Knowledge Broker Stories: Knowledge Mobilization is at the core

Knowledge Mobilization is a big part of my work.  I don’t think of it however, as a separate piece.  Since 2001, I have served as the Executive Director of an applied research centre – the Centre for Families, Work & Well-being at the University of Guelph (www.worklifecanada.ca).  We do most of our work in collaboration with organizations with identified research needs.  Knowledge brokering, exchange and translation are simply essential to my job.

Our focus has a deep resonance with people’s lived experience.  We have the opportunity to talk about practical problems that occur in all of our lives but that show up in a myriad of ways for each of us.  The popular press uses “work-family balance” as a handle for some of this, but I would ask that we shift to thinking about caring and working in webs and networks.  This often leads to contradictions in relationships  - as they occur in different contexts rather than as a simple set of scales to be tipped.

My starting point in working with community organizations or individuals is not to produce documents that follow social marketing guidelines.  We don’t start from the concept of getting messages across in the right way to the right audience and developing that sort of logical framework to rationalize all the work –although, there are lots of good folks doing that kind of work, many resources available and it is great to have people doing those things as part of our broader team.  My work is to bring together “those audiences” as players in the research process at the beginning rather than only as end users.  This is a deliberate attempt to confuse the distinction between evidence based practice and practice based evidence. We just don’t deliver but also respond when some of those “audiences” approach the university.

For me, the “broker” role is both being an architect and a facilitator.  Following a route of devising and supporting large complex research partnerships like the Father Involvement Research Alliance or the Rural Women Making Change Alliance  I tend to think of the structure of the problem and then weave in the content.  I try to support careful thinking about who from the academy or community should be invited and what role we will all play at a table responding to community research needs. 

These considerations change not only the research questions, the way those questions will be “operationalised”, and the “sensibility” or ideological foundation demonstrated through the assumptions of the research (no objectivity claims from me), but also the way that new knowledge will be generated and will flow across systems.

Having policy makers, community people and university researchers eat at the same table means that whether you like it or not, word will get out.  Part of the discovery process is how to harness the flow that is already there.  This is a thinking process that is much different than deciding which evidence based practice will be delivered to those waiting for it.  We focus instead on sharing ideas, coming to agreements and principles of working together, and have excellent conversations to both support the work as well as produce good outcomes.

Facilitation is critical – at the beginning, the middle and the end – managing the tensions that arise and structuring or restructuring so that people can do the good work they want to do.  Conceptualizing, carrying out and moving research results to practice is an art when done in collaboration.  The closer you are to how the research itself is (or was) conceptualized (the more you expand your brain to understand the research or practice area if not your own) the better the mobilization efforts will be.  From this you will be able to recognize that those unexpected challenging moments are really opportunities to push the work forward.  To summarize, my best work includes constant learning, good conversations, and occasionally failing but always with really good food.

Linda Hawkins

To cite:

MLA format
Hawkins, Linda, "Knowledge broker stories: Knowledge Mobilization is at the core." Weblog Entry. Knowledge Mobilization Works Blog. Posted November 9, 2009. Accessed (enter date). http://bit.ly/3ZxixJ

APA format
Hawkins, L. Knowledge broker stories: Knowledge Mobilization is at the core. Retrieved (enter date) from http://www.knowledgemobilization.net [http://bit.ly/3ZxixJ]

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

Knowledge Broker Stories: Laughter-the secret ingredient in being a change agent

I’m a knowledge mobilization manager. Not your everyday run-of-the-mill job. My mother never understands what “I do”. It’s not like she can tell her friends I paint, build houses, or pave highways. “So what does your son do?” (Cough). “Well…he mobilizes knowledge….(cough)” (Pause.) (Awkward Moment of Silence.) “He does what to knowledge!!!”

What does it say about our society when no one understands what you do? What does it say about you?

Its kind-of a funny job title but I get it. I finally get what it means. After 4 years mobilizing knowledge I finally understand what it means to share academic knowledge for the betterment of society. It really has a beautiful underpinning doesn’t it? To share knowledge for the betterment of society. For a better society. To better society. God knows, there are enough problems out there to fix! Homelessness, poverty, violence against women, clean drinking water, HIV, cancer, name your poison. I believe academia is aptly placed to fix those problems. The brightest minds. The Aristotelian children.  The onions in the caramelized onion soup (?!). I believe we need knowledge mobilization managers to take that knowledge and put it to work.

For four years I have been working to bring the knowledge of Memorial University of Newfoundland to the people of this great province, and back from the people to the experts. The two-way flow of knowledge, in a reflective circle, to build new and better knowledge. To do what we talk about in theory – creating processes to position academic knowledge to have impact. Putting Memorial’s knowledge to work. At The Leslie Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development where I work, we stand on the shoulder of a giant…Dr. Leslie Harris, who stood for all that was good. Dr. Harris was a dazzling writer, blessed with exquisite penmanship. He also had a heart for Newfoundland and Labrador, and as former President of Memorial University, did everything in his power to make the University a change agent. Of all the great things the Harris Centre has done (and we have done tons of great things, informing policy, helping rural communities, changing attitudes, building research programs – come see more at www.mun.ca/harriscentre), we are at our best when we subtly (but effectively) challenge the paradigm. When we force the populous to think in different ways. In fact, as Aristotle said, we all have an obligation to contribute to the state (our chosen society). I believe the Harris Centre is leading a modern day knowledge renaissance, awakening people’s conscience to reflect on the state, and their place in it. To understand what it is to be a citizen in a weird democracy, that often cares more about power than dialogue. To unlock citizenship. (I love the words change agent – there rests the punch in KMb)
.  
So now in its fifth year, the Harris Centre reaches two roads diverged in a yellow wood. On one road is the blazed path of great things we have accomplished (look no further than www.yaffle.ca - a one of a kind research search engine), on the other is the wild, unbeaten trail ahead. There is so much left to do. So much knowledge to position. I best leave this blog in the hands of Dr. Harris who programs our GPS for the unbeaten path:

