Knowledge Broker Stories: How to develop and deliver and effective KMb strategy

This is not so much a story as a reflection on some of the things I have learned about knowledge mobilization.  Let me start with an example - the issue of staying in school.

We have volumes of research that show the benefits of graduating high school and getting at least some post secondary education, yet we continue to have higher than desired drop out rates.

How do we address this issue?

We don’t address it by engaging in yet another research project, we address it by identifying a specific audience and developing knowledge mobilization strategies to impact that audience and then determine what is the right information (which may or may not require additional research), right format, and right timing.

If you want to influence the teenager directly then you develop tools to reach them - visual graphics, e-games, peer role model programs, etc. and deliver them at a time when they are likely to be influenced.  If your intended audience is parents you use different strategies.  If your audience is provincial policy makers you use yet other strategies.  In all cases, involving representatives of the audience (building relationships) as early as possible in the process will help ensure successful results.

Influencing decision making requires both the research and KMb to be audience driven - not knowledge product driven. They must both be demand (user need) driven, not supply (research or researcher desire) driven.  I often hear a researcher say “well, I wrote this very important paper about issue X and yet things have not changed”, to which I reply “who asked you to write a paper about issue X?” and you can guess the answer I receive more often than not. Before engaging in a research project it is important to have a clear understanding of who your intended audience(s) is and what their needs are.

For a researcher, demand driven clearly means answering a question someone has asked.  But what does it mean to be demand driven or audience driven KMb?  It means adopting KM  strategies and processes that will successfully influence the intended decision makers... and that is why getting the four “rights” in the above definition right, becomes critical.

Now if anyone says defining an audience as the driver for research is subverting the research process or that the research process is by nature curiosity driven, not driven by an audience, I would counter, all research, even basic science, is audience driven.  It is simply that for basic science the audience is often so fundamentally understood, it is simply part of the research culture and thus often not even articulated.  With a purpose of influencing intellectual discourse (adding new knowledge to the field), basic research has a clearly defined primary audience: the academy, either other researchers or students.  The best way to influence these decision makers is either peer reviewed journal publications or academic conferences. In other words, an effective KMb process for an academic audience is traditional dissemination!

My Key Lessons:

¥The research process should be viewed as a whole, not segmented into “production” and “dissemination”.

¥Research and KMb should be audience driven. That is research design, implementation and knowledge sharing or uptake, to be successful, must have a clearly defined audience at its centre.

¥If we accept that research is intended to influence decision making then it follows that the KMb process is as critical as the research process and should be undertaken with the same rigour.

¥Just as quality research production requires an expert researcher, quality KMb requires expertise as well. Researchers should not be expected to carry the burden.

¥Partnerships are important. Establishing a partnership of relevant stakeholders up front, as you are defining the issue to be addressed, will dictate to a large extent, the type of research questions to ask, the most relevant research methods, KMb methods and KMb experts.

¥A project work plan and budget should include all aspects of the project , not simply the production component. (one of the most frequent frustrations I hear when I speak to researchers is that funders expect more comprehensive KMb processes than simply publishing and yet are often unwilling to provide either the financial resources or the time to deliver effective KMb. That said I also believe there is a fair degree of lip service paid to the aspect of KMb by many researchers applying for funding - they see it as another trend in funders and often cut and paste a generic KMb paragraph in their proposals without the true desire or expertise to carry it through. Ultimately both of these issues will have to be addressed before KMb is truly institutionalized across Canada.)

¥Just as there are multiple audiences, there needs to be multiple forms of KMb (there is no “one size fits all”). Influencing policy makers requires a different strategy than influencing practitioners or individuals.

As a society or as agencies interested in influencing public policy, if we are serious about our desire to improve the role of research in decision making we have to focus on more than simply excellence in research, we must also emphasize excellence in KMb.  In my experience,  once the question “who do we want to influence?” is answered, the issue of what type of research methodology, KMb strategy (ies) and stakeholders to be involved will become clear.

Daryl Rock

To cite:

MLA format

Rock, Daryl, "Knowledge broker stories: How to develop and deliver and effective KMb strategy.” Weblog Entry. Knowledge Mobilization Works Blog. Posted December 16, 2009. Accessed (enter date). http://bit.ly/696X1C

APA format

Rock, D. Knowledge broker stories: How to develop and deliver and effective KMb strategy. Retrieved (enter date) from http://www.knowledgemobilization.net [http://bit.ly/696X1C]

Knowledge Broker Stories: Defining Knowledge Mobilization from a Strategic Perspective

In 2001, when I became director of Strategic Programs at the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) I was asked to provide colleagues with a clear definition of KMb.  Already widely used in academic circles, the term KMb was nevertheless still not very well understood.  And it was even less well understood by decision makers outside of the ivory tower. 

