Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship

Volume 9 | Issue 1 Article 5

May 2016 The oC -produced Pathway to Impact Describes Knowledge Mobilization Processes David Phipps York University

Joanne Cummins PREVNet

Debra J. Pepler York University

Wendy Craig Queen's University - Kingston, Ontario

Shelley Cardinal Canadian Red Cross

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces

Recommended Citation Phipps, David; Cummins, Joanne; Pepler, Debra J.; Craig, Wendy; and Cardinal, Shelley (2016) "The oC -produced Pathway to Impact Describes Knowledge Mobilization Processes," Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship: Vol. 9 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol9/iss1/5

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Nighthawks Open Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship by an authorized editor of Nighthawks Open Institutional Repository. Phipps et al.: The Co-produced Pathway to Impact Describes Knowledge Mobilizatio The Co-produced Pathway to Impact Describes Knowledge Mobilization Processes

David Phipps, Joanne Cummings, Debra Pepler, Wendy Craig, and Shelley Cardinal

Abstract Knowledge mobilization supports research collaborations between university and community part- ners which can maximize the impacts of research beyond the academy; however, models of knowledge mobilization are complex and create challenges for monitoring research impacts. This inability to suffi- ciently evaluate is particularly problematic for large collaborative research networks involving multiple partners and research institutions. The Co-produced Pathway to Impact simplifies many of the complex models of knowledge mobilization. It is a logic model based framework for mapping the progress of research dissemination uptake implementation impact. This framework is illustrated using collaborative research projects from Promoting Relationships and Eliminating Violence Network (PREVNet), a pan-Canadian community-university network engaging in knowledge mobilization to pro- mote healthy relationships among children and youth and prevent bullying. The Co-produced Pathway to Impact illustrates that research impact occurs when university researchers collaborate with non-ac- ademic partners who produce the products, policies, and services that have impacts on the lives of end beneficiaries. Research impact is therefore measured at the level of non-academic partners and identified by surveying research partners to create narrative case studies of research impact.

Knowledge mobilization helps make academic (Bhattacharyya & Zwarenstein, 2009). Sandra research accessible to non-academic audiences Nutley and colleagues point out that “a central and supports collaborations between academic irony is the only limited extent to which evidence researchers and non-academic partners such as advocates can themselves draw on a robust ev- community-based organizations. Knowledge mo- idence base to support their convictions that bilization is a process that supports action oriented greater evidence use will ultimately be beneficial research and finds novel approaches to persistent to public services” (Nutley, Walter, Davies, 2007, social, economic and environmental challenges. p. 271). Although it is feasible to measure the Knowledge mobilization has elements of: 1) uni- impact of a single knowledge mobilization inter- versity “push” of research beyond the academy; (2) vention by testing indicators pre- and post-inter- community “pull” of research from the academy; vention, it is challenging to evaluate a complex sys- 3 “knowledge exchange” between community and tem of knowledge mobilization where there may the academy; but extends those to include 4) the be multiple research collaborators practicing a co-production of research that has academic merit diversity of knowledge mobilization methods with and also has relevance for community action diverse end users. (Phipps & Shapson, 2009). Knowledge mobilization In a recent review of leading models for knowl- can thus support community engaged scholarship edge mobilization such as the circular Knowledge and community-based research as well as to Action Cycle (Graham, Logan, Harrison, Straus, service-learning when the learning opportunity Tetroe, Caswell, & Robinson, 2006) and the mod- is meeting the needs of a community derived re- els of Bennet and Bennet (2008), Phipps, Jensen search question. There has been increasing atten- and Myers (2012) concluded that many models tion paid to knowledge mobilization and related of knowledge mobilization are highly complex. activities as the academic research community This conclusion is not surprising because knowl- seeks to articulate and maximize the various im- edge mobilization is a complex process described pacts of university research beyond the academy by Bennet and Bennet (2008) as collaborative en- (Donovan, 2011; Grant, 2015). tanglement: “Collaborative entanglement means Despite this increasing attention to articulat- to purposely and consistently develop and sup- ing the impacts of research there is little evidence port approaches and processes that combine the that research is creating extra academic impacts sources of knowledge and the beneficiaries of that

