Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Guide
to
Knowledge Transfer
Designed for Researchers in Occupational
Health and Safety
2008
Table of contents
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................... 9
PART
I:
CONCEPTS,
VOCABULARY
AND
TRANSFER
FIELDS..................................................................11
CHAPTER
1
:
DEFINITIONS
AND
AREAS
OF
KNOWLEDGE
TRANSFER ............................................................................. 12
1.1
Definitions .................................................................................................................................................................. 12
1.1.1
Knowledge
transfer........................................................................................................................................................................... 12
a)
Etymology............................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
b)
Definitions.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
1.1.2
Knowledge
Exchange
and
Sharing............................................................................................................................................... 14
a)
Etymology............................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
b)
Definitions.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
1.1.3
Knowledge
sharing
and
utilization.............................................................................................................................................. 14
a)
Etymology............................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
b)
Definition................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14
1.2
Areas
of
knowledge
transfer ............................................................................................................................... 15
1.2.1
Transfer
of
research
findings......................................................................................................................................................... 15
1.2.2
Technology
transfer ........................................................................................................................................................................... 15
1.2.3
Transfer
of
learning............................................................................................................................................................................ 15
1.2.4
Organizational
transfer..................................................................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER
2:
RELATED
CONCEPTS
AND
VOCABULARY ....................................................................................................... 17
2.1
RELATED
KNOWLEDGE
TRANSFER
CONCEPTS ........................................................................................................ 17
2.1.
Knowledge
translation......................................................................................................................................................................... 17
2.1.2
KNOWLEDGE
VALORIZATION ................................................................................................................................. 17
2.2
Related
vocabulary.................................................................................................................................................. 18
2.2.1
Transfer
modes .................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
a)
Diffusion .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
b)
Dissemination....................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
c)
Transmission......................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
d)
Translation
/
to
translate ................................................................................................................................................................ 18
e)
Knowledge
mobilization .................................................................................................................................................................. 18
f)
Use
/
utilize
/
useful............................................................................................................................................................................ 18
2.2.2
Nature
/
transformation
of
Knowledge..................................................................................................................................... 19
a)
Evidence‐based
datas ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19
b)
Innovation .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 19
2.2.3
Intermediaries ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
a
)
Knowledge
broker ............................................................................................................................................................................. 19
4
Table of contents
b)
Liaison
officer ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
c)
Gatekeeper ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 19
PART
II:
TOOLS
USED
TO
STUDY
TRANSFER:
MODELS
AND
STRUTURAL
ORGANIZATION.......21
CHAPTER
3:
MAIN
THEORETICAL
MODELS ......................................................................................................................... 22
3.1
Knowledge
transfer................................................................................................................................................. 22
3.1.1
Linear
(unidirectional)
models ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.1.2
Collaborative
models ......................................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.1.3
Interactionist
models......................................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.2
Knowledge
exchange
and
sharing.................................................................................................................... 24
3.3
Knowledge
sharing
and
utilization.................................................................................................................. 24
3.4
Other
proposed
model
classifications ............................................................................................................. 25
3.5
Models
and
disciplines ........................................................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER
4:
TRANSFER
STEPS
AND
STRATEGIES .............................................................................................................. 27
4.1
Knowledge
transfer
steps ..................................................................................................................................... 27
4.1.1
Stages
in
communication
models
(dissemination)............................................................................................................... 27
4.1.2
Stages
in
management
models
(process
management)s ................................................................................................... 27
4.1.3
Stages
from
health
models:
knowledge
utilization............................................................................................................... 28
4.2
Transfer
strategies .................................................................................................................................................. 28
4.2.1
Dissemination
strategies.................................................................................................................................................................. 28
4.2.2
Planning
for
transfer
prior
to
the
research
project.............................................................................................................. 28
4.2.3
Turning
knowledge
into
tools........................................................................................................................................................ 29
4.2.4
Preferred
strategies
of
funding
organizations........................................................................................................................ 29
PART
III:
STUDIES
ON
KNOWLEDGE
TRANSFER ......................................................................................31
CHAPTER
5:
ASSESSING
TRANSFERS:
CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK ................................................................................. 32
5.1
Semantic
clarifications
regarding
assessment............................................................................................ 32
5.2
The
components
of
knowledge
transfer
assessment................................................................................. 33
CHAPTER
6:
FACTORS
THAT
FOSTER
TRANSFER ............................................................................................................... 35
6.1
Factors
related
to
theoretical
models............................................................................................................ 35
6.1.1
Linear
transfer
models..................................................................................................................................................................... 35
6.1.2
Collaborative
models ......................................................................................................................................... 35
6.1.3
Interaction
models.............................................................................................................................................................................. 36
5
Guide to knowledge transfer research
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................................................41
6
Boxes / Figures / Tables
Boxes
BOX
1:
WHAT
DOES
“KNOWLEDGE”
MEAN? ..................................................................................................................................................12
BOX
2:
TRANSFER
IN
THE
WORK
ENVIRONMENT ..........................................................................................................................................13
BOX
3:
TRANSFER
AS
SEEN
BY
FUNDING
ORGANIZATIONS...........................................................................................................................13
BOX
4:
TERMINOLOGY
FAVOURED
BY
FUNDING
ORGANIZATIONS. .............................................................................................................16
BOX
5:
KNOWLEDGE
TRANSLATION ................................................................................................................................................................17
BOX
6:
CIHR'S
ENGLISH‐FRENCH
LEXICON ..................................................................................................................................................17
BOX
7:
CLASSIFICATION
OF
RESEARCH
UTILIZATION
MODELS
ACCORDING
TO
LANDRY
ET
AL.
(1999)
AND
LOMAS
ET
AL.
(2003).
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................25
BOX
8:
CHARACTERISTICS
OF
THEORETICAL
MODELS
BASED
ON
DISCIPLINE...........................................................................................26
BOX
9:
TRANSFER
STRATEGIES
OF
FEDERAL
FUNDING
ORGANIZATIONS. .................................................................................................28
BOX
10:
EFFECT
VS
RESULT
VS
IMPACT..........................................................................................................................................................32
BOX
11:
SOME
TRANSFER
ACTORS
AND
ASSESSMENT
LEVELS. ...................................................................................................................40
Figures
FIGURE
1:
BOGGS'
MODEL
OF
KNOWLEDGE
LINEAR
TRANSFER
(1992). .................................................................................................22
FIGURE
2:
MODEL
OF
KNOWLEDGE
LINEAR
TRANSFER
THROUGH
TRANSLATORS
(DISSANAYAKE,
1986
IN
ROY
ET
AL.,
1995)..22
FIGURE
3:
BOGGS'
BIDIRECTIONAL
TRANSFER
MODEL
(1992). ................................................................................................................23
FIGURE
4:
BOUCHARD
AND
GÉLINAS'
SPIRAL
TRANSFER
MODEL
(GÉLINAS,
1990)..............................................................................23
FIGURE
5:
TRANSFER
MODEL
ACCORDING
TO
THE
KNOWLEDGE
SUPPORT
NETWORK
OF
ROY
ET
AL.
(1995). .................................23
FIGURE
6:
ABILITY‐BASED
KNOWLEDGE
TRANSFER
DYNAMICS
(PARENT,
ROY,
ST‐JACQUES,
2007). ..............................................24
FIGURE
7:
BOGGS'
KNOWLEDGE
EXCHANGE
AND
SHARING
MODEL
(1992). ...........................................................................................24
FIGURE
8:
TRANSFER
STAGES
FROM
SZULANSKI
(2000)
ACCORDING
TO
THE
COMMUNICATION
MODEL ..........................................27
Tables
TABLE
1:
MAIN
DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN
CONCEPTS:
EFFECTS,
RESULTS
AND
IMPACTS........................................................................34
TABLE
2:
MAIN
TRANSFER
FACTORS
OR
DETERMINANTS. ..........................................................................................................................37
TABLE
3:
FACTORS
TO
BE
TAKEN
INTO
ACCOUNT
DURING
IMPACT
ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................39
7
Guide to knowledge transfer research
Acronyms found in this guide
ASP Association sectorielle paritaire
EC European Commission
CIHR
Canadian
Institutes
of
Health
Research
Instituts
de
recherche
en
santé
du
Canada
(IRSC)
CHSRF
Canadian
Health
Services
Research
Foundation
Fondation
canadienne
de
la
recherche
sur
les
services
de
santé
(FCRSS)
CQRS Conseil québécois de la recherche sociale
CRISES Centre de recherche sur les innovations sociales
CSST Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail
CST Conseil de la science et de la technologie
EU
European
Union
Union
Européenne
(UE)
FQRNT Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la nature et les technologies
FQRSC Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la société et la culture
FRSQ Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec
IRSST Institut de recherche Robert‐Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail
NSERC
Natural
Sciences
ans
Engineering
Research
Council
of
Canada
Conseil
de
recherches
en
sciences
naturelles
et
en
génie
du
Canada
(CRSNG)
OECD
Organisation
for
Economic
Co‐operation
and
Development
Organisation
de
coopération
et
de
développement
économiques
(OCDE)
OHS Occupational Health and Safety
RRSSTQ Réseau de recherche en en santé et sécurité au travail du Québec
SSHRC
Social
Sciences
and
Humanities
Research
Council
of
Canada
Conseil
de
recherches
en
sciences
humaines
du
Canada
(CRSH)
8
Introduction
Introduction
9
Guide to knowledge transfer research
We
therefore
thought
it
appropriate
to
create
a
The
second
part
of
the
guide
explores
the
tools
document,
primarily
a
working
tool,
to
help
designed
to
study
knowledge
transfer,
that
is,
researchers
desirous
of
focusing
on
knowledge
theoretical
models
(Chapter
3),
stages
of
transfer
to
become
familiar
with
its
broad
knowledge
transfer,
and
related
strategies
outlines,
its
limits,
and
its
subtleties
(basic
(Chapter
4).
