Failure of a research network (or project) to clearly articulate and broadly communicate its goals and objectives can impede its progress. It can also cloud stakeholder’s abilities to evaluate network (project) outcomes.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation
(View full citation)

When executives deliberate about the value of applying research in their organization, one of the factors they often consider is the “replicability” of the research findings, especially in their setting. Researchers should clearly communicate “replicability.”
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(View full citation)

When organizational executives deliberate about the value of applying research in their organization, one of the factors they often consider is the “scalability” of the research findings. Researchers should clearly communicate “scalability.”
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(View full citation)

When using the Knowledge to Action Process model to effect an evidence-based change (e.g., in a clinical practice), one of the factors that knowledge users (e.g., clinicians) may site as an impediment is an absence of the evidence appraisal and statistical analysis skills that are required in the knowledge inquiry phase. Knowledge producers should clearly communicate, in simple terms, how knowledge users can assess the validity of the new knowledge. One solution is to provide easy-to-use synthesis, assessment, learning and application tools.
Applying the Graham Knowledge to Action Process model in stroke rehabilitation.
(View full citation)

Researchers can benefit from establishing ongoing partnerships with key knowledge users (stakeholder groups). As a researcher gets to know a stakeholder group, there is the potential to develop a trusting relationship, which can lead to greater openness and opportunities to better understand the issues that drive the stakeholder group and the kinds of important questions that remain unanswered and remain open to research.
Lessons learned from close researcher-stakeholder partnerships.
(View full citation)

Researchers should carefully define and communicate to stakeholders what they mean by “moving research into practice.” The starting point of the spectrum is research findings that are specific to a unique set of circumstances. The endpoint of the spectrum is research findings that can be generalized across an entire system. Correctly setting stakeholder expectations is crucial.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(View full citation)

The inclusion of a policy entrepreneur on a research project can enhance: policy-related research focus, policy stakeholder understanding of the project and engagement in related activities, and the relevance, transferability and use of research findings by policy stakeholders.
Project-based learnings.
(View full citation)

As part of the evaluation planning associated with a research project, the researchers should consider the context of the knowledge translation process. Useful questions to ask include, what is the issue being translated? what stage of knowledge translation is currently the focus? who are the key actors? what are characteristics of the setting?
Literature review.
(View full citation)

According to the researcher’s guide to planning for knowledge translation there are five essential elements of knowledge translation, including: the problem (the problem or issue to be addressed by the research/knowledge), context (the circumstances surrounding the user and researcher), knowledge (properties of the pre-existing knowledge/evidence about the problem or the generation of new knowledge/evidence), intervention (specific activities designed to translate knowledge/research into action), and use (ways in which the knowledge/research is or might be used). For each element, a series of questions is provided. Each question encourages the researcher to think broadly and deeply about the knowledge translation implications. Elements and related questions are evidence-based, which adds to their credibility.
Knowledge translation guidance for researchers.
(View full citation)

Failure Knowledge Network (FKN) — captures and inter-relates mechanical product quality knowledge from five areas: (i) the connection between failures and product functions, (ii) the relationship between failures and product components, (iii) the correlation between failures and organizations, (iv) the association between failures and product processes, and (v) the conjunction among different failures. FKN information is represented in a four-dimensional matrix that includes components, functions, processes and organization. Each element in the matrix is a failure scenario and represents the related failures within the corresponding dimensions. Conventional factors of failures are embodied in the FKN representation. They include event, detection, effect, severity, solution weight, cause, monitor, reappearance, operation, efficiency and precaution. The indexes of each factor are provided by subject matter experts and are set in accordance with the correlation between corresponding characteristics and failures
Failure knowledge based decision-making in product quality.
(View full citation)

Initiate “knowledge awareness” by identifying the appropriate or valuable knowledge.
Literature review.
(View full citation)

Product quality-related decision-making using the Failure Knowledge Network (FKN) — The first step of the decision-making process is the identification of related failures and characteristics. The second step is determination of the important characteristics of the clusters. Next, there is a comparison between the characteristics of each target. Finally, the interdependent priorities of the characteristics are determined by analyzing dependencies among the targets and characteristics.
Failure knowledge based decision-making in product quality.
(View full citation)