“Our history shows us that we are survivors. But, as we think of creating the New Jerusalem for our children, and our children’s children, we must be clear that mere physical survival is not enough…what is more to the point, as we take command of our own economic and social destiny, we must also ensure the survival of civility and of strong cultural traditions that inform a distinct identity; the survival of neighbourliness and of a caring and sharing society; the survival of shared community values of hardihood, and honesty, and independence and hard work; and, the survival of what is a very special Newfoundland characteristic, the ability, even in the hardest of times, to see the funny side of life, and to be ever ready to take up the arms of humour against a sea of troubles…”

There lies the greatest insight of all! Knowledge mobilization (solving all the worlds problems) is serious business. But, relationships between academics and community leaders are not only built on knowledge, they are built on the subtleties of laughter! “But of all the elements that contribute to the warm atmosphere of a good relationship, there is one that seldom gets translated into advice or even therapy, yet is something that everyone desires and most people would like more of: Laughter.” (Marano, 2003).


David Yetman

Photo was taken at UBC by Phillip Jeffrey @NCIE

To cite:

MLA format
Yetman, David, "Knowledge broker stories: Laughter-the secret ingredient in being a change agent." Weblog Entry. Knowledge Mobilization Works Blog. Posted October 30, 2009. Accessed (enter date).
http://bit.ly/4zXoEi

APA format
Yetman, D. Knowledge broker stories: Laughter-the secret ingredient in being a change agent. Retrieved (enter date) from http://www.knowledgemobilization.net [http://bit.ly/4zXoEi]

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

Knowledge Broker Stories: How to go from broke to broker in 17 short years

I first told my story (at least my story to date) in a presentation for KMbW in February 2009. I graduated with my PhD in 1991 coming off a Medical Research Council doctoral scholarship at $15,000 per year (I have no idea how I managed to buy the beer I did – probably thanks to Mom). I identified and isolated a protein derived from insect blood that killed bacteria and (presumably) helped the bugs get better after they get a bacterial infection.

Meandered through a post-doctoral fellowship working in HIV/AIDS, and finally left the lab to join technology transfer, where I was brokering relationships between university researchers and industry around intellectual property (kind of but not quite like knowledge mobilization.

Continuing in this line of business, I worked at the Canadian Arthritis Network, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research increasingly engaged in brokering relationships in and around academic research. I landed at York University as Director of the Office of Research Services (now Research Services & Knowledge Exchange) running the grants and contracts for the university which included a small but active technology transfer operation.

It was at York that we implemented knowledge mobilization as a service to faculty. We conceived it first as non-monetary technology transfer for the social sciences and humanities but quickly realized that the unilateral “university push” of technology transfer was only part of the knowledge mobilization story. We developed methods of “user pull”, knowledge exchange and - what I feel is most important - the co-production of knowledge between researchers and decision makers. These activities are all built upon the knowledge broker who is the heart of the knowledge mobilization unit.

I’ve worked with many knowledge brokers and still don’t know one when I see one. I’m an immunologist – does that make me a good broker? I’ve seen nurses, epidemiologists, librarians, psychologists, literacy practitioners, physicists, evaluators, journalists, poets, political scientists, social workers and anthropologists acting as knowledge brokers. I’ve even seen a flight attendant (formerly trained as a priest) learn the principles of knowledge mobilization. What links all these knowledge brokers?

Maybe we’re all wired for empathy – seeing both sides of a question or a situation. Maybe we’re all just smart enough to learn to talk less and listen more.

We stand between two worlds: the world of research and action; the world of science and politics. We become boundary objects spanning boundaries and mediating relationships that enable research and knowledge to matter.

Some might accuse us of multiple personalities, but that’s a different interpretation!

We have some theory to back up our practice and we have a growing number of tools as our different knowledge broker practices link up in networks like the KTE Community of Practice or ResearchImpact - which now welcomes knowledge brokers from Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador, Université du Québec à Montréal, University of Saskatchewan and University of Victoria. I travel across Canada presenting our work. We have begun to publish and are active in social media with an active blog and a twitter feed and videos posted on our website. We are part of a profession beginning to grow.

What have I learned on this journey from “broke to broker”?

[1] What we’re doing isn’t new, but we have refined and networked a practice that has happened ad hoc and haphazardly

[2] There are lots of us, but we are isolated in our own disciplines – we need some transdisciplinary space so that brokers in environmental policy can speak to those working in health services, education, immigration & settlement…

[3] Many different paths can lead to practice, but a little study along the way doesn’t hurt

[4] Be open to new people, new ideas and new ways of knowing and doing. You can’t own or control it – share your slice of the knowledge mobilization pie.

Visit David and ResearchImpact at:

dphipps@yorku.ca
www.researchimpact.ca
www.researchimpact.wordpress.com
www.twitter.com/researchimpact

To cite:

MLA format
Phipps, David, "Knowledge broker stories: How to go from broke to broker in 17 short years." Weblog Entry. Knowledge Mobilization Works Blog. Posted October 24, 2009. Accessed (enter date). http://bit.ly/1VQpLs

APA format
Phipps, D. Knowledge broker stories: How to go from broke to broker in 17 short years. Retrieved (enter date) from http://www.knowledgemobilization.net [http://bit.ly/1VQpLs]

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

Research Tool KIts

This update comes from Community Campus Partnerships for Health.  At first glance, this appears to be an important source of tools and resources. Although it is written for work in health, many of the components look like they could be adapted to other areas of work:

Group Health Research Institute and its partners - the University of Washington, Institute of Translational Health Sciences, Duke Translational Medicine Institute, and Wayne State University - have developed a new website to help researchers create and sustain successful multisite research collaborations, including those involving community-academic partnerships.  The project team created the site, www.researchtoolkit.org, to enhance the efficiency of research from start to finish, including developing research networks, launching and managing projects, and sharing study results or other products such as data sets, tools, and training resources.

