Well, not really. I still whole-heartedly believe in basic research and its transformational power. But I also believe in connecting research more directly and sharing it with groups who can use it. There, I confess.
For all researchers working hard to share their research, writing grants, and making a real difference in communities, here is the ItSticks Inc. 7 step framework for sharing your knowledge more effectively and efficiently. I guarantee it will help you win a grant!
Step 1: List the Important Research Themes or Objectives - if the research is not yet complete, what is the important research question you are trying to answer? If the research is done, what important themes or messages are in your research? Obviously, when answering these questions you have to be thinking about Step 4 (who are the audiences that may have an interest in your work).
Step 2: Consider Research Essence: This is akin to "the knowledge synthesis" common in health research. When I teach this framework to social science and humanities researchers I try to explain that sharing single research studies can be dangerous to the uninformed "user". What if the organization decides to make a decision solely based on one single study? Furthermore, a lot of social science and humanities research is contradictory and even established theories still have their critics. It is important to inform the "user" of research about the broader body of knowledge surrounding the topic. A "user beware" sign. An informed user.
Step 3: Create Desired Research Outcomes: Based on the research messages (step 1) what do you really want to achieve with the research? What impact do you desire? This is a critical step in the knowledge mobilization plan. Defining the research outcome, and being crystal clear in the intent, will help you achieve impact. If outcomes are ambiguous they are next to impossible to achieve.
Step 4: Select Target Audiences and Anticipate Knowledge Mobilization Barriers: This is not much different than old time communications theory: who are the target audiences you want to target with your research? It is best to be as specific as possible - for example, it shouldn't be the Department of Finance, but the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance. When you nail down the specifics, then what are the barriers preventing research from getting in these hands and then influencing decisions? Can you weave within and around the barriers? Are the barriers too large to get around (big P politics?). If the answer is yes, then you may have to switch the audience, or the research outcome. Being adaptable is important here. Context is everything. Being a navigator is critical to success. Painting the sharing-landscape is the most important step in the framework. Please don't list "public" as an audience. Public means everyone!
Step 5: Select Communication Media: What are the proper tools to get the research messages to the audiences? Don't get caught in the technology/social media trap! Websites and FB are great, but Assistant Deputy Ministers don't have time to be looking online for information. Sometimes good ol' face to face is still the best tool in the tool-kit, depending on your audience. If you are trying to reach 13-17 year old girls on the dangers of bullying through texting, then FB is a great medium; you can even go as far as posting targeted FB banner ads.
Step 6: Ease of Implementation vs Impact: A dream of "changing or influencing public policy" may be a noble one, but do you have the energy, time and money to make it happen? Grant funding is given in 1-3-5 year blocks so can you reasonably accomplish your research outcome in this time frame? I find the "ease of implementation" project management tool quite useful in evaluating whether research impact is possible. Where you want to be: easy to do, high impact. Where you don't want to be: hard to do, low impact! Be a smart manager, low cost, high efficiency.
Step 7: Evaluation: the thorn in everyone's side. How do you evaluate the "impact" of your research? I recommend one key step to make it easy: be crystal clear in defining your research outcome (Step 3)! If you are specific in what you want to achieve, you can accomplish it easier. For example if you say "influencing policy" then you have to prove the research had a role in doing that. If you say "informing policy" it is easier to show that research informed a decision, or policy. I am a big fan of post-key informant interviews, and narrative evaluation. Tell a story about how your research has made a difference. And don't overlook the outputs (#s).
I hope this helps you in developing a knowledge mobilization plan. My wish is that it makes you competitive in winning grants. Let me know if it does :)
