Author: Tram Nguyen*
The Knowledge Translation Canada Scientific Meeting is an annual event that brings together researchers, clinicians and trainees to advance the science and practice of knowledge translation and implementation. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2021 meeting took place virtually. This year we had an opportunity to conduct a workshop to further our collective understanding of the differences and similarities between integrated knowledge translation (IKT) and other collaborative research partnerships.
KEY DEFINITIONS
Integrated knowledge translation (IKT): “A model of collaborative research, where researchers work with knowledge users who identify a problem and have the authority to implement the research recommendations.”1
Research partnership: “…individuals, groups or organizations engaged in collaborative research activity involving at least one researcher (e.g., individual affiliated with an academic institution), and any stakeholder (e.g., decision or policy maker, health care administrator or leader, community agency, charities, network, patients etc.) actively engaged in any part of the research process. Such arrangements might or might not be formalized at the institutional level through a memorandum of understanding.”2
This workshop built upon a recent publication titled “How does integrated knowledge translation (IKT) compare to other collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge? Learning from experts in the field.”3 The workshop format provided a unique opportunity to initiate discussion with a diverse and international group of attendees. The specific objectives of the workshop were to:
- present the findings of a study comparing IKT with engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research, co-production, and participatory research;
- learn from experts in the field about similarities, differences and best practices among these collaborative research approaches;
- facilitate discussion between experts and workshop attendees about their experiences with collaborative research approaches; and
- work collaboratively as a group to brainstorm and develop the next steps for establishing shared understanding and communication of collaborative research approaches.
A fruitful group discussion resulted in identifying some key learnings and suggestions for future directions to advance knowledge about IKT and research partnerships. Examples include:
- Experts and attendees agreed that it is more important to be aware of what we do than what we call our approach to research partnerships.
- It is essential to invest time in building research partnerships and understand that building successful relationships requires extensive time investment at the outset. When not undertaken it results in poor engagement that can result in long-term negative outcomes. Attendees asked the question “is bad engagement better than no engagement?”
- Attendees identified the need for training and education for emerging researchers and trainees about best practices for engaging knowledge users as well as funding to support knowledge user involvement. Specifically, attendees were interested in developing strategies and methods for engaging non-researchers/academics in research partnerships and in grantsmanship.
- Attendees emphasized the importance of acknowledging the unique contributions of non-researchers/academics. For example, engagement in authorship and funding opportunities.
- Workshop participants proposed better and greater documentation of experiences with partnership research. This was based on the recognition that there is no “one size fits all” approach; rather, research partnerships are dynamic, unique to each study, and require relationship building. Documenting and sharing what works well and areas for improvement can help others learn from our experiential knowledge.
Members of the Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network (IKTRN) are urged to consider these key discussion points to develop strategies and methods to advance knowledge about IKT and research partnerships. Future research is needed to develop best practices around engagement of non-researchers/academics and funding to support their participation.
References
- Kothari A, McCutcheon C, Graham ID. Defining integrated knowledge translation and moving forward: a response to recent commentaries. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(5):299-300. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2017.15
- Mrklas KJ. A scoping review of available tools for assessing integrated knowledge translation research or health research partnership impact. Calgary: Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary; 2017.
- Nguyen T, Graham, ID., Mrklas, KJ, et al.How does integrated knowledge translation (IKT) compare to other collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge? Learning from experts in the field. Health Res Policy Sys. 2020;18(1):35 (2020). doi:10.1186/s12961-020-0539-6
*On behalf of the study team: Ian D Graham, Kelly J Mrklas, Sarah Bowen, Margaret Cargo, Carole A. Estabrooks, Anita Kothari, John Lavis, Ann C Macaulay, Martha MacLeod, David Phipps, Vivian R Ramsden, Mary J Renfrew, Jon Salsberg, Nina Wallerstein.