The website was developed as part of a project known as PRIMER, or Partnership-driven Resources to IMprove and Enhance Research. PRIMER was awarded to the Institute for Translational Health Sciences (ITHS) at the University of Washington by the National Center for Research Resources of the National Institutes of Health.  Read the complete press release at:
http://www.grouphealthresearch.org/newsroom/newsrel/2009/091015.html

Knowledge Broker Stories: Work history taking tool by Hal De Lair

My story begins in 2003, when I took on a new and innovative role at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) as Director of the Ontario Occupational Health Services Network (OOHSN).  The central aim of the Network was to link occupational medicine expertise to the front line of health care, particularly primary care delivery.   With access to that expertise, it was believed that front line physicians and nurses would be supported in more effective treatment of occupational injury and illness.

Through a collaboration in 2002 between occupational medicine specialists at the WSIB and the Ministry of Labour, a work history-taking tool was created for use by primary care physicians.  It consisted of a 4-page document covering various exposures and risks the working individual might encounter.   The intent was for this information to be collected historically and stored in a patient's file.  When that patient presented with symptoms that might be work related, this information would help inform treatment and secondary prevention options.

The problem was a very limited uptake of the work history-taking tool by physicians in Ontario.  They did not have time to fill out a long form, especially one that only provided a potential to enhance treatment.  Our approach to this problem was to create a pilot project in a primary care group practice for the purpose of understanding what might be possible and relevant to front line practitioners.  That project was undertaken in a group practice of physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners and social workers.  As the knowledge broker, we supplied a student nurse practitioner with a background in occupational health nursing.  She spent 2 days a week for a couple of months on site at the group practice.  She also had the back-up and support of occupational medicine specialists through he Network.

The pilot was structured as a continuous improvement project, beginning with a file review to determine current practice in ascertaining work related health information.  That process analysis, which is usually the first step in any continuous improvement model, led to a clear identification that occupational information was generally missing and that patient care could be compromised as a result.  The problem however still remained that routinely filling out that work history form on thousands of patients was way beyond the capacity of the clinic.

The solution crafted by the pilot was to reduce the history taking down to 5 essential questions that could routinely be asked of every patient and entered into the electronic medical record.  Those questions then became the basis for the current, universally available Work Health Exposure Screening Tool which you can find at http://www.stmichaelshospital.com/pdf/programs/occupationalhealth_work_exposure_screening.pdf This tool, or some variation of it, would go on to be applied in numerous, additional group practices in Community Health Centres and Family Health Teams in Ontario.

In subsequent years this approach of piloting new knowledge through local, continuous improvement projects, would extend to many areas. OOHSN conducted pilots in noise induced hearing loss and occupational asthma and dermatitis.

I'm sure this brief story will resonate with a lot of people involved in knowledge dissemination. It promotes the mechanism of continuous improvement projects to refine knowledge components, especially tools, to make them relevant and useful.  This would mean that any KT strategy should include resources to engage target audiences in test pilots on uptake and outcomes.

Hal De Lair

To cite:

MLA format
De Lair, Hal, "Knowledge broker stories: Work history-taking tool." Weblog Entry. Knowledge Mobilization Works Blog. Posted October 19, 2009. Accessed (enter date). http://bit.ly/2eDwGX

APA format
De Lair, H. Knowledge broker stories: Work history-taking tool. Retrieved (enter date) from http://www.knowledgemobilization.net [http://bit.ly/2eDwGX]

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

The long road of Deliberative Processes

I received the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy (NCCHPP)’s newsletter this week.  To my pleasant surprise, it contained some interesting pieces about deliberative processes.  After downloading and reviewing the documents, (Deliberative Processes - Fact Sheet & Deliberative Processes - Inventory of Resources) I was further surprised that among the resources consulted was the work of Michel Callon and the Loka Institute.

What really surprises me however, is how cautious the Canadian government and its agencies are with broadly implementing and maintaining good deliberative practices.  It already has good examples that can be scaled up.

In 1998, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) launched the Community University Research Alliance (CURA) program - based on deliberative processes found in Science Shops in Europe, Consensus Conferences in Denmark, Services aux Collectivites of Quebec universities, and a history of social enterprise dating back to the 1920s.  It is a successful and standardized program in a portfolio of programs. 

It influenced the Community Alliances for Health Research (CAHR) program at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) in 1999.  This program was considered transitional, was abandoned, and there is nothing of the type currently funded at CIHR.  It also influenced the creation of the PICRI - Partenariat Institutions Citoyens pour la Recherche et pour l’Innovation initiated by the government of Ile de France. The PICRI program goes beyond where the CURA program initiated by bringing together a broader assortment of actors and interests in the deliberative processes associated with science and technology.

With regard to health and healthcare, the Community-Campus for Health Partnerships (CCPH) was founded in 1996. This growing “network of over 1,800 communities and campuses across North America and increasingly the world that are collaborating to promote health through service-learning, community-based participatory research, broad-based coalitions and other partnership strategies. These partnerships are powerful tools for improving higher education, civic engagement and the overall health of communities” has been led by Dr. Sarena Seifer and has been instrumental in bringing diverse people together to work through how to work together.

These are only a few of the examples of work that has been mobilizing community knowledge via deliberative process mechanisms for over the past decade plus.

I applaud the NCCHPP for producing these reports. I hope and desire that it promotes the methods described.  It is long past due and as Ralph Klein, former Premier of Alberta, once said - “the role of a politician is to find the parade and get in front”.  The parade of deliberation relating to health and healthcare is decades long.  People of Canada, we need to tell our politicians that deliberative processes are not just good for democratic governance - they are the basis of democratic government.  So who wants to get in front?

http://bit.ly/11u0xJ

To cite:

MLA format
Levesque, Peter, "The long road of deliberative processes." Weblog Entry. Knowledge Mobilization Works Blog. Posted October 18, 2009. Accessed (enter date). http://bit.ly/11u0xJ

APA format
Levesque, P. The long road of deliberative processes. Retrieved (enter date) from http://www.knowledgemobilization.net (http://bit.ly/11u0xJ)

Monieson Centre Seminars: Dr. Waymond Rodgers

The Monieson Centre (http://business.queensu.ca/moniesoncentre) is pleased to invite you to two seminars by Dr. Waymond Rodgers, University of California in Riverside, USA.

