knowledge transfer community - fraser health · 2018-06-23 · intrinsically, occupational health...

Knowledge Transfer Community

Guide to

Knowledge Transfer

Designed for Researchers in Occupational Health and Safety

Cheikh Faye, Monique Lortie, Lise Desmarais

2008

Knowledge Transfer Community

Guide to Knowledge Transfer

Designed for Researchers in Occupational Health and Safety

Erreur!Contactnondéfini. MoniqueLortie Erreur!Contactnondéfini.

Doctorate Professor Professor

ÉcoledesSciencesdeGestion Sciencesbiologiques DépartementdeManagement

InstitutSantéetSociété InstitutSantéetSociété Facultéd’administration

UQÀM UQÀM UniversitédeSherbrooke

Guide to knowledge transfer research

4

Tableofcontents

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................... 9

PARTI:CONCEPTS,VOCABULARYANDTRANSFERFIELDS..................................................................11CHAPTER1:DEFINITIONSANDAREASOFKNOWLEDGETRANSFER ............................................................................. 121.1 Definitions .................................................................................................................................................................. 121.1.1 Knowledgetransfer ........................................................................................................................................................................... 12a) Etymology............................................................................................................................................................................................... 12b) Definitions.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 12

1.1.2 KnowledgeExchangeandSharing............................................................................................................................................... 14a) Etymology............................................................................................................................................................................................... 14b) Definitions.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 14

1.1.3 Knowledgesharingandutilization.............................................................................................................................................. 14a) Etymology............................................................................................................................................................................................... 14b) Definition................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14

1.2 Areasofknowledgetransfer ............................................................................................................................... 151.2.1 Transferofresearchfindings ......................................................................................................................................................... 151.2.2 Technologytransfer ........................................................................................................................................................................... 151.2.3 Transferoflearning............................................................................................................................................................................ 151.2.4 Organizationaltransfer..................................................................................................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER2:RELATEDCONCEPTSANDVOCABULARY....................................................................................................... 172.1 RELATEDKNOWLEDGETRANSFERCONCEPTS ........................................................................................................ 17

2.1. Knowledgetranslation......................................................................................................................................................................... 172.1.2 KNOWLEDGEVALORIZATION ................................................................................................................................. 172.2 Relatedvocabulary.................................................................................................................................................. 182.2.1 Transfermodes .................................................................................................................................................................................... 18a) Diffusion .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18b) Dissemination....................................................................................................................................................................................... 18c) Transmission......................................................................................................................................................................................... 18d) Translation/totranslate ................................................................................................................................................................ 18e) Knowledgemobilization .................................................................................................................................................................. 18f) Use/utilize/useful............................................................................................................................................................................ 18

2.2.2 Nature/transformationofKnowledge..................................................................................................................................... 19a) Evidence‐baseddatas ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19b) Innovation .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 19

2.2.3 Intermediaries ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 19a) Knowledgebroker ............................................................................................................................................................................. 19

Table of contents

5

b) Liaisonofficer ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 19c) Gatekeeper ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 19

PARTII:TOOLSUSEDTOSTUDYTRANSFER:MODELSANDSTRUTURALORGANIZATION.......21CHAPTER3:MAINTHEORETICALMODELS......................................................................................................................... 223.1 Knowledgetransfer................................................................................................................................................. 223.1.1 Linear(unidirectional)models ..................................................................................................................................................... 223.1.2 Collaborativemodels ......................................................................................................................................................................... 233.1.3 Interactionistmodels......................................................................................................................................................................... 23

3.2 Knowledgeexchangeandsharing.................................................................................................................... 243.3 Knowledgesharingandutilization.................................................................................................................. 243.4 Otherproposedmodelclassifications ............................................................................................................. 253.5 Modelsanddisciplines ........................................................................................................................................... 25

CHAPTER4:TRANSFERSTEPSANDSTRATEGIES .............................................................................................................. 274.1 Knowledgetransfersteps ..................................................................................................................................... 274.1.1 Stagesincommunicationmodels(dissemination)............................................................................................................... 274.1.2 Stagesinmanagementmodels(processmanagement)s ................................................................................................... 274.1.3 Stagesfromhealthmodels:knowledgeutilization............................................................................................................... 28

4.2 Transferstrategies .................................................................................................................................................. 284.2.1 Disseminationstrategies.................................................................................................................................................................. 284.2.2 Planningfortransferpriortotheresearchproject.............................................................................................................. 284.2.3 Turningknowledgeintotools........................................................................................................................................................ 294.2.4 Preferredstrategiesoffundingorganizations........................................................................................................................ 29

PARTIII:STUDIESONKNOWLEDGETRANSFER ......................................................................................31CHAPTER5:ASSESSINGTRANSFERS:CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK................................................................................. 325.1 Semanticclarificationsregardingassessment............................................................................................ 325.2 Thecomponentsofknowledgetransferassessment................................................................................. 33

CHAPTER6:FACTORSTHATFOSTERTRANSFER ............................................................................................................... 356.1 Factorsrelatedtotheoreticalmodels............................................................................................................ 356.1.1 Lineartransfermodels..................................................................................................................................................................... 35

6.1.2 Collaborativemodels ......................................................................................................................................... 356.1.3 Interactionmodels.............................................................................................................................................................................. 36

6.2 Factorsconnectedwiththelevelofintervention...................................................................................... 366.2.1 Organizationallevel .......................................................................................................................................................................... 366.2.2 Nationallevel ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 36

6.3 Factorsrelatedtocategories .............................................................................................................................. 36


6

6.4 Synthesisofthefactorsbasedontheirpurpose ......................................................................................... 36CHAPTER7:ASSESSINGTRANSFERIMPACTS ..................................................................................................................... 387.1 Impactassessmentofknowledgetransfer.................................................................................................... 387.2 Levelsoftransferassessment.............................................................................................................................. 38

REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................................................41

Boxes / Figures / Tables

7

Boxes

BOX1:WHATDOES“KNOWLEDGE”MEAN? ..................................................................................................................................................12BOX2:TRANSFERINTHEWORKENVIRONMENT..........................................................................................................................................13BOX3:TRANSFERASSEENBYFUNDINGORGANIZATIONS...........................................................................................................................13BOX4:TERMINOLOGYFAVOUREDBYFUNDINGORGANIZATIONS. .............................................................................................................16BOX5:KNOWLEDGETRANSLATION................................................................................................................................................................17BOX6:CIHR'SENGLISH‐FRENCHLEXICON ..................................................................................................................................................17BOX7:CLASSIFICATIONOFRESEARCHUTILIZATIONMODELSACCORDINGTOLANDRYETAL.(1999)ANDLOMASETAL.(2003).

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................25BOX8:CHARACTERISTICSOFTHEORETICALMODELSBASEDONDISCIPLINE...........................................................................................26BOX9:TRANSFERSTRATEGIESOFFEDERALFUNDINGORGANIZATIONS. .................................................................................................28BOX10:EFFECTVSRESULTVSIMPACT..........................................................................................................................................................32BOX11:SOMETRANSFERACTORSANDASSESSMENTLEVELS. ...................................................................................................................40

Figures

FIGURE1:BOGGS'MODELOFKNOWLEDGELINEARTRANSFER(1992). .................................................................................................22FIGURE2:MODELOFKNOWLEDGELINEARTRANSFERTHROUGHTRANSLATORS(DISSANAYAKE,1986INROYETAL.,1995)..22FIGURE3:BOGGS'BIDIRECTIONALTRANSFERMODEL(1992). ................................................................................................................23FIGURE4:BOUCHARDANDGÉLINAS'SPIRALTRANSFERMODEL(GÉLINAS,1990)..............................................................................23FIGURE5:TRANSFERMODELACCORDINGTOTHEKNOWLEDGESUPPORTNETWORKOFROYETAL.(1995). .................................23FIGURE6:ABILITY‐BASEDKNOWLEDGETRANSFERDYNAMICS(PARENT,ROY,ST‐JACQUES,2007). ..............................................24FIGURE7:BOGGS'KNOWLEDGEEXCHANGEANDSHARINGMODEL(1992). ...........................................................................................24FIGURE8:TRANSFERSTAGESFROMSZULANSKI(2000)ACCORDINGTOTHECOMMUNICATIONMODEL ..........................................27

Tables

TABLE1:MAINDIFFERENCESBETWEENCONCEPTS:EFFECTS,RESULTSANDIMPACTS........................................................................34TABLE2:MAINTRANSFERFACTORSORDETERMINANTS. ..........................................................................................................................37TABLE3:FACTORSTOBETAKENINTOACCOUNTDURINGIMPACTASSESSMENT ....................................................................................39


8

Acronymsfoundinthisguide

ASP Associationsectorielleparitaire

EC EuropeanCommission

CIHR CanadianInstitutesofHealthResearch

InstitutsderechercheensantéduCanada(IRSC)

CHSRF CanadianHealthServicesResearchFoundation

Fondationcanadiennedelarecherchesurlesservicesdesanté(FCRSS)

CQRS Conseilquébécoisdelarecherchesociale

CRISES Centrederecherchesurlesinnovationssociales

CSST Commissiondelasantéetdelasécuritédutravail

CST Conseildelascienceetdelatechnologie

EU EuropeanUnion

UnionEuropéenne(UE)

FQRNT Fondsquébécoisdelarecherchesurlanatureetlestechnologies

FQRSC Fondsquébécoisdelarecherchesurlasociétéetlaculture

FRSQ FondsdelarechercheensantéduQuébec

IRSST InstitutderechercheRobert‐Sauvéensantéetensécuritédutravail

NSERC NaturalSciencesansEngineeringResearchCouncilofCanada

ConseilderecherchesensciencesnaturellesetengénieduCanada(CRSNG)

OECD OrganisationforEconomicCo‐operationandDevelopment

Organisationdecoopérationetdedéveloppementéconomiques(OCDE)

OHS OccupationalHealthandSafety

RRSSTQ RéseauderechercheenensantéetsécuritéautravailduQuébec

SSHRC SocialSciencesandHumanitiesResearchCouncilofCanada

ConseilderecherchesenscienceshumainesduCanada(CRSH)

Introduction

9

Introduction

A knowledge society produces a wealth ofknowledgethatneedstobetransferredforthemutual benefit of all stakeholders. Knowledgetransfer(orexchange)isofincreasinginteresttoresearchersandcallsfor inputfromthevariousstakeholders. Researchers wonder about theuse (or non‐use) of knowledge resulting fromtheir research; decision‐makers want to knowhow the knowledge can be useful to them;public organizations want to know howprofitableresearchfindingsare;anduniversitiesaremoreinclinedtofocusonresearchspin‐offsin terms of recognition or profitability.Committees are set up, reviews are conductedandmoreandmorepapersarewritten…allofthisatanacceleratedpace.

Intrinsically, Occupational Health and Safety(OHS) Research has been concerned withknowledge transfer and exchange for quitesome time. Researchers are used to workingwith a large number of stakeholders, bothinstitutional (CSST, JSA, businesses) andindividual:

• decision‐makers (administrators,foremen,physicians)

• product and service designs (designers,engineers, manufacturers, computerengineers)

• researchers• intermediaries(consultants)• advisors (buyers, ergonomists,

physicians)• initiators (OHS or human resources

departments)• workers.

Concerns about knowledge transfer/exchangeoccuratmanystagesoftheresearchprocess—during needs definition, during knowledgedevelopment, during the development oftransferstrategiesorterms,duringthetransferprocessitself—andinavarietyofforms.

OHS researchers come with a vast array ofexperiences and needs. With this in mind, theRéseau de recherche en santé et sécurité autravail du Québec (RRSSTQ) has set up astrategicgroup(knowledgetransfercommunity)whose mandate, among other things, is tosuggestactivities tohelpreconcile thediversityof interests in knowledge transfer in amultidisciplinary context and through variousscientificparadigms.

