Peter Levesque, Director of Knowledge Mobilization Works, defines knowledge mobilization as making what we know ready for action to produce value. The motivation underlying knowledge transfer is this: research produces knowledge and what is the good of this knowledge if it isn’t put to good use?
This question raises issues around the debate over pure research and agenda-driven or strategic research. If that debate is put aside and all knowledge is deemed relevant at some level, the concern becomes more specific, namely, it is a matter of determining what knowledge is most relevant at this particular moment in helping to solve a certain problem and how does one get access to the knowledge needed.
The Mechanics of Knowledge Transfer
It may seem like an obvious solution to simply give people access to the information they need. However, the mechanics of transferring knowledge are often more complex than anticipated. Some key questions must be posed:
- Who needs the information?
- What information do they need?
- What kind of information is it really?
- How will they use the information?
The Transfer Gap
At issue here is determining who the stakeholders are. The stakeholder is defined as the person who has a stake in the outcome of the project. At a recent Knowledge Mobilization Boot Camp organized by Levesque, one of the examples of knowledge transfer was presented by Steve Kaufmann of LingQ.com. The stakeholders are the people who want to learn a language quickly and well on their own time and in their own way. The LingQ.com website gives people access to a living database. Kaufmann bends all sorts of rules around traditional language training, and by doing so he has made a credible success at giving stakeholders what they want and need. He has closed the transfer gap.
The Knowledge Gap
It is quite possible that the information stakeholders need differs significantly from what the experts have to offer. In a successful transfer of knowledge the exchange will satisfy the stakeholders’ needs and respect the expertise of the knowledge builders. In a true democratization process expectations will be dropped on both sides and an open exchange will be the focus.
At this same conference was the renowned wheelchair athlete, Rick Hanson. In his speech he revealed that part way through the construction of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic oval it was discovered that the building was not wheelchair accessible. The Oval had to be retrofitted at an added expense and loss of time. The experts- the architects- were caught up in their design and had ignored the needs of an important stakeholder community. Considering that the Para Olympics take place immediately following the Olympics, it seems strange that such a mistake would occur. However, Hanson also revealed that designers of the interior space had included river-like structures that would have caused tremendous mobility challenges for anyone who was disabled. This kind of knowledge gap is hard to reconcile.
Guaranteeing Successful Knowledge Mobilization
The above examples illustrate that in order for knowledge to be successfully transferred, those who will benefit from the knowledge must be involved in the process of getting that knowledge ready for transfer. There must be active dialogue between the knowledge makers and the stakeholders. Clearly, there is still some work to be done.
Lesley Strutt - Lesley Strutt lives with her dog in the Gatineau Hills near Ottawa, Canada. She loves being surrounded by nature: it brings her joy and ...