Date: October 21, 2009
Room: 403 Goodes Hall

SEMINAR ONE: WEDNESDAY, 12 NOON - 1PM

A MODEL OF THE TACIT KNOWLEDGE LIFECYCLE FOR DECISION-MAKING: FROM CREATION TO UTILIZATION
Abstract:
An important issue for firms is to make strategic decisions on the basis of organizational resources. Many of the criticisms directed towards traditional methods of capturing performance, productivity, and profitability are due to inadequate ways of identifying, measuring and valuing knowledge assets. This paper presents a comprehensive “knowledge process model” incorporating the resource-based literature from economics and knowledge-based literature from organization theory that provides a possible course of action for individuals/organizations to understand and explain knowledge flows' contributions to an organization.

SEMINAR TWO: WEDNESDAY, 1.30 - 2.30PM
MODELING THE VALUE OF KNOWLEDGE WITH A THROUGHPUT MODEL
Abstract:
Companies are becoming difficult to value reliably and accurately due to the economy becoming increasingly intangible. Many of the criticisms of traditional methods result from the inability to value knowledge assets (KA). Innovation and technology are influencing the complexity of production processes and products. Stock market valuations are frequently several times higher than book values. This gap is viewed as evidence that the effects of innovation and technology on KA are very important to corporate wealth. This paper incorporates the resource-based literature from economics and knowledge-based literature from organization theory, creating a comprehensive “knowledge process model” that constructs a possible course of action for information system designers and users of innovation and technology.


FURTHER INFORMATION:
Dr. Rodgers is travelling to Kingston from the University of California and we are holding these seminars back-to-back so that individuals have the opportunity to attend both seminars conveniently. Dr. Rodgers will also be pleased to meet with individual faculty, students, staff and visitors before and after the seminars. If you wish to set up an appointment, please mention this when you RSVP.

Biography:

Dr. Waymond Rodgers is a professor in the A. Gary Anderson Graduate School of Management at the University of California in Riverside. He has a Ph.D. in accounting from the University of Southern California and a cognitive psychology postdoctorate from the University of Michigan. He is a Certified Public Accountant in California and Michigan. Dr. Rodgers’ accounting, banking and management expertise derives from his employment as an auditor at PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & Young. Also, he was a commercial loan officer for Union Bank and his portfolio included Fortune 500 companies. His primary research areas are auditing, commercial lending decisions, decision modeling, ethics, trust issues, intellectual capital, and knowledge management. Professor Rodgers has published in Management Science, Communications of the ACM, European Accounting Review, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Journal of Economic Psychology, and the Journal of the Association of Information Systems, among other journals. Finally, he is the recipient of major research grants from the Brazilian Research Foundation, Canada Research Foundation, Citibank, Ford Foundation, National Institute of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center and others.

Lunch will be provided. If you plan to attend one or both of these events, please RSVP to monieson@business.queensu.ca by Friday, 16th October.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Monieson Centre
Queen's School of Business, Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6
monieson@business.queensu.ca
www.business.queensu.ca/knowledge

Knowledge Mobilization Works Update

As with any consulting and research business, we have our ups and downs. This has been a challenging year but one that has forced me to be focused and a little brutal with some of my pet projects.

Here are links to some of the latest developments:

1) We had to pull the plug on Manifestation Journal. Despite some good intellectual support and lots of interest, it was just not possible to get funding to support the editorial and production functions.

2) Blog updates:

KMbW welcomes Dr. Howard Schachter

Resources from KMb Workshop at Queen’s

Time Costs: End of Manifestation Journal

10 Quotes on Failure

Scientist Knowledge Translation Training

My immersion into Web 2.0 – Jan Jablonski

Mobility Access Awareness Group - Lesley Strutt

KM Rap: Dr. David Phipps

3) Creation of a Reading List with Reviews - "These are books, articles, and papers that have influenced our thinking about knowledge mobilization. Please suggest other works that could benefit the community of thought and practice."

4) Continued participation in events, lots of presentations and workshops, and a few reports. All the resources are posted in the events section of the KMbW website.

5) More targeted service portfolio.

6) Reflection and reorientation of the Mobilizer Bootcamps. While these were successful events, the cost of delivering across the country without an institutional funder was not cost effective (read - it cost me a bundle). I am taking some time to work through the details and will relaunch the workshops in 2010 with partners. Likely to be delivered within a 400 km range of Ottawa - Quebec City - Montreal - Toronto - Sudbury - Sherbrooke - Albany ...

New KMb Videos on YouTube

I am pleased to announce that Knowledge Mobilization Works is launching a video series that may become a book on knowledge mobilization.

The first two are:

What is Knowledge Mobilization? A brief introduction.

Origin of Knowledge Mobilization

Please leave your comments, suggestions for topics that should be covered or if you would like to be interviewed for the series, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Peter

KMbW welcomes Jan Jablonski

I am pleased to announce that Jan Jablonski, a recent Queen’s University at Kingston graduate has joined Knowledge Mobilization Works as our first Knowledge Mobilization Projects Officer.

Jan will be working on projects that cover KMbW’s six streams of activity. He is currently developing background information on the Wiki 101 workshop we plan to launch in the Fall 2009.

Please welcome Jan to the KMb family.

Peter

Presentations from Leadership Event

I have just returned from beautiful Victoria, British Columbia where KMbW hosted another successful Mobilizer Boot Camp. This one was on Leadership. A big thank you to Royal Roads University, especially Graham and Diane, who were very helpful in pulling the venue and catering together.

The presentations by Peter Levesque, Graham Dickson, Alan Breakspear, and Laura Milne have been posted on the Bootcamp page. (Resources for March Participants)

Thanks to all the participants for such incredible input and knowledge sharing.