Published by NighthawksVol. 9, No. Open 1 ­—JOURNALInstitutional Repository, OF COMMUNITY 2016 ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 31 1 Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 5 knowledge to interactively move toward a common Implementation. Once the research has been direction such as meeting an identified community taken up and passed through internal assessment, need” (p. 48). the organization may choose to use the research when developing new or improved products, pol- Knowledge Mobilization Pathway to Impact icies, and services. Implementation in the knowl- In an effort to simplify a system of knowl- edge mobilization context is an activity internal to edge mobilization that reflects movement toward a the non-academic partner that uses research evi- common direction of impacts we turned to a logic dence to inform organizational decisions. model (Frechtling, 2007) where activities produce Impact. Impact is the effect the research-in- outputs that in turn produce outcomes that then formed products, policies, and services have on produce impacts (Figure 1a). By mapping such a end users as measured by the non-academic orga- logic model onto knowledge mobilization process- nization. It is measured not only in metrics of uti- es, it is possible to draw a sequence of stages that lization but also by changes in the lives of citizens, lead from research to impacts (Figure 1b). In ad- the health of the environment, or animal welfare, dition, it allows for the development of metrics at depending on the ultimate end user the organiza- each stage of the logic model. tion is seeking to address. Dissemination. Knowledge mobilization sup- This model as illustrated in Figure 1b creates a ports dissemination beyond traditional academic pathway to impact that enables the monitoring of publishing and conference presentations. This progress. By understanding the goals of each stage dissemination can include publishing activities of the pathway to impact, it is possible to assess the such as press releases, clear language research sum- benefits accruing along the pathway; however, the maries, as well as more iterative tools such as social linearity of this model may be a limitation. Linear media. It also involves active, in person methods models of research use have long been abandoned such as research events where researchers engage in favour of more iterative models of research use actively with organizations seeking to engage with that show sustained engagement between research- research and research expertise (Phipps, 2011). ers and non-academic partner organizations (Nut- The goal of dissemination is to move research out ley, Walter, & Davies, 2007; Greenhalgh & Wierin- of the academic setting and into practice and pol- ga, 2011). Linear models create risks that research icy settings where it can progress towards impact. evidence merely “transferred” to end user organi- Uptake. Once an organization has received zations may be misinterpreted or misused. Linear research information from a dissemination activity models create challenges of attribution which is the it takes that research into the organization with a extent to which impacts can be attributed to the goal of determining whether the research is useful use of specific research outputs (Boaz, Fitzpatrick, for informing decisions about policy, professional & Shaw, 2008). By requiring a moment of transfer practice, and/or social services. Uptake can include from the academic to the non-academic setting, presentations at staff meetings (that may or may linear models also reinforce academic and non-ac- not include the original researcher), internal eval- ademic silos. uation, as well as comparisons to the literature and existing practice.

