Just do it / Faites le!

David Phipps, RIR-York

David Phipps has taken a break to read some journal articles that have been piling up. Reading about the science of knowledge mobilization is good. Getting out and actually mobilizing knowledge is better.

David Phipps a pris une pause pour lire quelques articles de journaux qui s’étaient empilés. Lire sur la science de la mobilisation des connaissances, c’est bien. Sortir et vraiment mobiliser les connaissances, c’est mieux.

I had some time to sit back and read some recent issues of Evidence and Policy and came across the following article- Adrian Cherney and Brian Head (2011) Supporting the knowledge-to-action process: a systems-thinking approach. Evidence and Policy. 7(4): 471-488.

Cherny and Head developed a holistic model supporting the knowledge-to-action (KTA) process based on systems thinking. It is based on 9 C’s: communication, capacity, competency, compatibility, committment, collaboration, creativity, compliance, champions (see figure). Like the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework (see below), this is another model that helps practitioners think about our practie but it is not a practice per se. Cherny and Head say, ”We have purposely focused on the principle and processes that should underpin a support system for enhancing the KTA process.  While infrastructure is central to the delivery of such support it is important to specify principles rather than physical activities because we want to highlight the building blocks for an effective support system relevant across a range of contexts.” Cherny and Head are explicitly saying that they chose to focus on thinking about it rather doing it.

It reminded me of a recent article in Implementation Science- Cheryl B Stetler, Laura J Damschroder, Christian D Helfrich and Hildi J Hagedorn (2011) A guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation. Implementation Science. 6(99).

The PARiHS framework was developed to help understand those elements that contribute to successful implementation of evidence into practice in health care settings. The PARiHS framework is a function of the interplay of three core elements: 1) the level and nature of the evidence; 2) the context or environment into which the evidence is to be placed; and 3) the method or way in which the process is facilitated. By 2010 there had been 32 papers published on the PARiHS framework, but according to Stetler et al (2011), “No published studies were identified that used the framework comprehensively and prospectively to develop an implementation project. The ability to fully evaluate its usefulness thus has been limited.” The authors mean that this framework is a way of thinking about practice, not a practice per se. For more on the PARiHS framework see the KMb Journal club post.

It must be nice to be able to think about something and never have to do it.

But then that’s the role of researchers in many fields. Researchers think about things and study things without actually doing the things they study. Then there’s the role of practitioners.  We do things without having incentives or rewards (ie the time) to sit back and think about and reflect upon what we do.

I wrote about this on February 1, 2012 when I wrote that we were all knowledge hypocrites. We need more mobilization of knowledge about knowledge mobilization. Researchers need to move beyond thinking about frameworks to working with practitioners who are putting those frameworks into practice. Practitioners likewise need to embed researchers in their practice. At York we are starting a conversation among our engaged scholars and knowledge mobilization projects and their embedded knowledge brokers. Our goal is to inform our practice by working directly with our researchers. That’s also what the Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Forum will start to address. By mixing knowledge mobilization researchers and practitioners it will sow the seeds of mutually beneficial researcher-practitioner relationships. Join many of your knowledge mobilization colleagues in Ottawa on June 19-20.

I have also written that what we do as knowledge brokers isn’t rocket science (see point #2 in a recent journal club).  Knowledge brokering is as much common sense as it is implementation of frameworks. But these frameworks are the opposite, presenting complicated inter-relations of elements, stages and components all designed to maximize the impact of research and evidence on decision making without ever having been evaluated to see if the outcomes support that design. If I had to think of all the elements and sub elements of the PARiHS framework and all 9 C’s of the systems thinking model before addressing any knowledge mobilization opportunity I would be paralyzed, unable to figure what to do first.

I read the literature.  I engage with researchers.  That is important, for sure. And then I just do it.

Mama always told me, “share your toys” / Ma mère m’a toujours dit : « partage des jouets! »

By David Phipps, RIR-York

Sharing knowledge is central to knowledge mobilization. Thanks to a recently published paper, David Phipps (RIR-York) is now able to share his KMb toys.

Partager le savoir est un élément central de la mobilisation des connaissances. Grâce à un article publié récemment, David Phipps (RIR-York) est désormais en mesure de partager ses jouets de MdC.