The
third
part
deals
with
the
main
concepts,
vocabulary,
areas
of
research,
main
areas
of
study
relating
to
knowledge
transfer—
questions,
positions
of
funding
organizations,
factors
in
favour
of
or
against
knowledge
key
literature,
etc.).
This
guide
is
not
an
transfer
(Chapter
5),
and
the
spin‐offs
and
exhaustive
review
of
the
literature
related
to
impacts
of
knowledge
transfer
(Chapter
6).
In
knowledge
transfer;
it
is
meant
to
identify
key
these
two
chapters,
we
propose
a
detailed
elements
as
far
as
OHS
is
concerned.
Divided
categorization
of
the
variables
and
into
six
chapters
and
three
parts,
it
is
a
work
in
determinants
that
are
explored.
progress
to
be
updated
and
enriched
on
a
regular
basis.
10
Part I: Concepts, vocabulary and areas of transfer
Part I: Concepts, vocabulary and transfer fields
Three
terms
are
commonly
used
to
describe
the
In
the
linear
approach,
researchers
and
experts
transfer
of
knowledge:
knowledge
transfer
per
generate
knowledge
that
is
passed
on
to
users
se,
knowledge
exchange
and
sharing,
and
unidirectionally.
This
approach
is
criticized,
knowledge
sharing
and
utilization.
They
all
refer
however,
for
not
taking
into
account
user
to
the
notion
of
“transfer”
but
relate
to
concerns.
The
valorization
of
research
findings
different
perspectives,
objectives,
and
interests.
generally
tries
to
remedy
this
shortcoming.
This
Each
has
been
the
subject
of
numerous
papers,
is
especially
important
for
universities
and
theoretical
propositions,
and
models.
public
administrations.
In
essence,
it
involves
Consequently,
the
first
chapter
will
be
devoted
translating
research
findings
into
innovative
to
examining
their
similarities
and
differences.
tools,
processes,
and
services
that
contribute
significantly
to
the
development
of
the
A
second
source
of
differentiation
relates
to
the
organizations
in
particular
and
the
nation’s
areas
in
which
“transfer”
takes
place.
We
have
economy
in
general.
identified
four
areas:
transfer
of
research
findings,
transfer
of
technology,
transfer
of
In
the
bidirectional
approach,
the
process
of
learning,
and
organizational
transfer.
As
we
will
exchanges
between
researchers
and
users
gains
see,
the
models,
the
type
of
investigation,
and
importance,
especially
regarding
identifying
the
concepts
used
are,
in
part,
specific
to
each
needs
and
taking
into
account
the
concerns
of
area.
future
users.
In
fact,
in
some
areas,
researchers
use
In
the
interactive
approach,
the
process
of
additional
transfer‐related
terms
such
as
exchange
becomes
central,
and
knowledge
“valorization
of
results”
or
“knowledge
transfer
takes
place
through
a
wide
range
of
translation.”
We
have
decided
to
focus
on
these
intermediaries
such
as
knowledge
brokers
or
only
in
Chapter
2,
since
their
use
is
limited
or
various
professionals.
Exchanges
under
this
specific
to
their
field
of
application.
Many
approach
are
complex
and
characterized
by
believe
that
such
terms
should
be
included
in
relationships
determined
by
the
context
and
the
first
three
terms.
As
well,
they
are
used
objectives
of
ever‐changing
interactions.
These
more
frequently
by
institutions
than
by
exchanges
are
associated
with
knowledge
researchers.
sharing
and
exchange.
The
approach
is
often
associated
with
the
terms
“exchange
and
Whichever
the
term
used,
two
main
approaches
sharing”
and
“sharing
and
utilization.”
prevail
in
the
literature,
that
of
knowledge
development
and
knowledge
dissemination.
The
The
development
of
these
different
approaches
latter
is
generally
the
basis
for
classifying
linear,
has
given
birth
to
vocabulary
such
as
bidirectional,
and
interactive
approaches
and
“knowledge
brokerage”
and
“evidence‐based
models.
data.”
The
second
chapter
of
this
guide
presents
a
brief
lexicon
of
key
vocabulary
related
to
knowledge
transfer.
11
Guide to knowledge transfer research
Chapter 1 : Definitions and areas of knowledge transfer
In
this
chapter,
we
will
specify
what
is
meant,
knowledge
from
a
source
context
(learning)
to
a
from
an
etymological
point
of
view,
by
target
context
(utilization).
Since
the
concept
of
knowledge
transfer,
exchange,
sharing,
and
transfer
varies
depending
on
the
discipline,
we
utilization.
We
will
present
etymological
have
selected
four
definitions
corresponding
to
markers
and
suggest
one
or
two
key
definitions.
four
disciplines
related
to
occupational
health
These
definitions
are
used
by
major
and
safety:
health,
humanities
and
social
organizations,
cited
by
several
authors,
and
sciences,
management,
and
education.
include
specific
elements.
Box
1:
What
does
“knowledge”
mean?
In
the
second
section,
we
will
explore
how
these
concepts
are
used
in
four
knowledge
transfer
Definitions
areas,
corresponding
to
four
disciplines.
Knowledge
is
available
information
that
is
new
1.1
Definitions
to
the
people
or
organizations
for
whom
it
is
intended;
it
includes
research
findings,
prevention
guides,
manufacturing
processes,
1.1.1
Knowledge
transfer
work
methods,
and
innovations
(Roy
et
al.,
1995).
a)
Etymology
Knowledge
comes
from
perception
or
from
The
noun
“transfer”
comes
from
the
verb
“to
experience—acquired
in
circumstances
and
by
transfer,”
which
is
composed
of
the
prefix
various
means—that
is
kept
in
memory
(Piaget,
“trans,”
a
Latin
word
meaning
“to
the
other
side
1970).
“It
can
include—from
the
most
concrete
or
beyond,
and
a
stem
“ferre,”
a
Latin
verb
to
the
most
abstract—objects
and
facts;
meaning
“to
carry.”
Etymologically,
“to
transfer”
categories
of
objects
or
facts,
characterized
by
means
“to
carry
to
the
other
side”
or
“to
carry
their
properties
and
relationships;
ideas,
notion,
beyond.”
It
can
be
knowledge,
people,
goods,
and
concepts
that
help
define
or
make
these
etc.
categories
easy
to
understand”
(Teiger
and
Laville,
1989).
b)
Definitions
Typology
The
concept
of
transfer
is
characterized
by
the
impreciseness
and
vagueness
of
its
semantic
There
are
three
main
categories
of
knowledge:
boundaries
(Tardif,
1999).
In
sports,
transfer
means
a
change
of
clubs,
while
in
law
it
refers
to
• Declaratory
knowledge.
This
concerns
the
the
transmission
of
a
good
or
a
right
between
objects
to
which
the
knowledge
relates
people.
In
the
economic
field,
it
evokes
the
(concepts,
laws,
rules,
facts,
etc.)
displacement
of
resources
(financial,
human,
• Procedural
knowledge.
This
relates
to
the
material)
from
one
sector
to
another.
manner
in
which
the
knowledge
is
used.
In
psychoanalysis,
transfer
represents
the
• Conditional
knowledge.