Theuniquenessofthisgroupliesinthefactthatit cuts across existing boundaries (groupsconcerned with occupational MSD, age andinter‐generational relations, mental health,work safety, nanotechnology, etc.). It bringstogether researcherswho have a keen interestin issues related to knowledge transfer but forwhomknowledgetransferisnotnecessarilythefocusof their research.These researchershaveaccumulated a considerable amount ofexperience, understanding, and “know‐how,”mostly informal, regarding knowledge transfer.It isplausibletothinkthat inthecomingyears,researchers will not only become increasinglyinterested in these issues (i.e. knowledgetransfer will become the focus of theirresearch), but that they will also attempt toformalize/model/conceptualize a corpus ofknowledgethatisspecifictoOHS.


10

Wethereforethoughtitappropriatetocreateadocument, primarily a working tool, to helpresearchers desirous of focusing on knowledgetransfer to become familiar with its broadoutlines, its limits, and its subtleties (basicconcepts, vocabulary, areas of research, mainquestions, positions of funding organizations,key literature, etc.). This guide is not anexhaustive review of the literature related toknowledge transfer; it ismeant to identify keyelements as far as OHS is concerned. Dividedintosixchaptersandthreeparts, it isaworkinprogress to be updated and enriched on aregularbasis.

The reader will notice that we have used theterms “knowledge transfer” and “knowledgeexchange”; others prefer “knowledge sharingand utilization,” while yet others prefer“knowledge exchange and sharing.” Someresearchers aremore at easewith the conceptof valorization of knowledge and researchfindings, or knowledge translation andknowledge mobilization. We thus found itnecessary tobeginwitha reviewof knowledgetransferconceptsandareas(Chapter1),aswellasrelatedvocabulary(Chapter2).

As we will see, each term reflects differentneeds and perspectives.Notermissuperiortoanother.Thisdiversityofterminology posed a problem for us, however,in terms of choosing a title for the guide.“Knowledge transfer”?“Knowledgesharingandutilization”(asusedbytheRéseauderechercheen santé des populations)? “Knowledgeexchangeandsharing”?Sufficeittosay,thatforthepurposesofthisguide,wehavechosentheterm “knowledge transfer” in its broadest andmostnon‐exclusivesense.

Thesecondpartoftheguideexploresthetoolsdesigned to study knowledge transfer, that is,theoretical models (Chapter 3), stages ofknowledge transfer, and related strategies(Chapter4). The thirdpartdealswith themainareasof study relating toknowledge transfer—factors in favour of or against knowledgetransfer (Chapter 5), and the spin‐offs andimpacts of knowledge transfer (Chapter 6). Inthese two chapters, we propose a detailedcategorization of the variables anddeterminantsthatareexplored.

Part I: Concepts, vocabulary and areas of transfer

11

PartI:Concepts,vocabularyandtransferfields

Threetermsarecommonlyusedtodescribethetransferofknowledge: knowledge transferperse, knowledge exchange and sharing, andknowledgesharingandutilization.Theyallreferto the notion of “transfer” but relate todifferentperspectives,objectives,andinterests.Eachhasbeenthesubjectofnumerouspapers,theoretical propositions, and models.Consequently, the first chapterwill bedevotedtoexaminingtheirsimilaritiesanddifferences.

Asecondsourceofdifferentiationrelatestotheareas inwhich “transfer” takesplace.Wehaveidentified four areas: transfer of researchfindings, transfer of technology, transfer oflearning,andorganizationaltransfer.Aswewillsee, themodels, the type of investigation, andthe conceptsusedare, inpart, specific to eacharea.

In fact, in some areas, researchers useadditional transfer‐related terms such as“valorization of results” or “knowledgetranslation.”Wehavedecidedtofocusontheseonly in Chapter 2, since their use is limited orspecific to their field of application. Manybelieve that such terms should be included inthe first three terms. As well, they are usedmore frequently by institutions than byresearchers.

Whicheverthetermused,twomainapproachesprevail in the literature, that of knowledgedevelopmentandknowledgedissemination.Thelatterisgenerallythebasisforclassifyinglinear,bidirectional, and interactive approaches andmodels.

Inthe linearapproach,researchersandexpertsgenerate knowledge that is passed on to usersunidirectionally. This approach is criticized,however, for not taking into account userconcerns. Thevalorizationof research findingsgenerallytriestoremedythisshortcoming.Thisis especially important for universities andpublic administrations. In essence, it involvestranslating research findings into innovativetools, processes, and services that contributesignificantly to the development of theorganizations in particular and the nation’seconomyingeneral.

In the bidirectional approach, the process ofexchangesbetweenresearchersandusersgainsimportance, especially regarding identifyingneeds and taking into account the concerns offutureusers.

In the interactive approach, the process ofexchange becomes central, and knowledgetransfer takes place through a wide range ofintermediaries such as knowledge brokers orvarious professionals. Exchanges under thisapproach are complex and characterized byrelationships determined by the context andobjectives of ever‐changing interactions. Theseexchanges are associated with knowledgesharing and exchange. The approach is oftenassociated with the terms “exchange andsharing”and“sharingandutilization.”

Thedevelopmentofthesedifferentapproacheshas given birth to vocabulary such as“knowledge brokerage” and “evidence‐baseddata.”Thesecondchapterofthisguidepresentsa brief lexicon of key vocabulary related toknowledgetransfer.


12

Chapter1:Definitionsandareasofknowledgetransfer

In this chapter, we will specify what is meant,from an etymological point of view, byknowledge transfer, exchange, sharing, andutilization. We will present etymologicalmarkersandsuggestoneortwokeydefinitions.These definitions are used by majororganizations, cited by several authors, andincludespecificelements.

Inthesecondsection,wewillexplorehowtheseconcepts are used in four knowledge transferareas,correspondingtofourdisciplines.

1.1 Definitions

1.1.1 Knowledgetransfer

a) Etymology

The noun “transfer” comes from the verb “totransfer,” which is composed of the prefix“trans,”aLatinwordmeaning“totheothersideor beyond, and a stem “ferre,” a Latin verbmeaning“tocarry.”Etymologically,“totransfer”means “to carry to theother side”or “to carrybeyond.” It can be knowledge, people, goods,etc.

b) Definitions

The concept of transfer is characterized by theimpreciseness and vagueness of its semanticboundaries (Tardif, 1999). In sports, transfermeansachangeofclubs,whileinlawitreferstothe transmission of a good or a right betweenpeople. In the economic field, it evokes thedisplacement of resources (financial, human,material)fromonesectortoanother.

In psychoanalysis, transfer represents theextensionofanaffectivestatefromonepersonto another or to an object, while educationspecialists consider it as a displacement of

knowledgefromasourcecontext(learning)toatargetcontext(utilization).Sincetheconceptoftransfer varies depending on the discipline,wehave selected fourdefinitionscorresponding tofour disciplines related to occupational healthand safety: health, humanities and socialsciences,management,andeducation.

Box1:Whatdoes“knowledge”mean?

Definitions

Knowledgeisavailable informationthat isnewto the people or organizations for whom it isintended; it includes research findings,prevention guides, manufacturing processes,work methods, and innovations (Roy et al.,1995).

Knowledge comes from perception or fromexperience—acquired in circumstances and byvariousmeans—thatiskeptinmemory(Piaget,1970).“Itcaninclude—fromthemostconcreteto the most abstract—objects and facts;categoriesofobjectsor facts, characterizedbytheirpropertiesandrelationships;ideas,notion,and concepts that help define or make thesecategories easy to understand” (Teiger andLaville,1989).

Typology

Therearethreemaincategoriesofknowledge:

• Declaratory knowledge. This concerns theobjects to which the knowledge relates(concepts,laws,rules,facts,etc.)

• Procedural knowledge. This relates to themannerinwhichtheknowledgeisused.

• Conditional knowledge. This facilitates theapplication of declaratory and proceduralknowledgeinvariouscontexts.


13

i. Health: “A structured process that usesscientific research findings to improve theeffects of professional practice” (Gupta et al.,2006). It is understood as being a continuousprocess of exchanges punctuated by two‐wayexchanges between two communities:researchersandpotentialusers(ClarkandKelly,2005).

ii. Education: “A process by which knowledgedeveloped in a particular context is applied toanother context, tobuildnewknowledgeor todevelopnewskills,ortoaccomplishnewtasks”(Presseau,2000).

iii. Management: “A mechanism fordisseminating, appropriating, and utilizing newknowledge for adopting new individual andorganizationalbehaviours”(Royetal.,1995).

iv.Humanitiesandsocialsciences:“Asystematicapproach to obtain, gather, and share tacitknowledge and convert it into explicitknowledge. It is thus a process that facilitatesaccess by individuals and/or organizations toessentialinformationthathasupuntilnowbeenthepreserveofjustonepersonorasmallgroupof persons” (Government of Alberta, cited byGraham et al., 2006). Knowledge transfer isconsidered as a social process (Rynes et al.,2001).

Themajorityofthesedefinitionsdepicttransferasaprocess,i.e.themechanismsthroughwhichscientific knowledge is developed byresearchersandprovidedtousers(seeBox1,p.12). Knowledge is also viewed as a product,which implies its transformation, i.e. itstranslationintoanaccessible languageandintotoolsthatareusableinactualsituationsandforvarious purposes (clarifying decision‐making,changingindividualororganizationalbehaviour,developing policies or programs, problemsolving,etc.)(Amaraetal.,2004).

Box2:Transferintheworkenvironment

Knowledgetransferisoftenassociatedwiththeapplication of knowledge or skills to solve aparticular problem. This knowledge or theseskills are generally acquired through training(considered as the first mechanism ofknowledgetransfer).Forexample,BaldwinandFord (1988)defineknowledge transferas “thegeneralization to the work situation ofknowledge, competence, and attitudesacquired during training,” and Taylor (1997)states that in the professional world,knowledgetransferreferstoasituationwherea worker who has participated in a trainingprogram“succeeds inapplying inhiswork theknowledgeandskillsacquired.”

This demonstrates the informal nature ofknowledge transfer, especially through socialnetworks in the workplace. Interactionsbetween actors, the contextual environment,available equipment, and existing standardscanalsobesourcesofknowledge/skillstransferandsharingwithinanorganization.

Box3:Transferasseenbyfundingorganizations

NSERC: «outreach activities, including thepracticalapplicationofresearch».

SSHRC:«bringingtheknowledgegainedfrombothbasicandappliedresearchtofamilies,communitygroups,policy‐makers,legislators,businessleadersandthemedia».

CHSRF: it's a process that can take place «inmanysituationsandaroundvariousissues,[…]In specific research collaborations, it involvesplanning, producing, and disseminatingresearch, aswell as applying research findingsindecision‐makingprocesses.».

In general, thesedefinitionsplace emphasis ontheformalnatureofknowledgeandknowledge


14

transfer.Theyalsorecognizethatthe inventoryofknowledgeandskillsinorganizationscanalsoresult from practices and interactions.Knowledgetransfercanthereforealsooccuronaninformalbasisthroughsocialnetworksintheworkplace (Argote and Ingram, 2000; Lahti etal.,2002).

Theparticularitiesof knowledge transfer in theworkenvironment(andpointsoftendiscussed),are shown in Box 2 (p. 13). Box 3 (p. 13)presentsthedefinitionsusedbyvariousfundingorganizations.

1.1.2 KnowledgeExchangeandSharing

This term refers implicitly to the bidirectionalrelations between researchers/knowledgeproducers and users. It also refers to thecollaborative links between two sides, twocultures,ortwocommunities.

a) Etymology

Theword“exchange”hasitsoriginineconomics(referring to barter, giving something in returnfor something else). Later, it was used in thelegalfield(mutualconcessionofrights)beforeitwasadoptedinthesocialworld(e.g.circulationof established information in a reciprocalmanner).

b) Definitions

The CHSRF prefers this term to “knowledgetransfer,” which it considers too limited, (seeBox 4), especially with regard to interactions.TheCHSRF (2005) defines knowledgeexchangeandsharingasa“collaborativeproblem‐solvingbetween researchers and decisionmakers thathappens through linkage and exchange.” It isthrough interactions between researchers anddecisionmakers that “the process of planning,producing, disseminating, and applying existingor new research in decision‐making.” Morespecifically, the CHSRF defines the decisionmaker as the user, and problem resolution astheoutcome.

