Michael Ogbu

Introduction

The primary goal of every research project is to create maximum impact. At its core, research wields the fundamental purpose of advancing knowledge for the benefit of mankind. Be it the momentous exploration of outer spaces, or modest behavioral research, the goal is to provide answers that can improve our environments and better our lives.

This, however, is why there is usually an erroneous emphasis on the outcome of research rather than its process. But beyond research findings, the overall value of any given research is far more experiential than not. To put it more succinctly, the gains of research are mostly felt when it is designed to evidently involve all stakeholders as well as research users, in its processes. This is because the “traditional, rational-linear approaches to research dissemination are often insufficient for generating meaningful change beyond academic contexts” (Farley-Ripple, MacGregor & Mazel, 2023, 2.).

In this vein, research as we know it does not have to remain a single-barrel undertaking of the academia. It should be an engagement that shares both the responsibilities and knowledge of its process equitably. But unfortunately, whereas research has continued to sustain its reputation for advancing knowledge, its underlying benefit of creating an enriching and satisfying impact on both the researchers and users had remained elusive; hence, the advent of Knowledge Mobilization (KMb).  

The Concept

Knowledge Mobilization as an innovative model is designed to ensure a significant harmonization of all research processes through shared experiences for researchers, stakeholders and users, alike. In other words, KMb assumes an essential responsibility for promoting social innovation, informing policy change, and maximizing impact (Shewchuk & Purinton, 2022).

It is a collaborative mechanism that bridges the gap between researchers and all other stakeholders. According to York University as cited by Jensen and Jonny, (2021), KMb is a set of activities that connects the researchers and community stakeholders so that research and evidence are made to inform public policy and professional practice. By this, KMb is described as an end-to-end approach that provides an equitable opportunity to both knowledge users and researchers, making each an equal partner in the research process.

Therefore, through the various components of Knowledge Mobilization, the gains and outcomes of a given research are shared with all stakeholders to ensure a complete maximization of research results. As further implied by Shewchuk and Purinton (2022, 2.), “engaging in KMb process allows researchers and education stakeholders to drive innovation through research intended to benefit and positively influence practice, policy, and society while simultaneously supporting researchers in developing, conducting, and advancing the impact of their research”. This means that KMb entails an actualization of effective partnership in research that is anchored on mutual benefit, fairness and collaboration.

Furthermore, knowledge mobilization through its underlying elements serves as the propelling hands with which research ethics and gains are driven. These key components of KMb are as follows: Clear Writing, Effective Communication, Social Media Strategy, Research Impact and Evaluation, etc. Each one of the components is used to propagate the conduct of research in the most congenial and beneficial way. Take Clear writing for instance, that prioritizes an unreserved accommodation of other community stakeholders by translating academic writing for non-academic audiences. This process simplifies research by putting readers first using plain language. It also entails providing only the information that are most needed. This among others is one important way to create a collaborative ecosystem around research.

More so, KMb is broadly classified into two important approaches which are, End-of-Grant Knowledge Translation and Integrated Knowledge Mobilization. While End-of-grant KMb takes place when researchers share results and implications of their work with those who can use the information, Integrated KMb on the other hand applies the principles of KMb throughout the research process. But whereas the two approaches serve the desired goal of communicating the knowledge gained during research to potential knowledge users, moving research into practice, and the commercialization of scientific discoveries, the Integrated KMb is adjudged a preferred approach since it involves all stakeholders from the inception of a research to its completion.

Similarly, there is an outlined series of steps to consider when designing a KMb model. According to Shewchuk & Purinton (2022), a KMb process should begin with knowing (a) the Research Question and the KMb approach that are appropriate, (b) the expected knowledge output, (c) the key stakeholders (d) the KMb activities, (e) how to use intermediary organizations to mobilize research (f) how to implement and evaluate KMb plan (g) how to budget for KMb activities. These steps , when followed ensure a holistic actualization of the desired impact in research. As inferred by Phipps et al (2016), it produces the desired benefits in a logic model-based framework for mapping progress thus: research – dissemination – uptake – implementation – impact.