Peter

Steve Kaufmann at 4th Mobilizer Boot Camp

It is my pleasure to announce that Steve Kaufmann will be speaking at the 4th Mobilizer Boot Camp on Creativity & Experimentation for Knowledge Mobilization.

Steve Kaufmann is a former Canadian diplomat, who has had his own company in the international trade of forest products, KP Wood Ltd., for over 20 years. Steve is the founder and CEO of LingQ.com an online language learning system and Web 2.0 community. Steve speaks ten languages, having recently learned Russian at LingQ. Steve maintains a blog on language learning, and has written a book on language learning called The Linguist, A Language Learning Odyssey.

Sean Muir at 4th Mobilizer Boot Camp

It is my pleasure to announce that Sean Muir will be speaking at the 4th Mobilizer Boot Camp on Creativity & Experimentation for Knowledge Mobilization.

Sean Muir is the founder and executive director of the Healthy Aboriginal Network. HAN creates comics and animated shorts on health and social issues for youth. Issues they have covered so far are suicide prevention, gambling addiction, diabetes prevention, staying in school and child & youth mental health.

Job: Writer/Knowledge Transfer Specialist

Position: Writer/Knowledge Transfer Specialist
Centre for Research on Inner City Health
Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital

Part-Time, Contract: 60%-80% FTE (negotiable)
Salary: Commensurate with experience
Contract Period: April 20, 2009-May 1, 2010
Deadline to Apply: March 20, 2009

Position: Reporting to the Director, Knowledge Transfer and Exchange, the Writer/Knowledge
Exchange Specialist will support and implement a range of activities in fulfillment of CRICH’s
knowledge transfer goals and objectives. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to: writing research synopses and summaries for non-academic target users; communicating CRICH’s vision, mission; coordinating KT events and symposia; utilization of new media for communication;stakeholder relations (government, community, media, public).

Knowledge Required: at least two of the following:
- social disadvantage/poverty/urban health issues;
- health services research/public health research
- principles of business writing, technical writing, writing for media
- knowledge transfer principles

Skills and Experience: superior public communication/marketing skills (verbal, written), project management expertise, experience in technical writing/writing for government and other nonacademic audiences; web content management; government relations or community engagement experience; capacity to learn new issues quickly.

About KT at the Centre for Research on Inner City Health
Most issues studied at CRICH span multiple policy sectors and are relevant to diverse
stakeholders. Our KT challenge is to identify pathways and evidence-based interventions linking health care, housing, social services, immigration, education, corrections, and other sectors. To ensure that our research is relevant, timely, and useful, we work in partnership with community agencies, public policy organizations, and decision-makers.

About the Centre for Research on Inner City Health
The Centre for Research on Inner City Health (CRICH) at St. Michael’s Hospital is Canada’s only
hospital-based research organization focused on the health consequences of urban life and social inequality. Across a range of health conditions and in spite of universal health care policies, lower income populations are at greatest risk of illness and experience greatest unmet need for health care services. CRICH generates scientific evidence and tools to illuminate health barriers and reduce health disparities. Our research priorities include: health-promoting neighbourhoods, health effects of homelessness and underhousing; and evaluating health services for marginalized groups. Genuinely transdisciplinary, CRICH scientific strengths include economics, ethics, geography and GIS, health services research, medicine, psychology, and psychiatry, and social epidemiology. One third of CRICH faculty members are front-line physicians at St. Michael’s Hospital, providing a direct link between population research and patient care. CRICH is affiliated with the University of Toronto and is part of the Keenan Research Centre in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital. CRICH is supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to conduct research to help ensure that Ontarians have equitable access to care services, regardless of who they are, where they live, or what they own.

Applications for this position should include a cover letter, resume, and portfolio of three writing samples that demonstrate your capacity to convey research evidence to non-academic audience.

Submit your application to:
Kelly Murphy
Director, Knowledge Transfer and Partnerships
Centre for Research on Inner City Health
Keenan Research Centre
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute
St. Michael’s Hospital
30 Bond Street
Toronto ON
M5B 1W8
murphyke@smh.toronto.on.ca

Creating Knowledge Mobilization Curriculum

Last month, during the first Mobilizer Boot Camp in Ottawa, several participants suggested the need for courses in knowledge mobilization theory, history, practice, and methods. Following up on these suggestions, I began putting together the beginning elements for a process to develop this curriculum.

Today, I wrote a relatively lengthy reply to one potential funder. I thought this might be useful to the KMb community, as I think it speaks to the ethic and philosophy needed to create a knowledge mobilization community in Canada and elsewhere. I am not saying who the funder is to protect their decision-making process.

Thank you very much for your reply to the request sent on February 3, 2009. The questions asked by the KM Committee are very pertinent. I trust that the information provided below is helpful to answering these questions.


Background:

Knowledge Mobilization Works launched a series of workshops this year that focus on particular aspects of knowledge mobilization practice, policy, administration, and research. The themes include such topics as: incentives & infrastructure, human resources, leadership, creativity, management & governance as well as lessons learned in key sectors of our society such as health, education, social services, and business. The dual goal of this series is to increase our collective knowledge about knowledge mobilization and to build a community of practice of those involved in knowledge mobilization. These workshops are self-funded through participants’ fees and profits are re-invested in developing the series. This is a challenging model to work with but one that we felt was worth the risk.

The first two workshops in Ottawa and Toronto have been well attended and considered successful by most participants. In an effort to remain transparent and to “walk the talk”, we post the results of each work on the KMbW website. We also distribute the results to members of the KMb discussion group hosted on Google. Transparency of methods and discussion of results is the cornerstone of good knowledge mobilization practice.

The idea of developing a KMb Curriculum emerged from participants at both workshops. During the breaks and networking periods, several individuals approached me as the facilitator and suggested that despite having titles that included knowledge mobilization/knowledge transfer/knowledge exchange, they felt that they did not understand the basics and could really use a course (or two) to build their skills. When I proposed this to the full group, there was significant positive response.

