This post might be a bit random but there are some thoughts mulling in the back of my head and I figure if I get them out of my head where other people can engage with them, they might grow into something more coherent.
Please treat what follows as preliminary thinking. Thinking aloud. An invitation to dialogue.
I actively welcome comments.
Two debates
There seem to be be two debates going on separately in relation to academic research.
One is about “relevance”: speaking to an audience beyond academia, knowledge mobilization, knowledge transfer, research utilization.
The other is about “the PhD problem”: overproduction of PhDs, or underproduction (depending on your perspective), the lack of academic career opportunities for doctoral graduates, the lack of preparation for non-academic careers, the needs for Highly Qualified Personnel in the New Knowledge Economy.
The value of academic knowledge to society
Both of these debates turn on the question of the value of academic knowledge and academic training to society, broadly conceived.
Sometimes the value seems obvious but the connections are in need of some work. Incentives. New skills. Different dissemination strategies. Building relationships.
Sometimes it is the value that is in question. This seems to be a particular problem in the humanities but I suspect it lurks in all disciplines.
Certainly in both debates the ability of academics (i.e. professors working in universities) to either articulate the value of their research to those beyond their academic circles or to adequately prepare their graduate students to work in jobs unlike their own appears as a problem.
Some hints that these issues might be aspects of the same issue
Back in 2005, I heard an executive from RIM (was it Jim Balsillie? EDIT I bow to the expertise and better memory of Phipps and Charbonneau in the comments and agree that it was likely Mike Lazaridis) speak to a conference addressing these issues. Whoever it was, his take on knowledge mobilization was that “the knowledge walks off your campus into my labs” in the form of graduate students.
He seemed to be saying that he didn’t care if professors themselves did anything to “transfer” their knowledge to non-academics like himself. He cared that they trained graduate students, involved them in their cutting edge research, and then sent them out to be employed outside academia where they could apply what they learned to the practical problems that a company like RIM wanted to solve.
But that image of the knowledge walking across campus really stuck out.
Some things we know about Knowledge Mobilization/Knowledge Transfer
We know that it is not (or not just) about writing in plain language for a broader audience. Writing might be the primary way academics communicate with each other but it might not be the best way to reach non-academic audiences.
We know that it works better if the people who need the knowledge are involved in the research process early and consistently.
We know that the vast majority of research utilization is not instrumental. In other words, very rarely does anyone take one set of research results and apply them directly to a particular situation they are facing. More often than not, research utilization is about changing the way people think about the problem and thus how they approach solving it.
We know that trust is important. Those who need the knowledge need to trust the source. That isn’t just about prestige or authority, it is often about knowing them well enough to know that they understand what the needs are and that their research really addresses them.
Some things we know about PhDs and non-academic careers
Students need to be able to articulate how their knowledge meets the needs of potential employers.
Students need to network with potential employers. Informational interviewing. Learning more about how different employment sectors work. Etc.
How these things might fit together
Academics need to build relationships with non-academic audiences as a foundation for successful knowledge mobilization/transfer/utilization.
Academics who are actively involved in knowledge mobilization/transfer are more likely to be able to articulate how their research is useful to potential non-academic employers of their graduate students. They are thus more likely to be able to help their graduate students present themselves well to non-academic employers.
Academics who are actively involved in knowledge mobilization/transfer are more likely to be able to offer their graduate students opportunities to learn about potential non-academic employers through attending relevant non-academic conferences and working with non-academic research users on aspects of the research, dissemination, or application.
Academics who have relationships with non-academic audiences are more likely to be able to arrange internships for their graduate students, which would give them valuable knowledge of potential non-academic employers and work experience in non-academic settings.
Academics who are actively involved in knowledge mobilization/transfer are more likely to value non-academic career paths for their students, not least because they understand and value the work that their non-academic partners are doing and the importance of academic research to that work.
Having former students working for research partners (or potential research partners) is likely to strengthen the relationships that enable the academic researcher to do more of this type of work.
Having students who go on to work in non-academic settings that use their research is likely to be an important indicator of an academic’s ability to successfully mobilize/transfer knowledge.
Academics who want to provide better career preparation for their graduate students might find that the relationships built through their students leads to opportunities for collaborative research with non-academic partners and/or knowledge mobilization/transfer opportunities.
Your thoughts?
Now you know what’s been going on in my head. How does it land with you?
Am I making any sense at all?
How can we take this insight further to improve both graduate education, career opportunities for graduates, and knowledge mobilization/transfer/utilization?
How might this apply to those in the humanities, where the most pressing issue seems to be articulating the value of humanities knowledge beyond academia? In particular, what does it mean for the humanities to know that conceptual utilization is more common than instrumental utilization?
If you are reading this in a feed reader or an e-mail, please click through and leave your thoughts in the comments section.
Be polite. Treat all contributions at thinking aloud. We’re all intelligent. Some of us have thought about some of this more than others but we can all learn something.