Thisdefinitionimpliesthatexchangetakesplaceboth ways: researchers place knowledge theyhavedevelopedat thedisposalofusersand, inreturn, users transmit practical knowledge and“contextsofuse”backtoresearchers.

1.1.3 Knowledgesharingandutilization

Access to knowledge does not guarantee itsutilization or effective application (Trottier etal., 2006; Landry et al., 2001). The term“knowledge sharing and utilization” thuspresentsknowledgetransferasanoutcome.

a) Etymology

Thenoun“utilization”originates fromtheLatinword “utilis,” meaning, “that which serves,”whichisitselfderivedfromtheLatinverb“uti,”which means “make useful” or “use.” Theconcept of “utilization” is still used today foranythingthatservesapurposeorisbeneficial.

b) Definition

Theutilizationofresearchfindingsisdefinedasthe process through which knowledge drawnfrom research is actually put in practice(Graham et al., 2006) or transformed intointerventions(Estabrooks,1999).

Someauthorsassociateitdirectlywithproblemsolving (e.g. knowledge translation for solvingproblemsintherealworld;Royetal.,1995)

Theseauthorsidentifythreekindsofutilization:

• instrumental(tomodifyanactionormakeadecision)

• conceptual (knowledge brings new ideasthat influence understanding; it does notnecessarily lead to short‐term actions ordecisions;suchuseismoreinformativethanprescriptive)

• symbolicor strategic (knowledge isusedasan authoritative argument to legitimize orjustifypositionsordecisions).


15

1.2 Areasofknowledgetransfer

Here, we will summarize the points of viewbased on the type of knowledge transferconsidered.Thefourtypes identifiedbelowareextensivelycoveredintheliterature.

1.2.1 Transferofresearchfindings

This is a process through which relevantinformation drawn from research findings ismade available strategically for practice,planning, or political decision‐making (Lavis etal., 2003). It has two dimensions: knowledgeavailability and knowledge appropriation bypossible users (Roy et al., 1995). This is thepreferredtermoffundingorganizations.

1.2.2 Technologytransfer

Thisreferseithertothe“transfertoindustryofuniversity research findings with the aim ofmarketing new products and services” (CST,2005)ortotheapplicationofnewtechnologiesor ideas in the workplace (Argabright, 1999).The concept of technology can be divided intotwo separate yet inter‐connected components:the “hardware,” made up of equipment andmachines, and the “software,” that includestraining programs, administrative practices,methods,etc.(Royetal.,1995).Asaresult,theterm can refer to the transfer of a “product”(knowledge), or the transfer of skills (know‐how)forutilizationandapplication(ConseildesSciencesetTechnologies,2005).

1.2.3 Transferoflearning

This term “brings into play psychologicalprocesses and mechanisms concerningmemorizing, comprehension (or apprehension),assimilation, and utilization of acquiredknowledge” (Orléron, 1971). In this sense,cognitive processes are emphasized since thepurpose of knowledge transfer is “to identifythe manner in which knowledge to betransferred is encoded, organized, even

automated, then recalled and activated”(Presseau et al., 2004). Focus is on themechanisms throughwhich knowledge or skillsacquiredinasourceactivityaretransferredtoatarget activity (Tardif, 1999). Hence, transferrefers to the “displacement” of the acquiredknowledge between two different situations:the learning context (the source) and theapplicationcontext(thetarget).

Finally, the purpose of transfer can also becentered on the mechanisms through whichresources acquired previously aremobilized tosolveaprobleminanewcontext.

1.2.4 Organizationaltransfer

Organizational transfer refers to acquiredknowledge or skills that are regarded as aresource to be shared and applied within anorganization in order to improve performance.There are two kinds of organizational transfer:intra‐organizationalandinter‐organizational.

The former refers to a “displacement” ofknowledge within the same organization. It isthe “process through which one unit (e.g.,group, department, or division) is affected bytheexperienceofanother”(ArgoteandIngram,2000). Here, we are interested in “allinteractions between individuals of the sameorganization who participate in constructingcollective knowledge by pooling ways ofthinking or other cognitive concepts (beliefs,ideologies, paradigms, etc.)” (Berthon, 2003).Transfer is referred to as inter‐organizationalwhenitiscenteredonknowledgedisseminationwithin a pool of companies through variousmethods (alliances, joint ventures, networks,etc.).


16

KeyReadings

1. Estabrooks C. et al. (2003). Individualdeterminants of research utilization: asystematic review. Journal of AdvancedNursing,Vol.43no5pp506–520

2. GrahamI.D.etal.(2006).LostinKnowledgeTranslation:TimeforaMap?TheJournalofContinuing Education in the HealthProfessions,Volume26,pp.13–24.

3. Landry R. et al. (2001). Utilization of socialscience research knowledge in Canada.ResearchPolicy,Vol.30,pp333‐349.

Box4:Terminologyfavouredbyfundingorganizations.

CIHR (2004) uses the term “knowledgetranslation,”which they define as «a dynamicand iterative process that includes synthesis,dissemination, exchange and ethically soundapplicationofknowledge».

NSERCC (2007) uses the term “knowledgetransfer,” which includes the transfer of skillstoendusers.Italsousestheterms“transferofresearch results” and “transfer of technology”withspecificallydefiningthem.

SSHRC (2005) prefers the term “knowledgesharing,” which consists of making knowledgefrombasicandapplied researchaccessible“tofamilies, community groups, policy makers,legislators,andthemedia.”

CHSRF (2007) uses “knowledge exchange”,whichitdefinesasaprocessthat«canhappenin many situations and around various issues[…] it involves planning, producing, anddisseminating research, as well as applyingresearch findings in decision‐makingprocesses».

FRSQ (2002) has adopted the terms “sciencedissemination” (diffusion in French) and“knowledge transfer” without specificallydefiningthem.

One of the four components of FQRSCprogramming relates to the “valorization” and“dissemination of research.” These twoconcepts are not specifically defined by theorganization. The FQRNT (2005) also uses the term“knowledgetransfer”andstressestheconceptof “valorization” and especially that of“innovation,” which it defines as a result “ofsynergy between researchers who developknowledge and technology (technology push)and users who transform this knowledge intomarketable products and processes (marketpull),aswellaspoliciesandrules.”


17

Chapter2:Relatedconceptsandvocabulary

Various other terms are used, such as“valorization” and “knowledge translation.”These can be seen as stemming from orincluded in the above terms and are thustreated separately. They aremore specific andplace emphasis on the application andutilization of research findings. The actualoutcomes and impact of research findings areimportant aspects. In the second part of thischapter, we will re‐examine commonterminologyrelatedtoknowledgetransfer.

2.1 Related knowledge transferconcepts

2.1. Knowledgetranslation

The CIHR (2004) defines this as being “adynamic and iterative process that includessynthesis,dissemination,exchangeandethicallysound application of knowledge” betweenresearchers and users. It is a vast concept thatranges from the creation of new knowledge—through its dissemination, exchange, transfer,management,andutilization—toitstranslation.AccordingtotheCIHR,thisdistinguishesitfromtheconcept“knowledgetransfer,”whichrefersrathertoaone‐waytransferofknowledgefromresearchers to users. It involves the“dissemination and experimentation of themost innovative practices, their utilization, andtheirdevelopmentwithinavarietyofcontexts”(EuropeanUnion,2005).

Valorization is aimed at “operationalizing”research findings. It constitutes a response tothe need to make them useful, applicable,beneficial,orprofitable.

2.1.2 Knowledgevalorization

It's «a process […] which consists in addingvalue to results of search, to knowledge, to aninvention or to an existing technology in orderto transform them into products, processes,services or technologies with innovative andeconomically profitable aspects (Baudry et al.,2006).

Box5:Knowledgetranslation

The CIHR’s lexicon translates “knowledgetranslation” (KT) as application desconnaissances.

Translation is the process of putting researchfindings and theproductsof research into thehands of key audiences. KT is about usingresearch knowledge to inspire people to thinkand/or act differently. (Canadian Institutes ofHealth[CIHR]inLyons&Warner,2005).

Knowledge translation is the exchange,synthesis, and ethically‐sound application ofknowledge—within a complex system ofinteractions among researchers and users—toaccelerate the capture of the benefits ofresearch for Canadians through improvedhealth, more effective services and products,and a strengthened health care system. CIHR,inGrahametal.(2006).

Box6:CIHR'sEnglish‐Frenchlexicon

AFrench/Englishlexiconisavailableathttp://www.cihr.ca/f/2168.html

Some concepts and their subtleties belong toonelanguageortheother.SeveralwordsusedintheFrenchversioncouldnotbefoundinthe


18

CIHRlexicon.

French and English etymologies are oftensimilar (English borrowed from French, whichwas derived from Latin) but the words haveevolved in different ways. A good example isthe word “translation,” which had the samemeaning in French and English during themiddleages. It isstillusedtodayinFrenchbutnot in the same way. However, Frenchhistorianscontinuetousethewordtranslationintheirwritingsaboutthemiddleages.

2.2 Relatedvocabulary

Inthissection,wereviewsomecommonlyusedterms related to knowledge transfer andaccording to the objects they refer to, be theytransfer methods or the knowledge orintermediariesinvolvedinthetransfer.

2.2.1 Transfermodes

a) Diffusion

This term originates from the Latin diffusio ordiffusium, meaning “act of spreading,” whichitself comes from theverb to “scatter,” that is,tospreadorcausealiteraryworktospreadoverawideareaoramongalargenumberofpeople.It is a process by which knowledge is spreadthrough certain channels over a periodof timeamongmembersof a social system (Royet al.,1995). It exceeds the notion of knowledgetransfer or the communication of researchfindings and derives from Roger’s theory ofdiffusion(1995).

b) Dissemination

From the Latin disseminatio meaning “act ofscattering,” this term comes from the verbdisseminare, i.e. “propagate, scatter.” It is aplanned process by which information andresults about a program or an initiative aredelivered to key actors (European Community,2005).

c) Transmission

FromLatintransmissio,whichitselfcomesfromtransmittere, meaning “to send to the otherside,deliver.”

d) Translation/totranslate

From the Latin translatio, ‐onis, originally usedinthesenseofrenderingfromone languagetoanother. In French, though superseded andreplacedbythewordtraduction,ithasretainedits use in law (in the sense of transfer) and inscience(displacementofanobject).Englishhasretained the word “translation” and “totranslate” and lost the term traduction. InEnglish, “translation” is also defined as“rewording something into less technicalterminology.”

e) Knowledgemobilization

This implies a certain number of actions andcomplex mental operations (adaptation,differentiation, integration, combination,coordination) inadeterminedcontext, inorderto transform knowledge. The concept ofmobilization is broader than “transfer” and ismore extensive than “utilization” or“application”(Perrenoud,1999).

f) Use/utilize/useful

Defined as an action or manner of using. Usemeans “the action of using something or thestateofbeingusedforsomepurpose.”

Utilizationisdefinedas“toputtouse,especiallyto find a profitable or practical use for”; itthereforehasanarrowersensethan“use.”

Useful is akin to “advantageous”; it is anadjective that means “able to be used for apracticalpurposeorinseveralways.”


19

Borrowed from the French in the 19th century,"Utilization" means "the action of usingsomethingor the stateof beingused for somepurpose".Theverb,«touse»has thenbecomevery usual whereas «Utilization» is defined as«toputtouse,especiallytofindaprofitableorpractical use for», therefore it has a narrowermeaningthan«touse»

Useful, from Latin utilis ("that is useful"),derivative from the verb uti ("to use") is anadjective that means "able to be used for apracticalpurposeorinseveralways".