This
facilitates
the
extension
of
an
affective
state
from
one
person
application
of
declaratory
and
procedural
to
another
or
to
an
object,
while
education
knowledge
in
various
contexts.
specialists
consider
it
as
a
displacement
of
12
Part I: Concepts, vocabulary and areas of transfer
In
general,
these
definitions
place
emphasis
on
the
formal
nature
of
knowledge
and
knowledge
13
Guide to knowledge transfer research
transfer.
They
also
recognize
that
the
inventory
This
definition
implies
that
exchange
takes
place
of
knowledge
and
skills
in
organizations
can
also
both
ways:
researchers
place
knowledge
they
result
from
practices
and
interactions.
have
developed
at
the
disposal
of
users
and,
in
Knowledge
transfer
can
therefore
also
occur
on
return,
users
transmit
practical
knowledge
and
an
informal
basis
through
social
networks
in
the
“contexts
of
use”
back
to
researchers.
workplace
(Argote
and
Ingram,
2000;
Lahti
et
al.,
2002).
1.1.3
Knowledge
sharing
and
utilization
The
particularities
of
knowledge
transfer
in
the
Access
to
knowledge
does
not
guarantee
its
work
environment
(and
points
often
discussed),
utilization
or
effective
application
(Trottier
et
are
shown
in
Box
2
(p.
13).
Box
3
(p.
13)
al.,
2006;
Landry
et
al.,
2001).
The
term
presents
the
definitions
used
by
various
funding
“knowledge
sharing
and
utilization”
thus
organizations.
presents
knowledge
transfer
as
an
outcome.
14
Part I: Concepts, vocabulary and areas of transfer
15
Guide to knowledge transfer research
Box 4: Terminology favoured by funding organizations.
16
Part I: Concepts, vocabulary and areas of transfer
Chapter 2: Related concepts and vocabulary
17
Guide to knowledge transfer research
18
Part I: Concepts, vocabulary and areas of transfer
Borrowed
from
the
French
in
the
19th
century,
2.2.3
Intermediaries
"Utilization"
means
"the
action
of
using
something
or
the
state
of
being
used
for
some
Intermediaries
are
agents
who
have
a
specific
purpose".
The
verb,
«to
use»
has
then
become
profile
(credibility,
ability
to
influence,
presence
very
usual
whereas
«Utilization»
is
defined
as
in
the
community,
etc.)
and
are
responsible
for
«to
put
to
use,
especially
to
find
a
profitable
or
disseminating
the
knowledge
to
be
transferred
practical
use
for»,
therefore
it
has
a
narrower
(Bourdouxhe
et
Gratton,
2003).
Three
types
of
meaning
than
«to
use»
intermediaries
are
cited:
knowledge
brokers,
liaison
officers,
and
gatekeepers.
Useful,
from
Latin
utilis
("that
is
useful"),
derivative
from
the
verb
uti
("to
use")
is
an
The
word
“intermediary”
refers
to
an
active
role
adjective
that
means
"able
to
be
used
for
a
in
knowledge
transmission
between
knowledge
practical
purpose
or
in
several
ways".
producers
and
users.
2.2.2
Nature
/
transformation
of
Knowledge
a
)
Knowledge
broker
a)
Evidence‐based
datas
Higgins
(2000)
defines
knowledge
brokers
as
persons
who
facilitate
communication,
access
to
Lomas
et
al.
(2005)
define
evidence‐based
data
information,
and
exchange
of
information
as
“anything
that
establishes
a
fact
or
gives
among
members
of
a
network.
Brokers
“search
reason
for
believing
in
something.”
From
a
out
knowledge,
synthesize
research
and
scan
scientific
viewpoint,
evidence‐based
data
is
that
for
best
practices,
useful
experiences,
and
which
is
“explicit
(i.e.
coded
and
propositional),
systemic
(using
clear
and
explicit
coding
examples
from
outside
their
own
methods),
and
repeatable
(i.e.
by
applying
the
organization”
(CHSRF,
2003)
which
they
then
same
methods
to
the
same
samples,
one
try
to
promote
to
ensure
their
application.
obtains
the
same
results).”
b)
Liaison
officer
b)
Innovation
A
liaison
officer
is
a
person
who
is
in
contact
Innovation
is
about
bringing
changes
in
a
with
both
researchers
and
knowledge
users.
He
product,
a
process,
an
organization,
a
practice,
or
she
is
a
sort
of
facilitator
between
etc.
In
a
technical
process,
we
talk
of
researchers
and
users,
enabling
them
to
interact
“technological
innovation,”
meaning
and
make
knowledge
transfer
possible.
The
role
“technologically
new
products
and
processes
as
of
a
liaison
officer
can
be
formal
(recognized)
or
well
as
important
technological
improvements
informal.
In
occupational
health
and
safety,
the
applied
to
products
and
processes”
(CE,
1997).
liaison
officer
can
be
an
individual
or
an
From
a
social
standpoint,
innovation
is
defined
institution.
as
“an
entirely
new
approach,
practice,
or
intervention,
or
a
new
product
used
by
c)
Gatekeeper
institutes,
organizations,
and
communities
for
According
to
Roy
et
al.
(1995),
a
gatekeeper
is
at
improving
a
situation
or
solving
a
social
the
leading
edge
of
a
company
and
plays
a
key
problem”
(Bouchard,
1999).
role
in
its
communication
network;
a
gatekeeper
is
usually
a
member
of
a
trade
or
scientific
association.
A
gatekeeper
can
act
in
a
formal
or
informal
way
and
is
in
charge
of
relaying
information
from
the
outside
to
the
inside
of
the
work
environment.
19
Guide to knowledge transfer research
4. Lomas
J.
(2000).
La
diffusion
et
l’utilisation
de
Key
readings
la
recherche.
Isuma,
Vol.
1
no
1
pp
140‐144.
20
Part II: Tools used to study the transfer: Models and structural organization
Part
II:
Tools
used
to
study
transfer:
Models
and
strutural
organization
Depending
on
the
approaches
and
definitions
The
development
of
increasingly
complex
adopted,
the
various
models
have
specific
data
models
with
multiple
levels
of
analysis
has
structures,
stages,
and
ways
to
describe
transfer
encouraged
researchers
to
divide
the
processes.
The
main
(typical)
models
are
knowledge
transfer
process
into
various
levels
summarized
in
Chapter
3.
Their
differences
lie
in
(individual,
group,
organization)
and
stages
their
representation
of
exchange
flows
between
(transformation,
dissemination,
reception,
etc.),
knowledge
producers
and
users,
either
in
linear
which
enables
them
to
more
clearly
define
the
fashion
or
through
many
interactions.
As
well,
purpose
of
their
research
(see
Chapter
4).
each
model
emphasizes
a
particular
dimension.
For
example,
intra‐organizational
models
Secondly,
since
the
knowledge
transfer
emphasize
factors
and
mechanisms
that
strategies
cited
by
authors
are
partially
linked
to
determine
knowledge
use.
Information
creation
knowledge
transfer
stages,
we
will
also
review
and
dissemination
models
emphasize
the
the
former
in
this
chapter.
These
strategies
information
per
se.
For
example,
Nonaka
and
reflect
the
relative
importance
given
to
some
Takeuchi’s
model
(1995)
is
based
on
the
stages.
distinction
between
tacit
and
explicit
knowledge,
implying
different
methods
of
Thirdly,
some
authors
provide
data
and
transfer.
Researches
may
adopt
a
dimension
discussion
on
intervention
methods
to
foster
that
best
suits
their
own
perspectives
or
knowledge
transfer.
This
is
an
important
objectives.
research
area,
but
since
it
is
mainly
linked
to
the
field
of
education,
we
have
decided
not
to
include
it
here.
21
Guide to knowledge transfer research
Chapter 3: Main theoretical models
22
Part II: Tools used to study the transfer: Models and structural organization
23
Guide to knowledge transfer research
We
use
the
classification
proposed
by
Trottier
&
Champagne
(2006),
which
is
similar
to
that
of
Weiss
(1979)
(to
be
explored
in
the
next
section),
but
in
which
the
five
classes
are
defined
more
broadly:
24
Part II: Tools used to study the transfer: Models and structural organization
Box
7:
Classification
of
research
utilization
models
• Political
model
(knowledge
is
used
for
according
to
Landry
et
al.
(1999)
and
Lomas
et
al.
(2003).
justification
and
legitimization)
• Tactical
model
(knowledge
is
used
as
a
Landry
et
al.
(1999).
