Analysis of Brokering Organizations Across Canada
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
386
On Slideshare
386
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. A CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS OF 44 RESEARCH BROKERING ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS CANADA Dr. Amanda CooperApril 12, 2013
  • 2. CONTEXT
  • 3. Multiple Definitions by Sector GETTING THE RIGHT INFORMATION TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN THE RIGHT FORMAT AT THE RIGHT TIME SO AS TO INFLUENCE DECISION- MAKING (ONF) MOVING KNOWLEDGE INTO ACTIVE SERVICE FOR THE BROADEST POSSIBLE COMMON GOOD (SSHRC) THE PROCESS FROM THE CREATION OF EVIDENCE TO ITS ULTIMATE IMPACT (Knowledge Translation, CIHR) COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM- SOLVING BETWEEN RESEARCHERS AND DECISION MAKERS THAT HAPPENS THROUGH LINKAGE AND EXCHANGE (Knowledge Exchange, CHSRF)
  • 4. We prefer the term ‘knowledge mobilization’, because it best embodies the idea that the use of knowledge is a social process, not just an intellectual task, and as such is multidirectional, not just a matter of moving information from those that know to those that do not. At the same time, ‘mobilization’ implies effort and direction, not just random interaction. There are multiple, iterative phrases including the generation of new research knowledge when needed, the communication and application of established research knowledge, and the contextualization of research to suit particular environments (Cooper et al., 2009, p.166-167)
  • 5. TIME SOCIAL CONTEXT RESEARCH USE RESEARCH PRODUCTION Knowledge Mobilization INTERMEDIARIES/ Research Brokering Organizations (RBOs) KMb
  • 6.  Rising number of intermediary organizations  Significant role: interpret, package, disseminate  Underexplored role, virtually no empirical work RBOs: THE MISSING LINK? SIGNIFICANCE
  • 7. RESEARCH QUESTIONS  What is the nature and impact of the work of Canadian RBOs in knowledge mobilization in education? 1. What types of intermediary RBOs exist in education across Canada? 2. What are the organizational features of RBOs? 3. What knowledge mobilization processes are RBOs involved in, and what dissemination mechanisms do they use?
  • 8. Intermediaries (RBOs) CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TIME SOCIAL CONTEXT RESEARCH USE RESEARCH PRODUCTION 1. TYPE OF ORGANIZATION Gov’t Non-Profit For Profit Membership 3. KMb PROCESSES Message Strategies Functions Dissemination Mechanism 2. ORGANIZATIONAL FEATURES Mission Scope Target Audience Size Resources Membership Composition
  • 9. Methodology  Challenge of identifying RBOs  Inclusion Criteria 1. Target audience: Connects Producers AND Users 2. Mission Statement: Explicitly KMb Related  Sampling Strategies  Ki-es-Ki Handbook, 4000+ educational contacts, Canadian Education Association  Systematic Web Search (record search strings)  RSPE program
  • 10. Sampling 541 Potential Organizations 479 Excluded 18 Meet Criteria #1 44 RBOs Meet Both Inclusion Criteria -24 excluded because no website -67 excluded because they were French -388 do not meet criteria 1 and 2
  • 11. A Matrix To Measure KMb Efforts STRATEGIES INDICATORS Products Events Networks Extra Strategies INDICATOR TOTAL Different types 3 6 6 5 /20 Ease of use 2 4 2 2 4 /14 Accessibility 3 6 4 3 /16 Audience Focus 4 2 4 /10 Extra Indicators 4 8 /12 STRATEGY TOTAL /12 /20 /20 /20 /72 • Interrater Reliability Testing of Tool: Intraclass Correlation= .799 • 3 raters per organization for 9 orgs (20% of RBOs Sample)
  • 12. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Types EaseofUse Accessibility AudienceFocus OtherIndicators Products Events Networks OtherStrategies TOTAL INDICATORS STRATEGIES MeanScore(%) Matrix Categories KMb Efforts by Organization (N=105) RBOs Faculties of Education (N=21) School Districts (N=14) Ministries of Education (N=26) Kruskal-Wallis Test was significant: χ2 (3, N=105) = 42.31, p= .00 - There are significant differences between these groups Pairwise Comparison reveals: - RBOs & Faculties of Education perform similarly - School Districts & Ministries perform similarly
  • 13. 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 90 to 100 Frequency (Number of Organizations) ScoreonKMbMatrix(%) Histogram: Total Scores by Type of Organization (N=105) RBOs Faculties of Education (N=21) School Districts (N=14) Ministries (N= 26)
  • 14. Types of Canadian RBOs 1. What types of intermediary RBOs exist in education in Canada?
  • 15. Intermediary RBOs Governmental Ministry Research Branches District Level Research Services Standard & Evaluation Funding Agencies Not for Profit University Research Centres Advocacy Issue Based Think Tanks For Profit Textbook publishers, Instructional program vendors Research Consulting Companies Media Membership Professional Network
  • 16. 44 RBOs ACROSS CANADA
  • 17. 1980 2000 •LDAC •LDAS •LDAO •CMEC 4 19 6 10 3 2 Pre- 1960s •CEA •CD Howe •AERO •FRASER •HANEN •LitBC •CODE •TLP •AIMS •CPRN •P4E •SAEE •EQAO •Galileo •MCLE •CCPA •CCBR •CRRU •LCBN •LDANS •SK Lit •LEARN •CEED •HELP •ORION •MERN •SQE •Harris •E-Best •CCKM •CSC •CCL •RSPE •E-Best •EYEON •PREVNet •SKE-EDU •ERESB •The Centre •Research Impact 1990 1970 196043% of the sample has arisen in the past decade 9% of the sample closed, lasting between 6-15 years Rise of RBOs
  • 18. Organizational Features 2. What are the organizational features of RBOs?