2.2.2 Nature/transformationofKnowledge

a) Evidence‐baseddatas

Lomasetal. (2005)defineevidence‐baseddataas “anything that establishes a fact or givesreason for believing in something.” From ascientificviewpoint,evidence‐baseddataisthatwhich is“explicit (i.e.codedandpropositional),systemic (using clear and explicit codingmethods), and repeatable (i.e. by applying thesame methods to the same samples, oneobtainsthesameresults).”

b) Innovation

Innovation is about bringing changes in aproduct, a process, an organization, a practice,etc. In a technical process, we talk of“technological innovation,” meaning“technologicallynewproductsandprocessesaswell as important technological improvementsapplied to products and processes” (CE, 1997).From a social standpoint, innovation is definedas “an entirely new approach, practice, orintervention, or a new product used byinstitutes, organizations, and communities forimproving a situation or solving a socialproblem”(Bouchard,1999).

2.2.3 Intermediaries

Intermediaries are agents who have a specificprofile(credibility,abilitytoinfluence,presencein thecommunity,etc.)andareresponsible fordisseminating the knowledge to be transferred(Bourdouxhe et Gratton, 2003). Three types ofintermediaries are cited: knowledge brokers,liaisonofficers,andgatekeepers.

Theword“intermediary”referstoanactiverolein knowledge transmissionbetweenknowledgeproducersandusers.

a) Knowledgebroker

Higgins (2000) defines knowledge brokers aspersonswhofacilitatecommunication,accesstoinformation, and exchange of informationamongmembersofanetwork.Brokers“searchout knowledge, synthesize research and scanfor best practices, useful experiences, andexamples from outside their ownorganization” (CHSRF, 2003) which they thentrytopromotetoensuretheirapplication.

b) Liaisonofficer

A liaison officer is a person who is in contactwithbothresearchersandknowledgeusers.Heor she is a sort of facilitator betweenresearchersandusers,enablingthemtointeractandmakeknowledgetransferpossible.Theroleofaliaisonofficercanbeformal(recognized)orinformal. Inoccupationalhealthandsafety, theliaison officer can be an individual or aninstitution.

c) Gatekeeper

AccordingtoRoyetal.(1995),agatekeeperisatthe leadingedgeofacompanyandplaysakeyrole in its communication network; agatekeeper is usually a member of a trade orscientificassociation.Agatekeepercanact inaformal or informal way and is in charge ofrelaying information from the outside to theinsideoftheworkenvironment.


20

Keyreadings

1. Beaudry D. et al. (2006). Chaînes devalorisation de résultats de la rechercheuniversitairerecelantunpotentield’utilisationpar une entreprise ou par un autre milieu.Étude. Conseil de la science et de latechnologie

2. CHSRF (2003). La théorie et la pratique ducourtagedeconnaissancesdanslesystèmedesantécanadien.Rapport

3. CIHR (2004). Stratégie liée à l'application desconnaissances 2004‐2009. L'innovation àl'œuvre.

4. LomasJ. (2000).Ladiffusionet l’utilisationdelarecherche.Isuma,Vol.1no1pp140‐144.

Part II: Tools used to study the transfer: Models and structural organization

21

Part II: Tools used to study transfer: Models and struturalorganization

Depending on the approaches and definitionsadopted, thevariousmodelshave specificdatastructures,stages,andwaystodescribetransferprocesses. The main (typical) models aresummarizedinChapter3.Theirdifferenceslieintheirrepresentationofexchangeflowsbetweenknowledgeproducersandusers,eitherinlinearfashion or through many interactions. As well,eachmodelemphasizesaparticulardimension.For example, intra‐organizational modelsemphasize factors and mechanisms thatdetermineknowledgeuse.Informationcreationand dissemination models emphasize theinformation per se. For example, Nonaka andTakeuchi’s model (1995) is based on thedistinction between tacit and explicitknowledge, implying different methods oftransfer. Researches may adopt a dimensionthat best suits their own perspectives orobjectives.

The development of increasingly complexmodels with multiple levels of analysis hasencouraged researchers to divide theknowledge transfer process into various levels(individual, group, organization) and stages(transformation,dissemination,reception,etc.),whichenables them tomore clearly define thepurposeoftheirresearch(seeChapter4).

Secondly, since the knowledge transferstrategiescitedbyauthorsarepartiallylinkedtoknowledge transfer stages, we will also reviewthe former in this chapter. These strategiesreflect the relative importance given to somestages.

Thirdly, some authors provide data anddiscussion on intervention methods to fosterknowledge transfer. This is an importantresearcharea,butsinceitismainlylinkedtothefield of education, we have decided not toincludeithere.


22

Chapter3:Maintheoreticalmodels

Models are classified according to three maincategories described in Chapter 1. Modelsreferringtoknowledgetransfer(Section3.1)aregenerally developed around the flow ofexchanges. These exchanges are increasinglycomplexfromonecategoryofmodeltoanotherasuserroleincreases.Interactionsarecentralinexchange and sharing models, but theidentification and organization of exchangegroups is more prominent. Knowledgeproductionisrepresentedhereasbeingdiffuse.In the last group (3.3), utilization is central tothe models. Suggested classifications are builtonthe“who”and“why”dimensions.

Models presented in the literature areincreasinglycomplex.Userrole isbecomingtheprimary factor. Users can be involved in manystages of the process: knowledge creation,dissemination, adoption, appropriation, andutilization.

Intheend,themodelselectedasaworkingtooldependsonthedisciplineandpurposeofstudy.Wehavealsothusincludedasummaryofmodelcharacteristicsbasedondiscipline (Box6,p.18)since this helps explain the viewpoints andexpectations of “assessors” and the variousresearchorganizations.

3.1 Knowledgetransfer

Models are generally focussed on theknowledgetransferprocessbetweenproducersandusers.

This transfer is represented by linear/unidirectional, bidirectional, or interactiveflows. These exchange flows becomecollaboration bonds that intensify from onemodeltoanother,leadingtotheintroductionof“mediators” such as knowledge brokers. User

roleevolvesandmanyelementsareintroduced,ranging from the definition of problems andneeds to the contribution and production ofknowledge.

3.1.1 Linear(unidirectional)models

Knowledge is passed unidirectionally fromresearchers (producers) to users (receivers),either directly (Figure 1) or through translatingagents responsible for disseminating theknowledge(Figure2).

Figure 1: Boggs' model of knowledge linear transfer(1992).

Figure2:Modelofknowledgelineartransferthroughtranslators(Dissanayake,1986inRoyetal.,1995).

These translators are located at several levelsand come from various sources: employers(administrators, human resource managerstraining managers, etc.), trade unionists(delegates, health and safety committeerepresentatives, etc.) public or parapublicinstitutions(CSSTinspectors,advisorsfromJSAs,etc.), or the private sector (ergonomists,hygienists, prevention experts, etc.). Their roleremainsquitelimitedinthesemodels.


23

Thedynamicaspectofthesemodelsisgenerallyrepresentedbytheknowledgeproducers,whileusershaveamorepassiverole.Thisisthebasisofthecriticismagainstthesetransfermodels,inthat the roles of researchers and users arecompartmentalized into two distinctcommunities and limited to “one‐way”exchanges. User concerns and realities arebarelytakenintoaccount,ifatall.Theinfluenceof context and individual characteristics (level,experience, etc.) on the process or on thepurpose of the transfer is absent (Lyons andWarner, 2005). In short, this type of model iscriticized for being applied in unsuitablecontexts.

3.1.2 Collaborativemodels

These models introduce the idea of regularinteractionsbetweenknowledgeproducersandusers. Exchanges are specifically aimed atintegrating user concerns when defining thepurpose of the research. Depending on thecomplexity of the suggested model, theseexchangesalso takeplace in thevarious stagesofresearch,e.g.resultsvalidationandutilization(Lyons & Warner, 2005). The role of the userthusbecomesmoreimportant.Atitsbasiclevel,the exchange flow is bidirectional (Figure 3,below).

Figure3:Boggs'bidirectionaltransfermodel(1992).

These collaborative models are also used toshow relationships that exist between the twoknowledge creation centres, namely, researchand action. These relationships arecharacterizedbyanalternative,continuous,andprogressive flow that can take the form of aspiral,forexample(Figure4).

Figure 4: Bouchard and Gélinas' spiral transfer model(Gélinas,1990).

These relationships do not change thespecificities of each community (e.g. researchandpractice).

3.1.3 Interactionistmodels

Interactionist models depict exchange flowsmoreelaborately;here, theexchange isusuallycircular.Thesemodelsinvolve,ononehand,theexistence of collaborative relations between aset of actors, and on the other hand, aconsideration of the context in whichresearchers and users operate and in whichknowledge transfer takes place. An example isthe model proposed by Roy et al. (1995),describing a network of actors involved in theknowledge creation, diffusion, and utilizationprocess (Figure 5, p.23). In this model,knowledgeistheresultofinteractionsbetweenactors from different systems (workplace,supporting organizations, trade associations,universities,entrepreneurs,CSST,IRSST,etc.).

Figure 5: Transfer model according to the knowledgesupport network of Roy et al. (1995).


24

This model has since evolved with theintegrationofthesystemicaspectofknowledgetransfer (Figure6,below), that is,by relyingongeneration, diffusion, absorption, andadaptationabilities.

Figure 6: Ability‐based knowledge transfer dynamics(Parent,Roy,St‐Jacques,2007).

This model was initially derived from anexaminationofneedsandexistingknowledge.

3.2 Knowledgeexchangeandsharing

Inknowledgeexchangeandsharingmodels,theinteraction process between various socialgroups such as researchers, decision makers,andusersiscentral(Figure7,below)andresultsin exchange networks. Researchers produceknowledge that can be improved by feedbackfromusersthroughexchangechannels.

Figure7:Boggs' knowledgeexchangeand sharingmodel(1992).

3.3 Knowledgesharingandutilization

Centraltothesemodelsaretheendproduct,i.e.the utilization of findings (e.g. Weiss, 1979;Landry et al., 1998; Hanney et al., 2003), theassessment of the extent to which objectivesare attained, and the influence and impact ofresultsthroughtheirapplicationandutilization.These models are notably used in politicaldecision‐makingandpolicyformulation.

WeusetheclassificationproposedbyTrottier&Champagne (2006), which is similar to that ofWeiss (1979) (to be explored in the nextsection), but in which the five classes aredefinedmorebroadly:

• Expert models (knowledge‐driven).Knowledge is ameans of achieving changeand innovation; it is transmittedunidirectionally.

• Problemsolvingmodels.Knowledgeismadeaccessible and easy to use in order tofacilitate decision‐making or solving aparticularproblem.

• Conceptual models. The application ofproduced knowledge is not immediate butrequires a longer and more intensivedisseminationperiod.

• Strategic models. Knowledge utilization istheresultofpowerplaysamongactors.

• Interactive models. Only interactive andmultidimensional exchanges among actorsensure the application of the knowledgeproduced.

Other interesting classifications are suggested, two ofwhicharesummarized inBox7below.ThatofLandryetal. (1999) is focusedon the “decision”and/orutilization(or non‐utilization) of knowledge and research findings,whilethatofLavisetal.(2003)iscenteredontheprocessinitiator.


25

Box 7: Classification of research utilization modelsaccordingtoLandryetal.(1999)andLomasetal.(2003).

Landryet al. (1999). Four categories basedonthe nature and determining factors ofutilization:

• Technological (the utilization of researchfindingsisbasedonhowresearchersmakethemavailabletousers)

• Economic (knowledge utilization is mainlyexplainedbyuserneedandcontexts)

• Institutional (knowledge utilization isdriven by the adaptation of researchfindings touserneedandoneffortsmadefortheirdissemination)

• Social interaction (knowledge utilizationdepends on the level of interactionbetweenresearchersandusers)

Lavis et al. (2003). Three categories based onwhoinitiatesthetransferprocess:

• Producer‐push model (researchers initiateknowledge transfer and place theirresearchfindingsatthedisposalofusers)

• User‐pull model (users initiate theidentification and utilization of knowledgeproducedbyresearchers)

• Exchange model (initiatives related to theutilizationofresearchfindingsaretakenbyboth researchers and users based oninteraction).