Challenges

Apparently, the use of knowledge mobilization programs in research processes does not come without some challenges, one of which is found in its multiplicity of conceptualization. There is a growing confusion with the scope of KMb in relation to similar concepts like knowledge brokering, knowledge exchange, knowledge management, knowledge transfer, knowledge translation, knowledge utilization, knowledge-to-action (KTA), and dissemination (Levid, 2008). However, it is worthy to note that although KMb share similarity with all these other terms, its scope and application not only encompasses, but transcends them. According to Wolman (2017), KMb methods encompass the other similar concepts and also extends them to include the co-production of new knowledge.

Additionally, being that knowledge mobilization is innovation driven, many organizations find it hard to adapt.  While some agencies and academic institutions, have risen to the occasion by leveraging the benefits of KMb programs in research, their counterparts, especially in developing countries have not. I can personally relate to this because in the many years I have served as a member of a faculty research committee, I know the struggles and challenges we faced. Most of those problems which are mostly associated with funding and dispassionate commitment on the part of community stakeholders, I have come to realize were problems that a well-structured KMb program would easily solve. Unfortunately, this challenge has remained because, as buttressed by Powell et al (2019), it is often difficult for agencies to break away from traditional approaches into adopting the ever-changing models of knowledge mobilization.

Conclusion

Owing to the dynamics of knowledge in the present day, its creation and use has become an intricate engagement. This, therefore, has placed a huge emphasis on the imperativeness of knowledge mobilization. By this, KMb has become an invaluable aspect of not only education and research, but business, management and more. On the part of education and research, it has become crucial to inculcate KMb in every step of the process. Be it at the design stage, or for grant application, or in communicating research results, KMb ensures a level of transparency and coherence that guarantees cohesion. It facilitates research partnership, thereby aiding a more robust development in knowledge use.

Interestingly, a few institutions like the York University have taken deliberate steps to institutionalize KMb. Under the Innovation York initiative, York University runs a KMb program that has yielded enviable results. Such should be emulated and replicated by others. Since Knowledge mobilization entails maximizing research gains by putting knowledge on the path of action, it then should be ensconced as the fulcrum of every research process, by all.

Reference

Farley-Ripple, E., MacGregor, S. & Mazel, M. (2023). Knowledge mobilization in the production of education research: A mixed methods study. Centre for Research Use in Education. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED627980.pdf

Golhasany, H. & Harvey, B. (2023). Capacity development for Knowledge   Mobilization: a scoping review of the concepts and practices. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications. Retrieved from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01733-8

Jensen, K. & Johnny, M. (2021). Introduction to knowledge mobilization.     Mobilize YU, Knowledge mobilization unit at York University. Sourced        from course materials.

Levin, B. (2008). Thinking about knowledge mobilization. Paper prepared for an invitational symposium sponsored by the Canadian Council on Learning and the Social Sciences and Humanities research Council of Canada to be held May 15-18, 2008, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto. https://www.researchgate.net/publication

Phipps, D.J., Cummings, J. Pepler, D., Craig, W. and Cardinal, S. (2016) The co-produced pathway to impact describes knowledge mobilization            processes. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 9(1), 31-         40.

Powell, A., Davies, H. T. & Nutley, S. M. (2018). Facing the challenges of   research-informed knowledge mobilization: ‘Practicing what we preach’? Public Administration. 96, 36-52.

Shewchuk, S. & Purinton, A. (2022). The partnership for public education’s knowledge mobilization guide for researchers. University of Delaware        Community Engagement Initiative Partnership for Public Education. Call to action. Retrieved from: KMb Revised 5/4 (bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com)

Wolman, L. (2017). An introduction to knowledge mobilization. A Resource Prepared for the KHS Community in Motion Project, York University.          https://kincommunities.info.yorku.ca/files