No abstract

'Knowledge transfer' has become established as shorthand for a wide variety of activities linking the production of academic knowledge to the potential use of such knowledge in non-academic environments. While welcoming the attention now being paid to non-academic applications of social research, we contend that terms such as knowledge transfer (and its subordinate sibling, knowledge translation) misrepresent the tasks that they seek to support. By articulating the complex and contested nature of applied social research, and then highlighting the social and contextual complexities of its use, we can see that other terms may serve us better. Following from this analysis, we suggest that 'knowledge interaction' might more appropriately describe the messy engagement of multiple players with diverse sources of knowledge, and that 'knowledge intermediation' might begin to articulate some of the managed processes by which knowledge interaction can be promoted. While it might be hard to shift the terminology of knowledge transfer in the short term, awareness of its shortcomings can enhance understanding about how social research can have wider impacts.

English This article presents results from a systematic review of the effectiveness of different mechanisms for promoting research use across the health, social care, criminal justice and education sectors. Findings suggest that research use is enhanced by interactions between researchers and research users, and by providing a supportive context for the uptake of research or research-based practice. Strategies using multiple mechanisms to encourage research use are also often successful. More research is needed to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of other approaches or of combining specific strategies. Despite this, some key lessons emerge about effective methods for implementing evidence-based policy and practice (EBPP).

There is growing interest in using closer partnerships between researchers and research users to increase the appropriate application of research evidence in policy and practice. While this supplement reports and assesses a number of these initiatives in health care, this article reviews the evidence in support of partnerships from elsewhere. Drawing on a substantial cross-sector review of research impact initiatives, we extract lessons for health care from partnership evaluations in social care, education and criminal justice services. A reasonable and robust evidence base supports the use of partnerships as one means of increasing research uptake. Although requiring substantial investments of time, resources and commitment, and suffering from a number of possible pitfalls, we conclude that such partnerships offer great potential for increasing research use.

The past decade has witnessed widespread interest in the development of policy and practice that is better informed by evidence. Enthusiasm has, however, been tempered by recognition of the difficulties of devising effective strategies to ensure that evidence is integrated into policy and utilized in practice. There is already a rich but diverse and widely dispersed literature that can be drawn upon to inform such strategies. This article offers a guide to this literature by focusing on six main interrelated concerns: (1) the types of knowledge relevant to understanding research utilization/evidence-based practice (RU/EBP) implementation; (2) the ways in which research knowledge is utilized; (3) models of the process of utilization; (4) the conceptual frameworks that enable us to understand the process of RU/EBP implementation; (5) the main ways of intervening to increase evidence uptake and the effectiveness of these; (6) different ways of conceptualizing what RU/EBP means in practice.