3.4 Otherproposedmodelclassifications

Weiss(1979)proposessixcategoriesdefinedbycontextand,aboveall,intendedpurpose:

• Knowledge‐driven models (knowledge isusedtodefinenewpolicies)

• Problem‐solvingmodels (knowledge isusedtosolveproblems)

• Interactive models (based on exchangesbetweenthepartiesinvolved)

• Political model (knowledge is used forjustificationandlegitimization)

• Tactical model (knowledge is used as apretext)

• Enlightenmentmodel(knowledgeisusedasaninputtobuildmoreknowledge).

3.5 Modelsanddisciplines

Models reflect the various perspectives andneeds of the disciplines and applications theyrepresent.Thisisthecaseformodelsrelatingtothe transfer of learning, which is a broad areabeyond the scope of this guide. It is worthnoting, however, that these models are linkedto three lines of thought: 1) empiricist (taskcharacteristics are crucial), 2) rationalist (basedon cognitive processes), and 3) contextualist/interactionist (characteristics of theenvironmentinwhichknowledgetransfertakesplacearecentral).

Box8 summarizes thekeydifferencesbetweenthemodelsaccordingtodiscipline.


26

Box 8: Characteristics of theoretical models based ondiscipline.

The purpose and orientation of theoreticalmodelsvaryaccordingtodiscipline.Themodelsof four disciplines—management, socialsciences, health, and education—aresummarizedbelow.

The theoretical models developed inmanagementsciences areaimedatdescribingthe mechanisms through which certainmeasure, e.g. training activities, produceeffects on individual/organizationalperformance, behavioural changes, andproblematicsituations(problemsolving).

In the social sciences, the main theoreticalmodels describe processes inherent inknowledge transfer in the framework of aparticular social system. These models takeintoaccountaspectssuchasthespecificitiesofthe social system, and the exchanges andinteractions created by transfers betweenseveralactors.

Theoretical models in the health sciencesemphasize a global approach (dissemination,sharing, exchange, interactions, etc.) whosepurpose is to identify mechanisms related toknowledge transfer that ensure goodprofessional practice and facilitate decision‐makingandpolicyformulation.

Theoretical models in the education sciencesfocusonthetransferoflearning.Usually,thesemodels adopt a cognitive information‐processing approach. They are generallycenteredontransferdynamicsbypayingmoreattention to the cognitive processes usedduring knowledge transfer and for strategiesrelatedtotheseprocesses.

Keyreadings

1. Trottier L‐H. and Champagne F. (2006).L'utilisation des connaissancesscientifiques: au cœur des relations decoopération entre les acteurs. R06‐05. Éd:GRIS,UniversitédeMontréal,pp41

2. Tardif J. (1999). Le transfert desapprentissages (Eds). Montréal: ÉditionsLogiques

3. Estabrooks C. et al. (2004). KnowledgeutilizationRessourceGuide


27

Chapter4:Transferstepsandstrategies

Stages of the knowledge transfer process aredescribed differently from one author toanother and from one discipline to another.These stages can be divided and described indifferent ways. In the first section, we willpresent the main stages from threeperspectives:knowledgedissemination,transferprocess management, and knowledgeutilization. In the second section, we willsummarize the main strategies described toachieveknowledgeutilization.

4.1 Knowledgetransfersteps

4.1.1 Stages in communication models(dissemination)

For many years, issues related to knowledgetransfer were reduced to the notion ofknowledgeaccessibilityandapproached fromacommunicationperspective.Asaresult,Rogers’(1995) communication model, developed fromanalyzing over 3,000 studies on technologicalinnovation, influencedmanytheoreticalmodelsregarding knowledge transfer. A good exampleis Szulanski’s (2000) transfer process model(Figure 8), which is divided into four stages:initiation, implementation, ramp‐up, andintegration.

Figure8:Transferstages fromSzulanski (2000)accordingtothecommunicationmodel

The initiation stage is used to identify theproblem to be solved as well as thecorresponding knowledge. During the secondstage, the identified knowledge is modified toadapt to the problem. The third stage tacklesknowledge translation and its difficulties.Finally, the last stage deals with theinstitutionalization of the knowledge that isactually transferred, in other words, itsappropriation.

4.1.2 Stagesinmanagementmodels(processmanagement)s

Management models describe knowledgetransfer as aprocesswithmultiple interactionsbeginningwith knowledge creation and endingwithutilization. ThemodelproposedbyRoyetal.(1995)describessixstages:

• Creation (knowledge development,including the creation of new knowledge,the redefinition of existing knowledge, andthe establishment of distinctions andrelationshipswithinexistingknowledge)

• Transformation (knowledge is re‐organized,processed, and adapted to facilitate itsdiffusion,accessibilityandtransferability)

• Diffusion(knowledgeistransmittedthroughspecific channels, over a certain period oftime, and between members of a socialsystem)

• Reception (the willingness to familiarizeoneselfwithknowledge)

• Adoption (the attitude or decision forrejectingoracceptingknowledge)

• Utilization (knowledge translation andimplementationinrealsituations).

Evenwhentheorganizationoftransferstagesislinear,itisgenerallyagreedthattheprocesscaninvolve iteration resulting in the repetition ofpreviousstages.


28

4.1.3 Stages fromhealthmodels:knowledgeutilization

From a review of 60 transfer theories andconceptual frameworks, Graham et al. (2006)attemptedtohighlightcommonalitiesregardingtheactioncycle, i.e.allactions likely leading tothe implementation of knowledge that isdeveloped.Theeightstagesidentifiedare:

• identification of the problem that needs tobesolved

• identification, review and choice ofappropriateknowledge

• knowledgeadaptationtothelocalcontext• assessmentofobstacles likelytoimpedeits

utilization• selection, adaptation, and implementation

of interventions likely to favour knowledgeutilization

• monitoringknowledgeutilization• assessment of results obtained after

knowledgeutilization• continuousknowledgeutilizationsupport.

4.2 Transferstrategies

A wide range of strategies to ensure theeffective utilization of knowledge transfer iscited in the literature. They differ according tomany factors, particularly the intendedobjectivesandthecontext.Taking intoaccountthe utilization of results or transferredknowledge is important both in terms ofopportunities (matching user need withdeveloped knowledge), and means (possibilityoftransformingknowledgeintoappropriateandeasy‐to‐usetools).

4.2.1 Disseminationstrategies

An important part of strategies that aredeveloped is based on communication byfavouring knowledge dissemination amongactual and potential users. In fact, transferstrategy is often confused with disseminationstrategy. Nonetheless, the intended goal ofdeveloping dissemination strategies is also tofavour discussion and sharing betweenresearchersandusers.

4.2.2 Planning for transfer prior to theresearchproject

These strategies are aimed at planning for orintegrating the transfer aspect prior to startingtheresearch.Thisinvolvesdrawingupaplaninwhich a number of items are outlined, forexample, research justification and objectives,potential users, messages to be disseminated,andappropriatesupports.

Box 9: Transfer strategies of federal fundingorganizations.

For the CIHR, the strategy for fosteringknowledge translation consists in developingpartnerships between actors such as decisionmakers, health planners and administrators,healthcare providers, the general public(especially patient groups), and those in theprivatesector.

The NSERCC develops its strategy fortransferringresearchfindingsandtechnologicalinnovations through partnerships withuniversities, governments, and privatebusiness, and through advanced training ofhighlyqualifiedpersonnel.

In addition tomeasures aimed at encouraginginteraction and establishing links betweenresearchers and users by setting uppartnerships (such as Community‐UniversityResearch Alliances) to promote knowledgetransfer, the SSHRC has opted to developsystemic mechanisms that facilitate contact


29

among players, provide access to pertinentresearch findings, and promote anunderstanding of the applicability and theimplicationsofknowledgetobetransferred.

AsfortheCHSRF,therecommendedstrategyismore developed. It can be summarized in thefollowingeightpoints:

• highlight the main messages andimplications of research findings in clear,simple,activeterms;

• designatecredible“messengers”;• identify key audience of decision makers

forwhomthemessagesareintended;• develop means of transmitting the

messages to the targeted audiences andencourage them to integrate researchimplicationsintheirwork;

• facilitateaccesstoinformation;• promote the development and

establishmentofpracticecommunities;• ensure collaboration between researchers

andusers;• evaluatetheresultsofknowledgetransfer.

4.2.3 Turningknowledgeintotools

These strategies emphasize the transformationofknowledgeor research findings intoadaptedand usable tools (e.g. decision‐making tools ortools to help solve a problema situation). Forexample, user guides are created to promotegood practices. This strategy is particularlyencouraged for the prevention, diagnosis,treatment, and management of occupationalMSDs(Harris,1997).Inoccupationalhealthandsafety, user guides (design, analysis,assessment)areanimportantpartofknowledgetransferstrategy.

4.2.4 Preferred strategies of fundingorganizations

Some research institutes, through theirdocumentation, specify their preferredstrategies(see Box 9).With only one exception(CHSRF), most deal with the issue of strategyvery briefly and focus mainly on thedevelopmentofpartnerships.

Keyreadings

1. Duperré M. (2006). Innovations socialesdans les organismes communautaires:facteurs intervenant dans le processus detransfert des connaissances. Cahiers duCentre de recherche sur les innovationssociales (CRISES). Collection Étudesthéoriques‐noET0603

2. Berta W. B. andBaker R. (2004). Factorsthat Impact the Transfer and Retention ofBest Practices for Reducing Error inHospitals.HealthCareManagementReview.Vol.29,Iss.2;pp.90‐98.

Part III: Studies on knowledge transfer

31

PartIII:Studiesonknowledgetransfer

InPart III,wediscussknowledge transferasanobjectofstudyorresearchtopic.

It is understood that the intended goals ofknowledge transfer activities (problem solving,decision‐making, “best practices,” innovation,etc.)requirethatprogressbeassessedateverystage, from knowledge production to itseffective implementation. Indeed, this aspecthas been included in several models. Forexample,mostmodelsused for theapplicationof research findings include an assessment oftheinfluenceandimpactofsuchfindings.

We thus felt it appropriate to start with achapter dealing with transfer assessment thatproposes a conceptual framework forassessment and that clarifies certain concepts(e.g. differences between results, effects, andimpacts).

Assessment also enables one to question themany factors that determine efficient andeffective knowledge transfer (adoptedstrategies,therolesandlevelsofinvolvementofall parties, their relationships, the degree ofimplementation of knowledge transfer actions,thenatureofeffectedchanges,etc.).Intheend,the aim is to identify factors that fosterknowledge transfer as well as those thatmustbe considered in a particular transfer project.This will be covered in Chapter 6. The lastchapter deals with impacts and consequences,thegoalbeingtoidentifythedirectandindirecteffect(intendedornot)oftransferactions.


32

Chapter5:Assessingtransfers:conceptualframework

An assessment consists of forming a judgmenton an intervention (Patton, 2002). The term“assessment” also refers to a process, assystematic and objective as possible, by whichthe value and extent of an intendedintervention is determined, whether it is inprogress or completed (OECD, 2002). Sincethereisstillsomeconfusionregardingtheterm,the following section is intended to clarifycertainnotions.

Knowledge transfer assessment can focus ondifferent aspects depending on several factors,including the objectives of the assessment, thecontext, or themeans at one’s disposal. ThesearereviewedinSection5.2.

5.1 Semantic clarifications regardingassessment

The assessment of knowledge transfer or thetransfer of research findings can be performedby using the transfer process itself or byfocussingontheresultsobtained.

