{"id":2840740,"date":"2023-07-28T07:17:48","date_gmt":"2023-07-28T12:17:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/\/"},"modified":"2024-02-28T09:44:50","modified_gmt":"2024-02-28T14:44:50","slug":"reimagining-knowledge-translation-in-the-global-south-implications-for-practitioners-and-funders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/reimagining-knowledge-translation-in-the-global-south-implications-for-practitioners-and-funders\/","title":{"rendered":"Reimagining knowledge translation in the Global South: implications for practitioners and funders"},"content":{"rendered":"
We must expand our understanding of knowledge translation (KT) beyond its traditional boundaries. This would open up possibilities for more innovative, comprehensive and effective approaches to transferring knowledge. Ultimately, this could lead to better-informed decisions and to policies that better serve the needs of communities, especially in the Global South.<\/span><\/p>\n OTT recently published a report on KT in the Global South<\/a>. We worked with the <\/span>Institute of Development Studies (IDS)<\/span><\/a> (our partner); the <\/span>International Development Research Centre (IDRC)<\/span> (the project’s funder); and the members of a learning journey, who were drawn from across the field.<\/span><\/p>\n We initially defined KT as: \u201cintentional interventions involving dialogue between a range of relevant actors to encourage or support the use of research-based evidence to inform behaviours.\u201d <\/span>+<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n We chose this working definition carefully, considering the impact and meaning of each word,<\/span> to convey that KT isn\u2019t linear or unidirectional. We also wanted to convey the centrality of the behaviour of people and organisations in offering the support and encouragement needed to get things done.<\/span><\/p>\n We then used this definition to identify experts and practitioners in the field, cases for us to study in great depth, and examples of KT translation taking place in multiple contexts. Our study revealed the necessity of rethinking how we understand and practice KT, particularly in relation to the Global South.<\/span><\/p>\n Our investigation found no universally accepted definition of KT among field experts and practitioners. Many equated it with other concepts, like research uptake or evidence-informed policy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In hindsight, I think this was one of our most important findings. It may be useful to create multiple categories to describe things and to decide what to fund and how to run projects, but, in practice, these categories don\u2019t always make sense.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n For those on the front line, what matters is the <\/span>purpose<\/b> of their work. And their immediate purpose is to ensure that decisions on matters of public interest are well-informed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Call it whatever you want \u2013 translation, uptake, brokering, use, etc. \u2013 I take this as a direct challenge to how we organise ourselves and our work. Paraphrasing what the late Peter Da Costa once told me: Are we doing what works for us, or are we doing what\u2019s really necessary?\u00a0<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n This leads me to the first of <\/span>four key takeaways<\/b>:<\/span><\/p>\n This links to another key finding from our research, the recognition that no single group can be solely responsible for effective KT.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The practitioners we engaged with and the cases we gathered suggest that KT is not confined to a specific role or profession, such as communication practitioners. A clear example of this is the role of African academic researchers. They helped to incorporate unpublished research from Africa into the <\/span>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change\u2019s (IPCCC\u2019s)<\/span><\/a> report by publishing academic research based on it.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This example showcases that KT does not only involve translating from researchers to policymakers. It can also involve translation among researchers, thereby breaking the conventional mould of what we view as KT.<\/span><\/p>\n In our globalised world, access to KT tools and competencies isn’t exclusive to any one region. Our study showed that there isn’t a skills divide between the Global North and South. Proficient analysis, competent writing, innovative design and effective use of evidence are possible everywhere.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not always useful, therefore, to divide the world along this already vague line. Good KT practice can be found everywhere and it can be adapted and copied in a global marketplace. Further efforts to study and support the field should not divide the world; instead, they should seek to be inclusive of multiple expertise and experiences.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n However, the context within which this takes place and the critical mass of analysts, writers and designers, etc., may differ across regions, especially between the Global North and South.<\/span><\/p>\n We chose to describe the Global South as a space marked by weaker institutional structures, where KT faces unique challenges, such as limited public funding for science and research, structural inequalities and political landscapes dominated by vested interests.<\/span><\/p>\n This is not to say that many parts of the Global North do not also face these challenges \u2013 but the scale and magnitude of these are patently different.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n However, it’s important to note that contextual factors aren’t only institutional or macro-level. Micro-level factors can also shape the KT process, as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n We need to consider how funding and other forms of support can help us to address the micro-level challenges faced by the sector.<\/span><\/p>\n In my view, if we don\u2019t invest in KT and in evidence-informed policy, more broadly, we will not make a difference.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Rely on the assessments of their local partners\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n Funders interested in supporting well-informed decisions should do this to understand how they can best incorporate KT into their work. At most, they should facilitate access to a global exchange of skills and experiences so their partners can inform their own choices.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This would give their partners much greater agency to set their agendas, choose the most appropriate partners for them (locally or internally) and to lead KT processes<\/span><\/p>\n This calls for a shift in the power dynamics, giving grantees much greater agency to set the agendas and lead KT processes.<\/span><\/p>\n Play a more proactive role in addressing the systemic issues affecting KT<\/b><\/p>\n Understanding the wider ecosystem influencing KT initiatives and collaborating with other funders who focus on different parts of this ecosystem could lead to more effective KT efforts.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n We don\u2019t expect research funders to venture into the world of political party reforms, media strengthening or civil service reforms \u2013 apart from allocating resources for these. But every funder\u2019s strategy to support the generation, communication and use of evidence should include a very clear plan for how they will collaborate with those funders who do work with institutions like political parties and the media.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Embrace a broader understanding of KT and broaden the scope of investments<\/b><\/p>\n Embracing a broader understanding of KT is preferable to using narrowly defined activities or roles \u2013 even professions or fields can be too narrow.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Funders could consider the study of KT itself as an integral part of the research they support, and so broaden the scope of their investments. While this includes the fields of evidence-informed policy and the sociology of knowledge, it also extends to political science, public sector reform and the literature on political knowledge regimes.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Engaging with these domains could offer fresh perspectives and could enrich our collective understanding of KT in a larger system.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Read the primary research report, Bridging text with context: knowledge translation in the Global South<\/a> and final synthesis report, Knowledge translation in the Global South: bridging different ways of knowing for equitable development.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" We must expand our understanding of knowledge translation (KT) beyond its traditional boundaries. This would open up possibilities for more innovative, comprehensive and effective approaches to transferring knowledge. Ultimately, this could lead to better-informed decisions and to policies that better serve the needs of communities, especially in the Global South. OTT recently published a report […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"tags":[773],"class_list":["post-2840740","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-knowledge-translation","article-types-opinion","people-enrique-mendizabal","series-knowledge-translation-in-the-global-south","theme-communications","theme-research"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2840740","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/26"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2840740"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2840740\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2840740"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2840740"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Research findings<\/b><\/h1>\n
1. We need to seriously rethink the way we\u2019re building the field, asking ourselves, is it useful?<\/b><\/h4>\n
2. We need to view KT not as a separate process but as an intrinsic part of everything we do in the broad field of evidence-informed decision making: from setting research agendas to disseminating our results and using evidence.\u00a0<\/b><\/h4>\n
3. Contextual factors significantly affect the practice of KT.\u00a0<\/b><\/h4>\n
\n
4. To enhance the effectiveness of KT, we need to strengthen these contexts \u2013 for example, through science granting councils, advisory systems, civil service reform and political party strengthening.\u00a0<\/b><\/h4>\n
What KT research funders could do<\/strong><\/h1>\n