Thoughts from the Front Lines: Advice for Getting Started in Integrated KT
By Kathryn Sibley
Author’s Disclaimer: Most of my posts are centered around or informed by peer-reviewed literature, a foundational quality indicator in academia. This post is not. This post is informed by my personal experience doing (or attempting to do) integrated knowledge translation (iKT). I wish this could be an evidence-based post, but the reality is that we don’t yet have good evidence on how to do “good” (i.e. effective) iKT. We are working on it, though — I’m pleased to be a part of an outstanding group of Canadian researchers focused on advancing the science of integrated KT. Keep an eye on the iKT Research Network and stay tuned for forthcoming data and publications!
In a previous post, Leah introduced the concept of integrated knowledge translation (iKT). Integrated knowledge translation refers to a collaborative research approach that engages health research knowledge users throughout the research process — from conception to dissemination. These knowledge users could include people with lived experience of a health condition, health professionals, and health system and research decision-makers. Like knowledge translation (KT), there is no single, agreed-on definition of iKT. I propose that iKT falls within the “exchange” component of the definition of knowledge translation we have previously referred to. Anecdotally, I have heard the term “iKT” used liberally among some researchers and KT practitioners, which is concerning. What’s important to keep in mind is that iKT is an approach to research (as opposed to seeing it as separate from research).
What does practicing iKT look like?
In general, iKT looks like involving knowledge users as partners on the research team. It is not engaging with them solely as research participants. But what does a “research partnership” entail? Well, the tricky thing is that it isn’t going to look the same for everyone. In my mind, a good partnership is one that meets the needs of all partners. At a minimum, I consider my partners as co-investigators. But as non-academic investigators, it’s about meeting these partners where they are at. Some may want to be deeply involved in all decisions and day-to-day operations — akin to what we might expect of a principal investigator role (if so, I go with that). Some may want to consult or advise and be involved at a high level (if so, I go with that). For me, the key thing is to provide my knowledge user partners with the opportunity to be involved in the research to the extent they wish.
What’s my advice for motivated researchers who want to embrace the iKT paradigm?
First of all: congratulations! iKT is a different way of doing health research for many, and the decision to do so is not made lightly. Next, and most importantly: start engaging with knowledge users early. So early. Earlier than you think. My advice is to engage so early you don’t even have a project yet. Why? Because the foundation of iKT is the relationship between the researcher and the knowledge user. How strong a foundation might you have if you are seeking a partner for a grant idea you already have? You might get lucky and get connected with an individual or organization that is highly aligned with your project idea, and identifying shared priorities is easy. But more often than not, it’s not that simple or straightforward. It takes work to figure out where interests align and if a partnership makes sense. If you are under the gun of a funding deadline, how might that impact the genuine development of your partnership?
I will often set up meetings just to get to know people. I will say “I have no agenda for being here. I have no idea what this will lead to.”
As a result of several years of working in this area, I have had the most success with establishing new research relationships completely outside of a grant deadline, often even without a project. I will often set up meetings just to get to know people. I will say “I have no agenda for being here. I have no idea what this will lead to.” In my experience, building a relationship under a grant deadline is tough, for all parties involved. I’d rather start completely free of time constraints, and then when the opportunity presents itself, we come together successfully (i.e. get the grant). Sometimes these meetings lead to something very quickly. Sometimes it takes a year or two for the right opportunity to come up. Sometimes it doesn’t lead anywhere.
This is not an easy, efficient or fool-proof approach. It takes commitment to investing time and energy into a component of academics without a guaranteed traditional academic return on investment (or CV entry). But I can tell you that I very much value what this approach and these relationships have contributed to enriching my research program. If you have experience with integrated KT, drop us a line. We’d love to hear about your approach!
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.