In transfer, process assessment is important,giventhatthevariousactorsinvolvedintransferhavenumerousandcomplexinteractions.Froman assessment standpoint, the process can bedefined as “all the internal operations, bothformal and informal, of an intervention thatenableus toattaindesiredobjectives” (Rondotand Bouchard, 2003). It involves identifying allmechanisms through which a transfer ofknowledgeorresearchfindingstakesplace.

Assessing transfer by its results involvesverifying if the intended effects match thosedeterminedattheoutset.Thisoftentakesplacewithin the framework of a normativeassessment in which the original intention iscompared to what was actually accomplished.This isexplainedby theneed toverifywhether

theobjectivesofaknowledge transferdecisionwere attained from the point of view of bothusers and researchers. However, this does notprecludetheuseofevaluativeresearch.

The results include concepts such as “effects,”“results,” and “impacts” (seeBox8),which areinterconnected but have different meanings interms of purpose, range, and outcome. Theseconceptual differences are shown in Table 1based on four items: purpose (what theassessment relates to), range (scope of theassessment), temporal aspects (the stage orperiodinwhichtheassessmentmustbecarriedout), and outcome (what is expected from theassessment).

Box10:Effectvsresultvsimpact

Effect

An effect can be defined as an «intended orunintendedchangeduedirectlyorindirectlytoanintervention»(OECD,2002).

Results

The notion of “results” can be defined aschanges caused by an intervention andresulting in direct effects. Thus, resultsconstitute all the effects expected fromresearchfindingsorfromknowledgetransfer.

Impact

The notion of impact can be defined as«positiveandnegative,primaryandsecondarylong‐term effects produced by a developmentintervention,directlyor indirectly, intendedorunintended»(OECD,2002). Itgoesbeyondthedefinition of “results” and includes indirecteffects(positiveandnegative).


33

5.2 Thecomponentsofknowledgetransferassessment

Faced with the plethora of items to which anassessment can relate, we have decided togroupthemintosixmainpointsbasedonatimecriterion(fromknowledgecreationtotheactualeffectsoftransfer).

• The knowledge creation process aims atindentify and analyzing the relationships,interactions, and contexts in whichknowledge is developed by researchers inrelationtorealorpotentialusers.

• The knowledge provision process. Theassessment aims, on one hand, to identifythe mechanisms of knowledgetransformation created to facilitate theiraccessibility and transferability, and on theother hand, to support the processes bywhich this knowledge is propagated toreachrealorpotentialusers.

• Knowledge appropriation accounts for thelevel of acquisition, integration, andconsolidation of the knowledge transferredby real or potential users (persons orentities).

• Knowledgeutilizationinvolvesverifyingtheextent to which transferred knowledge isactuallyappliedbyusers.

• Transfer results involves measuring theextent to which the implicit or explicitobjectivesoutlinedattheoutsethavebeenattained, aswell as the changes, decisions,and policies that result from a knowledgetransfer action. It consists in verifyingwhether the results match those initiallyexpected.

• Impacts. This involves measuring theindirectorunexpectedeffectsofknowledgetransfer. It also involves verifying whetherthe effective application of the transferredknowledge results in effects other thanthoseinitiallyexpectedordesired.

Keyreadings

1. Hanney S. et al. (2003). The utilisation ofhealth research in policy‐making: concepts,examples and methods of assessment.Health Research Policy and Systems, Vol. 1no2pp28

2. Machin A. M. and Fogarty G. J. (2004).Assessing the antecedents of transferintentions in a training context.International Journal of Training andDevelopment,Vol.8no3pp222‐236


34

Table1:Maindifferencesbetweenconcepts:Effects,resultsandimpacts.

Effects Results Impacts

Subject

Theassessmentcentersonchangesthatresultorcouldresultfromatransferaction.

Theassessmentconsistsincomparingchangesresultingdirectlyfromatransferactionwiththoseinitiallyexpected.

Theassessmentusuallyidentifiesandanalyzesthepossibleconsequencesofthechanges(intendedornot;positiveornegative),directlyorindirectlyrelatedtoatransferaction.

Scope

Changesthatareincludedarethosethatwereanticipatedandthosethatactuallytookplace.Theassessmentofthesechanges(expectedornot)isrestrictedtothosethatresultdirectlyorindirectlyfromthetransferaction.

Theexpectedchanges(initiallyanticipated)arethestandardsonwhichanalysesarebased.Alleffects(orresults)obtainedanddirectlyduetothetransferactionarecomparedtothesestandards.

Impactsincludeboth:

• Changesobtainedthatresultdirectlyfromthetransferaction(results);

• Changesobtainedthatresultindirectlyfromthetransferaction(externalinfluences).

Temporalperspective

Changescanoccurateverystageofthetransferaction(immediate,intermediate,short‐term,orlong‐termeffects).

Sameasabove. Theimpactsofatransferactioncannotbeassessedinthelongterm.

Outcome

Verifythepresenceofvariationsfollowingtheimplementationofatransferaction.

Checkandexplainhowthesevariationscameabout(influencesandinteractionsamongallelementsinvolved,especiallygiventhecontext).

Verifywhethertheobjectives(intermediateorfinal,specificorgeneral)intendedattheoutsethavebeenattainedand,ifpossible,towhatextent.

Examinetherelationshipbetweentheresultsobtained,thevariousaspectsofthetransferaction(processes,means,etc.),andthecontext.

Measuretheresultsobtained;identifyandanalyzeallinteractionsthatmayhaveinfluencedtheresults.

Checkifthereareeffectsindirectlylinkedtotheapplicationofatransferaction,andwhethertherearepossiblelinksbetweenthevariouselementsinvolved.


35

Chapter6:Factorsthatfostertransfer

Many studies focus on factors that facilitateknowledgetransfer.Althoughthesefactorsmayvary depending on the intended objectives,strategy, or context, somehave gainedgeneralacceptance. For example, most of us wouldagree that the implementation of researchfindings ismadeeasier,asnotedbytheJosephRowntreeFoundation(2000),by:

• providing solutions on issues of concern tousersinatimelymanner;

• defining a clear strategy for disseminatingfindingsfromtheoutset;

• combining several methods fordisseminatingfindings;

• ensuring that officials of user organizationsplay a leadership role, and that there arecredible knowledge relayers within theseorganizations.

The potential factors are numerous. They havebeenidentifiedandclassifiedintofoursections.The first section (6.1) examines the factorsidentified and attempts to establish a linkwiththeoreticalmodels. In the second section (6.2),factorsareclassifiedaccordingtowhethertheybelong to a national or an organizationalintervention level. To avoid redundancy, wehavelimitedourselvestoidentifyingfactorsthatarespecificornewtoastage.Thethirdsection(6.3) deals with factors related to theclassificationspresentedinthelastsection(6.4)basedonpurpose.

6.1 Factorsrelatedtotheoreticalmodels

These factors serve to feed and validate thesuggestedtheoreticalmodels.

6.1.1 Lineartransfermodels

Wepresenthere the listestablishedbyGélinasand Pilon (1994). This list gives prominence to

the origin and perception of knowledge andpresentspositivefactorsasfollows:

• researcher credibility determines thecredibilityoftheresults

• researchertrustworthiness• scientificqualityoftheresearch• clarity, accessibility, and comprehension of

researcherdiscourse• perception of the usefulness of research

findings• timelinessofresultsdissemination• qualityand relevanceof themediaused to

carryoutthetransfer• influence (social, normative, and affective)

of the social network on the behaviour ofusers

• supportofthehierarchyandofpeers

• context of utilization (working conditions,workingatmosphere,organizationalculture,etc.).

6.1.2 Collaborativemodels

Indeed,manyofthefacilitatingfactorsdealwiththecollaborationprocess.WehaveusedthelistdrawnupbyDuperré(2006):

• establishmentof linksbetween researchersand user communities from the project’soutset

• usersparticipationandinteraction• userconcerns• supplyingsuitabletransfertools

• presenting research results in a clear,concise, user‐friendly, and attractivemanner.


36

6.1.3 Interactionmodels

Landryetal.(1998)insiston:

• thenatureofresearchresults• userorganizationalinterests• disseminationeffortsandmechanisms.

6.2 Factors connected with the level ofintervention

6.2.1 Organizationallevel

Wehaveselected the five factors suggestedbyJacobsonetal.(2004):

• preparationandpromotionofguides• existence of resources and financialmeans

tocarryouttheresearch• existenceofinternalstructuresthatsupport

andfosterthetransfer• developmentofanorientationplanpriorto

carryingouttheresearch• preparingthedocumentation.

6.2.2 Nationallevel

We found it useful to present here theviewpoint of a national organization (CHSRF,1999) regarding factors that foster knowledgeexchangeandsharing:

• involvement of funding organizations thatare invited to head actions aiming atinstilling an environment favourable toexchangeandsharing

• resourceallocation(allpartiesshouldsupplyresources and/or identify costs related toexchangeandsharing)

• role of decision‐makers (they must getinvolvedatanearlystageandparticipateinthe preparation and reception of researchresults to be used in the decision‐makingprocess)

• development by all the parties of aninfrastructure aiming at supportingexchangeandsharing.

6.3 Factorsrelatedtocategories

Laroche (2006) suggests factors that aregroupedintosixcategories:

• knowledge (nature, adaptation, andrelevanceoftheknowledgeproduced)

• accessibility of knowledge and means ofdissemination

• socialrelationsinknowledgeacquisition• dissemination• nature and context of the source

(researcher)

• natureandcontextoftheuser.

6.4 Synthesisof the factorsbasedon theirpurpose

Table 2 contextualizes factors based on eachstageofthetransferprocess.Wehaveusedtheclassification by Roy et al. (4.1) to which wehaveaddeda stage—appropriation (knowledgeacquisition and integration in view ofutilization). The categories described in Section6.3 are repeatedherebut in stepwise fashion.For example, the notion of context is usedrepeatedly.

Keyreadings

1. Lucas L.M (2005). The impact of trust andreputationonthetransferofbestpractices.Journal of Knowledge Management; vol. 9no4pp87‐101

2. Berta W. B. and Baker R. (2004). FactorsThat Impact the Transfer and Retention ofBest Practices for Reducing Error inHospitals.HealthCareManagementReview.Vol.29,Iss.2;pp.90‐98.


37

Table2:Maintransferfactorsordeterminants.

Step Transferfactorsanddeterminants

Researcher’scharacteristics

• Theresearcher’sreputation,experience,andcredibility• Theresearcher’savailabilityandcommitment• Theresearcher’sinvolvementinnetworks

Relevance of theresearchtoneeds

• Therelevance,utility,andappropriatenessoftheresearch• Takinguserconcernsintoaccount

Resources • Means(equipment)attheresearcher’sdisposal• Amountoffinancingallotted

Involvement ofusers

• Participationofusersintheresearch• Participationofdecision‐makersintheresearch

Creation

Context of theresearch

• Researchsupportpolicies• Supportfromfundingorganizations• Existenceofpersonsandorganizationsasintermediaries

TransformationTransformationcontext

• Adaptingknowledgetousers’characteristics,requirements,levels,andprofile• Clarityandaccessibilityofthelanguage• Policiesthatsupportthedisseminationofresearchfindings

Supports andchannels used fortransfer

• Type, attractiveness, user friendliness of the supports used (paper, downloadabledocument)

• Selectionofsuitabledisseminationchannels:guides,periodicals,Internet• Informationmeetingsabouttheknowledgetobetransferred• ExistenceofadisseminationstrategyDissemination

Knowledgedisseminationcontext

• Existenceofnetworks,researchcommunities,etc.• Existenceandinvolvementofrelayingpeopleandorganizations• Policiessupportingthedisseminationofresearchfindings• Supportbyfundingorganizations

Context • Existenceofintermediaries• Accesstoresults

Reception

Usercharacteristics• Short‐termbenefits• Users’levelofeducation• Users’motivation

AdoptionKnowledgeusefulness

• Perceivedusefulnessoftheknowledgetobetransferred• Conformitybetweenknowledgeandproblemstobesolved• Interactionsbetweenknowledgeproducersandusers

Support received byusers

• Availabilityofinternalresources(keypersons,committees,etc.)• Informationmeetings

Appropriationcontext

• Organizationalcontext:learningorganization,organizationallearning,• Interactions

Knowledgeappropriation

Usercharacteristics • Users’levelofeducation• Users’motivation

Userattitudes

• Motivationstoadaptandutilizeknowledge• Perceptionoftheusefulnessofknowledge• Perceptionofthecredibilityofpossibleresults• Confidencetoutilizetheknowledge• Expectedbenefits

Usercharacteristics

• Users’qualifications• Abilitytounderstandandutilizeknowledge• Trainingreceived• Earlierexperiencesofsimilarknowledgeutilization

Knowledgeutilization

Utilizationcontext• Support(peers,hierarchy/organization,advisorsfromaJSAortheCSST,etc.)• Internalresources(meetingsandinformationmeetings,internalcommittees,etc.)• Organizationalfactors(workload,decisionlatitudes,climate,etc.)


