IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v10y2023i1d10.1057_s41599-023-01733-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Capacity development for knowledge mobilization: a scoping review of the concepts and practices

Author

Listed:
  • Hamid Golhasany

    (McGill University)

  • Blane Harvey

    (McGill University)

Abstract

There is a growing emphasis worldwide on the use of knowledge mobilization (KMb) to improve policies and practices with the latest research evidence. This emphasis calls upon knowledge producers (e.g., university researchers) to produce more relevant evidence, and knowledge users (e.g., practitioners) to access and apply evidence. However, doing KMb can be challenging for these groups without effective support and training. Therefore, individuals and organizations are undertaking capacity development interventions to facilitate the KMb process with more effective support structures, skills, and incentives. Despite its recognized importance, theoretical evidence and practical guidance on capacity development for KMb are scattered across disciplines and practices. To address this, we conducted a scoping review study to review the current practices and concepts and identify significant gaps. One-thousand six-hundred thirty records were gathered, and 105 peer-reviewed and gray literature documents from 2010 to 2020 were reviewed. Two reviewers worked independently in screening the records, and one researcher analyzed the retained documents. The analysis reveals that capacity development for KMb is a multidimensional and multiscalar concept and practice with a diverse range of initiators, initiatives, and beneficiaries. This study also reports on three thematic areas of significance emerging from the literature, namely: (a) individuals’ and organizations’ challenges in doing and supporting KMb, (b) the capacities and supports deemed needed for effective KMb, and (c) the strategies being used for delivering capacity development. Furthermore, this study identifies evidence gaps related to the process aspects of capacity development for KMb (i.e., planning), capacity development initiatives being undertaken in developing country contexts, and results from more formal evaluations of KMb capacity-building effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Hamid Golhasany & Blane Harvey, 2023. "Capacity development for knowledge mobilization: a scoping review of the concepts and practices," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01733-8
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-023-01733-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-023-01733-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-023-01733-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lachance, Lisa & Watson, Crystal & Blais, Daniel & Ungar, Michael & Healey, Gwen & Salaffie, Moriah & Sundar, Purnima & Kelly, Laura & Lagace, Marie Claude, 2019. "Strengthening child and youth programs: A look at inter-organizational mentoring strategies," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Stamatakis, Katherine A. & Ferreira Hino, Adriano Akira & Allen, Peg & McQueen, Amy & Jacob, Rebekah R. & Baker, Elizabeth A. & Brownson, Ross C., 2017. "Results from a psychometric assessment of a new tool for measuring evidence-based decision making in public health organizations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 17-23.
    3. Laing, Matthew & Wallis, Philip J., 2016. "Scientists versus policy-makers: Building capacity for productive interactions across boundaries in the urban water sector," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 23-30.
    4. Boyko, Jennifer A. & Lavis, John N. & Abelson, Julia & Dobbins, Maureen & Carter, Nancy, 2012. "Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1938-1945.
    5. Christian Dagenais & Renée Pinard & Marjolaine St-Pierre & Mélodie Briand-Lamarche & Amina Kay Cantave & Normand Péladeau, 2016. "Using concept mapping to identify conditions that foster knowledge translation from the perspective of school practitioners," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 70-78.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Samantha Shewchuk & James Wallace & Mia Seibold, 2023. "Evaluations of training programs to improve capacity in K*: a systematic scoping review of methods applied and outcomes assessed," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Xuesong Zhai & Xiaoyan Chu & Minjuan Wang & Chin-Chung Tsai & Jyh-Chong Liang & Jonathan Michael Spector, 2024. "A systematic review of Stimulated Recall (SR) in educational research from 2012 to 2022," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bruen, Carlos & Brugha, Ruairi, 2020. "“We’re not there to protect ourselves, we’re there to talk about workforce planning”: A qualitative study of policy dialogues as a mechanism to inform medical workforce planning," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(7), pages 736-742.
    2. Evans, Sarah & Scarbrough, Harry, 2014. "Supporting knowledge translation through collaborative translational research initiatives: ‘Bridging’ versus ‘blurring’ boundary-spanning approaches in the UK CLAHRC initiative," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 119-127.
    3. Mathieu J. P. Poirier & Karen A. Grépin & Michel Grignon, 2020. "Approaches and Alternatives to the Wealth Index to Measure Socioeconomic Status Using Survey Data: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 1-46, February.
    4. Helka Kalliomäki & Sampo Ruoppila & Jenni Airaksinen, 2021. "It takes two to tango: Examining productive interactions in urban research collaboration [Generating Research Questions through Problematization]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 529-539.
    5. Mulvale, Gillian & Chodos, Howard & Bartram, Mary & MacKinnon, Mary Pat & Abud, Manon, 2014. "Engaging civil society through deliberative dialogue to create the first Mental Health Strategy for Canada: Changing Directions, Changing Lives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 262-268.
    6. Dorota Sienkiewicz & Alison Maassen & Iñaki Imaz-Iglesia & Elisa Poses-Ferrer & Helen McAvoy & Rita Horgan & Miguel Telo de Arriaga & Andrew Barnfield, 2020. "Shaping Policy on Chronic Diseases through National Policy Dialogs in CHRODIS PLUS," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-20, September.
    7. Dhanush Dinesh & Dries Hegger & Joost Vervoort & Bruce M. Campbell & Peter P. J. Driessen, 2021. "Learning from failure at the science–policy interface for climate action in agriculture," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 1-24, January.
    8. Joanne Lawrence-Bourne & Hazel Dalton & David Perkins & Jane Farmer & Georgina Luscombe & Nelly Oelke & Nasser Bagheri, 2020. "What Is Rural Adversity, How Does It Affect Wellbeing and What Are the Implications for Action?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    9. Péladeau, Normand & Dagenais, Christian & Ridde, Valéry, 2017. "Concept mapping internal validity: A case of misconceived mapping?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 56-63.
    10. Schoemaker, Casper G. & van Loon, Jeanne & Achterberg, Peter W. & van den Berg, Matthijs & Harbers, Maartje M. & den Hertog, Frank R.J. & Hilderink, Henk & Kommer, Geertjan & Melse, Johan & van Oers, , 2019. "The Public Health Status and Foresight report 2014: Four normative perspectives on a healthier Netherlands in 2040," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 252-259.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01733-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.