It is now well known among members of the Canadian Health Research Community that Knowledge Translation (KT) is one of the key deliverables that CIHR has been mandated to produce by the legislation that created CIHR in the year 2000.
This module is intended to summarize the key background in making that assessment and in defining 'what KT is' and 'how it can be assessed' as a matter of course in the peer review of research projects and programs at CIHR.
It is IMHA's intent to facilitate the implementation of this KT mandate by asking for its specific consideration and assessment at the time of peer review as a secondary factor in the 'merit review' of each application. The KT component will be reviewed by the peer panel - simultaneously with the assessment of each application's scientific merit, but obviously using specific KT criteria.
Please note that applying for the KT funds is considered optional and bonus funding to encourage researchers to do KT.
As with merit reviews, it is possible for reviewers to score "relative merit" (or, in this case, relative probability of significant KT impact) using the normal CIHR scale of 0-5 which will be used to determine the KT score. This score will be used to determine whether the KT bonus funding should be awarded. However, scientific merit still remains imperative for a grant to be funded a KT bonus. In other words, those grants that have a scientific rating of at least 3.5 that get funded - dependent on number of grants and funds available - will also receive a KT bonus of up to $25K, provided they score 3.5 or higher on the KT portion of the review.
What follows is a brief summary of 'what KT is' and how it can be evaluated. Since this is part of an application on work to be done (with a KT component), we assume that the KT component must be a logical extension of the research being proposed and that it will judged in a similar way: using an educated assessment of its potential, based on how compelling the case is, made by applicant, as compared with other applicants in this competition. As with scientific reviews looking for research excellence, we expect that 'KT merit reviews' will get easier with panel experience. Like scientific reviews, we also expect that reviews will be enhanced by inclusion of "pilot evidence of KT productivity" of the applicants in question, along with how feasible, convincing and important, their "KT module' is.
"the exchange, synthesis and ethically-sound application of research findings within a complex set of interactions among researchers and knowledge users. In other words, knowledge translation can be seen as an acceleration of the knowledge cycle; an acceleration of the natural transformation of knowledge into use."
KT at CIHR is aimed at one of three targets:
KT goes beyond mere dissemination and/or diffusion. It isn't researchers just disseminating or discussing things with each other or talking to audiences. It is not just 'communications' (which is a one-way passive process)
It is an on-going and iterative process requiring active and conscious participation of both researchers and research-users. The researchers deliberately get together with potential end users with an explicit intent of changing the behaviour of both sides (exchanging information to benefit/ behaviour change of both)
KT requires focus (targets: sectors and outcomes)
The above information has been gathered from several KT sources1
There are four "sectors' of society, beyond other researchers that 'KT can target" and various vehicles that are used to deliver them to that target audience, containing the new knowledge that is produced through research (some vehicles shown in brackets):
Evidence of actively engaging the target audience in an on-going dialogue on the topic (as collaborators, with evidence of their intended participation, dialogue and potential uses and significance of the knowledge being produced) is essential.
The KT section of the proposal will be reviewed separately. Please note that applying for the KT funds is considered optional and bonus funding to encourage researchers to do KT.
The following are required to apply for the KT bonus:
Up to three pages (free form; a standard form is not available for the KT pages) to describe the KT plan and justification.
The KT budget (up to $25k) should be described and justified in the budget module along with the rest of the budget
Add to the end of the title of the application: "AND THE KT PLAN"
This application will be ranked on the following three criteria as they pertain to its KT component that goes beyond targeting other researchers or simply informing future research directions and use these criteria to arrive at a 'overall KT score' using the CIHR rating scale (0-5) for this application:
This application has a clear and distinct 'KT element' which has an appropriate target audience/sector identified (0-5)
There is a convincing plan and partners who are identified and documented who will 'accelerate the use of the knowledge created' much faster than the normal processes of research dissemination (0-5)
As compared with other applications, there is a high probability of a 'measurable KT product' (a meaningful change in behaviours and outputs/outcomes) at the end of the grant cycle being requested.; or within a reasonable timeframe - defined in the application (0-5)
The impact or outcome of the KT is well defined and you are convinced it would be important/significant to its target audience (0-5)
There will be an overall KT score given based on the above criteria.
A Ranking list with the scientific rating will be created as is the norm for all CIHR programs. For those grants that have a scientific rating of at least 3.5 that would normally get funded (dependent on number of grants and funds available) - if those grants also receive a KT rating of 3.5 or above, then they will be granted the KT bonus of up to 25K.
Weiss, Carol H. 1979. "The Many Meanings of Research Utilization," Public Administration Review, 39 (5): 426-431. (Provides a roadmap to the various meanings of research utilization)
Nutley, S., Walter, I., Davies, H. 2003. "From Knowing to Doing." Evaluation, 9 (2): 125-148. (A recent adaptation of Weiss' classification)
Lavis et al. 2003. "How Can Research Organizations More Effectively Transfer Research Knowledge to Decision Makers?" The Milbank Quarterly, 81 (2): 221-248.
(A classification of the different ways in which research is or can be used)
Davis et al. 2003. "The Case for Knowledge Translation: Shortening the journey from evidence to effect." British Medical Journal, 327: 33-35. (An explanation of the process of KT) http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/327/7405/33
Knott, J., and A. Wildavsky. 1980. If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1:537-78. (A staged model to explain how research evidence reaches the policy level)
Landry, R., Lamari, M., Amara, N. "Extent and Determinants of Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies." Public Administration Review, 63(2): 193-205. (The Knot and Wildavsky framework is used to explain what factors allow certain researchers to 'climb up the ladder of research utilization'.)
Hanney et al. 2002. "The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment." Health Research Policy and Systems, 1(2).
(Use of an 'interfaces and receptors' model to provide a framework of analysis of research utilization)