Figure 1a. Traditional Knowledge Mobilization Logic Model

Traditional Knowledge mobilization logic model

Activity Output Outcome Impact

Figure 1b. Knowledge and Mobilization Logic Model

Knowledge mobilization logic model

Research Dissemination Uptae Implementation Impact https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol9/iss1/5Vol. 9, No. 1­—JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 32 2 Phipps et al.: The Co-produced Pathway to Impact Describes Knowledge Mobilizatio Knowledge Mobilization Co-produced Pathway findings. Traditionally, as research moves to im- to Impact pact, there is a decrease in engagement across the Academic research networks are expected to four stages of the pathway and engagement of the collaborate with non-academic partner organiza- academic partner is lowest in the ultimate impact tions to make new discoveries and transform those stage. Unlike the traditional process of research discoveries into impacts. This requires a more it- dissemination with research “handed” to partners, erative version of the pathway to impact than is our framework supports an ongoing relationship shown in Figure 1b because this process requires through the knowledge mobilization processes. As collaboration and co-production at each stage of illustrated in Figure 2 each stage of the pathway the pathway. A circular or iterative logic model confers benefits for both researchers and partners, has previously been recommended for evaluat- leading to new research questions, knowledge, and ing knowledge translation (Davison, 2009) such potential knowledge mobilization products. as the Knowledge to Action Cycle (Graham et al., This Co-produced Pathway to Impact is 2006) and a cyclical model proposed for education illustrated with examples from PREVNet (www. research (Amo, 2007). The iterative aspects of prevnet.ca). PREVNet is a multi-disciplinary and circular and cyclical models can be embedded into multi-sectorial network founded in 2006 on the the knowledge mobilization logic model of Figure premise that to prevent bullying strategies are re- 1b to produce a Co-produced Pathway to Impact, quired in every setting where Canadian children as illustrated in Figure 2. The Co-produced Path- and youth live, learn, work, and play. PREVNet way to Impact maintains collaboration throughout includes 121 researchers from 21 disciplines the process and creates an iterative relationship (e.g., psychology, education, social work, law, between the non-academic partners and academic business, criminology, policy, psychiatry, nursing) researchers, while maintaining an overall progres- collaborating with 63 national public and sion from research development to ultimate im- community sector organizations. pact. As illustrated in Figure 2 there are domains PREVNet addresses the increasingly where academic research and policy/practice ac- recognized and urgent need to provide all adults tivities remain distinct; however, the central over- responsible for socializing children and youth with lapping space is a shared space of collaboration knowledge and tools to choose, implement, eval- where co-production occurs at each stage of the uate, and sustain effective bullying and violence pathway. prevention initiatives. Although many bullying Co-production occurs at each stage of the path- prevention programs are available, they often lack way and accelerates the impact of research. For ex- empirical evaluation, and have the potential to ample, co-production at the research stage ensures be ineffective or, in some cases, harmful (Dodge, partners’ readiness to take up findings because of Dishion, & Langsford, 2006; Farrington & Ttofi, their input on the nature of the research questions, 2011). Programs based on science with evidence methods, and interpretations. Co-production in of effectiveness are not well disseminated, the research stage enhances partners’ motivation particularly to isolated and vulnerable communi- and engagement with research content—the new ties; moreover educators are most likely to choose knowledge will be relevant to them. At the dis- programs and resources on the basis of word-of- semination stage, the research findings are tailored mouth, rather than evidence (Cunningham, Vail- to meet the partners’ needs from knowledge mo- lancourt, Rimas, Deal, Cunningham, Short, & bilization products. These products are produced Chen 2009). PREVNet promotes engaged schol- in an accessible format for the partners. Different arship by collaborating with its member organiza- partners can then tailor the same research findings tions to develop evidence-based initiatives that rest into their own relevant and actionable knowledge on four pillars: education/training, assessment/ mobilization products that further heighten net- evaluation, prevention/intervention, and policy/ work engagement and increases dissemination. advocacy (Pepler & Craig, 2011). PREVNet has a Partners enhance dissemination through their focus on participation by non-academic partners organizational channels with a breadth and depth and a target of action oriented impacts which are that researchers cannot achieve. The ongoing mu- hallmarks of authentic community engagement tual and reciprocal support and collaboration be- (Stoecker, 2009). tween the researchers and partners in the uptake PREVNet’s research, training and knowledge and implementation stages enables organizational mobilization projects are at various stages of transformation in response to the new research development from research to impact. The projects

Published by NighthawksVol. 9, No. Open 1 ­—JOURNALInstitutional Repository, OF COMMUNITY 2016 ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 33 3 Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 5 Figure 2. Co-produced Pathway to Impact

PVNets Co-produced Pathway to Impact

Academic Researcher

Research Dissemination Uptae Implementation

PolicyPractice Partner

Research Dissemination Uptae Implementation Impact eneits eneits eneits eneits

New nowledge Publications alidation Research Citizens served Deepernew Conerences, o research inormed policy, Social, economic, partnerships worshops Policypractice practice, service environmental, Academic Social media, trainees New research health beneits trainees videos New research uestions Media and public New methods Media uestions Policypractice awareness New tools and public Contetualization trainees ulnerabilities addressed New research awareness o research New program uestions IP including Technology unding New research patents license New product uestions est practices developed and established brought to maret Changes in programs