Based on this reaction, I invited a series of senior KMb practitioners from across the country to come together to develop the curriculum for two courses on knowledge mobilization currently described as: KMb101 – Theory and History & KMb 201 – Methods and Practice.

The reaction from practitioners was positive. There was general agreement that this is a useful project to become involved in and that given the complexity of knowledge mobilization, it makes sense to work collectively on designing a curriculum that would be widely available.


What is the KM curriculum?

The core content modules of the curriculum will be developed at a 2-day face-to-face meeting at the University of Guelph. The Executive Director of the Centre for Families, Work & Well-Being, Linda Hawkins has offered to host the meeting. The Associate Director Teaching Support Services at the University of Guelph, Peter Wolf, has agreed to help develop the content into useful modules.

The goal is to produce the outline and core content modules for the two courses KMb101 – Theory and History & KMb 201 – Methods and Practice.

The ongoing development of this content will be facilitated using a Web 2.0 application called a wiki. Knowledge Mobilization Works has purchased a license from a leading software company (http://pbwiki.com) for an unlimited number of users in a publicly accessible site.

A stub (initial elements) for the KMB101 course has been created at the following link:
https://kmbw.pbwiki.com/KMb-101 Making the content of courses publicly available has been pioneered by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) through their open courseware site: http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

We anticipate that as the curriculum matures, there will be additional modules created that will correspond directly to particular contextual needs such as those with brain injuries, physical differences of abilities, special educational needs, or particular cultural perspectives. This is one of the strongest arguments for pursuing a collective development strategy. Including a range of people in the process will also include their specific needs in the development of the curriculum.

The goal is to provide the content free of charge to be used in seminars and workshops across Ontario, Canada and elsewhere. The understanding of users is that by accessing and using this content, they are engaging with a community of practitioners and will also share their learning from their use of the content.


Who will be targeted in Ontario to take part in this course?

Currently we are targeting individuals and institutions that have an intermediary or brokering role between research and practice, policy, produce & process development. One of the key lessons learned during my past 7 years of explicitly defined Knowledge Mobilization practice (job title) is that the core audience for the development of knowledge mobilization skills is not researchers or policymakers themselves but those in positions as educators and influencers, synthesizers, fieldworkers, transfer & disseminators, and resource allocators. While researchers and policymakers may be interested and are not to be excluded, their core business is not knowledge mobilization itself but the production and utilization of knowledge. Knowledge mobilization is focused on making both these processes more effective and efficient.

We anticipate working with agencies and organizations such as the Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation, Cancer Care Ontario, Centres and Institutes associated with Universities, Hospitals and Colleges, professional associations such as the Council of Ontario Directors of Education, and specific branches of the Ontario government with knowledge mobilization mandates such as Early Learning and Child Development Branch of the Ministry of Children and Youth Services.

It is important to mention that while Knowledge Mobilization Works will be delivering seminars and workshops based on this curriculum, it does not intend to hold the content strictly for itself. The content of all KMb courses developed will remain in the public domain to be accessed, shared, utilized, and contributed to by many interested parties. This is the model of collective creation that has allowed Linux to emerge as an operating system, Wikipedia to grow as a public encyclopedia, and Amazon to have 140,000 applications produced independently to build its distribution services.


Will there be a cost to join or is this anticipated to be provided free?

There is no cost to access and contribute to the curriculum content. The wiki requires that a participant create a username and password. The contributions of each participant are data based and subject to the ongoing discussion of the group – a form of ongoing peer-review.

The choice of charging a fee to participate in a course is the choice of whoever wishes to deliver the course. Universities and colleges charge tuition. Private companies charge a fee. Learning groups within professional associations may deliver the content for free.

On the other-hand, if a self-motivated learner wishes to access the curriculum on-line, s/he may do so at no charge.

Users agree that regardless of how the content is delivered, lessons learned, opportunities for new modules or courses, and new content elements will be shared with all users.


Are there other sponsors that have agreed to provide financial support or have been approached to do so?

At this point contributions have been in-kind or investments made by Knowledge Mobilization Works ($12,700 to date). We consider this to be an important project that has the potential to produce widespread benefits. As much as we directly benefit from this work, the complexity and need for effective and efficient knowledge mobilization is too big for one enterprise or sector to engage in alone. In our opinion, it is a collective work for collective benefit.

The Alberta Health Foundation for Medical Research has been approached and is supportive but feels that this project does not directly fit their mandate. They are willing to provide expertise and in-kind support for the development of the curriculum and wiki.

The Public Health Agency of Canada has been approached but no response has yet been received.

The Wellesley Institute Foundation rejected the request for support based on the economic downturn and current commitments.

The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada has been approached but no final decision has been made.

York University is providing the services of their Director of Research Services, Dr, David Phipps, formerly the Director of Partnerships at CIHR.

The Canadian Centre for Elder Law at the University of British Columbia is providing the services of their Exective Director, Laura Watts.

The University of Guelph will host the face-to-face meeting, providing catering and meeting space. They are also providing professional services in curriculum development.

The Institut National pour la Recherche Scientifique in Montreal is providing a template for a graduate KMb course that is currently delivered to students in French.

The Institute of Work and Health will provide undetermined in-kind services but is unable to contribute financially due to a cut in their budget. They remain however, quite supportive.

There has also been interest from other parties who are willing to support delegates attending the meeting in Guelph as well as participating in the ongoing development online.

I am pleased that you were interested in learning more about this project. I hope that this information provides you with a better understanding of what we are trying to do.

Your offer of lunch in Toronto is appreciated and I will take you up on it. The next time that I am heading to Toronto, I will let you know.

If there is anything else that you or the KM Committee needs to know, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.

The Crystal Ball?

July 5, 2006
David Leonhardt

The Internet Knows What You'll Do Next

A FEW years back, a technology writer named John Battelle began talking about how the Internet had made it possible to predict the future. When people went to the home page of Google or Yahoo and entered a few words into a search engine, what they were really doing, he realized, was announcing their intentions.