Four
categories
based
on
pretext)
the
nature
and
determining
factors
of
• Enlightenment
model
(knowledge
is
used
as
utilization:
an
input
to
build
more
knowledge).
3.4 Other proposed model classifications
Weiss
(1979)
proposes
six
categories
defined
by
context
and,
above
all,
intended
purpose:
25
Guide to knowledge transfer research
Box
8:
Characteristics
of
theoretical
models
based
on
discipline.
Key
readings
The
purpose
and
orientation
of
theoretical
models
vary
according
to
discipline.
The
models
of
four
disciplines—management,
social
1. Trottier
L‐H.
and
Champagne
F.
(2006).
sciences,
health,
and
education—are
L'utilisation
des
connaissances
summarized
below.
scientifiques:
au
cœur
des
relations
de
coopération
entre
les
acteurs.
R06‐05.
Éd:
The
theoretical
models
developed
in
GRIS,
Université
de
Montréal,
pp
41
management
sciences
are
aimed
at
describing
2. Tardif
J.
(1999).
Le
transfert
des
the
mechanisms
through
which
certain
apprentissages
(Eds).
Montréal:
Éditions
measure,
e.g.
training
activities,
produce
Logiques
effects
on
individual/organizational
3. Estabrooks
C.
et
al.
(2004).
Knowledge
performance,
behavioural
changes,
and
utilization
Ressource
Guide
problematic
situations
(problem
solving).
26
Part II: Tools used to study the transfer: Models and structural organization
Chapter 4: Transfer steps and strategies
Stages
of
the
knowledge
transfer
process
are
The
initiation
stage
is
used
to
identify
the
described
differently
from
one
author
to
problem
to
be
solved
as
well
as
the
another
and
from
one
discipline
to
another.
corresponding
knowledge.
During
the
second
These
stages
can
be
divided
and
described
in
stage,
the
identified
knowledge
is
modified
to
different
ways.
In
the
first
section,
we
will
adapt
to
the
problem.
The
third
stage
tackles
present
the
main
stages
from
three
knowledge
translation
and
its
difficulties.
perspectives:
knowledge
dissemination,
transfer
Finally,
the
last
stage
deals
with
the
process
management,
and
knowledge
institutionalization
of
the
knowledge
that
is
utilization.
In
the
second
section,
we
will
actually
transferred,
in
other
words,
its
summarize
the
main
strategies
described
to
appropriation.
achieve
knowledge
utilization.
4.1.2
Stages
in
management
models
(process
4.1
Knowledge
transfer
steps
management)s
Even
when
the
organization
of
transfer
stages
is
linear,
it
is
generally
agreed
that
the
process
can
involve
iteration
resulting
in
the
repetition
of
previous
stages.
27
Guide to knowledge transfer research
4 .2
Transfer
strategies
For
the
CIHR,
the
strategy
for
fostering
A
wide
range
of
strategies
to
ensure
the
knowledge
translation
consists
in
developing
effective
utilization
of
knowledge
transfer
is
partnerships
between
actors
such
as
decision
cited
in
the
literature.
They
differ
according
to
makers,
health
planners
and
administrators,
many
factors,
particularly
the
intended
healthcare
providers,
the
general
public
objectives
and
the
context.
Taking
into
account
(especially
patient
groups),
and
those
in
the
the
utilization
of
results
or
transferred
private
sector.
knowledge
is
important
both
in
terms
of
opportunities
(matching
user
need
with
The
NSERCC
develops
its
strategy
for
developed
knowledge),
and
means
(possibility
transferring
research
findings
and
technological
of
transforming
knowledge
into
appropriate
and
innovations
through
partnerships
with
easy‐to‐use
tools).
universities,
governments,
and
private
business,
and
through
advanced
training
of
highly
qualified
personnel.
28
Part II: Tools used to study the transfer: Models and structural organization
among
players,
provide
access
to
pertinent
4.2.4
Preferred
strategies
of
funding
research
findings,
and
promote
an
organizations
understanding
of
the
applicability
and
the
implications
of
knowledge
to
be
transferred.
Some
research
institutes,
through
their
documentation,
specify
their
preferred
As
for
the
CHSRF,
the
recommended
strategy
is
strategies(see
Box
9).
With
only
one
exception
more
developed.
It
can
be
summarized
in
the
(CHSRF),
most
deal
with
the
issue
of
strategy
following
eight
points:
very
briefly
and
focus
mainly
on
the
development
of
partnerships.
• highlight
the
main
messages
and
implications
of
research
findings
in
clear,
simple,
active
terms;
Key
readings
• designate
credible
“messengers”;
• identify
key
audience
of
decision
makers
for
whom
the
messages
are
intended
;
1. Duperré
M.
(2006).
Innovations
sociales
• develop
means
of
transmitting
the
dans
les
organismes
communautaires:
messages
to
the
targeted
audiences
and
facteurs
intervenant
dans
le
processus
de
encourage
them
to
integrate
research
transfert
des
connaissances.
Cahiers
du
implications
in
their
work
;
Centre
de
recherche
sur
les
innovations
• facilitate
access
to
information;
sociales
(CRISES).
Collection
Études
• promote
the
development
and
théoriques
‐
no
ET0603
establishment
of
practice
communities;
2. Berta
W.
B.
and
Baker
R.
(2004).
Factors
• ensure
collaboration
between
researchers
that
Impact
the
Transfer
and
Retention
of
and
users;
Best
Practices
for
Reducing
Error
in
• evaluate
the
results
of
knowledge
transfer.
Hospitals.
Health
Care
Management
Review.
Vol.
29,
Iss.
2;
pp.
90‐98
.
4.2.3
Turning
knowledge
into
tools
These
strategies
emphasize
the
transformation
of
knowledge
or
research
findings
into
adapted
and
usable
tools
(e.g.
decision‐making
tools
or
tools
to
help
solve
a
problema
situation).
For
example,
user
guides
are
created
to
promote
good
practices.
This
strategy
is
particularly
encouraged
for
the
prevention,
diagnosis,
treatment,
and
management
of
occupational
MSDs
(Harris,
1997).
In
occupational
health
and
safety,
user
guides
(design,
analysis,
assessment)
are
an
important
part
of
knowledge
transfer
strategy.
29
Part III: Studies on knowledge transfer
Part III: Studies on knowledge transfer
In
Part
III,
we
discuss
knowledge
transfer
as
an
Assessment
also
enables
one
to
question
the
object
of
study
or
research
topic.
many
factors
that
determine
efficient
and
effective
knowledge
transfer
(adopted
It
is
understood
that
the
intended
goals
of
strategies,
the
roles
and
levels
of
involvement
of
knowledge
transfer
activities
(problem
solving,
all
parties,
their
relationships,
the
degree
of
decision‐making,
“best
practices,”
innovation,
implementation
of
knowledge
transfer
actions,
etc.)
require
that
progress
be
assessed
at
every
the
nature
of
effected
changes,
etc.).
In
the
end,
stage,
from
knowledge
production
to
its
the
aim
is
to
identify
factors
that
foster
effective
implementation.
Indeed,
this
aspect
knowledge
transfer
as
well
as
those
that
must
has
been
included
in
several
models.
For
be
considered
in
a
particular
transfer
project.
example,
most
models
used
for
the
application
This
will
be
covered
in
Chapter
6.
The
last
of
research
findings
include
an
assessment
of
chapter
deals
with
impacts
and
consequences,
the
influence
and
impact
of
such
findings.
the
goal
being
to
identify
the
direct
and
indirect
effect
(intended
or
not)
of
transfer
actions.
We
thus
felt
it
appropriate
to
start
with
a
chapter
dealing
with
transfer
assessment
that
proposes
a
conceptual
framework
for
assessment
and
that
clarifies
certain
concepts
(e.g.
differences
between
results,
effects,
and
impacts).
31
Guide to knowledge transfer research
Chapter 5: Assessing transfers: conceptual framework
An
assessment
consists
of
forming
a
judgment
the
objectives
of
a
knowledge
transfer
decision
on
an
intervention
(Patton,
2002).
The
term
were
attained
from
the
point
of
view
of
both
“assessment”
also
refers
to
a
process,
as
users
and
researchers.
However,
this
does
not
systematic
and
objective
as
possible,
by
which
preclude
the
use
of
evaluative
research.
the
value
and
extent
of
an
intended
intervention
is
determined,
whether
it
is
in
The
results
include
concepts
such
as
“effects,”
progress
or
completed
(OECD,
2002).
