!
5 Part Framework
Building Knowledge Mobilization Plans
knaer-recrae.ca
Funded by the Ministry of Education
It is important to note that “not
all research can or should have
an impact. Some bodies of
research knowledge will not
generate a take home
message, because either the
research has no apparent
application for decision makers
or the findings are not
conclusive. That said, this
excuse can be overused” (Lavis
et al., 2003, p. 223).
“This framework provides an
overall approach to knowledge
transfer that can be evaluated
as a whole over long periods of
time, as well as specific
elements that can be evaluated
and fine-tuned over shorter
periods of time” (p. 221).
The Framework: Key questions to ask
From: Organizing framework for a knowledge
transfer strategy (Lavis et al., 2003)
• The message (What should be transferred to
decision makers?)
• The target audience (To whom should research
knowledge be transferred?)
• The messenger (By whom should research
knowledge be transferred?)
• The knowledge-transfer processes &
communication infrastructure (How should
research knowledge be transferred?)
• Evaluation (With what effect should research
knowledge be transferred?)
Some Helpful Guidelines:
The Message: Concentrate on the broad
actionable messages from your research not
individual findings.
The Target Audience: In what setting, and
in what context will the target audience apply
your research? What will they likely be using it
for? What types of decisions are they called
upon to make? Etc.
The Messenger: Will your research likely be
communicated to the target audience by an
individual, a group, an organization? This will
inform your choice of strategy.
The KT Process & Infrastructure: Passive
processes such as websites are generally
ineffective, aim for active engagement
Evaluation: Choose outcome measures that
match the context of your target audience.
Lavis, J., Robertson, D., Woodside, J.,
McLeod, C., & Abelson, J. (2003).
How can research organizations more
effectively transfer research
knowledge to decision makers?
Millbank Quarterly, 81(2), 221-248.
