The Pros and Cons of KT Sections in Grants

By Kathryn Sibley

Nearly everyone in health research has seen them: the knowledge translation (KT) sections required by health research funders. Some require all applicants to include KT in their submissions, with statements like “describe the opportunities for knowledge translation and exchange” or “describe the integrated and end-of-grant KTE strategies, tools, methods, etc.”

These sections are a reflection of research funders’ efforts to promote and enhance the practice of KT. Requiring all researchers to consider KT by requiring them to complete this section in their funding applications is an important step forward in building the practice of KT and increasing research impact. Funders have identified their unique position to facilitate evidence-informed health care practice and policy, and have done a lot to advance the field of KT through this work. However, there are challenges with the required KT section in such applications.

Challenge #1: Inappropriate KT

The first potential problem — in my experience reviewing grants — is that the requirement to complete a KT section for successful grant submission, combined with the newness of the scholarly field of KT (contrasted with how long ago many principal investigators received their training) creates the potential for researchers to fill out these sections in completely inappropriate ways. Inappropriate could mean choosing approaches without any theoretical basis or empirical evidence, referred to in the field as ISLAGIATT (It Seemed Like A Good Idea at the Time). A KT section could also be inappropriate by overreaching (or completely underselling) the potential impact of a project by failing to engage in any type of translational work beyond traditional forms of dissemination (e.g. journal articles, conference presentations, etc.).

Challenge #2: Separation of KT from the Project

The second issue is with the very existence of a KT section in funding applications. By having a distinct section on KT, it becomes separate from research, and the essential connection to the scientific method is removed. This lack of methodological rigor feeds the inappropriateness of KT sections mentioned above. For whatever reasons, it seems that some researchers may not be putting the same level of rigor into the KT section as they are for other parts of the application. KT sections can come across as awkward or misplaced for a number of reasons. If integrated KT is part of the methodology, and is only addressed in the KT section (and typically at the end of the grant), it can seem like an afterthought. I prefer to incorporate into my methods the ways in which I am embedding KT throughout the project, so reviewers can see how KT informs the entire project. I often find I will fill my methods section discussing how KT is being integrated throughout the project, and how KT theory informs the work. Then I get to the KT section, and I think “now what do you want me to say?” I will typically (if I’m able to) frame this section as ‘dissemination’, to emphasize and distinguish end-of-grant KT from the embedded and integrated KT that I often use in my work.

My hypothesis (completely speculative) is that the rapid growth of the field of KT, combined with the academic pressures faced by many researchers today, results in KT sections are often thrown together at the last minute. Combine this with the potential for uninformed reviewers who may not be fully equipped to review KT sections, and you have recipe for disaster.

All this is to say that in my mind, we haven’t fully optimized the potential of the grant KT section. What is your experience? What do you see as the pros and cons? How could this practice of having mandatory KT strategies in funding applications be advanced to better serve everyone?

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 @kmsibley.