Researchers and the Practice of Knowledge Translation: What do We Know? Part III
Experiences
By Trish Roche
This is the third 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, we discuss some of the behind-the-scenes thinking about this project and our key findings. If you missed it, read the first post (by Kate) on why we conducted the study here and the second post (also by Kate) on what researchers define KT as here.
What are health researchers’ experiences with doing knowledge translation (KT)?
In 2015, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study exploring the practice of KT 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 Kate discussed participants’ definitions of KT and the amount of variation between researchers and disciplines. In this post I discuss another one of our key findings: the experiences of researchers in doing KT in their work.
Perhaps not surprisingly, dissemination was the most common activity mentioned when researchers were asked about their KT experiences. A number described having no experience with KT whatsoever. However, most participants were quick to acknowledge that KT encompassed more than what they had incorporated into their own programs of research. Without exploring the details of each participants’ research, it would be difficult to determine the appropriate strategies that should be used for each researcher.
Targets of dissemination activities included both academic (via conferences and traditional academic means of sharing research findings) and non-academic audiences (through more mainstream methods of information-sharing such as videos, websites, and social media). Researchers who used a more integrated approach to KT in their work mentioned including stakeholders throughout the research process (a critical component of integrated KT), the use of advisory groups, and collaborative discussions. Relationship-building was mentioned by some of these participants as well — a key component of successful engagement. Interestingly, two participants described their experiences in engaging with stakeholders in research projects as being ‘tokenistic’ — one mentioning concerns that the knowledge they were translating was not going to be used at all.
Interestingly, some of the researchers interviewed ascribed emotions to the thought and/or practice of KT — ranging from excitement, fear, and intimidation to frustration, burnout, and disappointment. Though these emotional associations weren’t mentioned when participants were asked about barriers, we know that emotions are a strong driver of behaviour and thus negative associations with KT may deter some researchers from engaging in KT activities — particularly those who are inexperienced or in the early stages of their career.
See below for links to other posts in this series:
About the Author
Trish Roche is a knowledge broker with the George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation (CHI).