Since
“results,”
and
“impacts”
(see
Box
8),
which
are
there
is
still
some
confusion
regarding
the
term,
interconnected
but
have
different
meanings
in
the
following
section
is
intended
to
clarify
terms
of
purpose,
range,
and
outcome.
These
certain
notions.
conceptual
differences
are
shown
in
Table
1
based
on
four
items:
purpose
(what
the
Knowledge
transfer
assessment
can
focus
on
assessment
relates
to),
range
(scope
of
the
different
aspects
depending
on
several
factors,
assessment),
temporal
aspects
(the
stage
or
including
the
objectives
of
the
assessment,
the
period
in
which
the
assessment
must
be
carried
context,
or
the
means
at
one’s
disposal.
These
out),
and
outcome
(what
is
expected
from
the
are
reviewed
in
Section
5.2.
assessment).
Box
10:
Effect
vs
result
vs
impact
5.1
Semantic
clarifications
regarding
assessment
Effect
The
assessment
of
knowledge
transfer
or
the
An
effect
can
be
defined
as
an
«intended
or
transfer
of
research
findings
can
be
performed
unintended
change
due
directly
or
indirectly
to
by
using
the
transfer
process
itself
or
by
an
intervention»
(OECD,
2002).
focussing
on
the
results
obtained.
Results
In
transfer,
process
assessment
is
important,
given
that
the
various
actors
involved
in
transfer
The
notion
of
“results”
can
be
defined
as
have
numerous
and
complex
interactions.
From
changes
caused
by
an
intervention
and
an
assessment
standpoint,
the
process
can
be
resulting
in
direct
effects.
Thus,
results
defined
as
“all
the
internal
operations,
both
constitute
all
the
effects
expected
from
formal
and
informal,
of
an
intervention
that
research
findings
or
from
knowledge
transfer.
enable
us
to
attain
desired
objectives”
(Rondot
and
Bouchard,
2003).
It
involves
identifying
all
Impact
mechanisms
through
which
a
transfer
of
The
notion
of
impact
can
be
defined
as
knowledge
or
research
findings
takes
place.
«positive
and
negative,
primary
and
secondary
long‐term
effects
produced
by
a
development
Assessing
transfer
by
its
results
involves
intervention,
directly
or
indirectly,
intended
or
verifying
if
the
intended
effects
match
those
unintended»
(OECD,
2002).
It
goes
beyond
the
determined
at
the
outset.
This
often
takes
place
definition
of
“results”
and
includes
indirect
within
the
framework
of
a
normative
effects
(positive
and
negative).
assessment
in
which
the
original
intention
is
compared
to
what
was
actually
accomplished.
This
is
explained
by
the
need
to
verify
whether
32
Part III: Studies on knowledge transfer
• The
knowledge
creation
process
aims
at
• Impacts.
This
involves
measuring
the
indentify
and
analyzing
the
relationships,
indirect
or
unexpected
effects
of
knowledge
interactions,
and
contexts
in
which
transfer.
It
also
involves
verifying
whether
knowledge
is
developed
by
researchers
in
the
effective
application
of
the
transferred
relation
to
real
or
potential
users.
knowledge
results
in
effects
other
than
• The
knowledge
provision
process.
The
those
initially
expected
or
desired.
assessment
aims,
on
one
hand,
to
identify
the
mechanisms
of
knowledge
transformation
created
to
facilitate
their
Key
readings
accessibility
and
transferability,
and
on
the
other
hand,
to
support
the
processes
by
which
this
knowledge
is
propagated
to
1. Hanney
S.
et
al.
(2003).
The
utilisation
of
reach
real
or
potential
users.
health
research
in
policy‐making:
concepts,
• Knowledge
appropriation
accounts
for
the
examples
and
methods
of
assessment.
level
of
acquisition,
integration,
and
Health
Research
Policy
and
Systems,
Vol.
1
consolidation
of
the
knowledge
transferred
no
2
pp
28
by
real
or
potential
users
(persons
or
2. Machin
A.
M.
and
Fogarty
G.
J.
(2004).
entities).
Assessing
the
antecedents
of
transfer
• Knowledge
utilization
involves
verifying
the
intentions
in
a
training
context.
extent
to
which
transferred
knowledge
is
International
Journal
of
Training
and
actually
applied
by
users.
Development,
Vol.
8
no
3
pp
222‐236
33
Guide to knowledge transfer research
Table
1:
Main
differences
between
concepts:
Effects,
results
and
impacts.
34
Part III: Studies on knowledge transfer
Chapter 6: Factors that foster transfer
Many
studies
focus
on
factors
that
facilitate
the
origin
and
perception
of
knowledge
and
knowledge
transfer.
Although
these
factors
may
presents
positive
factors
as
follows:
vary
depending
on
the
intended
objectives,
strategy,
or
context,
some
have
gained
general
• researcher
credibility
determines
the
acceptance.
For
example,
most
of
us
would
credibility
of
the
results
agree
that
the
implementation
of
research
• researcher
trustworthiness
findings
is
made
easier,
as
noted
by
the
Joseph
• scientific
quality
of
the
research
Rowntree
Foundation
(2000),
by:
• clarity,
accessibility,
and
comprehension
of
researcher
discourse
• providing
solutions
on
issues
of
concern
to
• perception
of
the
usefulness
of
research
users
in
a
timely
manner;
findings
• defining
a
clear
strategy
for
disseminating
• timeliness
of
results
dissemination
findings
from
the
outset;
• quality
and
relevance
of
the
media
used
to
• combining
several
methods
for
carry
out
the
transfer
disseminating
findings;
• influence
(social,
normative,
and
affective)
• ensuring
that
officials
of
user
organizations
of
the
social
network
on
the
behaviour
of
play
a
leadership
role,
and
that
there
are
users
credible
knowledge
relayers
within
these
• support
of
the
hierarchy
and
of
peers
organizations.
• context
of
utilization
(working
conditions,
The
potential
factors
are
numerous.
They
have
working
atmosphere,
organizational
culture,
been
identified
and
classified
into
four
sections.
etc.).
The
first
section
(6.1)
examines
the
factors
identified
and
attempts
to
establish
a
link
with
6.1.2
Collaborative
models
theoretical
models.
In
the
second
section
(6.2),
factors
are
classified
according
to
whether
they
Indeed,
many
of
the
facilitating
factors
deal
with
belong
to
a
national
or
an
organizational
the
collaboration
process.
We
have
used
the
list
intervention
level.
To
avoid
redundancy,
we
drawn
up
by
Duperré
(2006):
have
limited
ourselves
to
identifying
factors
that
are
specific
or
new
to
a
stage.
The
third
section
• establishment
of
links
between
researchers
(6.3)
deals
with
factors
related
to
the
and
user
communities
from
the
project’s
classifications
presented
in
the
last
section
(6.4)
outset
based
on
purpose.
• users
participation
and
interaction
• user
concerns
6.1
Factors
related
to
theoretical
models
• supplying
suitable
transfer
tools
These
factors
serve
to
feed
and
validate
the
• presenting
research
results
in
a
clear,
suggested
theoretical
models.
concise,
user‐friendly,
and
attractive
manner.
6.1.1
Linear
transfer
models
35
Guide to knowledge transfer research
36
Part III: Studies on knowledge transfer
Table
2:
Main
transfer
factors
or
determinants.
Step
Transfer
factors
and
determinants
• The
researcher’s
reputation,
experience,
and
credibility
Researcher’s
• The
researcher’s
availability
and
commitment
characteristics
• The
researcher’s
involvement
in
networks
Creation
• Means
(equipment)
at
the
researcher’s
disposal
Resources
• Amount
of
financing
allotted
• Research
support
policies
Context
of
the
• Support
from
funding
organizations
research
• Existence
of
persons
and
organizations
as
intermediaries
• Adapting
knowledge
to
users’
characteristics,
requirements,
levels,
and
profile
Transformation
Transformation
• Clarity
and
accessibility
of
the
language
context
• Policies
that
support
the
dissemination
of
research
findings
• Type,
attractiveness,
user
friendliness
of
the
supports
used
(paper,
downloadable
Supports
and
document)
channels
used
for
• Selection
of
suitable
dissemination
channels:
guides,
periodicals,
Internet
transfer
• Information
meetings
about
the
knowledge
to
be
transferred
Dissemination
• Existence
of
a
dissemination
strategy
Knowledge
• Existence
of
networks,
research
communities,
etc.
