These experts were found through an online search of KT/KB websites and ..... If you chose people correctly then you've
Engagement, interpretation and convening functions within intermediary organizations A targeted analysis of organizational approach Elizabeth Shantz, MASc Organizational Development Intern Canadian Water Network
December 2010
Engagement, Interpretation and Convening Functions Within Intermediary Organizations A targeted analysis of organizational approach and capacity Elizabeth Shantz, Organizational Development Intern, December 2010 Summary The Canadian Water Network (CWN) is an intermediary organization (an organization working between the research and research user communities) with a mandate to connect water researchers and research users dealing with complex water management issues. To address sustainability challenges stemming from the end of NCE funding in 2015, it was determined that CWN might learn from the experiences of other intermediary organizations with a similar mandate of bridging the gap between research and policy or practice. A previous analysis undertaken by CWN (Goreham Hitchman, 2010) examined functions performed by intermediary organizations doing knowledge translation and knowledge brokering (KT/KB) work1. This study builds on the prior analysis by investigating in greater detail how intermediary organizations approach and resource three key intermediary functions: -
Engagement: establishing relationships and building trust with research users (including decision makers, policy makers, and practitioners) and ensuring their needs are being met. Interpretation: the translation or synthesis of research results into clear language and a format that research users can understand and utilize. Convening: physically or virtually bringing researchers and research users together to facilitate an understanding of mutual roles and how both groups might work together to effectively use research to inform policy and practice.
Thirteen KT/KB experts were interviewed and asked to provide their opinion about which organizations excelled at engagement, interpretation and convening. Of the organizations subsequently contacted, 19 agreed to participate in the study through phone and in-person interviews. Participant organizations took several different approaches to engagement. Interpersonal contact was the most effective way to build relationships, but engaging research users was also done through involving them in governance structures and committees, programs run by the organization (workshops and seminars on research use, information gathering focus groups, etc.), by targeting key research users and using their networks, and through involving users in the planning and management of research. Relationships were also built with research users by assessing what their needs were and attempting to meet those needs, by partnering with other organizations, holding annual meetings and conferences, soliciting memberships from users, and by engaging with them online.
1
Drawing on CIHR’s definition of knowledge translation, CWN defines knowledge translation as the process by which relevant research information is made available and accessible for practice, planning and policy-making through interactive and iterative engagement with intended research users.
(http://www.cher.ubc.ca/research/knowledgetransfer.asp)
Knowledge brokering includes all the activities in which intermediaries (knowledge brokers) or intermediary organizations link the producers and users of knowledge to strengthen generation, dissemination and eventual use of that knowledge. (http://www.cwn-rce.ca/publications/knowledge-translation/)
1
Most engagement activities were conducted by in-house staff, with the exception of those done by involving users on governance structures and committees. The primary resource that helped to enhance engagement was staff time devoted to building relationships. Other resources that helped with engagement were databases of user information, technology to connect between staff and research users, and the good reputation of the organization. Budget devoted to engagement was variable, and many interviewees were not able to give a number due to the fact that engagement can be achieved by any number of mechanisms which might not have engagement as the primary goal. Many interviewees also shared lessons they had learned about doing engagement well. They reiterated that engagement is about people and relationships between people; that the organization should ensure that the research is meeting a user need; that it is beneficial to target specific, important research users to engage with; and that engagement is very time consuming. Participant organizations used various approaches to interpreting data, often blending format (which may be closer to what has been defined in this report as communication or dissemination) and method. In terms of format, participants interpreted information into various forms of publications (newsletters/magazines, educational materials, research compendia, research syntheses/systematic reviews, issue briefings, plain language research summaries and videos) and presentations (educational workshops, seminars and meetings). Interpretation was often done collaboratively (involving research users, researchers and the intermediary organization), and by providing training to researchers to do interpretation themselves (through training programs, coaching and joint editing with research users). Due to the commonality of collaborative approaches to interpretation, it was not surprising that organizational capacity for interpretation often took the form of collaborations among researchers, inhouse staff and research users, although some organizations also did the interpretation work entirely inhouse, externally via consultants, through governance structures or outsourced this function to researchers. Most of the resources devoted to interpretation were focused on helping the interpreter to write in user-appropriate plain language, including training programs, written plans, coaching and best practice documents. Few organizations could estimate their budget for interpretation because it was inseparable from the communication budget (publishing the interpreted work in various forms). The key lessons learned about interpretation involved: the importance of contact with research users; the need to address implementation considerations for users; that coaching may be needed to help researchers to interpret information; the challenges imposed by current university reward structures for having researchers do interpretation; and the need to evaluate the impact of interpreted products. There were several mechanisms through which intermediary organizations convened researchers and research users, including through multi-party programs (meetings, talks and educational programs), through conferences, in response to requests from research users, and by including both researchers and research users on committees. A majority of organizations found that in-house staff were the most effective at organizing convening events, although external consultants could be useful if they had topic-specific knowledge. Others used committees to oversee larger events. Various resources like searchable databases to aid in selecting event participants and speakers, best practice documents for organizing events, and a good location and great food for the event helped to make it a success. Budget for events was variable, depending on the size of the event and various other factors.