Peter Levesque (Knowledge Mobilization Works) says “sharing is the new selfish”.  Or maybe it’s “sharing is the new black”. Whichever it is he means that sharing is the currency of knowledge mobilization (KMb). At RIR-York we have an ongoing debate about how much of our “KMb secret” should we give away outside of our ResearchImpact-RéseauImpactRecherche (RIR) colleagues. Well, thanks to a recent paper our “secret”, if we ever had one, is out in the open.  We’re sharing our KMb toys and we want you to play with us.

We first articulated our suite of KMb services in a blog on Mobilize This! on April 20, 2010.We described all of our KMb services and how they each mapped onto KMb theory. But we were light on detail. Now, 21 months later, the details of this have been published in Scholarly & Research Communications, a journal managed out of Simon Fraser University. We describe in detail each of our KMb services and illustrate each with an example from our practice.

KMb Method	KMb Service	Notes
Producer Push	#1 Clear language research summaries	Develop clear language research summaries from completed faculty research.
	#2 Lunch and Learn	Seminar series at decision-maker sites.
User Pull	#3 Research translation help desk	Use current knowledge broker model to help decision-maker partners identify, develop, and sustain collaborations with researchers.
Knowledge Exchange	#4 Research forums	KM in the AM: Monthly thematic knowledge mobilization breakfasts.
Co-production	#5 Social media to support collaboration	Provide support for full suite of social media tools including blogging, delicious bookmarks, Twitter, and social collaboration tools.
	#6 KMb interns	Graduate student KMb interns work in research collaborations with decision-maker partners.

 

After describing the services and offering conclusions based on five years’ experience running an institutional KMb service unit the paper presents the outcomes of that work (see below) and makes the following recommendations to those seeking to develop an institutional capacity for KMb (see the paper for details):

1. Find institutional champions
2. Collect data
3. If possible, find grants for seed funding
4. Hire the right knowledge broker

The paper presents outcomes of our work to August 2011.  Updated figures to December 31, 2011 are below.

# Faculty Involved	240
# Graduate Students Involved	142
# Information sessions for faculty and students	166
# Information sessions for community	185
# collaborations brokered	246
# agencies involved in KMb partnerships	205
Community Partner funding raised	$1.1M
Research Contract funding raised	$1.2M
Total KMb associated grant funding raised	$17.6M
# web hits	+5M
# Research Summaries	173
# tweets	5447
#twitter followers	1845
# delicious bookmarks	244
# blog postings (+70,000 views)	294

The paper has been posted in York’s institutional repository.  You can get download a copy of the open access paper here.

In addition to sharing our KMb services in this paper we have previously posted some of our KMb tools:

Clear Language Tool Kit

• https://researchimpact.othree.ca/documents/toolsforkmb/kmbtools_researchsummariespdf

CAURA 2011 KMb Tools

• http://www.researchimpact.ca/kmbinaction/OutilsMdC/index.html
• http://www.researchimpact.ca/kmbinaction/KMbToolBox/index.html

In the spirit of sharing, Melanie Barwick (@melaniebarwick) has kindly made her KT planning template available. And posting more RIR tools is in the works for RIR-York. We are knowledge brokers, not KMb researchers. We do not come from a culture of publishing our findings. Since sharing underpins all KMb activities it is important to share our practice based knowledge. Whether you chose to post your tools on a website, share them at a conference like the upcoming Canadian KMb Forum or publish them in peer review please share your successes (and your failures).

Because knowledge, like toys, is best when it is shared.

A Comparison Of Knowledge Broker Websites

ResearchImpact is pleased to welcome a guest blogger, Gary Myers. You can follow Gary on his blog and on twitter (@kmbeing). Gary has written about three relatively new online resources for knowledge brokers. It is great to see new entrants into the KMb global family (from UK, US and Australia). Gary’s comparison shows that all provide value for knowledge brokers and that Research into Action (from @KTExchange) has some resources similar to those we offer at ResearchImpact (where we are also “turning research into action”).
I’d like to thank ResearchImpact for asking me to be a guest blogger for MobilizeThis! Most readers of this blog (and for readers of my own blog KMbeing) will know that Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) is being more frequently used to describe how researchers and individuals within community organizations are using research to inform decisions in public policy and professional practice. KMb consists of a variety of methods in which research and knowledge is transferred, translated, exchanged and co-produced to enhance the practical application of knowledge between researchers and research-users.
Important to the KMb process is the role of the Knowledge Broker in linking researchers and community (for more information on the role of the Knowledge Broker see Jonathan Lomas The in-between world of knowledge brokering).
As part of a current digital research project for ResearchImpact, I did a comparative analysis of three new (or newly re-designed) broker websites with varying degrees of interactivity and collaboration. I was curious to see what some other organizations are offering brokers, social innovators and other knowledge mobilizers. After a web search using the keyword knowledge broker the following top websites were listed:

• Research into Action (RIA)

• Knowledge Brokers’ Forum (KBF)

• Australian Social Innovation eXchange (ASIX)

Overall Rating (RIA):

• Excellent Presentation & Content
• Great Use of Social Media & Networking Tools
• Canadian Content – A Podcast interview with Dr. Melanie Barwick (Sick Kid’s Hospital, Toronto) & Headlining Quote From Dr. Barwick on Home Page/ CIHR defined in website Glossary page
• Well Staffed With Two Specific Communications Specialists
• Collaboration Possibilities with other Research Brokers

Overall Rating (KBF):

• Most Similar to ResearchImpact Website
• Good Content of Blogs
• Use of Delicious Bookmarks
• Resources (articles) for intermediaries and knowledge brokers
• Canadian Content – Canadian Knowledge Broker Core Competency Framework Link
• Recommend Adding ResearchImpact Mobilize This! Blog To This Website

Overall Rating (ASIX):

• More Social Innovation Than KMb or Knowledge Brokering (Collaborative Style Think Tank)
• Good Social Media (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) & OK Use of Blog Links (But Not KMb Specific)
• Website Not KMb Focused or Broker Focused, but still informative
• Mostly A Forum for Australian Social Innovation Camp (New: 1st Camp 2010)
• No North American Content (Only Found One Profile Beyond Australia from London UK)

Funding & Affiliation:

Research into Action is university funded by The University of Texas (School of Public Health), and from the The Institute for Health Policy. What is interesting is that they also request donation funding right on their website for anyone wishing to make a private donation. RIF was founded in 2007.

The Knowledge Brokers’ Forum receives funding from international agencies such as the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), and the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The website does not mention when KBF was founded.

The Australian Social Innovation eXchange is more formally known as the Australian Social Innovation Exchange Limited incorporated and is an independent non-profit company, founded in 2008.

Conclusion:
All three websites can be used as credible links and sources of information for knowledge brokers; however, I highly recommend Research into Action for anyone looking for a practical website that can be used as a tool in learning more about current knowledge brokering taking place, and as a collaborative website for researchers and research users to post their own information.
Although Research into Action appears to be a closer fit to ResearchImpact, The Knowledge Brokers’ Forum or The Australian Social Innovation eXchange are also great sites for gaining information and mobilizing knowlege.

GURU = Great University-Based Research Utilization

Guru. That’s what we think of when we think of Carole Estabrooks and her more than two decades of research and teaching in KT, and we weren’t disappointed when she was the inaugural speaker for the Ontario KTE Community of Practice (CoP) 2010 season (see the presentation slides here). The event attracted 28 knowledge brokers, researchers and practitioners who braved a blizzard to enjoy 2 hours of presentation (“Exploring the Applicability of Research Through the Practice of KT”) and dialogue with one of Canada’s leading KT researchers.

Carole holds a Canada Research Chair (CRC) in KT at the University of Alberta and runs the Knowledge Utilization Studies Program (KUSP). She walked us thorough her experience working under different theoretical frameworks of knowledge utilization from diffusion of innovation to evidence based medicine to implementation science [see Madon et al (2007) Science 318: 1728]. Look for her presentation soon on the KTE CoP web site but I wish to focus on two areas that are of particular interest to KM practitioners at ResearchImpact.