• Existence
and
involvement
of
relaying
people
and
organizations
dissemination
• Policies
supporting
the
dissemination
of
research
findings
context
• Support
by
funding
organizations
• Existence
of
intermediaries
Context
• Access
to
results
Reception
• Short‐term
benefits
User
characteristics
• Users’
level
of
education
• Users’
motivation
• Perceived
usefulness
of
the
knowledge
to
be
transferred
Knowledge
Adoption
• Conformity
between
knowledge
and
problems
to
be
solved
usefulness
• Interactions
between
knowledge
producers
and
users
Support
received
by
• Availability
of
internal
resources
(key
persons,
committees,
etc.)
users
• Information
meetings
Knowledge
Appropriation
• Organizational
context:
learning
organization,
organizational
learning,
appropriation
context
• Interactions
• Users’
level
of
education
User
characteristics
• Users’
motivation
• Motivations
to
adapt
and
utilize
knowledge
• Perception
of
the
usefulness
of
knowledge
User
attitudes
• Perception
of
the
credibility
of
possible
results
• Confidence
to
utilize
the
knowledge
• Expected
benefits
Knowledge
• Users’
qualifications
utilization
• Ability
to
understand
and
utilize
knowledge
User
characteristics
• Training
received
• Earlier
experiences
of
similar
knowledge
utilization
• Support
(peers,
hierarchy/organization,
advisors
from
a
JSA
or
the
CSST,
etc.)
Utilization
context
• Internal
resources
(meetings
and
information
meetings,
internal
committees,
etc.)
• Organizational
factors
(workload,
decision
latitudes,
climate,
etc.)
37
Guide to knowledge transfer research
Chapter 7: Assessing transfer impacts
Factors
to
be
taken
into
account
depend
on
the
branches
of
industry
(health,
education,
management,
engineers,
etc.)
or
on
the
kind
of
activities
within
an
organization
in
which
the
transfer
takes
place.
Specificities
must
be
considered
in
every
instance
in
the
evaluation.
However,
beyond
these
specificities,
some
of
the
factors
to
be
considered
include
the
following:
38
Part III: Studies on knowledge transfer
Table
3:
Factors
to
be
taken
into
account
during
impact
assessment
• Scientific
advances
Scientific
impacts
• Contribution
to
science
(publications,
influence,
etc.)
• Research
funding
policies
• Amount
allotted
for
funding
Impact
on
the
• Facilities
accorded
to
research
structures
research
context
• Interactions
between
the
context
in
which
the
research
is
undertaken
and
transfer
activities
carried
out
by
researchers
A
transfer
assessment
at
the
individual
level
is
Usually,
institutions
that
undertake
transfer
or
aimed
at
verifying
and
analyzing,
among
other
that
foster
transfer
operate
in
a
well‐defined
things:
branch
of
industry
(e.g.
JSA),
operate
in
many
sectors
(e.g.
CSST)
or
operate
in
a
specific
• the
willingness
of
various
users
to
become
professional
branch
(e.g.
employer’s
familiarized
with
the
transferred
knowledge
associations,
trade
associations).
Transfer
• the
adoption
or
rejection
of
the
transferred
assessment
at
the
sectorial
level
consists
in
knowledge
checking
a
number
of
elements,
such
as:
• the
appropriation
(or
lack
thereof)
of
the
transferred
knowledge
• the
relevance,
utility,
and
adequacy
of
the
• the
effective
application
of
the
transferred
research
relative
to
the
current
and
knowledge
potential
concerns
of
actual
or
potential
• the
influence
of
the
context
users
• other
users
not
initially
targeted
• transmission
supports,
such
as
the
choice
of
communication
channels
or
the
quality
of
A
transfer
assessment
at
the
organizational
level
the
supports
generally
tends
to
verify
or
measure:
• the
existence
of
reinforcement
networks
(communities
of
practice,
exchange
forums,
• the
conditions
through
which
knowledge
etc.)
reaches
an
organization
• the
means
and
factors
that
favour
its
• the
context
in
which
these
institutions
appropriation
operate
(resources
set
aside
to
ensure
the
• its
implementation
and
institutionalization
effectiveness
of
the
transfer
as
well
as
the
by
the
organization
as
a
whole
and
by
its
nature
and
quality
of
the
resulting
social
various
constituents
(workers,
departments,
relations).
etc.)
• the
modifications
or
changes
adopted
as
a
result
of
the
transfer
• organizational
performance,
etc.
39
Guide to knowledge transfer research
Box
11:
Some
transfer
actors
and
assessment
levels.
at
the
organizational
and
individual
level
and
verify
if
and
how
the
transferred
knowledge
is
being
implemented,
and
with
what
results.
All
levels
of
assessment
are
of
interest
to
each
of
the
actors
involved
in
a
transfer
action.
This
is
what
gives
a
global
and
comprehensive
idea
Lastly,
at
the
national
level,
transfer
assessment
of
what
is
to
be
assessed.
However,
in
certain
seeks
to
verify,
among
other
things:
cases,
actors
may
favour
a
level
of
analysis
depending
on
specific
concerns.
• the
valorization
of
transferred
knowledge
into
innovative
and
profitable
products,
Funding
organizations
processes,
services,
or
technologies
Funding
organizations
are
interested
in
the
• the
progress
and
advances
(social,
medical,
overall
aspect
of
transfer
and
have
a
national
technical,
etc.)
made
possible
by
the
perspective
(supporting
knowledge
creation
application
of
the
transferred
knowledge
through
training
and
research
funding,
• decisions
made
on
the
basis
of
the
contributing
to
the
development
of
networks,
transferred
knowledge
assisting
in
the
establishment
of
partnerships
• problems
entirely
or
partially
solved
by
the
between
researchers
and
users,
etc.).
transferred
knowledge
• the
contribution
of
the
transferred
Researchers
knowledge
to
the
reinforcement
of
human
capital
(increased
skills,
individual
Researchers
are
concerned
with
all
levels
of
performance,
etc.)
and
technical
assets
assessment,
all
actors,
and
all
knowledge
• the
context
in
which
the
research
is
carried
transfer
stages.
out
(research
objectives,
sources
of
funding,
Intermediaries
etc.).
Decision‐makers
Depending
on
their
decisional
jurisdiction
(governmental,
sectorial,
or
organizational),
decision‐makers
are
generally
interested
in
measuring
the
range,
results,
and
efficiency
of
their
decisions
at
the
national,
sectorial,
or
organizational
level
when
these
decisions
are
based
on
research
findings,
especially
evidence‐based
data.
Organizations
Organizations
generally
carry
out
assessments
40
References
References
1. Amara
N.,
Ouimet
M.
and
Landry
R.
(2004).
New
Evidence
on
Instrumental,
Conceptual,
and
Symbolic
Utilization
of
University
Research
in
Government
Agencies.
Science
Communication,
Vol.
26
no.
1
pp
75‐106
2. Argabright
G.
C.
(1999).
Using
technology
transfer
to
improve
safety
and
health.
Prof
Safety,
Vol.
44
pp
28–32
3. Argote
L.
and
Ingram
P.
(2000).
Knowledge
Transfer:
A
Basis
for
Competitive
Advantage
in
Firms.
Organizational
Behavior
and
Human
Decision
Processes,
Vol.
82,
no.
1
pp.
150–169
4. Baldwin
T.
and
Ford
K.
J.
(1988).
Transfer
of
Training:
A
Review
and
Directions
for
Future
Research.
Personnel
Psychology,
Vol.41,
Iss.1
pp.
63
5. Beaudry
D.N.,
Régnier
L.
and
Gagné
S.
(2006).
Chaînes
de
valorisation
de
résultats
de
la
recherche
universitaire
recelant
un
potentiel
d’utilisation
par
une
entreprise
ou
par
un
autre
milieu.
Étude.
Conseil
de
la
science
et
de
la
technologie
et
de
Valorisation‐Recherche
Québec,
Québec,
93
pp.
Rapport
téléchargeable
à
l’adresse
suivante:
http://www.cst.gouv.qc.ca/IMG/pdf/Chaines_valorisation_2006‐03_EdWeb_‐2.pdf
6. Berta
W.
B.
and
Baker
R.
(2004).
Factors
that
impact
the
Transfer
and
Retention
of
Best
Practices
fo
reducing
Error
in
Hospitals.
Health
Care
Management
Review.
Vol.
29,
Iss.
2;
pp.90‐98.
7. Berthon
B.
(2003).
Pour
une
approche
globale
du
transfert
de
connaissance:
une
illustration
empirique
à
l'intra‐organisationnel.
XIIème
Conférence
de
l'Association
Internationale
de
Management
Stratégique,
Les
Côtes
de
Carthage
–
3,
4,
5
et
6
juin
2003.