2
Participants with extensive convening experience shared several lessons learned, including: careful organization of events is key; it is important to provide many opportunities for networking and discussion; and having a reputation as a neutral party can be a draw. To sum up, participants took various approaches to accomplishing the engagement, interpretation and convening functions, but there were many similarities which are covered in more detail in the full report. It is hoped that this analysis will help to inform CWN’s options in its future intermediary activities and that it will prove useful to other intermediary organizations. Introduction Purpose of the Study The Canadian Water Network (CWN) is an intermediary organization whose primary mandate is to connect water researchers with research users dealing with complex water management issues. As CWN approaches the end of its Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) funding in 2015, a great deal of thought is being given to how CWN’s mission may be sustained beyond NCE support. It was determined that CWN might learn from the experiences of other intermediary organizations (organizations working between the research and research user communities) with a similar mandate of bridging the gap between research and policy or practice. Various terms are used to describe the process of linking research and policy/practice, including knowledge translation, knowledge transfer, knowledge mobilization, knowledge exchange and knowledge brokering. For the purposes of this study, the term knowledge translation and knowledge brokering (KT/KB) has been chosen to describe this process. A previous “comparative organizational analysis” (Goreham Hitchman, 2010) undertaken by CWN examined functions performed by intermediary organizations doing knowledge translation and knowledge brokering (KT/KB) work. The current study extends the prior analysis by investigating in greater detail three of the seven functions identified in the comparative organizational analysis. To do so, the current study targets organizations that experts in the field have identified as excelling at KT/KB, with the goal of learning from these organizations so that CWN’s work in this area may be sustained beyond NCE support. Prior Work The current study builds on a series of reports examining functions performed by organizations doing research dissemination and implementation in the environmental sector. The first report in this series (Holmes & Savgård, 2008), entitled “Dissemination and implementation of environmental research: Including guidelines for best practice,” was a study examining how SKEP (Scientific Knowledge for Environmental Protection) member organizations approached research dissemination and implementation. This report was followed up with a study by Bielak, Holmes, Savgård, and Schaefer (2009), entitled “A comparison of European and North American approaches to the management and communication of environmental research,” which compared European environmental organizations’ approach to research dissemination (detailed in Holmes and Savgård’s 2008 report) with that of their North American counterparts. The specific functions performed by organizations working in the environmental sphere identified by these two studies were: -
Planning and management: involving users in the planning and management of projects and programs. Interpretation: translating research results into a style and format that is accessible to users.
3
-
Communication/dissemination: bringing research (that has already gone through the process of interpretation) to the attention of users using audience-appropriate channels. Engagement: establishing relationships and building trust with users and stakeholders. Evaluation: assessing the uptake of research by users and its impact on practice and policy.