below are presented as a snapshot in time to positive character traits shown to be important illustrate the different stages of the Co-produced for healthy relationships: respect, responsibility, Pathway to Impact. Each of the projects is a empathy, kindness and caring, teamwork, fairness, collaboration between academic and non-academic honesty, co-operation, integrity, and perseverance. partners. The ongoing, sustained collaboration PREVNet academic researchers and Wynford of each project described below creates the criti- entered into an intense collaborative co-pro- cal feedback loops illustrated at each stage of the duction process for program development and pathway (Figure 2). In this manner the academic evaluation research. The first draft of program con- and non-academic partners not only contribute tent was collectively reviewed and subsequently their complementary expertise to the project, but revised and enhanced to reflect current scientific the collaboration enables critical reflection on the evidence about character development and violence creation of new knowledge and its application to prevention. A manual for school implementation the prevention of bullying. was produced to ensure program fidelity. Now An example of partner-led co-produced named the Quazar Positive Behaviour Recognition research. The Quazar Positive Behaviour Recogni- Program, it is ready for dissemination to end users, tion Program: Wynford Motivation Works is col- with an ongoing evaluation component. There is a laborating with PREVNet and the Toronto District website that introduces and enables schools to reg- School Board’s Build Character Build Success ini- ister for the program. It is currently launched and tiative to produce animated videos and lesson plans being evaluated in four Toronto and five Kingston to build elementary students’ motivation to behave Ontario elementary schools. in ways that exemplify each of this initiative’s 10 Research benefits. New knowledge about https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol9/iss1/5Vol. 9, No. 1­—JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 34 4 Phipps et al.: The Co-produced Pathway to Impact Describes Knowledge Mobilizatio the positive characteristics important for healthy researcher. The 80-page guide brought together relationships; new collaborative activities between current evidence-based information about bully- researchers and partners, such as the Toronto ing, cyberbullying, bullying and LGBTQ students, District School Board; engaged graduate student bullying and students with exceptionalities, build- experiences. ing a respectful classroom climate, and a plan for An example of dissemination—Public lead-up activities before and daily activities during Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) Canadian Bullying Awareness Week. After reviewing and Best Practices Portal (CBPP). CBPP is an authori- evaluating this resource and the accompanying tative repository for annotated and evidence-based tip sheets and associated activities, Family Chan- health promotion practices. PREVNet research- nel contributed professional graphics and design. ers and graduate students have collaborated with The 2012 Teacher’s Guide was downloaded 2,250 PHAC since 2009 to create and populate the times. In February 2012, Dr. Wendy Josephson, Violence Prevention Stream for the CBPP as a tool professor, Department of Psychology, University for disseminating evidence-based violence preven- of Winnipeg, and three students held a series of tion practices, tools, and interventions. Each year, focus groups with 41 elementary and high school violence prevention programs developed in Cana- teachers from Winnipeg and the surrounding area da and internationally are reviewed by PREVNet to review the 2012 Teacher’s Guide. Based on this academic researchers and PHAC and those meeting input, the 2013 guide was revised and refined. the stringent inclusion criteria are included Uptake benefits. Family Channel validated on the portal. The Violence Prevention Stream the academic research in a real world setting; currently hosts 80 programs on the site, and there graduate students gained skills working with are 3,000 unique visitors annually. non-academic audiences (Family Channel and After conducting six focus groups with teachers); user audience input was used to refine educators and community organizations to explore the resource; resource made available to end users. the usability of the portal, feedback has resulted in An example of implementation—Girls improvements to the site. PREVNet and PHAC United Training, Girl Guides of Canada (GGC). have developed a Needs Assessment Toolkit, to Beginning in 2006, consultations with GGC enable stakeholders to select programs that will be leadership revealed that the training provided effective, relevant and appropriate for their specific to Girl Guide Leaders, known as “Guiders,” did populations and local needs, further enhancing not specifically address bullying and relational the utility of the CBPP as a dissemination tool. aggression, nor was bullying addressed in the PREVNet researchers have actively promoted the GGC Code of Conduct even though Girl Guide CBPP violence prevention portal through public leadership identified bullying and relational presentations and professional conferences. aggression as needing to be addressed. A working Dissemination benefits. These provide im- group with leading researchers on girls’ aggression proved functionality using the Needs Assessment was convened, and then a PREVNet researcher Toolkit; web based and social media promotion; and graduate student worked with senior GGC improved accessibility of the 80 evidence-based training developers to co-create the Girls United programs, as well as four academic presentations at Training Module for adult leaders and Girls United conferences; and increased decision maker aware- Badge for Girl Guides. The initial iteration of the ness regarding the importance of evidence-based training was presented to the PREVNet Social violence and bullying prevention programs. Aggression Working Group, attended by leading An example of Uptake—F­ amily Channel Canadian researchers working in the field of social StandUP! Campaign. Family Channel is a com- aggression and by staff from several youth-serving mercial-free network offering family television community organizations. A training module was entertainment in 5.8 million homes across Canada. developed based on the feedback from the work- Its target audience is children aged 9–12. Family ing group. GGC training developers simplified the Channel has been involved in Bullying Awareness language, sharpened the messaging, and supplied Week every November for the past for 11 years, graphic design. Between 2006 and 2008, PREVNet and approached PREVNet to be its official research delivered the training to over 75 Senior Trainers partner in 2006. In 2012, a comprehensive Bul- (who in turn trained other local trainers, who then lying Awareness Teacher’s Guide for Grades 4–6 trained Guiders) in British Colombia, Nova Sco- was written by a team of graduate students from tia, and Ontario. PREVNet collected participant across Canada under the leadership of a PREVNet evaluations of these training sessions (N = 129)