When using the Knowledge to Action Process model to effect an evidence-based change (e.g., in a clinical practice), one approach that can be taken to identifying a problem (phase 1 of the model) with a practice is to formally study actual cases (e.g., by conducting chart audits).
Applying the Graham Knowledge to Action Process model in stroke rehabilitation.
(View full citation)

When using the Knowledge to Action Process model to effect an evidence-based change (e.g., in a clinical practice), one approach that can be taken to identifying a problem (phase 1 of the model) with a practice is to formally survey knowledge users (clinicians) about their use of research knowledge in their practice.
Applying the Graham Knowledge to Action Process model in stroke rehabilitation.
(View full citation)

When using the Knowledge to Action Process model to effect an evidence-based change (e.g., in a clinical practice), one approach that can be taken to identifying a problem (phase 1 of the model) with a practice is to conduct focus groups with knowledge producers (researchers) and knowledge users (clinicians) to explore why there are gaps between the availability of research evidence and its application in a clinical setting.
Applying the Graham Knowledge to Action Process model in stroke rehabilitation.
(View full citation)

In cases where new research findings conflict with a stakeholder’s existing values, if research is framed as a process of argument or debate to help create legitimate concern and help set an appropriate agenda (and not as a product to be used solely for problem-solving), as part of the process, stakeholders may adjust their values to be in alignment with the research results and not interpret the finding to be a threat, but see them as constructive and valuable.
Literature review and single case study.
(View full citation)

In the government policy making process, it is important to remember that research evidence often competes with other forms of evidence (e.g., budgetary constraints and the legal code) and with values (e.g., public opinion about the role of government versus the market). The receptivity of a policy proposal can be influenced by how it aligns with (or is given visibility by) other institutional arrangements (e.g., jurisdictional authorities, past policies and practices, etc.) and interests (e.g., elected officials’ commitments, civil servants’ authorities, advisory bodies, etc.).
Literature review and direct experience.
(View full citation)

Knowledge translation efforts should be mindful of the project valuation metrics internally used by transfer partners. For example, one company accepts projects based on a review of strategic fit, ability to increase revenue, ability to increase market share, degree of product differentiation, and technological advancement.
Survey of 105 U.S. companies
(View full citation)

Research design: Where possible, involve an international, interdisciplinary team of experts and professionals in the design of the research program and its related content. Active and regular researcher interaction with political and policy decision-makers is highly recommended.
Applying integrated KT in Mental Health research.
(View full citation)

Research funders should consider funding large-scale systematic push efforts. Using this approach, there could be a greater chance that the research being pushed by researchers could be matched with the needs of public policymakers (or trigger the opening of policy windows in the policy making process).
Literature review and direct experience.
(View full citation)

Researchers (and research networks) can enhance stakeholder receptivity to the application of research findings by establishing stakeholder advocates — members of the stakeholder community that are recognized as leaders and respected by their peers.
Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
(View full citation)

Researchers are usually required to obtain advance approval from independent ethics boards prior to engaging in research that involves human subjects. Knowledge users (stakeholder groups) are often unfamiliar with requirements associated with informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, data access and data management. Ensure these requirements and their implications for participation, process and practice are understood at the beginning of the project.
Lessons learned from close researcher-stakeholder partnerships.
(View full citation)

Researchers can benefit from establishing ongoing partnerships with key knowledge users (stakeholder groups). Each stakeholder group brings a unique and informed perspective that can positively influence research design and knowledge translation strategy.
Lessons learned from close researcher-stakeholder partnerships.
(View full citation)

Researchers should not assume that practitioners will see any direct connection between academic research and the practices of their organization. Researchers should take the time to help practitioners make the connection.
Case study.
(View full citation)

Stakeholder engagement strategies must be tailored to each stakeholder group. Strategies to engage strategic direction-setters will be different from strategies required to engage perception-influencers and/or adopters.
Literature review and case example.
(View full citation)

The inherently complex nature of knowledge translation implies that, to be comprehensive, there would need to be an equally complex set of knowledge translation guidelines. This is not practical for design or practice, as it could involve a significant number of permutations and combinations and could easily overwhelm a researcher – especially a novice one. One alternative is to provide a simple template that explains the essential knowledge translation guideline categories (e.g. problem statement, research context, knowledge objectives, possible research interventions, and potential knowledge uses) and associates sample questions and hypothetical examples with each category to reinforce deliberation, understanding and application.
Knowledge translation guidance for researchers.
(View full citation)