Liste
des
communications
de
la
conférence:
http://www.strategie‐aims.com/tunis/resumes/RSSP_12b.pdf
8. Boggs
J.
P.
(1992).
Implicit
Models
of
Social
Knowledge
Use.
Science
Communication,
Vol.
14
no
1
pp
29‐62
9. Bouchard
C.
and
le
Groupe
de
travail
sur
l’innovation
sociale
(1999).
Contribution
à
une
politique
de
l’immatériel.
Recherche
en
sciences
humaines
et
sociales
et
innovations
sociales,
Conseil
québécois
de
la
recherche
sociale.
10. Bourdouxhe
M.
and
Gratton
L.
(2003).
Transfert
et
utilisation
des
résultats
en
milieu
de
travail:
le
cas
de
la
recherche
sur
les
éboueurs
au
Québec.
Pistes,
Vol.5,
n°
1
pp
17.
Article
en
ligne:
http://www.pistes.uqam.ca/v5n1/pdf/v5n1a8.pdf
11. Canadian
Health
Services
Research
Foundation
(2007).
Website:
http://www.chsrf.ca/knowledge_transfer/exchange_f.php
12. Idem
(1999).
Questions
de
liens
et
d'échanges
entre
les
chercheurs
et
les
décideurs.
Sommaire
d'un
atelier
convoqué
par
la
Fondation,
document
de
référence.
Fondation
canadienne
de
la
recherche
sur
les
services
de
santé,
29
p.
http://chsrf.ca/knowledge_transfer/pdf/linkage_f.pdf
13. Idem
(2003).
La
théorie
et
la
pratique
du
courtage
de
connaissances
dans
le
système
de
santé
canadien.
Rapport.
Fondation
Canadienne
de
la
Recherche
sur
les
Services
de
Santé,
49
p.
http://www.fcrss.ca/brokering/pdf/Theory_and_Practice_f.pdf
14. Canadian
Institutes
of
Health
Research
(2004).
Stratégie
liée
à
l'application
des
connaissances
2004‐
2009.
L'innovation
à
l'œuvre:
http://www.cihr‐irsc.gc.ca/f/26574.html
15. Clark
G.
and
Kelly
L.
(2005).
New
Directions
for
Knowledge
Transfer
and
Knowledge
Brokerage
in
Scotland.
Research
Findings
No.
1/2005.
16. Communauté
Européenne
(1997).
La
mesure
des
activités
scientifiques
et
technologiques,
Manuel
d’Oslo,
2e
édition.
Commission
européenne
41
Guide to knowledge transfer research
17. Communauté
Européenne
(2005).
Dissémination
et
valorisation
des
Résultats.
Texte
émis
par
la
Direction
générale
Éducation
et
Culture,
Direction
Communication
et
culture,
Unité
C3.
Document,
2
pages.
Commission
européenne
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/valorisation/index_en.html
18. Conseil
de
la
science
et
de
la
technologie
(2005).
La
valorisation
de
la
recherche
universitaire.
Clarification
conceptuelle.
Rapport,
Sainte‐Foy,
Québec
téléchargeable:
http://www.cst.gouv.qc.ca/IMG/pdf/Valorisation_Rech_Univ.pdf
19. Conseil
de
recherches
en
sciences
humaines
du
Canada
(2005).
Plan
stratégique
2006‐2011:
http://www.sshrc.ca/web/about/publications/strategic_plan_f.pdf
20. Conseil
de
recherches
en
sciences
naturelles
et
en
génie
du
Canada
(2007).
Projets
de
recherche
concertée
sur
la
santé
;
Subventions
de
projets
stratégiques
;
Programme
de
mobilisation
de
la
propriété
intellectuelle
;
Programme
de
partenariat
de
recherche
du
ministère
de
la
Défense
nationale
;
Utilisation
des
subventions
–
Centres
de
recherche
sur
l’enseignement
et
l’apprentissage
des
sciences
(CREAS):
http://www.crsng.gc.ca/professors_f.asp?nav=profnav&lbi=pg
21. Duperré
M.
(2006).
Innovations
sociales
dans
les
organismes
communautaires:
facteurs
intervenant
dans
le
processus
de
transfert
des
connaissances.
Cahiers
du
Centre
de
recherche
sur
les
innovations
sociales
(CRISES).
Collection
Études
théoriques
‐
no
ET0603:
http://www.crises.uqam.ca/cahiers/ET0603.pdf
22. Estabrooks
C.
A.
(1999).
The
Conceptual
Structure
of
Research
Utilization.
Research
in
Nursing
&
Health,
Vol.
22,
pp
203–216
23. Fonds
québécois
de
la
recherche
sur
la
nature
et
les
technologies
(2005).
Les
priorités
en
recherche.
Cadre
de
référence
pour
le
plan
triennal
2006‐2009.
http://www.fqrnt.gouv.qc.ca/nateq/documentsPublications/pdf/2005/prioritesRecherche.pdf
24. Fonds
de
la
recherche
en
santé
du
Québec
(2002).
Orientations
stratégiques.
Plan
triennal
2002‐
2005:
http://www.fqrsc.gouv.qc.ca/programmes/index.html
25. Gélinas
A
and
Pilon
J.‐M.
(1994).
Le
transfert
des
connaissances
en
recherche
sociale
et
la
transformation
des
pratiques
sociales.
Nouvelles
pratiques
sociales.
Vol.
7
no
2
pp
75‐92
26. Gélinas
A.
(1990).
Les
fondements
du
transfert
des
connaissances,
in
CQRS
(ed.)
Le
transfert
des
connaissances
en
recherche
sociale:
Actes
du
Forum
du
conseil
québécois
de
la
recherche
sociale,
Montréal,
pp
17‐38
27. Graham
I.
D.,
Logan
J.,
Harrison
M.B.,
Straus
S.E.,
Tetroe
J.,
Caswell
R.N.
and
Robinson
N.
(2006).
Lost
in
Knowledge
Translation:
Time
for
a
Map?
The
Journal
of
Continuing
Education
in
the
Health
Professions,
Volume
26,
pp.
13–24.
28. Gupta
S.,
Sharma
S.L.
and
Dutta
K.
(2006).
Using
Knowledge
Mapping
to
Support
Knowledge
Management
in
Health
Organizations.
http://library.igcar.gov.in/readit2007/conpro/s2/S2_5.pdf
29. Hanney
S.
R.,
Gonzalez‐Block
M.
A.,
Buxton
M.
J.
and
Kogan
M.
(2003).
The
utilisation
of
health
research
in
policy‐making:
concepts,
examples
and
methods
of
assessment.
Health
Research
Policy
and
Systems,
Vol.
1
no
2
pp
28
30. Harris
J.
S.
(1997).
Development,
use,
and
evaluation
of
clinical
practice
guidelines.
Journal
of
Occupational
&
Environmental
Medicine,
Vol.
39
Issue
1
pp.
23‐34
31. Higgins
E.
T.
(2000).
Making
a
Good
Decision:
Value
from
fit.
American
Psychologist,
Vol.
55
pp
1217–
1230
32. Jacobson
N.,
Butterill
D.
and
Goering
P.
(2004).
Organizational
Factors
that
Influence
University‐
Based
Researchers’
Engagement
in
Knowledge
Transfer
Activities.
Science
Communication,
Vol.
25;
pp
246‐258
33. Joseph
Rowntree
Foundation
(2000).
Linking
research
and
practice.
Findings.
York,
United
Kingdom.
Document
en
ligne
sur
le
site
de
la
JRF:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/Knowledge/findings/socialcare/pdf/910.pdf
42
References
34. Lahti
R.
K.,
Darr
E.
D.,
Krebs
V.
E.
(2002).
Developing
the
productivity
of
a
dynamic
workforce:
The
impact
of
informal
knowledge
transfer.
Journal
of
Organizational
Excellence,
Vol.
21
no
2
pp
13‐21
35. Landry
R.,
Amara
N.
and
Lamari
M.
(1998).
Utilization
of
social
science
research
knowledge
in
Canada.
Communication
pour
le
70th
Annual
Meeting
Canadian
Political
Science
Association;
mai
31
et
juin
1,
2,
à
l’Université
d’Ottawa.
36. Landry
R.,
Amara
N.
and
Lamari
M.
(1999).
Climbing
the
Ladder
of
Research
Utilization:
Evidence
from
Social
Science
Research.