After reviewing various definitions and finding none of them to be as clear as I would need in addressing the various audiences with whom I interacted, I created my own definition.  My driving criteria was to create a definition that would be readily understood both within and outside of academe, remembered, and useful in helping to integrate research into mainstream decision making processes. The definition I created was:

Knowledge mobilization is getting the right information to the right people at the right time in the right format so as to influence decision making.

This easy to remember definition has become widely known and used by academics, policy makers and practitioners around the world. As you read it you realize that KMb is not an “end of the research process” activity but rather is integral to the entire process, from initial question design, through implementation to outcomes.  With this definition I was attempting to explain, in common language, a process that is often complex, time consuming and iterative.  Having presented this over the years to countless groups I continue to have people come up to me and say “I get it now!”

The core phrase is “to influence decision making”.  I chose the word “influence” consciously.  Some ask why not the word “inform”?  The one implies action while the other is more passive and as I will outline below, successful KMb is about action.  Clearly this reflects a personal bias but in fairness I think it a valid one.  That is “funded research is intended to influence decision making by someone, not simply to add new knowledge to the world at large.”

“To influence decision making” requires an understanding of who’s decision you are trying to influence - who is the intended audience of this evidence and why?  Understanding the intended audience is the core to successful KMb and that understanding will only come through an established relationship.  It is not that you cannot share information with an audience you do not understand, this happens all of the time.  But to truly influence that audience you must “get inside their heads” and the best way to do that is by involving them in your process, establish a relationship, get to know them.  (As an aside, marketing experts know this and can be quite effective at influencing behaviour, even without evidence!)

You will note there are four “rights” in this definition and as logic logic dictates “for every right there is a wrong!”  The more wrongs you have, the less likely you are to achieve your goal: “to influence decision making” about a certain issue.  Once you have a clearly identified audience, the “what”, “when”, “where” and “how” become easier to answer.  So often we develop what we consider to be the “right” information only to present it in the wrong format or at the wrong time or to the wrong audience.

Daryl Rock

To cite:

MLA format

Daryl, Rock, "Knowledge broker stories: Defining Knowledge Mobilization from a Strategic Perspective." Weblog Entry. Knowledge Mobilization Works Blog. Posted December 7, 2009. Accessed (enter date). http://bit.ly/6TntBs

APA format

Rock, D. Knowledge broker stories: Defining Knowledge Mobilization from a Strategic Perspective. Retrieved (enter date) from http://www.knowledgemobilization.net [http://bit.ly/6TntBs]

If you would like to contribute a story to the Knowledge Broker Series, please contact Peter Levesque

Op-Ed: Include all the options in the euthanasia debate

Editor’s Note: Today, I posted a link to the National Post article by MP Steven Fletcher's thoughtful piece on Bill C-384 on legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada http://bit.ly/3fu6th This is Knowledge Mobilization Works Senior Fellow, Daryl Rock’s response.

I do have my own thoughts on euthanasia…based on my education, understanding of human nature and my own personal experience. Like Steven, before my injury I was young, athletic, had the world by the tail. And then I broke my neck! And like Steven, had 2 collapsed lungs, a broken neck, and could not move a muscle for a long time after my injury… and that is where our similarity of experience and also thoughts on this issue diverge (although interestingly, not completely) and so I want to be very clear that I value Steven’s points and more important, commend him for expressing them in such a public forum.

For me, the problem with the current debate on euthanasia, in the USA and Canada is it is always framed in dealing with a very small portion of the population: terminal illness, ongoing pain or severe disability... and it paints people in these circumstances as having such poor quality of life that the "were I in their shoes" mentality that exists in these situations would lead many folk to say, “I'd want to kill myself, so surely these folk want to as well”. In short their perceptions of the quality of life of someone in these circumstances leads them an those around them, to think, and act, in a manner they consider “humane” when in fact it is more likely their fear or lack of understanding of the unknown that motivates them.

But what happens when we change the focus of debate? Let’s move away from “euthanasia for a select portion of our society…the poor hopeless ones” and frame the debate more broadly and in so doing, more objectively – about the merit and value of euthanasia, as an option for anyone! Many people who attempt to commit suicide do it poorly because of fear, nervousness, lack of skill, whatever, shouldn’t these people be allowed access to professional quality life ending techniques? In short, don't make it about disability or illness, that just paints disabled and ill people in the traditional "poor them" light. Rather, if you are going to have a debate about euthanasia - have a real one...like abortion why not open euthanasia clinics around the country so that anyone, disabled, ill, bored, angry, unemployed, broke, etc...has the choice of whether or not to kill themselves with help. Keep the same criteria as is in the current proposed legislation: sound mind, 2 interviews, whatever, (but exclude the requirement to be terminally ill or severely disabled) … then, if “joe blow” wants to pop off, let him! I think we all know how short this debate would be!

