Know Your Why: Insights on KT Purpose and Quality
I review many research grants, and as a result, read many research-related knowledge translation plans. Two insights have emerged from this activity.
Insight One: KT requires purpose
When you read a lot of KT plans, patterns begin to emerge. KT plans have improved over the years. They used to comprise one or two sentences on how the research findings would be made accessible to other researchers through peer-reviewed publications and conferences. Today, many KT plans
Efforts to provide greater detail within KT plans are encouraging. However, there remains room for improvement, and herein lies the focus of this post. The typical knowledge translation plan includes a couple of sentences describing the targeted knowledge users, followed by the knowledge translation strategies that will be used to communicate to the identified audiences. Several elements of quality knowledge translation planning are missing in this approach.
Communication is characterized by the sharing of information, ideas or thoughts from one person to another. Every communication begins with an intent or purpose, and this holds when communicating research evidence.
The purpose of communicating main messages about research, what I refer to as the KT goal, can be to (1) create awareness, interest, or buy-in, (2) impart knowledge, (3) shape attitudes; (4) inform research, (5) inform decision making, (6) inform policy, (7) facilitate practice change, (8) facilitate behaviour change, and/or (9) to commercialize discoveries for market gains. KT Goals are themselves aligned to particular messages – the content of the communication – and to recipients or knowledge users.
Clarity about what is communicated (main message), to whom (audience), and for what purpose (goal) informs which strategies are most likely to lead to achieving your KT goal.
In my courses, I share a video of Michael Jr, a comedian who makes a fine point about why purpose is central to our communications. He makes the distinction between knowing what you’re doing and knowing why you’re doing it. Leadership expert Simon Sinek calls this “the golden circle” to capture the notion that we are most motivated by knowing why we do things. Our awareness of why we do things improves our ability to connect with others and makes knowledge translation more relevant and impactful – it keeps you from ‘phoning it in.’
Insight Two: KT planning varies in quality
Reviewing research proposals and their associated KT plans has also lead me to recognize that their quality varies immensely and that grant reviewers struggle to assess them. There are no tools available to help appraise them, so, I developed one.
The KT Plan Appraisal Tool (KT-PAT) guides the assessment of quality for a proposed KT plan. The intended users of the KT-PAT are grant reviewers and individuals who may find it useful to rate their plan in a formative sense, with a view towards improvement.
High-quality KT plans are based on a simple methodology, as outlined in the Knowledge Translation Planning Template© and illustrated in related e-learning modules. Users are instructed to review the Knowledge Translation Planning Template© (KTPT) and the accompanying videos in advance of using the KT-PAT.
Quality KT plans are comprised of three main criteria:
1) Comprehensiveness: The plan covers the 13 elements described in the KTPT©. When a shorter plan is required or appropriate, it should include the minimum elements, denoted with an asterisk.
2) Alignment: KT involves making research evidence accessible and understandable to the relevant KUs. An Integrated KT (iKT) process involves research and KT co-development with KUs throughout the research endeavor, whereas an End of Grant KT (
A quality KT plan aligns the core KT planning elements:
a) the intended knowledge user audience(s) (Who could benefit knowing about this evidence?);
b) the main message(s) for each KU audience; (What message(s) will be targeted to each KU?)
c) the KT goal(s) (What is the purpose of sharing this evidence; how might KUs benefit?);
d) the KT strategies that will be used to realize each KT goal; (Use KT strategies that have evidence of utility for accomplishing specific KT goals)
e) the metrics or indicators that will provide evidence that each KT goal was achieved. Evaluating whether KT goals were achieved can support future use of KT methods, produce a KT publication, and increase value for KUs and stakeholders.
A quality KT plan description will link main messages with related KU audience(s), KT goal(s), KT strategy(ies) and evaluation indicators. By comparison, a weak KT plan will merely describe KUs and KT strategies separately (i.e., not aligned), and will fail to identify KT goals or means of evaluating whether goals were achieved.
3) Feasibility: Consider whether the KT plan is feasible given the aims of the research, the timeline, the results, the composition, size, and skills of the team (including purchased or partnered services and resources) and the budget. Lack of feasibility can manifest as too many strategies proposed in light of available resources, or a KT plan unsupported by a corresponding budget.
Rating a KT Plan using the KT-PAT requires the reviewer to tick the boxes that correspond to their critical appraisal of the main elements. The overall appraisal will appear as poor (red), weak (yellow), acceptable (green), or excellent (gold). Reviewers can then identify areas of strength and weaknesses in their comments to the applicant, or individuals can use this as feedback to improve their plan.
In summary, two insights have led to improvements for KT planning: know your why, and plan for quality. Helpful tools are just a click away.