[OK, as an aside, because it’s not really something I want to focus on, she did say she is coming round to recognizing the potential for knowledge brokers in a knowledge utilization framework… Carole, call me, we’ll talk… now, back to the blog]

1. Practice what you preach:

Carole indicated nurses don’t routinely read nursing or medical literature to inform their practice. I propose that neither do knowledge brokers. We are so busy doing what it is we do that we don’t create the time to sit back, read, reflect and most importantly, write about our practice. We preach evidence informed practice but upon what evidence are we basing our practice? As KM staff we’re measured on how many interns we placed, collaborations we supported, research summaries we wrote and who used all of this activity to do what with it. Read Carole’s paper about busyness as a barrier to effective research utilization [Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17(4), 539-548. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.01981.x] and you’ll understand what I’m talking about. But we’re changing this at ResearchImpact. We have already published a couple of papers on our work (see blog posts here and here) and have one more submitted to the journal Education & Training. After my earlier blog post and this one, I am going to ask the ResearchImpact-York knowledge brokers to take one day each month to spend catching up on reading and perhaps we can move towards an annotated broker bibliography which we can post on the ResearchImpact web site.

2. Attention

Carole made a remark while she was talking about busyness as a barrier to research utilization. She said, “effective KT requires attention”. That got me thinking of an article I recently read on twitter thanks to York’s KM Unit volunteer, Gary Myers. Huberman, Romero and Wu said in their online paper Social Networks that Matter: Twitter under the microscope,  “attention is the scare resource in the age of the web”.

Here’s my issue:

In a world of twitter induced attention deficit, I remain convinced that there is a role for social media to mediate KM which is based on networks that are enabled by transparency, trust and relationship closeness – all of which are facilitated by social media. At least in theory (the academic literature on social media is only starting to emerge, but the blog literature is convincing on this point – however, don’t forget your source criticism… would a blogger really be a good critic of social media?). Absent any evidence we’ll put it to a vote:

Is social media an effective tool for KM? Say yes or no and tell us why using the comment feature above.

So Carole, thank you. You engaged us and made us laugh and made us think. Thanks also to the Ontario KTE CoP for kicking off a great year with a great speaker. And for the rest of us remember to create the time in your schedule to give the KM evidence your attention so that you can practice what you preach. At least on my train trip I took the time to reflect on Carole’s talk and write this blog while enjoying the scenery around Trenton.

Cage Match: Tapscott vs. Weinberg (I’ll take them both, and the margarita…)

I just finished two books that have received a lot of press of late – Dan Tapscott’s “Grown Up Digital” and “The New Community Rules: Marketing on the Social Web” by Tamar Weinberg.  “Grown Up Digital” is an exploration of the Net Generation (31 years old and younger) who grew up in the digital age while “The New Community Rules” explores the social media tools those NetGeners use and how they can be applied to marketing your business.

Let me say off the top that I enjoyed both books but for different reasons.  “New Community” gives detailed descriptions of social media tools including blogging, microblogging, social networking sites, social bookmarking, social news, new media (videos and photography) and informational social media such as wikis – and check the end of each chapter for the chapter summaries and a snapshot of key messages.  Each chapter explores a different aspect of social media with leading product offerings and case studies of how businesses have used each tool for marketing purposes.  “Grown Up” explores how NetGeners different from previous generations in education, work, consumerism, family, democracy and civic engagement.  Of note are the eight NetGen norms: freedom, customization, scrutiny, integrity, collaboration, entertainment, speed and innovation.

If you want to learn how to maximize your use of (and maybe return on investment in) social media you should read “New Community” but if you want to learn how to work or live with someone under 31 (and a lot of people over 31 as well) then you should read “Grown Up”.  Face it, you should read them both.

ResearchImpact has been blogging for over 1 year and on twitter since May 2009.  We have launched some knowledge mobilization videos and have more in production but I found the advice from Tamar Weinberg particularly useful, especially the chapter on blogging which has some great tips for new and experienced bloggers.  But working with ResearchImpact and the rest of the Office of Research Services at York University (www.yorku.ca/research) I work with a lovely and diverse group of staff from 20 to 62 years old.  The description of the Net Generation in “Grown Up” helps me manage the different work and life experiences that all staff bring to their jobs.

However, the comparisons need not stop at these books.  Both Tamar Weinberg (@tamar) and Don Tapscott (@dtapscott) are on Twitter and have 8672 and 8167 followers respectively (as of August 16, 2009) although Tamar has posted 3100 tweets to Don’s 858.  Both also have social media sites connected to their work.  Tamar can be found at www.techipedia.com and Don Tapscott’s site for his book is www.grownupdigital.com.  Both of these sites dig into their subject matter in different ways allowing the consumer to contribute and in Tapscott’s words become the prosumer.

