Researchers and the Practice of Knowledge Translation: What do We Know? Part II
Perceptions
By Kathryn Sibley
This is the second of several posts focused on the findings from our new study exploring the practice of knowledge translation (KT) among health researchers in Manitoba, Canada (where this very blog is based). The study was published in BMC Health Services Research, and it’s open access (i.e. free and available to anyone), so you can read it in full here. In this series, I’ll discuss some of the behind-the-scenes thinking about this project and our key findings. If you missed it, read the first post here.
What does knowledge translation (KT) mean to health researchers?
In 2015, we conducted a descriptive qualitative study exploring the practice of knowledge translation among health researchers in Manitoba, Canada. We interviewed 26 independent researchers at all career stages across the four ‘pillars’ of Canadian health research (biomedical, clinical, health systems and services, and population health) from five academic institutions throughout the province. The study was published in 2017, and in the previous post I discussed some of the rationale for the study, and gaps in our understanding of health researchers as stakeholders in the knowledge-to-action process. In this post I discuss one of our key findings: the variation in how KT is conceptualized across researchers.
The question was fairly simple: “How do you define knowledge translation? How do you think about the concept of KT?” Most of what we heard in response fell into one of three categories: (i) KT as applying research in health care; (ii) KT as disseminating completed research results; and (iii) KT as working with stakeholders throughout the research process. These descriptions align with many of the currently accepted elements of knowledge translation described in accepted published definitions (such as the Canadian Institutes of Health Research).
But what was really interesting to us was how much variation there was in individual researchers’ concepts of KT. Some researchers thought of KT as having many components (for example: a combination of the categories above). Others thought of KT as a very specific thing or activity (i.e. just one of the categories above). Not one participant described KT as including all of the elements described by the group. This is important, because individually, if researchers are only thinking about KT as a subset of what is fully possible, then they (and we as a whole) may be not practicing knowledge translation to its full potential. If this is the case, what are we missing out on?
The take home message may be that there is still more work to be done to increase researchers’ knowledge and understanding of KT, but those of us working in the field also have work to do. In the paper we discuss how even within the academic field there is not an agreed upon, universal definition of KT — and how this can have certainly have an impact on how those new to KT come to thinking about the concept. Anecdotally, at conferences and in conversations with colleagues, I have heard much debate about whether or not we need consensus on KT terminology. It makes me wonder, without agreement, are we limiting the growth of knowledge translation itself?
See below for links to other posts in this series:
About the Author
Dr. Kathryn Sibley is the Director of Knowledge Translation at the George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation (CHI), Canada Research Chair in Integrated Knowledge Translation in Rehabilitation Sciences, and Assistant Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences at the University of Manitoba. Find her on Twitter at @kmsibley.
