Table 4 Summary of comparison among integrated knowledge translation, engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research, co-production and participatory research (presented here from left to right according to the timeline of their emergence from the most recent to the earliest)
Factor | Integrated knowledge translation | Engaged scholarship | Mode 2 research | Co-production | Participatory research |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Orientation | |||||
Scope | Research, Implementation [16] | Research/teaching scholarship [44] | Research | Research | Research |
Original purpose/intent | A collaborative approach between researchers and knowledge users to increase the chances that research findings will be applicable to those under study [16] | A participative research process that expands the capabilities of scholars to gather perspectives of key stakeholders and study complex problems; the ultimate aim is to create knowledge that advances science and practice, and is more penetrating and insightful than that which is done in isolation [45] | To bring awareness to the production of knowledge within context, by increasing the flexibility to mix, coalesce and reformulate rapidly, increase the diversity of included partners, seek awareness of what the end-users see as the issues to enhance the usability and social accountability of the research, broaden the sphere of what constitutes knowledge [23] | Provides a new way of understanding and evaluating hybrid, heterogeneous arrangements that extend well beyond traditional conceptualisations of political science (policy), economics; co-production is the active involvement of consumers in various stages of the knowledge production process [46] (interchangeable with co-creation) | To address community issues in a collaborative, consultative, democratic, reflective, reflexive, dialogical and improvement-oriented fashion that builds capacity and creates actionable, ownership of findings [47]; it mobilises living knowledge of people connected together in their context and creates a common understanding of ways to act for the common good [48] |
Primary motivation | Explicit focus on increasing knowledge use and impact [16] | Explicit focus on reconnecting academia with societal needs, education for democracy, civic responsibility/engagement and public scholarship [44] | Explicit focus on return on investment and increasing accountability [23, 44] | Explicit focus on increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of public services by involving consumers in the development and delivery processes | Explicit focus on social and environmental justice and a desire for impact change, particularly to benefit underserved/vulnerable citizens and communities |
Epistemological stance | Neutral [44] Social constructionism [49] | Critical realist, within social construction [45, 50] (objective ontology, subjective epistemology – a process of constructing models to represent aspects of the world and comparing them with rival plausible alternates) | Described as post-modernist, post-positivist, post-industrialist [23, 51] (linkages have been drawn between Toulmin and phronesis-oriented philosophy [52]) Shares features of critical realism; counter-hegemony [5], has been viewed by others from a pragmatic perspective, as bricolage [14, 53] | Relational ontology (emphasis on interrelationships and co-constitution) or the conjoined production of one nature-culture [54]; epistemology is unstable and still evolving Some discussion of neo-materialist underpinnings | Pluralist interpretivist perspective (Aristotelian praxis, hermeneutics, constructivism, constructionism, critical theory, existentialism, pragmatism, process philosophies and phenomenology) (Northern Tradition) [55, 56] Critical pedagogy (Southern Tradition), aspects of pragmatism, pluralism, egalitarianism, Liberation theology [48] Extended epistemology of “practical knowing” [55] (experiential, presentational, propositional and practical ways of knowing) |
Theoretical underpinnings | Initial Context for IKT: Planned Action/Change Theory [57] (set of logically interrelated concepts that systematically explain the means by which and predicts how planned change occurs in a specific environment, and helps planners control variables that increase or decrease likelihood for change); deliberate change engineering in social systems | Engaged Scholarship Diamond Model links data to theory (designed by the researcher, through engaged scholarship) [57] Model involves research design, theory building, problem formulation and problem solving within a study context, and in an iterative fashion [57] Model outlines how academics relate their teaching, discovery, integration, and application activity and retain balance between each [57] | Policy theory | Ostrom’s policy theory underlies the concept of co-production [8] | Lewin: iterative, collaborative action–reflection cycles (problem awareness, shifts in understanding, formulation of a plan of action, transformative action and progressive iterative learning, and cementing new behaviour based on effective corrective action) [48], a mode of embedded, collective self-inquiry |