They typed in "Alaskan cruise" because they were thinking about taking one or "baby names" because they were planning on needing one. If somebody were to add up all this information, it would produce a pretty good notion of where the world was headed, of what was about to get hot and what was going out of style.

Mr. Battelle, a founder of Wired magazine and the Industry Standard, wasn't the first person to figure this out. But he did find a way to describe the digital crystal ball better than anyone else had. He called it "the database of intentions."

The collective history of Web searches, he wrote on his blog in late 2003, was "a place holder for the intentions of humankind — a massive database of desires, needs, wants, and likes that can be discovered, subpoenaed, archived, tracked, and exploited to all sorts of ends."

"Such a beast has never before existed in the history of culture, but is almost guaranteed to grow exponentially from this day forward," he wrote. It was a nice idea, but for most of us it was just an abstraction. The search companies did offer glimpses into the data with bare-bones (and sanitized) rankings of the most popular search terms, and Yahoo sold more detailed information to advertisers who wanted to do a better job of selling their products online. But there was no way for most people to dig into the data themselves.

A few weeks ago, Google took a big step toward changing this — toward making the database of intentions visible to the world — by creating a product called Google Trends. It allows you to check the relative popularity of any search term, to look at how it has changed over the last couple years and to see the cities where the term is most popular. And it's totally addictive.

YOU can see, for example, that the volume of Google searches would have done an excellent job predicting this year's "American Idol," with Taylor Hicks (the champion) being searched more often than Katharine McPhee (second place), who in turn was searched more often than Elliot Yamin (third place). Then you can compare Hillary Clinton and Al Gore and discover that she was more popular than he for almost all of the last two years, until he surged past her in April and stayed there.

Thanks to Google Trends, the mayor of Elmhurst, Ill., a Chicago suburb, has had to explain why his city devotes more of its Web searches to "sex" than any other in the United States (because it doesn't have strip clubs or pornography shops, he gamely told The Chicago Sun-Times). On Mr. Battelle's blog, somebody claiming to own an apparel store posted a message saying that it was stocking less Von Dutch clothing and more Ed Hardy because of recent search trends.(A disclosure: The New York Times Company owns a stake in Mr. Battelle's latest Internet company, Federated Media Publishing.)

It's the connection to marketing that turns the database of intentions from a curiosity into a real economic phenomenon. For now, Google Trends is still a blunt tool. It shows only graphs, not actual numbers, and its data is always about a month out of date. The company will never fully pull back the curtain, I'm sure, because the data is a valuable competitive tool that helps Google decide which online ads should appear at the top of your computer screen, among other things. .

But Google does plan to keep adding to Trends, and other companies will probably come up with their own versions as well. Already, more than a million analyses are being done some days on Google Trends, said Marissa Mayer, the vice president for search at Google.

When these tools get good enough, you can see how the business of marketing may start to change. As soon as a company begins an advertising campaign, it will be able to get feedback from an enormous online focus group and then tweak its message accordingly.

I've found Pepsi's recent Super Bowl commercials — the ones centered around P. Diddy — to be nearly devoid of wit, but that just shows you how good my marketing instincts are. As it turns out, the only recent times that Pepsi has been a more popular search term in this country than Coke have been right after a Super Bowl. This year's well-reviewed Burger King paean to Busby Berkeley, on the other hand, barely moved the needle inside the database of intentions.

Hal R. Varian, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, who advises Google, predicts that online metrics like this one have put Madison Avenue on the verge of a quantitative revolution, similar to the one Wall Street went through in the 1970's when it began parsing market data much more finely. "People have hunches, people have prejudices, people have ideas," said Mr. Varian, who also writes for this newspaper about once a month. "Once you have data, you can test them out and make informed decisions going forward."

There are certainly limitations to this kind of analysis. It's most telling for products that are bought, or at least researched, online, a category that does not include Coke, Pepsi or Whoppers. And even with clothing or cars, interest doesn't always translate into sales. But there is no such thing as a perfect yardstick in marketing, and the database of intentions clearly offers something new.

In the 19th century, a government engineer whose work became the seed of I.B.M. designed a punch-card machine that allowed for a mechanically run Census, which eventually told companies who their customers were. The 20th century brought public opinion polls that showed what those customers were thinking. This century's great technology can give companies, and anyone else, a window into what people are actually doing, in real time or even ahead of time.

You might find that a little creepy, but I bet that you'll also check it out sometime.

E-mail: leonhardt@nytimes.com

Because the public doesn't matter or because they suck at it?

What is the reason for the following:

http://www.royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=4861

Latest press releases

Research pressure in universities is barrier to scientists communicating work to public
29 Jun 2006

A 'research driven' culture in British universities is a key barrier to scientists communicating their work with the public according to a major study published today (Thursday 29 June 2006) by the Royal Society , with the support of Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust.

According to the scientists surveyed for the report the pressure to publish research, attract funding to their departments and build careers on 'hard research' means public engagement work, such as debates, dialogues or exhibitions, media appearances or outreach activities with schools, is not a priority. The need to spend more time on research was the top reason, cited by 64 per cent of respondents, stopping scientists getting more engaged with science communication work.

Scientists highlighted that public engagement activities were seen by colleagues as being bad for their careers. Some said that it was seen as being done by those who were 'not good enough' for an academic career, that it was 'light' or 'fluffy' and risked reinforcing negative stereotypes for women involved in these activities.

However, in spite of this, 45 per cent of respondents said that they would like to spend more time engaging with the non-specialist public about science. 74 per cent of those surveyed reported that they have taken part in at least one science communication or public engagement activity in the past 12 months.

Sir David Wallace, vice president of the Royal Society, who chaired the study's consultative group, said: "It is encouraging that so many scientists have, despite all the perceived barriers, taken part in science communication activities. The report shows that we need to find ways to make it easier for scientists to engage in a genuine dialogue with the public so that those outside of the scientific community can better understand, support, and indeed challenge, the science that is being undertaken in our universities while, at the same time, helping scientists understand public interests and concerns. This must clearly happen in the context of allowing scientists to carry on conducting excellent research while progressing their careers. And we recognise that it is not desirable to require all scientists to undertake public engagement work.