Published by NighthawksVol. 9, No. Open 1 ­—JOURNALInstitutional Repository, OF COMMUNITY 2016 ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 35 5 Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 5 and found high levels of satisfaction, with a mean Community of Practice co-created the HRTM to rating of 4.7 on a 5-point scale assessing percep- address the gap in relationship training. tions of value and relevance, understanding of The module consists of a comprehensive topic, and increased confidence about addressing Facilitator’s Guide, a slide presentation deck, and social aggression among girls. Similar ratings a Participant’s Handbook. Following a multi-step were found by PREVNet from 27 participants process in which PREVNet and Community of who took the training from a Senior Girl Guide Practice members move from visioning to design Trainer (mean = 4.6), providing evidence that the to evaluation and training, the HRTM was co-cre- “Train the Trainer” model was effective (Daniels & ated in stages, with a graduate student preparing Quigley, 2009). a first draft that was extensively presented and From 2007 until August 2013, 1,445 Guiders critiqued through multiple Community of Prac- completed on line training. Between October 2007 tice meetings. Based on participant feedback and and August 2013, 18,873 Girl Guides achieved the questionnaire results, an extensive revision of the Girls United Badge, indicating they had fulfilled HRTM Facilitator Guide was completed. the required activities designed to develop their Within the three partner organizations, understanding of healthy relationships with their the HRTM was integrated into existing training peers. This example illustrates how co-produced resources and procedures. Pre- and post-training evidence informed training (the Girls United pilot data were collected using the “Knowledge Training Module for adult leaders, and Girls United Confidence Skills: Healthy Relationship Question- Badge for Girl Guides) was disseminated to the naire,” with a pilot data set of 505 participants from PREVNet Social Aggression Working Group, was the partners. Analysis of these data revealed sig- taken up by GGC training developers and imple- nificant increases in participants’ confidence and mented in a national train-the-trainer campaign. commitment to fostering healthy relationships. Uptake benefits.These included a research The following comments from partner informed training program; graduate student organization leaders speak to the rapid uptake and experience working in a practice setting; implementation of HRTM that occurred by the expansion of program to an online version; and end of 2012: Girl Guides developing an enhanced understand- ing of healthy relationships …if you look at knowledge mobilization, An example of impact—the Healthy Rela- that knowledge that was presented, all tionship Training Module (HRTM). The HRTM the research and best practices made was developed through a Community of Practice its way down to the field, which I think that included PREVNet academic researchers, was a huge benefit. Across Canada, we students and three youth-serving non-profit incorporated portions of the Healthy organizations: Big Brothers Big Sisters Canada, Relationships training into all our Canadian Red Cross, and Scouts Canada. By shar- prevention education materials. For ing resources and exchanging knowledge, the goal example, in our training for teachers in was to enhance each organization’s capacity to bullying prevention we have integrated foster respectful, safe, caring, and inclusive a module on healthy relationships. These environments for children and youth. teachers train Youth Facilitators and share Adult leaders play a critical role socializing information on healthy relationships. Our children and youth: they serve as role models, Youth facilitators deliver workshops to mentors, guides, supports, and teachers. To be younger students and talk about healthy effective in their work with children and youth, schools and healthy relationships. We they need explicit training about how healthy have 3,500 Youth facilitators across Can- development depends on healthy relationships, ada and reached over 260,000 youth with and how to identify and address bullying and information on bullying prevention and other unhealthy relationship dynamics. There healthy relationships last year. We also was an assumption that professionals and volun- recently updated our Be Safe! Program teers who work with children and youth have the for children ages 5 to 9 (formerly known knowledge, confidence, and skills they need to as c.a.r.e.). Our 8th edition contains a create healthy social climates and prevent bullying, section on healthy relationships. We hope yet explicit, comprehensive, and evidence-based to reach over 30,000 children, parents training was missing. Working collaboratively, the and teachers with the new kit over https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol9/iss1/5Vol. 9, No. 1­—JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 36 6 Phipps et al.: The Co-produced Pathway to Impact Describes Knowledge Mobilizatio the next year. — Lisa Evanoff, National Discussion Training Manager Canadian Red Cross Reflecting on the PREVNet experiences of collaborations between academic researchers and This year we have the potential of reach- students with non-academic partners including ing more than twenty-four thousand (but not limited to) Wynford, Toronto District youth, right from Vancouver Island to School Board, PHAC, Family Channel, Girl Newfoundland. So that’s a goodly num- Guides, Red Cross, Scouts Canada and Big Brothers ber of youth and as far as adults, poten- Big Sisters we have not only developed and imple- tially more than twenty-seven thousand mented the Co-produced Pathway to Impact but volunteer leaders. If you include all of our can draw conclusions on its utility as a framework paid staff as well as our volunteers, we’re describing knowledge mobilization processes. looking at over one hundred and two It is clear from the HRTM collaboration that thousand individuals. — DeEtte Bryce, impact is measured at the level of the non-academ- past Training Representative for Fraser ic partner. Academic impacts arise from research Valley Council, B.C. Scouts Canada and dissemination, but impacts on the lives of end beneficiaries are mediated through the products, The impact has been very exciting policies and services of non-academic partner given our magnitude across the country organizations. The HRTM was a training program – we work in every province and now co-produced with academic researchers but have some relationships and programs in delivered nationally though Community of each of the territories as well. We’re able Practice partners such as Red Cross, Scouts to bring these new resources to children Canada, and Big Brothers Big Sisters. That impact and youth, parents/guardians, volunteers/ is a function of non-academic partners has mentors, service delivery staff, and exec- also been demonstrated by Sarah Morton, who utive staff and boards across the country. has shown the critical role of research users in In 2012 Big Brothers Big Sisters agencies mediating impacts of research beyond the across Canada served over 40,000 academy (Morton, 2014). children and youth—every child and As illustrated by the HRTM example, in youth, along with their volunteer men- a co-production process, research can skip tors and parents/guardians, benefits from dissemination and uptake and move directly to the Healthy Relationship training. Susan implementation, which then has an impact. There Climie, director of training, Big Brothers was no need for dissemination and uptake because Big Sisters of Canada, the end users of the HRTM were involved in its creation. This outcome is unique to co-production Impact benefits. Gaps in training iden- where the process of undertaking the research can tified and addressed; training developed and have an impact (i.e., influence decision making) provided to make safer spaces for children and even before the research has been disseminated. youth across Canada. Training contributes to Co-production can therefore help to address issues economic and social benefits. of attribution (Boaz, Fitzpatrick & Shaw, 2008). These examples illustrate how sustained When these impacts are measured by engagement between academic researchers, stu- partners evaluating the effects of their efforts on dents, and non-academic partners enables: the their stakeholders and end beneficiaries, the stories co-production of research (Wynford); the dissem- of impacts can be told through narratives and case ination of research (PHAC); the uptake of research studies. Structured impact case studies were the evidence into non-academic programs (Family unit of assessment for the UK Research Excellence Channel); the implementation of research evidence Framework (REF; www.ref.ac.uk) and research on into products and services (Girl Guides); and, the the REF confirmed this method as the best meth- eventual impact of evidence informed training on od for articulating impacts of research beyond the the lives of end beneficiaries (HRTM). The use academy (Grant, 2015). of the Co-produced Pathway to Impact has a Because the pathway from research to im- number of implications for the practice of pact may be measured over years, researchers and knowledge mobilization as described below. academic institutions need to remain in contact with non-academic partners to be able to capture the narrative case studies of impact. Without this