Focusing the debate of euthanasia only on the terminally ill, severely disabled and those with chronic pain passes a quality of life judgement and in fact cheapens the life of a person living with these conditions. More important, it skews the debate into a more “politically correct” area…after all we are talking about those who can’t help themselves. As I said above, I suspect that if the debate was simply about the general idea of euthanasia for anyone, there would be a huge backlash and the debate would be quickly snuffed out because as a society of evolved human beings, we value life, or at least the life of healthy, well adjusted individuals…

Even worse, by focusing it on the ill, disabled or those in chronic pain, we are simply reinforcing the negative stereotypes of people living with these conditions and continues to create a dual class society where disabled and ill are seen as at best pity objects and at worst, burdens to be done away with...

In my view Steven missed an opportunity to put the issue in its proper light. From what I read the current debate really isn’t about right to live or die with dignity, it is about peoples perceptions of the value of those living with conditions they cannot imagine how to cope with... as I will explain below (and where I do agree with Steven), if a person, any person be they physically disabled or emotionally disabled, is given hope and a reason to live, only those with fundamental mental health conditions will chose the death option…

I do not believe the current debate is doing justice to either the issue of euthanasia or to the value of dignity for all…specifically the value we place on human contribution to society or, and here I again agree with Steven, the debate about effective supports to ensure hope and something to live for options are available to everyone...

So, if we have to focus on discussing euthanasia for only this small segment of society (which I find distasteful and therefore hesitate to do), what are my thoughts? Not surprisingly I believe the debate has to fully include the second element of Steven’s article, that is to say the provision of hope and more important – a reason for living. I believe that, when a person has no hope they will often consider death (as he might have when he first injured himself). But when a person, no matter how ill, or in pain, or disabled has hope (and respect, and the ability to live in some sort of dignified way, and a purpose) then the issue of choosing to die becomes less of a one sided option. Further, research shows that if you constantly bombard someone with an image of themselves, either positive or negative, it only takes a very short while (a couple hours in the case of the research on young students – the blue eye vs. brown eye “smart kids” experiment of the 1950s) before they begin to take that opinion as fact… thus the doom and gloom of those around a person will often and quickly lead to their feeling doom and gloom.

We also know that life experiences, culture and background will play a significant role in how each of us reacts to this type of situation. In many cases not only will someone severely disabled, or terminally ill, or in chronic pain want to kill themselves, but there are likely many "professionals" and "loved ones" around them who would support this decision because if they were in the similar situation, they’d want to too! Although I do not know for sure, I believe it highly likely that, had there been supported suicide when Steven was immediately injured and when he had no hope, then we'd have one less MP. And yet today, with hope, and the proper supports, Steven is a hugely contributing member of our society.

I have many friends without disabilities who do not or can not or will not see the distinction between euthanasia for all and euthanasia for the disabled and dying as an artificial one. This inability to see the difference reflects to me, an inability to fully appreciate the potential quality of life someone living with one of these conditions can have, and as important, their potential contribution to their family and to society…

At the end of the day, where do I stand (metaphorically)? I believe people should fundamentally have the right to choose, thus I fully support euthanasia, provided people are given valid choices and only IF we decide through public discourse, that euthanasia is an acceptable service that should be available to all of society. In that way people living with these conditions are not marginalized and can access the service just as readily and as anyone else…that, to me, is treating all people fairly, providing full access and equal opportunity to all citizens.

In closing I have to say this is not an easy issue to deal with and there are probably many more opinions than there are options. And to be clear I am glad I do not have to make the very tough decision now in front of the House… whatever the outcome, continued, thoughtful, honest debate, eschewed of the cloak of political correctness, is a healthy way to continue this dialogue.

Daryl Rock

To cite:

MLA format
Rock, Daryl, "Op-Ed: Include all the options in the euthanasia debate." Weblog Entry. Knowledge Mobilization Works Blog. Posted November 2, 2009. Accessed (enter date). http://bit.ly/4GceHA

APA format
Rock, D. Op-Ed: Include all the options in the euthanasia debate. Retrieved (enter date) from http://www.knowledgemobilization.net [http://bit.ly/4GceHA]

If you would like to contribute a story to the Knowledge Mobilization Works Blog, please contact Peter Levesque