"While the report identified that research pressures are a factor in discouraging involvement with science communication activities we should be careful not to paint an overly simplistic picture of cause and effect'. We need to see the profile of this kind of work being raised within departments so that it is seen as a more integral part of a well rounded career."

The study found that generally, younger researchers, those in departments rated 5*' by the RAE, and those in research-only appointments, undertook less public engagement activity compared with senior researchers, those in departments rated 1-5 under the RAE and those in research and teaching positions.

In general, respondents to the survey felt that their participation in science communication activities would be increased more through rewards to their departments rather than to themselves as individuals. 81 per cent of scientists said bringing more money into their departments would be a key incentive. And 56 per cent of respondents said that awards or prizes for departments were important, in contrast to 39 per cent who identified awards for individuals as being important. Additionally, 76 per cent said they would be encouraged to get more involved if it helped their careers.

The aim of the study was to provide evidence for funding organisations, universities and other research institutions on which they can base a workable system to reward scientists for their efforts to become involved with public engagement activities. It involved a web-survey of 1485 research scientists in higher education institutions and 41 more detailed interviews with a cross section of respondents and other key players within science policy and science communication such as social scientists, senior managers, funders and science communicators .

Professor Colin Blakemore, speaking on behalf of Research Councils UK, said "Spreading the word about the joys and challenges of science to the public and the media is central to what we do. This report shows that we still have to convince more scientists of the importance of speaking out about their work. Public engagement is a vital part of the research process - and this report will play a crucial role in implementing the research councils' Science in Society strategy.

"Communication is particularly important in areas of practical and ethical concern about the applications of science. With rapid advances in scientific research, all scientists have to find opportunities to increase public awareness and public involvement because we cannot take public support for granted. Public engagement takes time and effort, but it helps scientists to see their own research in a broader context as well as helping to build public confidence and trust, which are essential for scientific progress.

"Through RCUK, we're encouraging scientists to begin communication work early in their careers. Through Researchers in Residence and the Perspectives poster competition, the Research Councils are providing the extra support and encouragement that young researchers need."

Clare Matterson, Wellcome Trust Director of Medicine, Society and History comments: "The public has a clear appetite for science, and this survey shows that scientists are responding well to this by increasing the amount of time they dedicate to engage directly with the public. We seem to be going in the right direction - but we cannot be complacent. The Wellcome Trust is committed to public engagement and continues to explore new and innovative ways to support dialogue between scientists and the public to foster mutual respect, understanding and trust."

Dr Rama Thirunamachandran, Director of Research and Knowledge Transfer at the Higher Education Funding Council for England, said: This important study indicates a considerable degree of willingness by scientists to spend more time engaging with the non-specialist public given the right incentives. We are using the results of the study to inform a co-ordinated approach with the Research Councils and other funders to provide better recognition, support and reward for public engagement activities in universities and colleges. In developing this approach we will wish to ensure that all subjects and a wide range of activities including teaching and research, are represented.'

© Royal Society copyright 2006

Dr. Ian D. Graham appointed Vice-President of Knowledge Translation at CIHR

OTTAWA, June 29 /CNW Telbec/ - Dr. Alan Bernstein, President of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), announced today the appointment of Dr. Ian D. Graham as incoming Vice-President of Knowledge Translation at CIHR. This appointment is effective July 10, 2006.

"Dr. Graham is a welcome addition to the CIHR executive team," said Dr. Bernstein. "His accomplishments in knowledge translation will help CIHR ensure that it is fulfilling its mandate in this important area."

Dr. Graham is Associate Professor in the School of Nursing, University of Ottawa and Senior Social Scientist and Associate Director of the Clinical Epidemiology Program of the Ottawa Health Research Institute. He holds cross-appointments in the Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology & Community Medicine and is an adjunct professor in the School of Nursing at Queen's University. Dr. Graham obtained a PhD in medical sociology from McGill University, a Master of Arts degree in sociology from the University of Victoria, and a Bachelor of Arts degree with 1st class honours in sociology from McGill University.

"I am thrilled to have the opportunity to serve the health research community and all Canadians by helping research evidence make its way into the health system," said Dr. Graham. "I look forward to working with colleagues in disciplines that span the breadth of health research. Together we can build on the tremendous progress CIHR has already made in the area of knowledge translation."

Dr. Graham's research has largely focused on knowledge translation (the process of research use) and conducting applied research on strategies to increase implementation of research findings and evidence-based practice. Specific projects have related to the adaptation, implementation, and quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines, as well as the uptake of guidelines and decision support tools by practitioners.

Dr. Graham is also the author of over 140 articles in peer-reviewed literature and a book titled "Episiotomy: Challenging Obstetric Interventions."

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) is the Government of Canada's agency for health research. CIHR's mission is to create new scientific knowledge and to catalyze its translation into improved health, more effective health services and products, and a strengthened Canadian health care system. Composed of 13 Institutes, CIHR provides leadership and support to close to 10,000 health researchers and trainees across Canada. www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca

Philosophy of Management?

My friend and colleague, Nick Barrowman, recently shared an article with me. It is by Matthew Stewart, with the title of, "The Management Myth", published in The Atlantic Monthly. While there is little in the article that I found surprising or controversial, I really liked the following two quotes on page 86:

"...about 99 percent of all the management literature once you master this dialectic between rationalists and humanists. The Taylorite rationalist says: Be efficient! The Mayo-ist humanist replies: Hey, these are people we're talking about! And the debate goes on."

"...human beings have produced an astonishing wealth of creative expression on the topics of reason, passion, and living with other people. In books, poems, plays, music, works of art, and plain old graffiti, they have explored what it means to struggle against adversity, to apply their extraordinary faculty of reason to the world, and to confront the naked truth about what motivates their fellow human animals. These works are every bit as relevant to the dilemmas faced by managers in their quest to make the world a more productive place as any of the management literature."