When a client (stakeholder) is involved in the knowledge translation process, the practitioner may solicit, validate and integrate client-supplied knowledge (about the client’s situation and environment) into the overall knowledge translation process.
Application of Graham’s Knowledge-to-Action Process model in occupational therapy.
(View full citation)

When knowledge translation process involves collaboration with the client (stakeholder), interactions with the client can shape the knowledge translation process before research is even accessed.
Application of Graham’s Knowledge-to-Action Process model in occupational therapy.
(View full citation)

One drawback to using Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is that it has deficiencies in the expression of the relationship between different failure components. As a result it can not be used as a technique for knowledge formulation. One way to represent and share failure information is to construct a knowledge network of failure scenarios.
Source: Dai (2009). In: Dai,W., Maropoulos, P.G. &Tang, X.Q. (2010)

One of the reasons that product quality failures reoccur is that the knowledge of past failures is not well represented or readily-available to respective parties. One way to represent and share past failures is to construct a knowledge network of failure scenarios.
Source: Hatamura (2003). In: Dai,W., Maropoulos, P.G. &Tang, X.Q. (2010)

A research project-based policy entrepreneur can be a central force for coordinating and promoting collective policy learning.
Source: Stone (2001a). In: Williams, A., Holden, B., Krebs, P., Muhajarine, N., Waygood, K.,Randall, J. & Spence, C. (2008)

Mass dissemination through the local media can be critical to ensuring that beneficial development takes place. The more people that are aware of the research, the greater the likelihood that the findings and their implications will be discussed, and the better the interest and support for the practical applications of the results. Engaging the media can be a key factor. For research to have the desired impact on social consciousness and policy directives, research dissemination strategies should target both decision makers, as well as the general public.
Source: Miller (1999). In: Williams, A., Holden, B., Krebs, P., Muhajarine, N., Waygood, K.,Randall, J. & Spence, C. (2008)

Participation of research project-based policy entrepreneurs in public policy networks can strengthen the linkages and exchanges between researchers and policy makers.They provide awareness of research and initiatives and facilitate social learning.
Source: Reinicke (1999, 2000); Kingdon (1984). In: Williams, A., Holden, B., Krebs, P., Muhajarine, N., Waygood, K.,Randall, J. & Spence, C. (2008)

Partnering with local media providers can allow research to be tailored to meet the needs and address the concerns of the local audience. Public and political perceptions of the value and creditability of research can be higher if it is local in context and is provided by local experts who have a commitment to sustained involvement and good communication practices, which in turn can create a higher degree of trust in research findings. Using well-established and credible messengers, such as local media, not only facilitates wider dissemination, but can also reinforce the importance of working with the community, as well as target audiences, in all stages of the knowledge transfer process.
Source: Cooke (1995); Maskell (1999); Tyden (2000). In: Williams, A., Holden, B., Krebs, P., Muhajarine, N., Waygood, K.,Randall, J. & Spence, C. (2008)

When planning, implementing or evaluating a knowledge translation (innovation) process, diffusion theory suggests that one of the factors that can influence the appeal of new knowledge to a potential knowledge user is the timeframe over which they are expected to apply (adopt) the new knowledge. Initially, selective uptake can be common. [p41,para5] In many cases, a small set of the intended audience will apply (adopt) the new knowledge early in the process. Ideally, as more individuals become aware (exposed), the application (adoption) rate will increase, to the point of full implementation.
Source: Damanpour (1991); Wright & Charlett (1995); Backer & Rogers (1998); Scheirer (1990); Mahajan & Peterson (1985); Nutley et al. (2002); Rogers (2003). In: Ashley, S.R. (2009)

The sole act of rendering research results understandable by stakeholders may be of limited value. Real benefits are often derived from the application of research results that respond to a specific stakeholder need.
Source: Davis (1996); Golden-Biddle (2003). In: Bowen, S., Martens, P. & The Need to Know Team (2005)

When designing a knowledge translation communication strategy, researchers should consider clarifying the research priorities that are being addressed and the respective funding sources. Researchers should also clearly state their dissemination goals.
Source: Majdzadeh (2008); Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (2004). In: Wilson, P.M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M. W. & Nazareth, I. (2010)