Published by NighthawksVol. 9, No. Open 1 ­—JOURNALInstitutional Repository, OF COMMUNITY 2016 ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 37 7 Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 5 active follow up or continual engagement with Impact be applied at the project, program/unit, partner organizations, academic researchers may institutional or network level? have little appreciation of the impacts of their Additionally, the linearity of the logic model research. This has been confirmed by an evalua- underpinning the Co-produced Pathway to tion of knowledge mobilization programs by the Impact may not be an issue. A number of linear Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council logic model based frameworks describing the of Canada (SSHRC, 2013). flow of research to impact have been described If funders, such as SSHRC, want to generate by Alberta Innovates Health Solutions (Graham, impacts from their investments in research, then Chorzempa, Valentine, & Magnan, 2012), and they need to fund uptake and implementation by the Commonwealth Scientific and Research activities within partner organizations. These Organisation in Australia (Morgan, 2014) and activities can be supported by funding graduate is linearly referred to as research uptake, use and student internships and post-doctoral fellowships impact at the Centre for Research on Families and in partner organizations to support uptake and Relationships, University of Edinburgh (Morton, implementation. This strategy will provide the 2014). What is interesting about this convergent non-academic organization with ready access to thinking is that knowledge mobilization profes- academic research expertise and will provide the sionals seem to be getting comfortable with the student/fellow with experience in non-academic linearity of these pathways. Linear models for a professional environments. single knowledge mobilization project have been Finally, knowledge mobilization is often abandoned in favour of iterative models such as described using the metaphor of “bridging the gap” the Knowledge to Action Cycle (Graham et al., between the silos of research and policy/practice; 2006). When working in a system of knowledge however, this metaphor maintains the academic mobilization, however, a portfolio of projects, such and non-academic silos. In co-production there as described for PREVNet, does move towards im- is no gap to bridge. Academic researchers and pact. And this movement is linear from research non-academic partners come together in a shared to impact. Different projects at different stages in space of collaboration (see Figure 2). They main- the in the linear Co-Produced Pathway to Impact tain their own independent spaces but research, create the opportunity to further examine projects dissemination, uptake, and implementation occur and develop indicators describing each to the stage in a collaborative environment. In contrast impact of the pathway. beyond the academy is expressed in the non-aca- demic environment only. Conclusions The Co-produced Pathway to Impact requires Future Work/Issues Arising that researchers and research partners engage in This theoretical framework is a snapshot in ongoing collaboration throughout the process time of a number of research collaborations at from research to impact. PREVNet’s deep and various stages along the Co-produced Pathway to sustained collaborations may not be feasible or Impact. Some of the observations are retrospective desirable for some community organizations or and are not intended to make predictions of future university researchers; however, in collaborative benefits arising from the research. To establish how networks that have a mandate to not only create the Co-produced Pathway to Impact works for a new knowledge but also to translate that knowl- single collaborative research project, one would edge into improved economic, social, health, follow a co-produced research project such as the cultural or environmental impacts the Co-pro- Quazar Positive Behaviour Recognition Program duced Pathway to Impact creates a framework that as it progresses through dissemination to uptake to describes the progress of collaborative research as implementation and eventually to impact. Howev- it develops from research into new products, pol- er, a number of potential challenges arise. It may icies and services. It also illustrates that getting to take years for impact to be realized. Many research impact is a shared enterprise and activities in both projects will not proceed all the way to impact, as academic and non-academic partner sites need to other factors such as availability of resources and be eligible expenses in research funding programs. competing products may prevent good research A number of recommendations arise for those from proceeding to impact. Therefore, the ques- wishing to use the Co-produced Pathway to Impact tion arises about the unit of measurement and to describe knowledge mobilization processes. evaluation: should the Co-produced Pathway to For academic researchers: Since impacts of https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol9/iss1/5Vol. 9, No. 1­—JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 38 8 Phipps et al.: The Co-produced Pathway to Impact Describes Knowledge Mobilizatio research beyond the academy are mediated by in health care: Moving from evidence to practice (pp. non-academic partners it is important to stay 249–260). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing 2009. in touch with non-academic partners who may Cunningham, C.E., Vaillancourt, T., Rimas, be using academic or co-produced research to H., Deal, K., Cunningham, L., Short, K., & Chen, inform new products, policies, and services. Only Y. (2009). Modeling the bullying prevention pro- by working with partners to tell those stories will gram preferences of educators: A discrete choice academic researchers be able to articulate the conjoint experiment. Journal of Abnormal Child impacts of research. Psychology, 37(7), 929–943. For non-academic partners: The role of the Daniels, T., & Quigley, D. (2009). Girls unit- non-academic partner in community-campus ed: Creating a nationwide intervention program collaborations is more than a co-creator of to address the use of social aggression within girls’ research knowledge or passive recipient of academic groups. In W. Craig, D. Pepler, & J. Cummings research. It is the community partner, not the (Eds.) Rise up for respectful relationships: Prevent academic researcher, who will implement research bullying (pp. 145–168.) PREVNet Series, Volume evidence into products, policies and services to 2. Kingston, Canada: PREVNet Inc. benefit stakeholders. The Co-produced Pathway to Davison, C.M. (2009). Knowledge translation: Impact highlights the critical role of non-academic implications for evaluation. New Direction for Eval- partners in mediating research impact. uation, 2009(124), 75–87. For research institutions: Public policy drivers Dodge, K.A., Dishion, T.J., & Langsford, J.E. such as the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (2006). Deviant peer influences in intervention (REF) are driving UK academic institutions to and public policy for youth. Social Policy Report, articulate the impacts of university research 20(1), 3–19. beyond the academy (Grant, 2015). It can take Donovan, C. (2011) State of the art in assess- many years for research to be taken up by part- ing research impact: introduction to a special issue. ners and implemented into the products, policies Research Evaluation, 20(3), 175-179. and services that will then have an impact on end Farrington, D., & Ttofi, M. (2011). Bullying beneficiaries. Without an institutional office like as a predictor of offending, violence and later life a Knowledge Mobilization Unit (Phipps & Shap- outcomes. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, son, 2009), research institutions have little ability 31, 90–98. to identify these impacts. Sustainable research Frechtling, J.A. (2007). Logic modeling meth- networks such as PREVNet maintain relation- ods in program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: ships with non-academic partners and over time Jossey-Bass. collaborate with them to articulate the benefits of Graham, I.D., Logan, J., Harrison, M.B., research projects at each stage of the Co-produced Straus, S.E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W., & Robinson, Pathway to Impact. N. (2006). Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map?. Journal of Continuing Education in the References Health Professions, 26(1), 13–24. Amo, C. (2007). Conceptualizing research Graham, K.E.R., Chorzempa, H.L., Valentine, impact: the case of education research. Canadian P.A., & Magnan, J. (2012). Evaluating health re- Journal of Program Evaluation, 22(1), 75–98. search impact: Development and implementation Boaz, A., Fitzpatrick, S., and Shaw, B. (2008) of the Alberta Innovates – Health Solutions im- Assessing the impact of research on policy: A review pact framework. Research Evaluation, 1–14. doi: of the literature for a project on bridging research 10.1093/reseval/rvs027. and policy through outcome evaluation. Retrieved Grant, J. (2015) The nature, scale and ben- from http://www.psi.org.uk/pdf/2008/bridging- eficiaries of research impact: An initial analysis project_report_with_appendices.pdf of Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 Bennet, A. & Bennet, D. (2008). Knowledge impact case studies. Higher Education Fund- mobilization in the social sciences and humanities: ing Council of England. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/ moving from research to action. Frost, West Virgin- media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/Independen- ia, USA: MQI Press. tresearch/2015/Analysis,of,REF,impact/Analysis_ Bhattacharyya, O., & Zwarenstein, M. 2009. of_REF_impact.pdf Accessed June 20, 2015. Methodologies to evaluate effectiveness of knowl- Greenhalgh, T., and Wieringa, S. (2011). Is edge translation interventions. In S. Strauss, J. Te- it time to drop the ‘knowledge translation’ meta- troe, and I. Graham (Eds.), Knowledge translation phor? A critical literature review. Journal of the

