YorkU’s KM Expo 2010 – there’s still time to register!

Join us on Tuesday, March 2, 2010, when York University’s KM Unit will be hosting their third annual KM Expo at Le Parc in Richmond Hill.

The theme of the YorkU KM Expo 2010 is “Bridging Cultural Boundaries: Push, Pull and Co-Production of Knowledge” and we will explore the unique cultural boundaries that exist between university researchers, graduate students and their non-academic research collaborators from community organizations and government agencies. Featuring plenary, breakout, unconference and networking sessions, the KM Expo will explore how the push, pull and co-production methods of KM partnerships help universities and their partners become ‘boundary organizations’*.

Date: Tuesday, March 2

Time: 8:00 am to 5:30 pm

Location: Le Parc Conference and Banquet Centre
8432 Leslie St (Highway 7 and Leslie), Richmond Hill
Map to Location

There is no cost to attend the Expo but space is limited.  See below for the day’s agenda.

Register early!  RSVP to kejensen@yorku.ca or register online.

* Boundary organization: an organization that sits at the boundary of and spans the cultures of research and action & of science and politics.

Map to Le Parc

Driving Directions
From the South- Take the DVP/Highway 404 north and exit at Highway 7. Take Highway 7 west to Leslie Street. Turn left on Leslie and then right into the Le Parc parking lot.

From the North- Take Highway 404 south and exit at Highway 7. Take Highway 7 west to Leslie Street. Turn left on Leslie and then right into the Le Parc parking lot.

From York University- Take Highway 7 east to Leslie Street. Turn left on Leslie and then right into the Le Parc parking lot. Alternatively- take Highway 407 (toll road) to Leslie Street northbound and turn left into the Le Parc parking lot, just south of Highway 7.

Transit Directions
From Finch Station- Take the Viva Blue line to Richmond Hill Centre and transfer to the Viva Purple Eastbound line and depart at Leslie Street OR Take the Viva Pink from Finch Station and depart at Leslie Street (during peak hours only). Le Parc is located on the South-West corner of Leslie St and Highway 7.

From York University Keele Campus- Take the Viva Purple Eastbound line and depart at Leslie Street. Le Parc is located on the South-West corner of Leslie St and Highway 7.

Need a ride from York Keele Campus?

There will be a bus leaving Keele Campus from the East side of the Commons by the flags, directly South of the York Research Tower, at 7:30am sharp and will return to campus from Le Parc at 5:00. If you miss the bus, you can take the Viva Purple Eastbound located in front of the Archives of Ontario building and depart at Leslie Street.

Q. What sits at the intersection of political participation and community engagement? A. Knowledge Mobilization

Hernando Rojas, H. and Puig-i-Abril, E. (2009) Mobilizers Mobilized: Information, Expression, Mobilization and Participation in the Digital Age. J. Computer-Mediated Communication, 14: 902–927.

“We contend that through these mobilization efforts the mobilizer is ultimately mobilized.”

Not even I could use the word mobilize or derivatives thereof that many times in a sentence. “We contend that through these mobilization efforts the mobilizer is ultimately mobilized” is one of the conclusions of Rojas and Puig-i-Abril from University Wisconsin-Madison in their study on the role of social media and portable media in political participation in Columbia. The essence of their findings is that access to social media and cell phones enhances political participation but in so doing it has spill over effects into the individuals offline worlds resulting in civic engagement and the concomitant mobilizing efforts of self and others.

Through efforts to mobilize politically online, the mobilized becomes mobilized offline.

So what does this have to do with knowledge mobilization and the two way engagement of researchers and decision makers to move research into action?

Reading the paper I was struck by the similarities of the processes of political engagement and knowledge mobilization.

