Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.

Accepted Paper:

Translation and co-creation of knowledge in participatory research  
Ida Lillehagen (University of Oslo) Eivind Engebretsen (University of Oslo) Kristin Heggen (University of Oslo)

Paper short abstract:

Knowledge translation and co-creation are expected benefits of participatory research. Our study of a participatory research project found that the participants’ strategies for translating knowledge across contexts may cause dilemmas to knowledge production that ultimately influence on co-creation.

Paper long abstract:

The 'turn to translation' in healthcare has promoted increased use of participatory research. The term encompasses a range of approaches for stakeholders' involvement in research with the goal of increasing relevance and usability of research by mutual exchange and translation of knowledge. But how does knowledge become translated and co-created in these collaborations?

Our study of a participatory research project focused on the micro level of knowledge translation; the verbal presentations and negotiations of knowledge in discussions between researchers and clinicians attending collaboration meetings.

The material was examined by analytical terms inspired by the STS literature: knowledge object, knowledge form, knowledge position, and knowledge tasks.

We identified a recurring rhetorical pattern of translation that we call 'relevance testing': a strategy by which the participants attempt to create coherence and identify relevance of knowledge across different contexts. However, this 'translational work' was never explicitly addressed by the participants.

A limitation to the strategy was a tendency to reinforce a 'two-communities' logic: re-establishing the separated worlds and rationales between clinicians and researchers leading to recurring 'epistemic dilemmas'; dilemmas based on the two groups' different criteria for valuable, relevant and legitimate knowledge. While the clinicians emphasize that knowledge should be instantly accessible and applicable on individual level, the researchers convey that results must adhere to academic criteria and contribute to the state of the art.

This implies: 1) Conceptual tools may contribute to more radical knowledge translation. 2) The evaluation of participatory research results by strict academic research criteria may prevent integration of stakeholders' perspectives

Panel T150
Extending conceptualizations and technologies of knowledge translation in health care
  Session 1 Thursday 1 September, 2016, -