Published by NighthawksVol. 9, No. Open 1 ­—JOURNALInstitutional Repository, OF COMMUNITY 2016 ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 39 9 Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 5 Royal Society of Medicine, 104(12), 501–509. Canada. Shelley Cardinal is National Aboriginal Morgan, B. (2014) Income for outcome: Aus- consultant to the Canadian Red Cross RespectED: tralia and New Zealand are experimenting with Violence and Abuse Prevention program (Vancouver). ways of assessing the impact of publicly funded research. Nature, 511, S72–S75. Retrieved from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/ n7510_supp/pdf/511S72a.pdf. Morton, S. (2014) Creating research impact: The roles of research users in interactive research mobilisation. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Re- search, Debate and Practice, 11(1), 35–55. Re- trieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/17442651 4X13976529631798. Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Us- ing evidence: How research can inform public ser- vices. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press. Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (2011). Promoting re- lationships and eliminating violence in Canada. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 35(5), 389–397. Phipps, D., & Shapson, S. (2009). Knowledge mobilisation builds local research collaborations for social innovation. Evidence & Policy, 5(3), 211– 27. Phipps, D. (2011). A report detailing the de- velopment of a university-based knowledge mobi- lization unit that enhances research outreach and engagement. Scholarly and Research Communica- tion, 2(2), 1–13. Phipps, D.J., Jensen, K.E., & Myers, J.G. (2012). Applying social sciences research for public benefit using knowledge mobilization and social media. In Asunción López-Varela (Ed.), Theoretical and methodological approaches to social sciences and knowledge management. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech. SSHRC. (2013). Evaluation of SSHRC’s knowledge mobilization funding opportunities. Retrieved from www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/about-au_ sujet/publications/KMb_evaluation_2013_e.pdf. Stoecker, R. (2009). Are we talking the walk of community-based research? Action Research, 7(4), 385–404.

About the Authors David Phipps is executive director, Research and Innovation Services in the Office of Research Services at York University in Toronto, Canada. Joanne Cummings is knowledge mobilization director, PREVNet. Debra Pepler is a professor in the Department of Psychology at York University. Wendy Craig is a professor in the Department of Psychology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario,

https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol9/iss1/5Vol. 9, No. 1­—JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 40 10