38

Chapter7:Assessingtransferimpacts

Impactassessmentcanbejustifiedbytheneedto understand the effects (direct and indirect,intended or not) of a transfer action. Themultiplicity of actors, the existence ofinteractions, and the influence of the contextmake impact assessment relevant or evennecessarybecause, in somecircumstances, it isdifficult or even impossible to isolate theexpected effects of a transfer from all theeffects realized. Thus, after specifyingwhatwemean by impact assessment (7.1), we willdiscuss the various other levels of assessmentbyspecifyingeachoftheirpurposes(7.2).

7.1 Impact assessment of knowledgetransfer

Assessing the impact of knowledge transferfocuses on whether the effectiveimplementation of the transferred knowledgeproducedcertaineffects(expected,unexpected,positive, negative). The complexity of theimpactassessmentprocess is strongly linked tothemultiplicityoffactorsthatcomeintoplayinproducing the direct and indirect resultsthroughouttheknowledgetransferprocess.

Factorstobetakenintoaccountdependonthebranches of industry (health, education,management,engineers,etc.)oronthekindofactivities within an organization in which thetransfer takes place. Specificities must beconsidered in every instance in the evaluation.However, beyond these specificities, some ofthe factors to be considered include thefollowing:

• valorization of transferred knowledge intoinnovative and profitable products,processes,services,ortechnologies;

• progress and advances (social, medical,technical, etc..) made possible by theapplicationofthetransferredknowledge;

• decisions made based on the transferredknowledge;

• problems solved in whole or in part basedonthetransferredknowledge;

• contribution of the transferred knowledgeto human capital (skills/performanceimprovement,etc.)andtotechnicalcapital.

7.2 Levelsoftransferassessment

Several actors are needed to carry out aknowledge transfer, including researchers,users,officials,intermediaries.Consideringsuchthis variety of actors, the objectives, thecontexts involved in the transfer, and theassessment of transfer can be divided into thefollowing four levels: individual, organizational,sectorial,andnational.Amongthese levels, thefactors to be considered and the intendedobjectivescanbeverydifferent.

However,beforeproceeding,wewillsummarizethree types of impact (scientific, socio‐economic, vis‐à‐vis the research context) inTable3.


39

Table3:Factorstobetakenintoaccountduringimpactassessment

Scientificimpacts• Scientificadvances• Contributiontoscience(publications,influence,etc.)

Socio‐economicimpacts

• Innovative products, processes, services, or technologies that arise fromknowledgetransfer

• Progress and advances (social,medical, technical, etc.)made possible bytheapplicationofthetransferredknowledge

• Skillsandindividualperformanceincrease,etc.

Impact on theresearchcontext

• Researchfundingpolicies• Amountallottedforfunding• Facilitiesaccordedtoresearchstructures• Interactionsbetweenthecontextinwhichtheresearchisundertakenand

transferactivitiescarriedoutbyresearchers

A transfer assessment at the individual level isaimed at verifying and analyzing, among otherthings:

• thewillingness of various users to becomefamiliarizedwiththetransferredknowledge

• theadoptionorrejectionofthetransferredknowledge

• the appropriation (or lack thereof) of thetransferredknowledge

• the effective application of the transferredknowledge

• theinfluenceofthecontext• otherusersnotinitiallytargeted

Atransferassessmentattheorganizationallevelgenerallytendstoverifyormeasure:

• the conditions through which knowledgereachesanorganization

• the means and factors that favour itsappropriation

• its implementation and institutionalizationby the organization as a whole and by itsvariousconstituents(workers,departments,etc.)

• themodifications or changes adopted as aresultofthetransfer

• organizationalperformance,etc.

Usually, institutions that undertake transfer orthat foster transfer operate in a well‐definedbranch of industry (e.g. JSA), operate in manysectors (e.g. CSST) or operate in a specificprofessional branch (e.g. employer’sassociations, trade associations). Transferassessment at the sectorial level consists incheckinganumberofelements,suchas:

• the relevance, utility, and adequacy of theresearch relative to the current andpotential concerns of actual or potentialusers

• transmissionsupports,suchasthechoiceofcommunication channels or the quality ofthesupports

• the existence of reinforcement networks(communitiesofpractice,exchangeforums,etc.)

• the context in which these institutionsoperate (resources set aside to ensure theeffectiveness of the transfer aswell as thenature and quality of the resulting socialrelations).


40

Box11:Sometransferactorsandassessmentlevels.

All levelsofassessmentareof interesttoeachoftheactors involvedinatransferaction.Thisiswhatgivesaglobalandcomprehensive ideaofwhat is tobeassessed.However, in certaincases, actors may favour a level of analysisdependingonspecificconcerns.

Fundingorganizations

Funding organizations are interested in theoverall aspect of transfer and have a nationalperspective (supporting knowledge creationthrough training and research funding,contributing to the development of networks,assisting in the establishment of partnershipsbetweenresearchersandusers,etc.).

Researchers

Researchers are concerned with all levels ofassessment, all actors, and all knowledgetransferstages.

Intermediaries

Intermediaries approach knowledgedissemination from both global and sectorialpoints of view. They are interested, amongother things, in knowledge dissemination,marketingof research findings, thecreationofnetworks, and the development of innovativetechnologieswithinatargetedgroup,aspecificsector,oragivenregionorcountry.

Decision‐makers

Depending on their decisional jurisdiction(governmental, sectorial, or organizational),decision‐makers are generally interested inmeasuring the range, results, andefficiencyoftheir decisions at the national, sectorial, ororganizational level when these decisions arebased on research findings, especiallyevidence‐baseddata.

Organizations

Organizations generally carry out assessments

at the organizational and individual level andverify ifandhowthe transferredknowledge isbeingimplemented,andwithwhatresults.

Lastly,atthenationallevel,transferassessmentseekstoverify,amongotherthings:

• the valorization of transferred knowledgeinto innovative and profitable products,processes,services,ortechnologies

• theprogress andadvances (social,medical,technical, etc.) made possible by theapplicationofthetransferredknowledge

• decisions made on the basis of thetransferredknowledge

• problemsentirelyorpartially solvedby thetransferredknowledge

• the contribution of the transferredknowledge to the reinforcement of humancapital (increased skills, individualperformance,etc.)andtechnicalassets

• thecontext inwhichtheresearch iscarriedout(researchobjectives,sourcesoffunding,etc.).

Keyreadings

1. Moore_M. C. et al. (2007). R&Dadvancement, technology diffusion andimpactonevaluationofpublicR&D.EnergyPolicy,Vol.35pp1464–1473

References

41

References

1. AmaraN.,OuimetM.andLandryR.(2004).NewEvidenceonInstrumental,Conceptual,andSymbolicUtilizationofUniversityResearchinGovernmentAgencies.ScienceCommunication,Vol.26no.1pp75‐106

2. ArgabrightG.C.(1999).Usingtechnologytransfertoimprovesafetyandhealth.ProfSafety,Vol.44pp28–32

3. ArgoteL.andIngramP.(2000).KnowledgeTransfer:ABasisforCompetitiveAdvantageinFirms.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,Vol.82,no.1pp.150–169

4. BaldwinT.andFordK.J.(1988).TransferofTraining:AReviewandDirectionsforFutureResearch.PersonnelPsychology,Vol.41,Iss.1pp.63

5. BeaudryD.N.,RégnierL.andGagnéS.(2006).Chaînesdevalorisationderésultatsdelarechercheuniversitairerecelantunpotentield’utilisationparuneentrepriseouparunautremilieu.Étude.ConseildelascienceetdelatechnologieetdeValorisation‐RechercheQuébec,Québec,93pp.Rapporttéléchargeableàl’adressesuivante:http://www.cst.gouv.qc.ca/IMG/pdf/Chaines_valorisation_2006‐03_EdWeb_‐2.pdf

6. BertaW.B.andBakerR.(2004).FactorsthatimpacttheTransferandRetentionofBestPracticesforeducingErrorinHospitals.HealthCareManagementReview.Vol.29,Iss.2;pp.90‐98.

7. BerthonB.(2003).Pouruneapprocheglobaledutransfertdeconnaissance:uneillustrationempiriqueàl'intra‐organisationnel.XIIèmeConférencedel'AssociationInternationaledeManagementStratégique,LesCôtesdeCarthage–3,4,5et6juin2003.Listedescommunicationsdelaconférence:http://www.strategie‐aims.com/tunis/resumes/RSSP_12b.pdf

8. BoggsJ.P.(1992).ImplicitModelsofSocialKnowledgeUse.ScienceCommunication,Vol.14no1pp29‐62

9. BouchardC.andleGroupedetravailsurl’innovationsociale(1999).Contributionàunepolitiquedel’immatériel.Rechercheenscienceshumainesetsocialesetinnovationssociales,Conseilquébécoisdelarecherchesociale.

10. BourdouxheM.andGrattonL.(2003).Transfertetutilisationdesrésultatsenmilieudetravail:lecasdelarecherchesurleséboueursauQuébec.Pistes,Vol.5,n°1pp17.Articleenligne:http://www.pistes.uqam.ca/v5n1/pdf/v5n1a8.pdf

11. CanadianHealthServicesResearchFoundation(2007).Website:http://www.chsrf.ca/knowledge_transfer/exchange_f.php

12. Idem(1999).Questionsdeliensetd'échangesentreleschercheursetlesdécideurs.Sommaired'unatelierconvoquéparlaFondation,documentderéférence.Fondationcanadiennedelarecherchesurlesservicesdesanté,29p.http://chsrf.ca/knowledge_transfer/pdf/linkage_f.pdf

13. Idem(2003).Lathéorieetlapratiqueducourtagedeconnaissancesdanslesystèmedesantécanadien.Rapport.FondationCanadiennedelaRecherchesurlesServicesdeSanté,49p.http://www.fcrss.ca/brokering/pdf/Theory_and_Practice_f.pdf

14. CanadianInstitutesofHealthResearch(2004).Stratégieliéeàl'applicationdesconnaissances2004‐2009.L'innovationàl'œuvre:http://www.cihr‐irsc.gc.ca/f/26574.html

15. ClarkG.andKellyL.(2005).NewDirectionsforKnowledgeTransferandKnowledgeBrokerageinScotland.ResearchFindingsNo.1/2005.

16. CommunautéEuropéenne(1997).Lamesuredesactivitésscientifiquesettechnologiques,Manueld’Oslo,2eédition.Commissioneuropéenne


42

17. CommunautéEuropéenne(2005).DisséminationetvalorisationdesRésultats.TexteémisparlaDirectiongénéraleÉducationetCulture,DirectionCommunicationetculture,UnitéC3.Document,2pages.Commissioneuropéennehttp://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/valorisation/index_en.html