If I were to be stranded on a desert island which book would I want?  If I had access to the internet I would want the “how to” information provided in “New Community Rules” but if I were trapped on a desert island with internet access and people under 31 I would want “Grown Up Digital”….of course if I were trapped on a desert island with internet access I’d just swim up to the pool bar of the resort and order another margarita because why else would I be on a desert island in the first place?

What do Machiavelli and Dr. Seuss have to do with Knowledge Mobilization?

Concludero’ solo che al principe, e necessario avere ilpopolo amico – I will conclude then that it is necessary for the prince to have the people as friends.

Lesson: No silo research. Research partnerships must be broad and most importantly, engage the people impacted by the outcome.

ResearchImpact and a key community partner, the United Way of York Region recently published an article in Issue 22 (June 2009) of Research Global, the magazine of the Global Research Management Network published by the Association of Commonwealth Universities.

All we could do was to sit, sit, sit. And we did not like it, not one little bit. Then something went bump. How that bump made us jump.

Lesson: Enter all partnerships with an initial plan, a willingness to change depending on the circumstances and, when something goes bump, be present. Full commitment, engagement and openness are critical. If not, do not enter.

The article titled “Lessons learned from knowledge mobilisation: turning research into action” is a whimsical look at 10 lessons learned from 3 years of growing Canada’s first institutional knowledge mobilization unit broadly serving the needs of university faculty, graduate students and their non academic research partners.  Each lesson is inspired by and offered with apologies to either Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli’s The Prince or Dr. Seuss’ The Cat in the Hat and we back up each lesson with a real life example drawn from our own knowledge mobilization practice.

The lessons are instructive and the stories are real.  The article concludes “Universities need to work hard to develop relationships that include but also transcend individual researchers, projects and partners, in order to maximize the impact of the university on its communities, both local and global. Collaborating is not easy and you will encounter bumps along the road. The key to riding out the bumps is trust, a shared commitment, and never forgetting to communicate, communicate, communicate with funders, faculty, students and collaborators.”

Read the article and all 10 lessons here and see a PowerPoint presentation of the 10 lessons here.

KM, KMb, KT, the other KT, KTE… now consider KI

OK, so we didn’t see it when it came out last year but Sandra Nutley and her team (including Huw Davies and Isabel Walter) associated with the University of Edinburgh’s Research Unit for Research Utilization published another excellent article on KM. They published “Why ‘knowledge transfer’ is misconceived for applied social research” in the Journal of Health Services, Research & Policy (Vol 13 No 3, 2008: 188–190). As leaders in the theory of research utilization, Sandra and her team point out why terms such as knowledge transfer and knowledge translation under represent the complexities and iterative nature of most strategies aimed at facilitating or enhancing research utilization. Such terms privilege “scientific” knowledge and marginalize other forms of knowledge and ways of knowing. They also ignore the frequent need for un-learning as part of the research utilization process. As an alternative they suggest:

“While any term is likely to open itself up to fresh critique, we suggest that ‘knowledge interaction’ might more appropriately describe the messy engagement of multiple players with diverse sources of knowledge. We also suggest that ‘knowledge intermediation’ begins to articulate some of the managed processes by which knowledge interaction is promoted.”

KM isn’t mentioned and we use it to describe a suite of services that enhances the two-way connection between researchers and research users so that research and evidence can inform decisions about public policy and professional practice. KM encompasses methods of knowledge transfer, translation and exchange and extends them to include the co-production of knowledge. This managed process could be described as knowledge intermediation…or knowledge mobilization…

Whatever we call it, it is clear that the communities engaged in such practices are growing and over time we are confident we will coalesce around a term or terms on which there is substantial agreement. Until then such dialogues are interesting but we know what we mean and know it when we see it so as practitioners, let’s get on and “just do it”.

Getting to Maybe

On June 4, 2008 I wrote about Using Evidence by Nutley, Walter and Davies. This book has been my principal KM reference but I have a new, equally favourite, book to recommend to you: Getting to Maybe by Frances Westley, Brenda Zimmerman (of York’s Schulich School of Business, ) and Michael Quinn Patton. Using Evidence is about the science of research utilization (=knowledge mobilization) for policy and practice (=social innovation). Getting to Maybe is about the actors (=social innovators) who operate within a system of social innovation. Using case studies of successful social innovators, Getting to Maybe illustrates how social innovators can maximize the chances of creating an impact and it provides numerous recommendations for social innovators, their organizations (usually NGOs), their funders (usually Foundations) and their receptors (usually policy makers). Getting to Maybe doesn’t guarantee success or present a formula which, if followed, will generate results. Getting to Maybe focuses on key learnings that are important for all social innovators and their stakeholders.

