Social Science Funding Agencies' Support and Promotion of Knowledge Mobilization: An International Study

• In Event: The International Politics of Knowledge Mobilization: The Intersection of Funding Agencies, International Organizations, Epistemic Communities, and Policy Entrepreneurs

Abstract

Researchers are under increasing pressure to mobilize their research more widely with non-academic audiences and to demonstrate the impact of their work (Mitton et al., 2007; Nutley et al., 2007); however, little is known about a) how to actually measure research use and its impact or b) about how funding agencies globally are promoting and supporting KMb and research impact agendas. Funding agencies are important research brokering organizations as they support national research infrastructure and shape research agendas through their requirements for researchers. This study explores KMb policy, expectations, and activities of social science research funding agencies in 32 countries through a comprehensive environmental scan. The study makes two significant contributions. First, it provides empirical evidence comparing how funding agencies globally are approaching research mobilization and impact – an area that has not been systematically explored. Second, it provides an overview of resources (created by funders) for researchers to increase the impact of their work.

Research Question: How are social science funding agencies promoting (through requirements for researchers) and supporting (through agency initiatives) KMb and research impact in Canada, the USA, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand?

The conceptual framework for this project explores the role of funding agencies in relation to three domains: 1) conceptualization of KMb and research impact, 2) requirements for researchers (at time of application, at end of study, and allowable expenses related to KMb), 3) and agency initiatives (funding, services, tools and techniques and linkages).

This study provides a comprehensive environmental scan of social science agencies’ (N=32) promotion and support of KMb and research impact across 32 countries including Canada, the USA, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand. Environmental scans are not simply ad hoc online searches; rather, Conway (2009) highlights that environmental scanning is formal and systematic, using “formal methodologies for obtaining information for a specific purpose” (p. 2). The purpose of this environmental scan is to provide a systematic empirical overview of emerging international indicators (operational measures of environmental analysis), trends (systematic variation of indicators over time) and patterns (clusters of trends) in relation to KMb and research impact globally (Costa, 1995). The environmental scan will include data from websites using a common instrument, social media feeds (Twitter and Facebook) captured and analyzed using NVivo, and semi-structured interviews (N=15) with key stakeholders regarding KMb and research impact.

Findings: There is a lack of clarity among funding agencies about how to operationalize KMb and research impact. Agencies vary widely in their capacity to support researchers with KMb. Evaluation of KMb and research impact is still virtually absent in most (but not all) jurisdictions. Some funding agencies are creating toolkits to help researchers articulate the impact of their work; however, there is no evidence on the levels of use of these tools by researchers or the effectiveness of these tools. Funding agencies need to implement a more systematic approach to better support KMb and research impact agendas.

Author

• Amanda Cooper, Queen's University