Paper
prepared
for
presentation
at
the
annual
meeting
of
the
Society
for
Social
Studies
of
Science,
San
Diego,
Ca,
October
28‐31,
1999.
http://www.rqsi.ulaval.ca/fr/pdf/publication3.pdf
37. Landry
R.,
Amara
N.,
and
Lamari
M.
(2001).
Utilization
of
social
science
research
knowledge
in
Canada.
Research
Policy,
Vol.
30,
pp
333‐349
38. Laroche,
E.
(2006).
Revue
de
littérature
sur
le
transfert
des
connaissances,
Essai
synthèse:
volet
rétrospectif
de
l'examen
de
doctorat.
Québec,
Canada.
Faculté
des
sciences
de
l'administration,
Université
laval.
39. Lavis
J.
N.,
Robertson
D.,
Woodeside
J.
M.,
McLeod
C.
B.,
Abelson
J.
and
the
Knowledge
Transfer
Study
Group.
(2003).
How
Can
Research
Organizations
More
Effectively
Transfer
Research
Knowledge
to
Decision
Makers
?
The
Milbank
Quarterly,
Vol.
81
no
2,
pp
221–248
40. Lomas
J.,
Culyer
T.,
McCutcheon
C.,
McAuley
L.
and
Law
S.
(2005).
Conceptualiser
et
regrouper
les
données
probantes
pour
guider
le
système
de
santé.
Rapport
final.
Fondation
canadienne
de
la
recherche
sur
les
services
de
santé.
http://www.fcrss.ca/other_documents/pdf/evidence_f.pdf
41. Lucas
L.
M.
(2005).
The
impact
of
trust
and
reputation
on
the
transfer
of
best
practices.
Journal
of
Knowledge
Management;
vol.
9
n°4
pp
87‐101
42. Lyons
R.
and
Warner
G.
(2005).
Demystifying
Knowledge
Translation
for
Stroke
researchers:
a
Primer
on
Theory
and
Praxis.
A
report
prepared
by
the
Atlantic
Health
Promotion
Research
Centre.
http://www.ahprc.dal.ca/pdf/Demystifying_KT_Final.pdf
43. Nonaka,
I.
and
Takeuchi,
H.
(1995).
How
Japanese
companies
creates
the
dynamics
of
innovation.
Oxford
University
Press,
Oxford,
284
pages.
44. Organisation
de
coopération
et
de
développement
économiques
(2002).
Glossaire
des
principaux
termes
relatifs
à
l’évaluation
et
la
gestion
axée
sur
les
résultats:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf
45. Orléron
P.
(1971).
La
transmission
des
connaissances:
Problèmes
psychologiques
et
pédagogiques.
Bulletin
de
psychologie,
vol.25,
pp
65‐71.
46. Patton
M.
Q.
(2002).
Qualitative
research
and
evaluation
methods.
3rd
ed.,
Sage,
London
47. Perrenoud
P.
(1999).
Transférer
ou
mobiliser
ses
connaissances?
D'une
métaphore
à
l'autre:
implications
sociologiques
et
pédagogiques.
Texte
remanié
et
complété
d’une
communication
au
colloque
«
Raisons
éducatives
sur
les
compétences».
Faculté
de
psychologie
et
des
sciences
de
l'éducation,
Université
de
Genève;
mars
1999.
24
pp.
site
web:
www.unige.ch/fapse/SSE/teachers/perrenoud/php_main/php_1999/1999_28.rtf)
48. Piaget
J.
(1970).
Psychologie
et
épistémologie.
Paris,
Denoël,
187
p.
49. Presseau
A.
and
Frenay
M.
(2004).
Le
développement
des
compétences
professionnelles:
quelles
jonctions
possibles
entre
l’articulation
théorie/pratique
et
le
transfert
?
In
Presseau
Annie
et
Frenay
Mariane
(Eds).
Le
transfert
des
apprentissages;
comprendre
pour
mieux
intervenir.
Ste‐Foy,
les
Presses
de
l'Université
Laval
50. Idem.
(2004)
Le
transfert
des
apprentissages:
courants
théoriques
et
pratiques
pédagogiques.
In
Presseau
Annie
et
Frenay
Mariane
(Eds).
Le
transfert
des
apprentissages
;
comprendre
pour
mieux
intervenir.
Ste‐Foy,
les
Presses
de
l'Université
Laval.
51. Rogers
E.
M.
(1995).
Diffusion
of
Innovations.
4th
ed.,
The
Free
Press.
New
York
43
Guide to knowledge transfer research
52. Rondot
S.
and
Bouchard
J.
M.
(2003).
Symposium
sur
le
financement
du
logement
communautaire,
le
25
février
2002,
Montréal,
Alliance
de
recherche
universités‐communautés
en
économie
sociale,
Cahier
de
transfert
T‐01‐2003
53. Roy
M.,
Guindon,
J.‐C.,
Fortier,
L.
(1995).
Transfert
de
connaissances–
revue
de
littérature
et
proposition
d'un
modèle.
Études
et
recherches,
IRSST,
R‐099,
53
p.
http://www.irsst.qc.ca/fr/_publicationirsst_460.html
54. Roy
M.,
Parent,
R.,
Desmarais,
L.
(2003).
Knowledge
Networking:
A
Strategy
to
Improve
Workplace
Health
&
Safety
Knowledge
Transfer.
Academic
Conferences
Limited
;
Electronic
Journal
of
Knowledge
Management:
http://www.ejkm.com/volume‐1/volume1‐issue‐2/issue2‐art16‐roy.pdf
55. Rynes
S.L.,
Bartunek
J..M.
and
Daft
R.L.
(2001).
Across
the
great
divide:
knowledge
creation
and
transfer
between
practitioners
and
academics.
Academy
of
Management
Journal,
Vol.
44
no
2
pp.
340‐355.
56. Szulanski
G.
(2000).
The
Process
of
Knowledge
Transfer:
A
Diachronic
Analysis
of
Stickiness.Organizational
Behavior
and
Human
Decision
Processes,
Vol.
82,
no.
1
pp.
9–27.
57. Tardif
J.
(1999).
Le
transfert
des
apprentissages
(Eds).
Montréal:
Éditions
Logiques
58. Taylor
M.
(1997).
La
Planification
de
programmes
d'éducation
efficaces
en
milieu
de
travail.
Rapport.
Secrétariat
national
à
l'alphabétisation,
Développement
des
ressources
humaines
Canada,
Ontario
(Canada)
59. Teiger
C.
and
Laville
A.
(1989).
Expression
des
travailleurs
sur
leurs
conditions
de
travail
(analyse
de
sessions
de
formation
de
délégués
C.H.S.C.T.
à
l’analyse
ergonomique
du
travail).
Paris:
CNAM,
volume
1,
rapport
no
100,
160
pages.
60. Trottier
L‐H.
and
Champagne
F.
(2006).
L'utilisation
des
connaissances
scientifiques:
au
cœur
des
relations
de
coopération
entre
les
acteurs.
R06‐05.
Éd:
GRIS,
Université
de
Montréal,
pp
41.
http://www.gris.umontreal.ca/rapportpdf/R06‐05.pdf
61. Weiss
C.
H.
(1979).
The
Many
Meanings
of
Research
Utilization.
Public
Administration
Review,
Vol.
39
no
5
pp.
426‐431.
Acknowledgements:
Preparation
of
this
guide
was
made
possible
by
a
grant
from
the
Institut
de
recherche
Robert‐Sauvé
en
santé
et
sécurité
du
travail.
We
would
also
like
to
thank
Josée
Lapierre
for
her
bibliographic
work
related
to
knowledge
transfer.
44
Researchers
have
accumulated
a
considerable
amount
of
experience,
understanding,
and
“know‐how,”
mostly
informal,
regarding
knowledge
transfer.
It
is
plausible
to
think
that
in
the
coming
years,
researchers
will
not
only
become
increasingly
interested
in
these
issues
(i.e.
knowledge
transfer
will
become
the
focus
of
their
research),
but
that
they
will
also
attempt
to
formalize/model/conceptualize
a
corpus
of
knowledge
that
is
specific
to
OHS.
We
therefore
thought
it
appropriate
to
create
a
document,
primarily
a
working
tool,
to
help
researchers
desirous
of
focusing
on
knowledge
transfer
to
become
familiar
with
its
broad
outlines,
its
limits,
and
its
subtleties
(basic
concepts,
vocabulary,
areas
of
research,
main
questions,
positions
of
funding
organizations,
key
literature,
etc.).
This
guide
is
not
an
exhaustive
review
of
the
literature
related
to
knowledge
transfer;
it
is
meant
to
identify
key
elements
as
far
as
OHS
is
concerned.
46