1- interpersonal networks of political discussion… result in increased community integration and civic participation

• similarly interpersonal networks of researchers and decision makers result in integration of research and capacity building at the community level

2- Communication practices can have direct effects on participatory behaviors

• As Wenger points out in his dissertation found at www.ewenger.com/pub/index.htm, knowledge brokers sit at the periphery and intersections of communities of practice. Participation in such communities is sustained through transparency (see post from August 25, 2009) that is mediated through effective communication

3- Use of online media supplements interpersonal relations

• Nothing beats a face to face meeting; knowledge mobilization in the AM wouldn’t work using skype.

4- Use of online media is correlated with increased social capital

• Social capital equates to trust which is essential if knowledge mobilization is to successfully broker relationships between researchers and decision makers.

5- Political activity is correlated with community/civic engagement with the community, not the elected office, being the locus of political mobilization and action

• This conclusion was really interesting and makes us realize that the real locus of knowledge mobilization engagement is in the community, not at the privileged university. Impact of knowledge mobilization is measured by changes in the decision maker organization not by tenure and promotion through the professoriate, although this does happen and has a positive impact on the scholar’s career as well.

One concern I had with the paper is their model of mobilizing (albeit political).

INFORMATION →EXPRESSION →MOBILIZATION →PARTICIPATION

This model is too linear for KM and possibly even for political participation. The authors might consider creating a feedback loop so that participation in political action resulted in more information which reinforces (or sometimes changes) expression, resulting in different mobilization, influencing further participation, etc.

And this brings us back to the wonderful sentence, “we contend that through these mobilization efforts the mobilizer is ultimately mobilized”. What this is saying is that there is a positive feedback loop whether in political action, civic engagement or knowledge mobilization. Successful knowledge mobilization breeds more knowledge mobilization. As trust from both faculty and decision maker develops for the honest knowledge broker, knowledge mobilization become increasingly in demand. We have seen this in an increase in demand for brokering service and in our hits on our web site where hits grew from 215,873 in 2007 to 439,961 in 2008 to 1,256,870 in 2009!

And like digital democracy, ResearchImpact is employing social networking and new communication technologies to supplement, not replace, the human touch of knowledge brokering.

Michael’s ‘Aha Moment’!

I am flattered to know someone asked for a blog based on a Tweet I contributed on the ResearchImpact Twitter feed.  First, a few observations and disclaimers.  I am glad blog posts do not mirror dissertations in rigour or length.  Next, I do not claim to be an authority on ‘outcomes’ or ‘impacts’ although my work is heavily invested in both terms/processes.  Lastly, I admit I carried around strong assumptions that the logic model for impact followed a sequential (and not very quick moving) flow from activity to outcome to impact. 

January 11 and 12, I had the pleasure of attending a Scientist Knowledge Translation Training event which was hosted by The Hospital for Sick Children and was led by Drs. Melanie Barwick and Donna Lockett .  Over two days, Melanie and Donna shared practical tools for developing Knowledge Translation (KT) plans, led discussions toward a more clear understanding of KT and provided valuable exercises to improve attendees capacity to understand the ‘user context’ for successful linkage and exchange, which is a foundation for successful KT.  The 25 attendees present were predominantly health practitioners who had KT responsibilities embedded into their job descriptions although there were some health researchers and policy professionals in attendance as well.

However, back to the notion of impact.  Never one to be terribly shy, I asked about the relationship between outcomes and impact, stating my feeling it was not possible to measure impact so closely to any KT transaction because impact was a by-product of outcomes.  What triggered this question was a slide that identified short-term, intermediate and long-term outcomes.  Moreover, while this makes sense, some confusion arose for me with regard to ‘measuring impact’, which in my experience is a challenge in policy and practice-relevant research.  So when one of the facilitators commented that she would be seeking impact measures based on short-term behavioural or practice changes amongst the participants of the session, I was skeptical.  What followed was a brief discussion between us two about the relationship of outcome and impact and that it is possible to identify impact measure very closely after a KT transaction.

The ensuing discussion did not necessarily change my beliefs around impact in relation to outcomes.  Reflecting back, I would say they have expanded my beliefs.  Impact is no longer solely a longitudinal process which one must wait (pick your timeframe – 6 months, one year, five years, and so on) to identify behaviour or practice changes.

