Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: Review and Synthesis of the Literature

Abstract

Knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) is as an interactive process involving the interchange of knowledge between research users and researcher producers. Despite many strategies for KTE, it is not clear which ones should be used in which contexts. This article is a review and synthesis of the KTE literature on health care policy. The review examined and summarized KTE's current evidence base for KTE. It found that about 20 percent of the studies reported on a realworld application of a KTE strategy, and fewer had been formally evaluated. At this time there is an inadequate evidence base for doing "evidence-based" KTE for health policy decision making. Either KTE must be reconceptualized, or strategies must be evaluated more rigorously to produce a richer evidence base for future activity.

Exploring conceptualizations of knowledge translation, transfer and exchange across public health in one UK region: a qualitative mapping study

“…Participants spoke about academic knowledge as a fixed commodity which can be exchanged or transferred, reflecting a common and enduring view of KT/E as predominantly about getting research into practice. 9,33,34 KT/E processes were described as driven by an academic agenda, but the importance of involving end-users was also emphasised in order to ensure that research is relevant and usable in realworld settings. Other authors have reached similar conclusions.…”

“…Central to this conceptualisation are assumptions that:  Different stakeholder groups speak different languages (hence, a need exists for translation); and  The purpose of the translation process is to render 'understandable' the idea or knowledge that moves between groups These assumptions are reflected in much of the KT/E literature. 9,34,38 In addition, the language and terms used to talk about KT/E processes are often referred to as confusing, blurred and overlapping, and a lack of consensus remains on their meanings and properties. [38][39][40][41][42] A focus on language widens the discussion of these concepts beyond a simple dichotomisation of academic and non-academic understandings to encompass underlying issues of discourse and power.…”

“…4,5 Furthermore, it is now recognised that getting evidence into, or indeed out of, policy and practice is not a straightforward or linear process and to view it as such may be misleading. [6][7][8][9] The Cooksey review 4 of publicly-funded health research in the UK highlighted two key gaps: in translating ideas from research into new products and approaches; and putting those products and approaches into practice. The term 'knowledge translation' (KT) is increasingly used to describe the work required to close or bridge these gaps.…”

Exploring knowledge exchange: A useful framework for practice and policy

“…Although this type of definition is widely understood and accepted, recent reviews show that much of the research into knowledge translation focuses on understanding the barriers and enablers to the implementation of research in practice and policy settings and conceptualises implementation as a rational, cognitive, intellectual endeavour (Mitton et al 2007; Best and Holmes, 2010). However, the pursuit of intellectual and cognitive understanding of barriers and enablers de-emphasises the importance of interactive knowledge exchange and problem solving processes which are based on experience and induction (Lindblom and Cohen, 1979) and has unwittingly contributed to a limited technicist understanding of the value and applicability of formal interventions (Mitton et al, 2007).…”

Taking Power, Politics, and Policy Problems Seriously

“…19 In the KT literature it is routinely asserted that evidence that is not tailored or packaged for a target audience is less likely to be reviewed or adopted into use. 20 Another commonplace assertion is that "linkage and exchange" activities to engage a specific decision-maker partner directly in the research process will produce research evidence that is more relevant and more likely to be applied in practice.…”