|
|
About Knowledge Mobilization
Researchers have found two keys to advancing public knowledge and
the application of specialized research outside academe.
-
Results must be written in formats and language that are accessible
to knowledgeable non-specialists. Research shows that this initial
communication between researchers and decision-makers is critical
but incurs the most costs for scholars1.
Often, they must learn more about the policy environment, adapt
the format and language of research results, communicate with multiple
stakeholders and target strategic decision-makers.
-
Beyond this initial stage, the level of receptivity to research
within a decision-making organization is – by far –
the most significant factor affecting the application and influence
of specialized knowledge. Receptivity is affected by an organization’s
general appreciation of research methods, awareness of academic
work, familiarity with individual scholars and scholarly institutions,
sensitivity to issues and openness to particular policy perspectives.
Two elements affect this sort of “public knowledge”
in an organization:
-
Maintaining linkages between researchers and policy makers
ensure regular access to conceptual advances and provide capacity,
at reduced cost, for strategic initiatives on both sides. In
a recent consultation, federal government researchers concluded:
“broadly disseminating research results in a given area,
whether fundamental or applied, is often the first step in building
public awareness of an issue and a necessary precursor to the
more direct impact of policy-relevant research.” 2
-
External funding has a demonstrable affect on the influence
and application of research findings as it almost guarantees
organizational receptivity.
[1] Réjean Landry, Nabil Amara
and Moktar Lamari (1999) “Climbing the Ladder of Research Utilization:
Evidence from Social Science Research” Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science, San Diego,
California, October 28-31, 1999.
[2] Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council, Report on Consultations (Ottawa: SSHRC, 2005) p. 11.
|
|