I look forward to further discussion on this topic, and the inevitable reading that I will embark upon to challenge and reinforce my expanded belief system on impact.  Given the significance of this topic for publicly funded researchers and practitioners, it is a conversation which we should all be engaged with, and a topic we should give voice to.  Hey, that could be a second ‘aha moment’!

ResearchImpact (York) awarded over $50,000 to work with York Region

KM at York’s strong 2009 finish bodes well for 2010

On December 23, 2009, the KM Unit at York University was awarded two CIHR grants in their Meetings, Planning, and Dissemination Grant competition. One grant partners York University’s Lamarsh Centre for Research on Violence and Conflict Resolution with Kinark Child and Family Services and the York Region Children’s Aid Society. David Phipps from ResearchImpact (York University) and Sandra Cunning (Clinical Director, Research & Evaluation, Kinark Child and Family Services), along with researchers from the Lamarsh Centre were co-investigators on the application. We were awarded $39,950 for a grant titled “Using social networking to enable KT collaboration and dissemination”.

The grant will use the Kinark/Lamarsh/CAS partnership project on teen pregnancy and teen mothers in York Region to pilot social media tools provided by O3 (see our blog on October 13) as a tool for collaboration and dissemination. Based on learnings in this pilot initiative, York’s KM Unit will roll out these social media support services to other large-scale research and KM projects. The grant was ranked first in Canada in this competition. One reviewer commented, “Rationale very strong for need to share knowledge regarding available tools, particularly given the IT interests of the next generation.”

We are looking forward to working with our partners in York Region to use these tools to increase the sharing of research information to help our partners make informed decisions.

David Phipps and Daniele Zanotti, CEO of United Way of York Region, were also awarded $14,979 for an events grant titled, “Mobilizing the Best Practices of Institutional KT Services for Health and Society.” Through this grant, ResearchImpact partner universities and their local United Ways in St. John’s, Montreal, Saskatoon, and Victoria will meet with York and the United Way of York Region to learn from each others’ best practices in KM. “It is important that community agencies are working from the best knowledge available so that they can make well-informed decisions,” says Daniele. “York’s Knowledge Mobilization Unit provides an avenue for community organizations to tap into the research expertise available in the University. It makes research, as well as researchers and graduate students, accessible to non-academic decision-makers.”

Thanks to all of our supporters, collaborators and KM stakeholders for a great 2009 and we look forward to working with you in 2010.

The KM Solution Pt 3: “Now What”

OK, OK… I almost broke a promise to faithful Mobilize This! readers. On August 14, 2009, I started my answer to Wayne MacDonald’s sushi inspired question “What is the problem to which knowledge mobilization is the solution?” To refresh your memory, a lack of cultural transparency between academic researchers and decision makers is one problem that is addressed by KM. On August 25, I posted the second part of this series indicating that KM services, KM infrastructure and KM evaluation can all be informed by the problem of lack of cultural transparency.

Then I had 2 CIHR grants due end of September (more about that shortly). Then I had my day job (York’s fall grants rush) to take care of. Then I had a few more deadlines, travel to technology transfer conferences (check out our video blogs from November 10 and November 11). Then I had Christmas… I’m not complaining but I have been a wee bit busy…

So now, anxious readers, the third and final installment of the KM Solution blog: Now What?

What do we do now we know that we need to develop services and infrastructure to increase cultural transparency between researchers and decision makers? All of ResearchImpact’s tools and procedures now need to be examined through a lens of cultural transparency and evaluated accordingly. In 2010 ResearchImpact (York) will roll out a KM tool kit. As we develop the tool kit for York’s KM Peer-2-Peer Group and post it on www.researchimpact.ca,we shall create a cultural transparency impact rating which will reflect our experience using the tool to increase transparency between academic researchers and decision makers. We can practice by doing a transparency pulse check on some emerging KM literature.