Theory implicit/explicit | Explicit within the KTA process, implicit as a stand-alone concept | Implicit | Implicit (fragmented, evolving) | Explicit | Explicit |
Historical roots | |||||
Geographic origin | Canada | United States | United Kingdom/Europe, later United States | United States, United Kingdom (post 2000) | United States United Kingdom, South America |
Disciplinary origin | Health/Medicine/Nursing | Education | Philosophy | Economics, Public policy | Social sciences (Psychology in North America, Community Development, Education in South America) |
Health research vs. other research | Health Research/Medicine/Nursing | General research | General research | Civil rights and social care | Civil rights and social sciences |
Disciplinary background of early developers | Health Research Funders (CHSRF and CIHR), Canada Jonathan Lomas, CEO CHSRF (1997), Canada Ian Graham, VP Knowledge Translation (2007), Canada | Ernest Boyer, President of the Carnegie Foundation/Educator (1996), United States Andrew Van de Ven- Educator (2006), United States | Michael Gibbons, Physicist (1994) United Kingdom/Europe Helga Nowotny, Educator (2003) Europe | Elinor Ostrom, Economist (1978), United States Edgar Cahn, Civil rights law professor (2001), United States | Kurt Lewin, Psychologist (1946), United States/United Kingdom: ‘Northern Tradition’ Paulo Freire, Educator/Philosopher (1970), South America: ‘Southern Tradition’ |
Partnership/engagement | |||||
Unique features | Only approach with roots in a health research and subsequently developed within health research and implementation contexts Term ‘knowledge users’ is unique to IKT (i.e. explicit focus on policy-makers/decision-makers positioned to influence change or implement the generated knowledge | Originally developed in an academic setting driven by university researchers in the United States Explicit inclusion of student partners, institutional agreements Embraces and equally emphasises all forms of scholarship (discovery, integration, application and teaching); cutting across teaching, research and service | Originally developed by educators in the United Kingdom and Europe Explicit inclusion of industry/private sector involvement as a partner; only approach to explicitly consider for-profit partnerships | Originally developed by an economist in the United States Explicit inclusion of patients (as consumers of health services), who can be considered ‘temporarily marginalised’ | Originally developed in social sciences by a psychologist (Northern tradition) and an educator/philosopher (Southern Tradition) in the United States Explicit focus on social justice, power and emancipation as common outcomes Explicit focus on researcher’s humility Capacity-building is an intentional outcome |
What partners are called | ‘Knowledge user’, ‘Health system decision-makers’, ‘policy-makers’, ‘administrators’, ‘clinical leaders’, ‘patients’ | ‘Stakeholders’, ‘public members’, ‘communities’, ‘organisations’, ‘society’, ‘students’, ‘citizens’ | ‘End-users’, ‘industry’ | ‘Consumers’, ‘service users’, ‘citizens’ | ‘Community members’, ‘community of interest’, ‘citizens’, ‘community groups’, ‘partners’ |
Role of partners | ‘Knowledge users’, particularly policy-makers/decision-makers and those positioned to use generated knowledge to impact change Role is negotiated (equal or equitable power and authority throughout the research process) | ‘Stakeholders’ contribute diverse perspectives/’xpertise and work with researchers to resolve the conflicts that rise from them to lead to higher levels of understanding | ‘End-users’ are actively engaged from the outset to ensure research agenda and objectives meet societal needs | ‘Consumers’ are actively engaged as change agents (differing capabilities and interests, which sometimes may require finding synergies or trade-offs among them) in the planning and delivery of public services ‘Co-producers’ are recipients and shapers of service/goods; they may have differing capabilities and/or skills that require trade-offs/synergies | ‘Community members’ (experts in lived experiences and ability to use results to influence/make local changes) and researchers (facilitators with expertise in research design/obtaining funding etc.) work together to solve a given issue |
Power sharing | Equal or equitable role, power and authority throughout the research process | Leveraging expertise of stakeholders and researchers (‘arbitrage’) in co-creation of knowledge | Non-hierarchical relationship between end-users and researchers in co-reaction of knowledge | Shift in power towards service users to improve planning and delivery of public services | Empowerment and capacity-building of communities to have an equal or equitable role, power and authority throughout the research process |