Towards a sociology of knowledge translation: the importance of being dis-interested in knowledge translation

Abstract

Over the last 15 years there has been an increasingly energetic search for theories and definitions in the burgeoning area of knowledge translation (KT) in the health care context. The focus has been on the design and evaluation of KT activities with little attention to developing a considered KT theoretical/methodological approach that takes a more distanced critical inquiry to the studying of KT interventions. As such, what has been overlooked in the health professions KT literature to date is a suitably complex conceptualisation of translation that encompasses the multiplicity of KT interventions, the dynamic environments in which they are occurring, and the production of new knowledge which arises from their interactions. Attending to these epistemological issues; i.e. issues of the type of knowledge and how it is produced, is crucial to developing a relational understanding of the production and emergence of context-specific clinical knowledge and practice in KT processes. Such an approach is compared to the traditional KT evaluations by KT practitioners themselves of the compliance or non-compliance of individual and organisational behaviour change. A Sociology of KT (SKT) is proposed to complement the applied and evaluative research practice of implementing planned action KT activities. The purpose of a SKT basic research agenda is to understand both the context-specific nature of KT interventions and the epistemological premises of the activities of KT implementers themselves, in order to advance the science of KT and inform, complement and add to the success of applied and evaluative KT research in the future.

Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study

“…These included getting evidence into practice, knowledge exchange, knowledge translation and variants of evidence-based and evidence-informed policy and practice. Some interviewees made specific comments on the term knowledge mobilisation: some felt that it was too narrow in its emphasis on 'knowledge' or that the term gave the wrong emphasis: 'we don't think of ourselves as a knowledge mobilisation organisation because it isn't knowledge we're trying to mobilise, it's practice and policy' (17).…”

“…This view has been subject to increasing challenge from a growing body of evidence that suggests that, far from being a simple linear process, research use is instead an intensely social and relational process. [15][16][17] This means that a range of interventions (around system design, organisational infrastructures and the facilitation of relational and interactive approaches) are required to better connect research to policy and practice. Such interventions seek to enable research-based knowledge to be combined with other forms of knowledge, to be tested, refined and assimilated, and to be integrated into the thinking and behaviour of individuals and groups.…”

Incorporating Self-Management in Prosthetic Rehabilitation: Case Report of an Integrated Knowledge-to-Action Process

“…4,5 There is growing recognition, however, that a problem in knowledge production rather than in knowledge transfer hinders the knowledge-toaction (KTA) translation process. 4,8,9 Most knowledge transfer approaches value objective knowledge gained in clinical trials over subjective knowledge from, for example, therapist and patient experiences. 8,9 Such a unidirectional approach has been pinpointed as one of the main obstacles hindering improvement of clinical practice with available research knowledge.…”

“…4,8,9 Most knowledge transfer approaches value objective knowledge gained in clinical trials over subjective knowledge from, for example, therapist and patient experiences. 8,9 Such a unidirectional approach has been pinpointed as one of the main obstacles hindering improvement of clinical practice with available research knowledge. 3,4,8,9 This finding has prompted a need to reconsider the evidence and assumptions that underlie our current knowledge translation approaches.…”

“…8,9 Such a unidirectional approach has been pinpointed as one of the main obstacles hindering improvement of clinical practice with available research knowledge. 3,4,8,9 This finding has prompted a need to reconsider the evidence and assumptions that underlie our current knowledge translation approaches. 4,8 -10 To prevent knowledge production problems, the concept of engaged scholarship has been introduced, emphasizing the importance of collaborative inquiry and meaningful interaction of researchers and endusers from the very beginning of the research.…”