Researchers from the University of Victoria wrote a paper titled “In for the Long Haul: Knowledge Translation Between Academic and Nonprofit Organizations” (Qualitative Health Research, 20 (1): 131-143; http://qhr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/20/1/131). The authors speak of their 10 year long experience working between the university and local non-profits. They cite the need for continued and sustained face time for the research team throughout the research cycle, institutional relationships (that are sustained by personal relationships between front line personnel and graduate students), developing a common language to communicate research findings and knowledge brokers. See the figure for how this would look through a transparency lens separating these factors into KM tools or processes and KM outcomes. Using the factors cited in the paper, I would invest first in knowledge brokers who create personal relationships that are developed through subsequent investments in continued and sustained face that results in institutional relationships that are then supported through investments in a common language (such as clear language research summaries) all of them leading to increased cultural transparency. The initial investment should be in knowledge brokers that have the greatest impact on transparency as the resulting actions would have little effect on relationships and transparency without the initial investments in knowledge brokers. Lower transparency impact investments can then build on the first, most critical investment introducing tools that foster a deepening of relationships that were initiated as a result of knowledge brokering.

Now, what does this mean for York? For York this means that we need to invest first in the human resource infrastructure of knowledge brokers before we invest in meetings and only then do we invest in clear language ResearchSnapshots. Fulfilling the most important need for knowledge brokers, I am pleased to announce that as of December 1, 2009 we welcome Michael Johnny, Manager of Knowledge Mobilization, in a continuing position at York University. Michael was hired in 2006 on a tri-council Intellectual Property Mobilization grant that ended November 30, 2009.

Now what we have to do is continue to fulfill the rest of our transparency focused commitments to KM at York and also for ResearchImpact. Looking through a transparency lens we can better understand the opportunities and constraints of our research collaborators and knowledge partners but unlike a camera lens, this lens looks both ways (KM is inherently bi-directional). As you are looking out they are looking in. That brings us to an obligation of transparency.

Accountability

York’s President, Mamdouh Shoukri said, “We are not going to be competitive as a society unless our knowledge is put to use. We need to translate it in a way that the average person can use it.” (Globe and Mail, January 2, 2010). By investing in institutional KM support services, including Michael Johnny, York is committed to transparency and accountability in research and in knowledge mobilization.

From Local to National to International – KM is in the News!

ResearchImpact universities were in the news as we ended 2009 and started 2010.

On December 23, 2009 York’s work on Green Economic Transformation with partners in South Simcoe was featured in the Bradford West Gwillimbury Topic and received wider readership in Metroland. You can read the whole article here. ResearchImpact (York) brokered relationships between a researcher (Gerde Wekerle, FES), 2 graduate students and Nottawasaga Futures which is hosting the graduate students who are funded through the MITACS Accelerate program. According to one of the students, Susan Swail, “The plan is to develop a summary of best practices or benchmarks to work toward in creating sustainable communities by focusing on economic development that considers the triple bottom line” (economic, social, environmental impacts). These best practices will inform green decisions made by local businesses and local governments. Taking a lesson from ResearchImpact (Memorial), this is ResearchImpact (York)’s first move into regional economic development which is the domain of the Harris Centre at Memorial. We will seek to build on this success with Nottawasaga Futures and partners in the South Simcoe Economic Alliance.

And speaking of ResearchImpact (Memorial and York)… our two KM operations were featured in an article by the Globe and Mail’s Elizabeth Church on how York University and Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador are making research and researchers accessible through on line formats. We have previously blogged about York’s Research Snapshots and Memorial’s yaffle and now these tools made it into the national media with an article released on January 2, 2010. You can read the whole article “Web tools aim to open the gates to the ivory tower” and also join the readers who are commenting on the article.

Both of these stories were reported in Y File on January 5 and January 6.

And finally, ResearchImpact (Memorial) and yaffle were also featured in a story by the Washington DC based Chronicle of Higher Education on January 6, 2010. Part of the Chronicle’s Wired Campus series, the article was titled “Canadian University Creates Matchmaking Tool for Research”.

Such local, national and international press helps to grow the impact of ResearchImpact.