knowledge translation (iKT) — a collaborative approach to research that involves engaging end-users throughout the research process. Using this type of integrated approach to research, and doing it well, takes a lot of time and commitment. Unfortunately, this commitment often isn’t financially supported or recognized by academic institutions and/or funders.
I recently came across a pair of posts from the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research (MSFHR) called Commitment Issues, which describes the integrated KT process from two perspectives. In Part I, we read about the perspective of a research end-user (Chris McBride, Executive Director at Spinal Cord Injury BC) and his take on the process of iKT. In Part II, Dr. Heather Gainforth (University of British Columbia) responds with the researcher’s perspective (which I reflect on in a second post here).
Based on their past and present research ‘relationships’ they provide some key insights for practicing integrated KT — how to do it, why do it, and how to do it well. Today I’ll share reflections on the research end-user perspective.
The Research End-User Perspective
Research end-users (community organizations, health care professionals, policy makers, etc.) are often approached by researchers with the best intentions — to improve the value and impact of their research. Chris McBride receives many of these requests at Spinal Cord Injury BC, a community-based organization, and shares why he often finds himself saying no to these requests, and how researchers can work to change that no to a yes.
Pitfall #1 — False Assumptions
A request from a researcher often starts with a line like this: “I believe the results of this study will be useful and of benefit to your community and organization because….”
Though researchers are passionate about their work, academic interests are often out of line with the interests of the end-users. In fact, they’re rarely as interesting to them as a researcher with a passion might think. And quite frankly, this is not something researchers would know, unless they actually ask.
Tip 1: Arrive early, get to know your end-users — and listen carefully. Early engagement allows research partners to share their perspective on what the important questions about the general area of interest are, what is most relevant, and what is feasible. Oftentimes, researchers show up too late in the process, with their plan or research questions already determined (and inflexible). If researchers truly want to deliver meaningful outcomes, they need to start the conversations early, take the time to develop meaningful relationships, and develop research questions that are truly valuable to the needs and priorities of their end-users.
Pitfall #2 — One-Sided Engagement (or Worse, Tokenism)
If the power balance is heavily weighted towards the researcher (and it often is), the project, methods, and findings are less likely to be relevant, and the project is less likely to succeed in real-world applications. If a large power imbalance exists, end-users are also less likely to want to partake. Even worse, if their involvement is tokenistic and occurs merely to ‘check off’ a box for funding agencies... that’s not really engagement at all.
Tip 2: Taking the time upfront to understand what the community organization does and what its priorities are will help ensure the research questions and methods align with the organization’s vision and mission and how the project can be of value to them. Language is another important aspect of being relevant and of developing equal partnerships. Be cognizant of the language you use and set expectations (from both sides) at the outset. Read Carolyn’s post about assessing internal and external expectations here.
Pitfall #3 — Expecting Something for Nothing
Sometimes, it’s assumed that organizations will be willing (and able) to dedicate resources and time to help with project needs for free. Most organizations (and people in general) can’t afford to do things for free.
Tip 3: Bring value. This doesn’t always have to mean bringing your wallet (though properly budgeting for your KT efforts is important). iKT projects can bring value in many ways, like increasing staff competencies, enhancing the outcomes and impact of our services, supporting operational sustainability, or providing direct and tangible benefits to those who engage in our organization’s services. As with any partnership, all parties must understand the value proposition relating to their investment in the partnership.
How to garner a “yes” and engage in a meaningful iKT experience
Chris sums it up nicely: arrive early and get to know your research partners, listen carefully, speak the same language, be relevant, bring value, and be respectful.
Obviously there are challenges faced by researchers in trying to meaningfully and authentically engage with end-users, and an integrated approach to research isn’t always possible (or appropriate). The time, resources, knowledge, and skills needed to foster meaningful partnerships are just some of the factors that may hinder a researcher from doing iKT. Dr. Heather Gainforth, a researcher who dabbles in integrated KT research herself, shares her experience in the second post of this series, and why from her perspective, it’s worth it — 100% of the time. Check out part II of these reflections here.
About the Author
Leah Crockett is a doctoral student in the Department of Community Health Sciences at the University of Manitoba.