  • 19. Organizational Features  Target Audience & Membership Composition  Heterogeneous, homogeneous, no members  Scope  Local (n=2), Provincial (n=29), National (n=13)  Most RBOs are small (63%) RBO Size (FTE) n Min Max Mean Mode Small (1-10 FTE) 26 1 10 5 3 Medium (11-19 FTE) 4 11 14 12 11 Large (20+ FTE) 13 20 77 41 30
  • 20. Rank RBO Size (FTE) Budget Score % 1 1.2.1 RI Small (3) $250 000 81 1.2.4 Fraser Large (60) $12,808,690 81 1.4.2 CEA Small (9) $2,044,892 81 2 1.2.4 AIMS Small (5) $872 234 78 3 1.2.0 CCL Large (77) $20,583,490 76 1.2.3 The Centre Large (25) $5,685,000 76 4 1.2.0 TLP Large (74) $5,293,039 75 1.2.1 HC Med (11) --- 75 5 1.2.0 CCBR Med (12) --- 74 6 1.1.2 E-BEST Small (6.5) --- 72 Top 10 RBOs  Resources do not necessarily imply stronger KMb efforts
  • 21. 3. What knowledge mobilization processes are RBOs involved in, and what dissemination mechanisms do they use? KMb PROCESSES
  • 22. RESEARCH PRODUCTS CAPACITY BUILDING NON RESEARCH EVENTS NETWORK MEDIA Reports Glossaries Strategic Plan Panel/ Talk E-Bulletins Press Release Summaries Research FAQs Editorials Conference Network Push Lit Reviews Toolkits Promotional Materials Annual Meetings Directories of Contacts Newspaper Systematic Online Tutorials Advocacy Workshop Social Media Radio Conceptual Research Support Services Annual Report Awards Ceremonies Online Forum TV Reference Lists Blog Policy Briefs Fact Sheets Success Stories Multimedia KMb Strategies
  • 23. Comparing High, Med, Low  RBOs vary widely in levels & kinds of KMb activities(product strategies vs. events, networks, and media)  Think tanks use far more media strategies 0 100 200 300 400 500 CEA CCL SAEE SQE LDAO Media Networks Events Capacity Building Research Products HIGH KMb EFFORTS LOW Think tanks usually use MORE media strategies
  • 24. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Linked In Flickr Delicious YouTube Channel Blog Online Forum RSS Feed Share button Twitter Facebook Website Frequency (Number of RBOs) OnlineStrategy Blogging, Microblogging (One/Two-way communication) Social Networking (Two-way communication) Social Bookmarking (Collaborative tool) Multimedia (Depends on active user) Passive (Depends on active user) Push (One way communication) Use of Online Strategies
  • 25. Twitter: Small networks, Low use  30% of RBOs use social media RBO TotalTweets Following Followers TotalTweets (Sept-Dec2010) AverageTweets permonth SDTweetsper month Mean 416 344 905.5 149.29 34 9.719 Max 2250 2326 4913 594 149 26.3 Min 7 1 11 0 0 0 SD 612 589 1309 167.26 41 7.748
  • 26. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 PREVNet CEA LCNB CCPA AIMS HC SQE LDAC P4E LiteracyBC TLP E-Best SSHRC Fraser RI Total Tweets (Sept 2010 – Dec 2010) RBOFrequency of Twitter Usage
  • 27. Social Media: Nature of Posts  Opinion:  “Are parents really partners in education? Should they be?”  Promotion:  “Last chance to register for our conference”  Information:  “Premier’s arts awards tonight”  Update:  “Just watched waiting for Superman”.  Research Based:  “StatsCan: Canadian drop out rate declining. Drop out highest in AB, MB, QC, lowest in NL, BC, ON http://ning.it/a2auTU” Opinion 21% Promotion 14% Information 27% Update 4% Research Based 24%
  • 28. Discussion: RBOs  Diverse RBOs exist at various levels of education  RBOs vary widely in size, levels of KMb efforts and dedicated resources  Dedicated resources do not necessarily imply stronger KMb efforts  Few organizations have comprehensive KMb strategies or systematic approaches  Social media emerging but not focused use
  • 29. Future Research  KMb Metric provides a preliminary approach, but should be coupled with in-depth case studies  Extend to RBOs in other countries & sectors  More work (& larger samples) needed to differentiate efforts of diverse types of RBOs  Further exploration of relationships between organizational features and KMb efforts  Comparing effectiveness of different strategies is needed to assess impact of intermediary work
  • 30. Thank-you! Email: amanda.cooper@queensu.ca Twitter: @ACooperKMb Website: www.amandacooper.ca Former Work- Research Supporting Practice in Education Website: www.oise.utoronto.ca/rspe