Sarah Fortin

Knowledge Transfer Coordinator

Canadian Research Data Centre Network (CRDCN)

2013 KT Forum

Mississauga, June 3-4 2013

Knowledge Transfer at the

Canadian Research Data Centre Network

Today’s Presentation

What is the CRDCN?

CRDCN specific challenges in knowledge transfer (KT)

What did we do?

Any lessons?

What is the CRDCN?

25 Research Data Centres (RDC) or branches (2000-)

A secured facility housing Statistics Canada microdata files for

research purposes: longitudinal and transversal surveys; census;

administrative data

located on a university campus

directed by a faculty member

staffed by a StatCan analyst

operated under Statistics Act ( “deemed employees”)

fully equipped for data analysis

researchers with an approved project

The CRDCN in 2013

What is the CRDCN?

Main Partners:

Universities; Statistics Canada (Micro Access Division); Social

Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC); Canadian

Institutes for Health research (CIHR)

Staff (2+ EFT):

Executive director; network coordinator (2010); knowledge transfer

coordinator (2006), webmaster

Mandate (2002-)

Improve data access

Expand the pool of trained quantitative researchers

Make research count

Making Research Count: What Did we Do?

Three Periods:

2003-2006: early years

annual conferences

2006-2011: stepping stones

KT Coordinator; website

2011- : consolidation

Strategic plan

KT and traditional communication issues

synthesis; webinars; new social media

Making Research Count: Four challenges

1. not mandated to develop a research agenda.

The research carried on through the Network is not restricted to one issue, but rather

covers very diverse fields and involves several disciplines.

2. it is an infrastructure, similar to some extent to a library.

The Network is not, intuitively, thought of as an organisation that should do knowledge

transfer.

3. research output is not user-friendly.

Social statistics is not easy for non-experts to understand and requires sophisticated

capacities to fully appreciate its contribution.

4. the Network is decentralized

makes it more difficult to develop mechanisms for reporting/monitoring outputs to allow

doing KT activities on a timely basis at the Network level

Making Research Count: What Did We Do?

Reaching Out

Annual conferences: researchers and policy makers (2003-)

Bilingual Website (www.rdc-cdr.ca) and online bibliography (2009)

CRDCN publications and activities:

Knowledge syntheses: policy implications and research gaps (2008,2013)

Research Highlight: Two-page summaries (2010-)

Webinars (2012-)

Annual conferences: output (2011-)

Making Research Count: What Did We do?

Reaching In

Strategic Plan (2011): CRDCN identity (‘branding’) is weak

It is not easy to explain what it is and to distinguish it from Statistics Canada and from its

constituents (RDCs)

Presence of two logos and several websites and absence of mutual linkages among

them

The research output is not easily recognizable as a CRDCN output

Need to reinforce inreach among RDCs users themselves

Will in turn facilitate KT undertakings in the long run.

Making Research Count: Reaching In

Internal communication and visibility issues (2012-)

The Networker: quarterly newsletter (2012-)

Website Connection with Statistics Canada and RDCs

Logo

Connection & partnership with compatible research groups and

organizations: CHNET-works; CLSRN; CEA; PLCC; IRPP…

Promotional material: flyers, posters

Twitter; YouTube

Further developments on the website

Making Research Count: KT Models

KT = means and processes that facilitate the uptake of research

evidence by decision makers and practitioners.

Two models:

Traditional rational-linear model: from research producers to research users

cast the problem as one of lack of connection between these two

communities. (Davies et al., 2008)

KT plan must identify who will benefit from the research, how they will

benefit, and what needs to be done to ensure that they do benefit from

research (Ward et al., 2010).

inform potential users of research results in an accessible format.

Iterative or “co-production” model: involving both researchers and users

“knowledge is created through social interactions” (Davies et al.)

“The exchange, synthesis and ethically-sound application of knowledge –

within a complex system of interactions among researchers and users – to

accelerate the capture of the benefits of research for Canadians…” (Graham

et al. 2006: 15)

Making Research Count: KT as a Continuum

These models are not mutually exclusive: moving towards greater

interaction

Among peers KT: Teaching; academic publishing; congress

End-of-project KT: Highlights; Syntheses; participation of users in

conferences

Front-end-KT: Integration of users from the very beginning of the

research process

Making Research Count: Some Metrics

CRDCN Website Activity, 2010- 2012 (N)

Webinars: registration (up to 170) and participation (up to 85)

Health related with CHNET-works

Newsletter: + 1,800 subscribers

New social media

Year Visits Downloads Outgoing links

2010 8,925 457 3,619

2011 20,457 1,300 5,375

2012 28,724 2,385 7,020

Making Research Count: Lessons?

Carefully assess your available resources and use them strategically

CRDCN Knowledge synthesis

Strategic Plan

Whenever possible: Change the incentives

Intro of output measurement into calculation of funding formula

Online questionnaires

Reaching in and reaching out

Break silo approach

Quality and effective KT takes time and resources: be ambitious in your

aims but modest in your expectations!

Thank you!

Visit our website at : www.rdc-cdr.ca

Subscribe to The Networker, our newsletter, on

the home page

Contact me at: sarah.fortin@crdcn.org

Follow us on Twitter at

https://twitter.com/CRDCN

Visit us on You Tube at

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheCRDCN

References

Davies, Huw; Sandra Nutley; and Isabel Walter. 2008. “Why ‘knowledge Transfer’ is Misconceived f

or Applied Social Research,” Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, Volume 13,

Number 3, pp.188-190.

Graham, Ian D.; Jo Logan; Margaret B. Harrison; Sharon E. Straus; Jacqueline Tetroe; Wenda

Caswell; and Nicole Robinson. 2006. “Lost in Knowledge Translation: Time for a Map?,”

The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, Volume 26, Number 1, pp.

13–24.

Ward, Vicky; Simon Smith; Robbie Foy; Allan House; and Susan Hamer. 2010. “Planning for

Knowledge Translation: A Researcher's Guide,” Evidence and Policy: Volume 6, Number 4,

pp. 527-541.