To inform CWN’s options for its future beyond NCE support, CWN undertook a study examining what organizational structures and funding sources are used to support these functions in other intermediary organizations. This analysis, entitled “Organizational structure and functions within intermediary organizations: A comparative analysis,” by Katrina Goreham Hitchman, was made publically available in 2010 and can be found online (http://www.cwn-rce.ca/publications/knowledgetranslation/comparative-analysis/). This study took a broader focus than previous studies by examining intermediary organizations working both within and outside of the environmental sector. In addition to examining how organizations approach the five functions identified in the SKEP study, this analysis identified two other functions performed by intermediary organizations: -
Convening: bringing researchers and practitioners together to facilitate an understanding of roles and encourage collaboration in using research to inform practice and policy. Capacity building: providing training aimed at breaking down barriers between researchers and practitioners and facilitating the application of research to decision-making.
The current study extends the comparative analysis by investigating three of these seven functions in greater detail. Current Approach Based on the results of the comparative organizational analysis, CWN’s senior management identified three of the seven functions as warranting further investigation: engagement, interpretation and convening. Participants in the comparative analysis identified that engagement was very important, but elaborated less on their organization’s approach to engagement compared to the other functions. Interpretation was often discussed in conjunction with the communication function, suggesting that the two functions are linked but that more information is required about interpretation. Convening, as a new function that emerged in the comparative analysis, needed further investigation to determine organizations’ approaches to it. In addition to the informational gaps relating to the engagement, interpretation, and convening functions, these particular functions were identified as key components of CWN’s strategy moving forward. As such, it was determined that the current study should focus on how other intermediary organizations accomplish these three functions. This includes their overall approach, as well as in-house capacity, resources and budget devoted to accomplishing these functions, and lessons that participant organizations have learned with regard to these functions. It is hoped that the information from the current study will help to inform CWN’s approach and allocation of resources to these functions in the future, and that the information in this document will prove useful to other organizations as well.
4
Organizations and Interviews Selecting Organizations Two methods were used to identify candidate organizations for this analysis. The first method was to examine organizations that were interviewed or shortlisted for the comparative analysis (approximately 50 organizations were selected from this shortlist). These organizations were included because they had already been extensively researched and were known to meet the criteria necessary for this study. The second approach to identifying candidate organizations was through short interviews with experts in the KT/KB field. These experts were found through an online search of KT/KB websites and lists of research grants and awards in KT/KB. To qualify as an expert, it was determined that these individuals must have extensive involvement in KT/KB conferences, KT/KB websites and/or blogs, must have received awards or grants in KT/KB or must have been recommended by other experts. The majority of experts who were chosen qualified on at least two of these criteria. Through this process the list was shortened to 18 experts and they were asked to participate in the study. Thirteen of these experts agreed to this request, and 15-30 minute interviews were conducted with them (see Appendix A for a list of interview questions). During these conversations they were asked to recommend organizations that excelled at engagement, interpretation or convening. These conversations with experts yielded an additional 130 organizations, totaling 180 potential candidate organizations. An internet search on these organizations was conducted, and their vision and mission statements, activities and events section, publications section, and any information on KT/KB activities that was available on their website was examined to determine if they had activities or strategic priorities that could be classified as engagement, interpretation or convening. It should be noted that this search may not have been comprehensive, as some organizations on the list may perform these activities but not have this information available online. To ensure compatibility with CWN’s mandate of using research to inform policy and practice, organizations that had an advocacy or lobbying mandate were immediately ruled out. Organizations were also eliminated if their activities did not include at least two of the three functions of interest. Finally, organizations were eliminated if they had not been mentioned by at least two sources (i.e., two experts, or one expert and the comparative analysis, or one expert and also recommended by CWN staff). It was decided that the analysis would include organizations regardless of what sector they were in, similar to the comparative analysis, because lessons can be learned from organizations’ approaches to KT/KB regardless of sector. It was also determined that organizations would be interviewed regardless of size of the organization for the same reason. This process of elimination shortened the list to 28 organizations. Potential interviewees were contacted via email, provided with an overview of the study, and asked to participate in a one hour interview. Nineteen of the 28 organizations who were contacted about this study agreed to participate. The other nine organizations either could not participate because of the short timeframe of the study (two) or never responded to this request (seven). The final list of interviewees consisted of 24 interviewees from 17 Canadian organizations, one British organization and one Australian organization. Two organizations were in the agricultural sector, three in environment, seven in health, three in water, and five were community-university affiliates that operated across sectors. Of the organizations who participated, eleven of these organizations were small (