18. Conseildelascienceetdelatechnologie(2005).Lavalorisationdelarechercheuniversitaire.Clarificationconceptuelle.Rapport,Sainte‐Foy,Québectéléchargeable:http://www.cst.gouv.qc.ca/IMG/pdf/Valorisation_Rech_Univ.pdf

19. ConseilderecherchesenscienceshumainesduCanada(2005).Planstratégique2006‐2011:http://www.sshrc.ca/web/about/publications/strategic_plan_f.pdf

20. ConseilderecherchesensciencesnaturellesetengénieduCanada(2007).Projetsderechercheconcertéesurlasanté;Subventionsdeprojetsstratégiques;Programmedemobilisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle;ProgrammedepartenariatderechercheduministèredelaDéfensenationale;Utilisationdessubventions–Centresderecherchesurl’enseignementetl’apprentissagedessciences(CREAS):http://www.crsng.gc.ca/professors_f.asp?nav=profnav&lbi=pg

21. DuperréM.(2006).Innovationssocialesdanslesorganismescommunautaires:facteursintervenantdansleprocessusdetransfertdesconnaissances.CahiersduCentrederecherchesurlesinnovationssociales(CRISES).CollectionÉtudesthéoriques‐noET0603:http://www.crises.uqam.ca/cahiers/ET0603.pdf

22. EstabrooksC.A.(1999).TheConceptualStructureofResearchUtilization.ResearchinNursing&Health,Vol.22,pp203–216

23. Fondsquébécoisdelarecherchesurlanatureetlestechnologies(2005).Lesprioritésenrecherche.Cadrederéférencepourleplantriennal2006‐2009.http://www.fqrnt.gouv.qc.ca/nateq/documentsPublications/pdf/2005/prioritesRecherche.pdf

24. FondsdelarechercheensantéduQuébec(2002).Orientationsstratégiques.Plantriennal2002‐2005:http://www.fqrsc.gouv.qc.ca/programmes/index.html

25. GélinasAandPilonJ.‐M.(1994).Letransfertdesconnaissancesenrecherchesocialeetlatransformationdespratiquessociales.Nouvellespratiquessociales.Vol.7no2pp75‐92

26. GélinasA.(1990).Lesfondementsdutransfertdesconnaissances,inCQRS(ed.)Letransfertdesconnaissancesenrecherchesociale:ActesduForumduconseilquébécoisdelarecherchesociale,Montréal,pp17‐38

27. GrahamI.D.,LoganJ.,HarrisonM.B.,StrausS.E.,TetroeJ.,CaswellR.N.andRobinsonN.(2006).LostinKnowledgeTranslation:TimeforaMap?TheJournalofContinuingEducationintheHealthProfessions,Volume26,pp.13–24.

28. GuptaS.,SharmaS.L.andDuttaK.(2006).UsingKnowledgeMappingtoSupportKnowledgeManagementinHealthOrganizations.http://library.igcar.gov.in/readit2007/conpro/s2/S2_5.pdf

29. HanneyS.R.,Gonzalez‐BlockM.A.,BuxtonM.J.andKoganM.(2003).Theutilisationofhealthresearchinpolicy‐making:concepts,examplesandmethodsofassessment.HealthResearchPolicyandSystems,Vol.1no2pp28

30. HarrisJ.S.(1997).Development,use,andevaluationofclinicalpracticeguidelines.JournalofOccupational&EnvironmentalMedicine,Vol.39Issue1pp.23‐34

31. HigginsE.T.(2000).MakingaGoodDecision:Valuefromfit.AmericanPsychologist,Vol.55pp1217–1230

32. JacobsonN.,ButterillD.andGoeringP.(2004).OrganizationalFactorsthatInfluenceUniversity‐BasedResearchers’EngagementinKnowledgeTransferActivities.ScienceCommunication,Vol.25;pp246‐258

33. JosephRowntreeFoundation(2000).Linkingresearchandpractice.Findings.York,UnitedKingdom.DocumentenlignesurlesitedelaJRF:http://www.jrf.org.uk/Knowledge/findings/socialcare/pdf/910.pdf

References

43

34. LahtiR.K.,DarrE.D.,KrebsV.E.(2002).Developingtheproductivityofadynamicworkforce:Theimpactofinformalknowledgetransfer.JournalofOrganizationalExcellence,Vol.21no2pp13‐21

35. LandryR.,AmaraN.andLamariM.(1998).UtilizationofsocialscienceresearchknowledgeinCanada.Communicationpourle70thAnnualMeetingCanadianPoliticalScienceAssociation;mai31etjuin1,2,àl’Universitéd’Ottawa.

36. LandryR.,AmaraN.andLamariM.(1999).ClimbingtheLadderofResearchUtilization:EvidencefromSocialScienceResearch.PaperpreparedforpresentationattheannualmeetingoftheSocietyforSocialStudiesofScience,SanDiego,Ca,October28‐31,1999.http://www.rqsi.ulaval.ca/fr/pdf/publication3.pdf

37. LandryR.,AmaraN.,andLamariM.(2001).UtilizationofsocialscienceresearchknowledgeinCanada.ResearchPolicy,Vol.30,pp333‐349

38. Laroche,E.(2006).Revuedelittératuresurletransfertdesconnaissances,Essaisynthèse:voletrétrospectifdel'examendedoctorat.Québec,Canada.Facultédessciencesdel'administration,Universitélaval.

39. LavisJ.N.,RobertsonD.,WoodesideJ.M.,McLeodC.B.,AbelsonJ.andtheKnowledgeTransferStudyGroup.(2003).HowCanResearchOrganizationsMoreEffectivelyTransferResearchKnowledgetoDecisionMakers?TheMilbankQuarterly,Vol.81no2,pp221–248

40. LomasJ.,CulyerT.,McCutcheonC.,McAuleyL.andLawS.(2005).Conceptualiseretregrouperlesdonnéesprobantespourguiderlesystèmedesanté.Rapportfinal.Fondationcanadiennedelarecherchesurlesservicesdesanté.http://www.fcrss.ca/other_documents/pdf/evidence_f.pdf

41. LucasL.M.(2005).Theimpactoftrustandreputationonthetransferofbestpractices.JournalofKnowledgeManagement;vol.9n°4pp87‐101

42. LyonsR.andWarnerG.(2005).DemystifyingKnowledgeTranslationforStrokeresearchers:aPrimeronTheoryandPraxis.AreportpreparedbytheAtlanticHealthPromotionResearchCentre.http://www.ahprc.dal.ca/pdf/Demystifying_KT_Final.pdf

43. Nonaka,I.andTakeuchi,H.(1995).HowJapanesecompaniescreatesthedynamicsofinnovation.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,284pages.

44. Organisationdecoopérationetdedéveloppementéconomiques(2002).Glossairedesprincipauxtermesrelatifsàl’évaluationetlagestionaxéesurlesrésultats:http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf

45. OrléronP.(1971).Latransmissiondesconnaissances:Problèmespsychologiquesetpédagogiques.Bulletindepsychologie,vol.25,pp65‐71.

46. PattonM.Q.(2002).Qualitativeresearchandevaluationmethods.3rded.,Sage,London47. PerrenoudP.(1999).Transféreroumobilisersesconnaissances?D'unemétaphoreàl'autre:

implicationssociologiquesetpédagogiques.Texteremaniéetcomplétéd’unecommunicationaucolloque«Raisonséducativessurlescompétences».Facultédepsychologieetdessciencesdel'éducation,UniversitédeGenève;mars1999.24pp.siteweb:www.unige.ch/fapse/SSE/teachers/perrenoud/php_main/php_1999/1999_28.rtf)

48. PiagetJ.(1970).Psychologieetépistémologie.Paris,Denoël,187p.49. PresseauA.andFrenayM.(2004).Ledéveloppementdescompétencesprofessionnelles:quelles

jonctionspossiblesentrel’articulationthéorie/pratiqueetletransfert?InPresseauAnnieetFrenayMariane(Eds).Letransfertdesapprentissages;comprendrepourmieuxintervenir.Ste‐Foy,lesPressesdel'UniversitéLaval

50. Idem.(2004)Letransfertdesapprentissages:courantsthéoriquesetpratiquespédagogiques.InPresseauAnnieetFrenayMariane(Eds).Letransfertdesapprentissages;comprendrepourmieuxintervenir.Ste‐Foy,lesPressesdel'UniversitéLaval.

51. RogersE.M.(1995).DiffusionofInnovations.4thed.,TheFreePress.NewYork


44

52. RondotS.andBouchardJ.M.(2003).Symposiumsurlefinancementdulogementcommunautaire,le25février2002,Montréal,Alliancederechercheuniversités‐communautésenéconomiesociale,CahierdetransfertT‐01‐2003

53. RoyM.,Guindon,J.‐C.,Fortier,L.(1995).Transfertdeconnaissances–revuedelittératureetpropositiond'unmodèle.Étudesetrecherches,IRSST,R‐099,53p.http://www.irsst.qc.ca/fr/_publicationirsst_460.html

54. RoyM.,Parent,R.,Desmarais,L.(2003).KnowledgeNetworking:AStrategytoImproveWorkplaceHealth&SafetyKnowledgeTransfer.AcademicConferencesLimited;ElectronicJournalofKnowledgeManagement:http://www.ejkm.com/volume‐1/volume1‐issue‐2/issue2‐art16‐roy.pdf

55. RynesS.L.,BartunekJ..M.andDaftR.L.(2001).Acrossthegreatdivide:knowledgecreationandtransferbetweenpractitionersandacademics.AcademyofManagementJournal,Vol.44no2pp.340‐355.

56. SzulanskiG.(2000).TheProcessofKnowledgeTransfer:ADiachronicAnalysisofStickiness.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,Vol.82,no.1pp.9–27.

57. TardifJ.(1999).Letransfertdesapprentissages(Eds).Montréal:ÉditionsLogiques58. TaylorM.(1997).LaPlanificationdeprogrammesd'éducationefficacesenmilieudetravail.Rapport.

Secrétariatnationalàl'alphabétisation,DéveloppementdesressourceshumainesCanada,Ontario(Canada)

59. TeigerC.andLavilleA.(1989).Expressiondestravailleurssurleursconditionsdetravail(analysedesessionsdeformationdedéléguésC.H.S.C.T.àl’analyseergonomiquedutravail).Paris:CNAM,volume1,rapportno100,160pages.

60. TrottierL‐H.andChampagneF.(2006).L'utilisationdesconnaissancesscientifiques:aucœurdesrelationsdecoopérationentrelesacteurs.R06‐05.Éd:GRIS,UniversitédeMontréal,pp41.http://www.gris.umontreal.ca/rapportpdf/R06‐05.pdf

61. WeissC.H.(1979).TheManyMeaningsofResearchUtilization.PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.39no5pp.426‐431.

Acknowledgements: Preparation of this guide was made possible by a grant from the Institut derechercheRobert‐Sauvéensantéetsécuritédutravail.WewouldalsoliketothankJoséeLapierreforherbibliographicworkrelatedtoknowledgetransfer.

46

Researchers have accumulated a considerable amount of experience, understanding, and “know‐how,” mostlyinformal,regardingknowledgetransfer. It isplausibletothinkthat inthecomingyears,researcherswillnotonlybecomeincreasinglyinterestedintheseissues(i.e.knowledgetransferwillbecomethefocusoftheirresearch),butthattheywillalsoattempttoformalize/model/conceptualizeacorpusofknowledgethatisspecifictoOHS.

Wethereforethoughtitappropriatetocreateadocument,primarilyaworkingtool,tohelpresearchersdesirousoffocusing on knowledge transfer to become familiar with its broad outlines, its limits, and its subtleties (basicconcepts, vocabulary, areas of research,mainquestions, positions of fundingorganizations, key literature, etc.).Thisguide isnotanexhaustivereviewof the literaturerelatedtoknowledgetransfer; it ismeant to identifykeyelementsasfarasOHSisconcerned.

knowledge transfer community - fraser health · 2018-06-23 · intrinsically, occupational health...

Documents