No abstract

Background Research funders in Canada and abroad have made substantial investments in supporting collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge as it is believed to increase knowledge use. Canadian health research funders have advocated for the use of integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health research, however, there is limited research around how IKT compares to other collaborative research approaches. Our objective was to better understand how IKT compares with engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research, co-production and participatory research by identifying the differences and similarities among them in order to provide conceptual clarity and reduce researcher and knowledge user confusion about these common approaches. Methods We employed a qualitative descriptive method using interview data to better understand experts’ perspectives and experiences on collaborative research approaches. Participants’ responses were analysed through thematic analysis to elicit core themes. The analysis was centred around the concept of IKT, as it is the most recent approach; IKT was then compared and contrasted with engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research, co-production and participatory research. As this was an iterative process, data triangulation and member-checking were conducted with participants to ensure accuracy of the emergent themes and analysis process. Results Differences were noted in the orientation (i.e. original purpose), historical roots (i.e. disciplinary origin) and partnership/engagement (i.e. role of partners etc.). Similarities among the approaches included (1) true partnerships rather than simple engagement, (2) focus on essential components and processes rather than labels, (3) collaborative research orientations rather than research methods, (4) core values and principles, and (5) extensive time and financial investment. Core values and principles among the approaches included co-creation, reciprocity, trust, fostering relationships, respect, co-learning, active participation, and shared decision-making in the generation and application of knowledge. All approaches require extensive time and financial investment to develop and maintain true partnerships. Conclusions This qualitative study is the first to systematically synthesise experts’ perspectives and experiences in a comparison of collaborative research approaches. This work contributes to developing a shared understanding of collaborative research approaches to facilitate conceptual clarity in use, reporting, indexing and communication among researchers, trainees, knowledge users and stakeholders to advance IKT and implementation science.

Employing knowledge brokers is one way that universities and research centres have responded to the increasing emphasis on the wider usefulness and uptake of research beyond the academy. While there is an increase in the numbers of such professionals, there has been little focus on their roles, skills and development. In this paper, two knowledge exchange directors from Canada and the United Kingdom reflect on their combined experiences of being, developing and employing knowledge brokers in a range of roles.

This article is a qualitative literature synthesis in the areas of community-campus collaborations, knowledge mobilization and social innovation. The article aims to be useful to people who work in academic settings, community organizations, public institutions, and government. The authors utilized a purposive sampling methodology to explore the following questions: 1. How can university-based knowledge mobilization leverage investments in higher education research and development (R&D) through community-campus collaboration and social innovation? 2. What is the role of university-wide knowledge mobilization projects in supporting community-campus connections and ultimately social innovation strategies that contribute to the public good? Our review indicates considerable interplay between community-campus collaborations, knowledge mobilization and social innovation given that knowledge mobilization facilitates – and is facilitated by – collaboration. With sufficient knowledge mobilization, community-campus collaborations stimulate social innovation. The article concludes with recommendations based on our review of the literature. RÉSUMÉ Cet article se fonde sur une synthèse littéraire qualitative portant sur les collaborations communautaires/académiques, la mobilisation du savoir et l’innovation sociale. Il se veut utile pour toute personne travaillant dans un milieu académique, un organisme communautaire ou une institution publique. Les auteurs ont recours à une méthode d’échantillonnage raisonné pour répondre aux questions suivantes : 1. Comment la mobilisation du savoir universitaire – au moyen de la collaboration communautaire/académique et de l’innovation sociale – peut-elle faire augmenter les investissements en recherche et développement dans l’enseignement supérieur? 2. Comment les projets de mobilisation du savoir universitaire peuvent-ils resserrer les liens entre campus et communauté et, en fin de compte, appuyer des stratégies d’innovation sociale qui contribuent au bien commun? Notre évaluation indique qu’il y a beaucoup d’influences réciproques entre les collaborations communautaires/académiques, la mobilisation du savoir et l’innovation sociale, surtout que la mobilisation du savoir facilite la collaboration et vice versa. En effet, avec une mobilisation du savoir suffisante, les collaborations communautaires/académiques stimulent l’innovation sociale. Cet article se termine par des recommandations provenant de notre analyse documentaire.