Constructing knowledge translation as a science and field of research 81

The results thus far show that knowledge translation is constructed as an active-oriented process that, when added to health research, is expected to ensure that the beneficial outcomes associated with the three rationales (i.e., the gap, accountabilities, economic prosperity) become realized. This construction of knowledge translation as ‘active’ reinforces a technical role, encompassing all of the programs, strategies, mechanisms, and technical procedures through which the expectations of the rationales will be realized. The justification for this technical role is evident in the following quote with the phrase “planned and focused interventions”, implying the need for a deliberate and calculated (e.g., scientific) approach:

The evidence, while limited, is fairly consistent that change is more likely to occur with more planned and focused interventions. (Graham et al., 2006, pp. 20-21)

Constructing knowledge translation as a science and as a field of research implies qualities of objectivity and standardization that confer substantial powers and legitimacy to fulfill a technical role. As a scientific field, knowledge translation gains the productive power to mobilize resources (e.g., “support”, “concepts and theories”) for research necessary to prove its effectiveness:

Supporting KT research is essential in order to develop the science of KT, and will lead to better understanding of the concepts and theories that underlie effective KT and better determination of effective strategies for knowledge translation. CIHR 2004a, p. 6, italics in original)

Construction as a science confers on the knowledge translation discourse the power to resolve areas of conceptual confusion and terminology such that gaps in the science of knowledge translation can be identified and a research agenda can be formed. For example, the development of a common language allows the full extent of KT-oriented characteristics and processes to be shared and applied more broadly:

The establishment of a common nomenclature is also often an important step in advancing a new field of scientific inquiry and is particularly useful in outlining the research agenda and highlighting its gaps. (Graham et al., 2006, p. 22)

The expectation is that, with consensus on KT terminology and definitions, communication across a variety of settings will be enhanced, the science of knowledge translation will advance, and knowledge translation can be employed more broadly. For example, with a common nomenclature, those who are expected to be involved in knowledge translation can be identified (e.g., “knowledge producers”, “implementers and users”), conceptual differences can be resolved (e.g., clarifying the “boundaries and nature of the terrain”) and the mechanisms through which KT research will be done can be specified (e.g., through “effective and meaningful” communication):

Our description of the variability in the operational definitions of knowledge translation and knowledge transfer demonstrates that the KTA field, while not exactly uncharted territory, is territory that has differing views on its boundaries and on the nature of the terrain. In order to advance the science of KTA, consensus on terms and definitions is essential if knowledge producers and implementers and users are to effectively and meaningfully communicate with each other. (Graham et al., 2006, p.22)

Another important step in the solidification of knowledge translation as a science is construction of a series of “defined steps” (Tetroe, 2007) through which the KT process is expected to occur. These steps: synthesis; dissemination; exchange; and “ethically-sound application of knowledge” are usually listed in the texts in a particular order, as if one step needs to follow the other, as in the CIHR definition for knowledge translation:

At CIHR knowledge translation (KT) is defined as a dynamic and iterative process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange, and ethically-sound application of knowledge to improve the health of Canadians, provide more effective health services and products and strengthen the health care system. (CIHR 2010a, p. 1)

The steps are described as the “ideal” process that takes place between “knowledge creation”and “action”. This is evident, for example, in the following quote that refers to the “Knowledge to Action” model of KT on which CIHR’s knowledge translation framework is built:

The Knowledge to Action Process conceptualizes the relationship between knowledge creation and action, with each concept comprised of ideal phases or categories. (CIHR, 2010a, p. 2)

The construction of knowledge translation as both a science and field of research creates the need to develop a capacity among researchers to engage in KT research through proposal development and evaluation:

(…) with KT still an emerging field, there exists a need to build capacity not only in developing research proposals with a KT approach but also in assessing those proposals for scientific merit and potential impact. (CIHR, 2012, p. ii)

A need is also constructed to offer researchers opportunities to participate in KT research:

Researchers interested in increasing the impact of their work through contributing to the KT process have a variety of options to pursue. They can contribute to both the science and the practice of KT. (Tetroe 2007, p. 5)

The defined steps of knowledge translation are also an important component of the construction of knowledge translation as a science. For example, the step of knowledge synthesis involving “the contextualization and integration of research findings of individual research studies”(CIHR 2010a, p.1) is positioned as important to identifying gaps in research that need to be addressed:

Through knowledge synthesis such as systematic reviews, we can determine areas, based on strong evidence, that are ready for application and work with partners to move findings into practice. (CIHR 2009c, p. 26)

Finally, the “defined steps” are constructed in ways that suggest compliance with scientific method, in this case, an approach that emphasizes reproducibility and transparency in methodology, and draws on its all-encompassing nature of knowledge translation through the inclusion of both quantitative and qualitative methods:

A synthesis must be reproducible and transparent in its methods, using quantitative and/or qualitative methods. (CIHR 2010a, p. 1)