Finally Getting to Maybe about creating the right conditions where maybe, change might happen.

This book contains valuable lessons and will inform much of the work of knowledge brokers. Order your copy here.

Some KM relevant messages from Getting to Maybe:

• Social innovation is a complex (as opposed to complicated) problem. Complexity science can guide approaches to social innovation.
• Relationships, amongst other attributes, are key for social innovation
• Individuals operate in systems and successful social innovators examine their own role in those systems
• Premature evaluation can stifle social innovation by seeking end points; developmental evaluation focuses on learnings not end points
• All systems must go through cycles of exploitation → conservation → release (=“creative destruction”) → reorganization in order to remain innovative and avoid the “rigidity gap”. This is why “success is not a fixed address”.
• Social innovation is catalyzed through connection, confrontation and collaboration.
• It is important to stand still, to reflect and analyze. Reflection is action. This is a particularly important message for me, personally, as I tend to race more than I reflect.
• Social Innovation is like improvising jazz: every player listens, understands and everyone leads from their own place of understanding.

RE$EARCH MONEY publishes on Knowledge Mobilization

RE$EARCH MONEY recently published an article by David Phipps. The article provides a brief theoretical framework for KM and illustrates KM activities with examples of how KM can create value for faculty, graduate students and research users. The article makes a distinction between project based KM and institutional KM services such as those supported by York and UVic. In addition the article ends with a call to action.

“To sustain [KM] activities, research funding organizations need to invest in KM through institutional programs such as Intellectual Property Mobilization (IPM) and Knowledge Impact in Society (KIS). Foundations need to look to social innovation as a target area for support and institutions need to invest in institutional KM practices as they currently do for technology transfer.” Read the full article here….

RE$EARCH MONEY is Canada’s premier source of intelligence on research and development, science and technology and innovation. See www.researchmoneyinc.com for more information.

AUCC Releases 2008 Report on University Research and KM

The following media release, which references ResearchImpact partners YorkU and UVic, was taken from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada’s Web site. You can view the original article here.

AUCC report shows universities are major contributors to Canada’s economy and quality of life

Ottawa, October 21, 2008 — The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada has launched a report on the state of Canadian research and development (R&D), with a particular emphasis on university research, at an event that included partners from government, the private sector and the not-for-profit sector.

The report, entitled Momentum: The 2008 report on university research and knowledge mobilization, shows universities are major players in R&D in Canada, performing more than one-third of the country’s research and contributing at least $60 billion to the economy in 2007. However, analysts agree that the world competition for talent, knowledge and innovation is fierce and Canada cannot be complacent with its accomplishments.

“The rest of the world is not standing still and the global race for research talent is becoming more and more intense,” says AUCC chair Tom Traves, president of Dalhousie University. “We expect this report to stimulate public debate on the required level and mix of support for university research in Canada.”

“This is a time when we cannot afford to cut back on public investment, but should instead see the potential for stimulating economic growth at the local and the national level by investing in people and knowledge. Having a highly skilled labour force is undeniably a major asset for any country,” notes AUCC president and CEO Claire Morris. “In these uncertain economic times, Canada must continue to improve its innovative capacity to ensure long-term prosperity,” she adds.

Momentum 2008 focuses on the importance of partnerships in university research and looks at the variety of forms collaboration takes – from university partnerships with private companies to research projects with governments, communities, the not-for-profit sector and international partners. It provides a comprehensive account of Canadian R&D, particularly the activities of the university sector and the resulting progress achieved. It also presents detailed research and analysis of national and international trends that will drive changes in university research and the Canadian R&D landscape in the future.

Momentum 2008 documents the wide range of benefits to Canadians such as new products, services, processes, policies and new ways of understanding society.

This is the second edition of Momentum produced by AUCC. The first was produced in 2005 as a way of providing information to decision makers and policy-makers about the benefits from investments made in university research.

The Momentum report is available online. Download the report.