The two issues (opportunities) of KMb and non-academic careers are related but perhaps not linked per se. Let me first reflect on the PhD question. I got my PhD in 1991 and did some post doc research until 1996 when I left the lab and joined technology transfer (for the truly voyeuristic, please see my career trajectory in Peter Leveque’s blog http://bit.ly/2eNguK). I remember at the time there was a book titled “Alternative Careers in Science” by Cynthia Robbins Roth that really struck me as I had no idea of the range of great, non-academic jobs for someone with a PhD. I went back to my PhD supervisor and challenged him letting him know that the current model of graduate studies does a disservice to the many graduates who will no move on to academic careers (the majority, in fact). Some Faculties feature guest lecturing by non academics but no training per se. This then does not help the RIM guy (I think it might have been Mike Lazaridis as he is always talking about high quality graduates) who is getting raw talent but might benefit from some of that talent being trained with a broader skill set.
He is right however as most of our technology and knowledge is “transferred” by our graduates (under grad and grad) who leave our campuses and get jobs with non academic employers. This, as you point out, is not knowledge mobilization. I agree with you that those who have been exposed through KMb efforts throughout their graduate careers might be better prepared for careers outside the academy but we don’t have data to support this logical conclusion, to my knowledge. Our experience at ResearchImpact has shown that graduate students take to a KMb paradigm more readily than faculty and some of our KMb interns have been hired by their intern placement hosts. So the KMb intern experience (which we aim at MAs but don’t deny PhD participation) is attractive, in part, because of the opportunity to meet new employees. This is also undoubtedly the goal of co-op programs like those offered at U Waterloo. I shall be exploring this further at Congress this summer (http://www.congress2010.ca/index.php#). I shall be hosting a career corner where I am featuring some local graduate students whose academic training engaged non-academic research partners and helped prepare them for their current non academic careers.
My only critique of your conclusions is that having faculty engaged in KMb activities may or may not help the student seeking to leave the academy. Faculty generally have no training in KMb (although some have picked it up along the way) and as we know, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I heard a technology transfer colleague from John’s Hopkins say “I know of no better way to ruin a technology than by letting a faculty member commercialize it”. Similarly faculty and graduate students who are embarking on a career of engaged scholarship need support and mentoring. A support unit like York’s KMb Unit will help guide faculty, students and their non-academic research partners to more successful outcomes (informed decision making or non-academic careers) than leaving them to their own devices.
If you or anyone knows of former graduate students who are based in Montreal, worked with non academic partners through their research training and are now engaged outside the academic let me know as I have room on my panel at Congress. Show goes on June 1.
You’ve clearly given this a lot of thought. This is one of the best syntheses of these two issues (knowledge mobilization and adequate PhD preparation) that I’ve seen.
The comments you attribute to Jim Balsillie are similar to those I’ve heard from fellow RIM exec Mike Lazaridis. He was speaking about commercialization, but the idea is similar. See here, for example: http://www.universityaffairs.ca/commercialization-the-system-works.aspx
.-= Leo Charbonneau´s last blog ..What’s the next big question in research? =-.
We know that the vast majority of research utilization is not instrumental. In other words, very rarely does anyone take one set of research results and apply them directly to a particular situation they are facing. More often than not, research utilization is about changing the way people think about the problem and thus how they approach solving it.
I’m new to the idea of ‘Knowledge Mobilization’ (which in itself may be an interesting symptom of typical priorities or values inside the academy?). But this particular comment struck me as very interesting as an angle on how/why humanities research might have an impact outside universities. It can be very hard to trace direct results for the kinds of things humanists do (as you know, I thought the recent “Why We Need Literary Theorists” piece by Chad Gaffield wasn’t quite on point)–but our research almost certainly changes the way people think about things (identity, race, gender, community, the role of technology, the value of or definition of culture…).
From a self-interested perspective, can you tell me whether blogging could be considered a form of knowledge mobilization?
.-= Rohan Maitzen´s last blog ..Office Hours Moved March 11 =-.
The term ‘Knowledge Mobilization’ is somewhat foreign, though I get what you mean. I would suggest that thee are a few key issues (from a PhD candidate’s perspective in the Social Sciences, today) around the popular dissemination of knowledge;
(1) Students are scared to make their work publicly available because ‘unfinished’ work could threaten their academic job prospects. I regularly, and publicly, write and speak about the research that I’m involved in through all of its stages because I think that it’s a transparent way of doing research and permits for corrections in methods, reforming of key empirical data points, and generally refines the work that I’m doing as I’m doing it. Many of my colleagues are amazed that I do this, and are persistently worried about the effects of this from a copyright point of view (i.e. won’t someone just copy it if I make it public) and a publishing point of view (i.e. if it’s available through talks, online networks, etc then won’t a journal reject a potential article – no matter how refined – because it isn’t an original contribution anymore?). I see both of these latter issues as symptomatic of very, very poor guidance by graduate advisors. A fear of public sharing, when academics have a tendency to be funded by public dollars, is a sad state of affairs.
(2) PhD’s aren’t typically trained in dissemination beyond the academy, and students are often scared to try. I have never been formally trained in hunting down people who would likely be interested in my work and then putting it in front of them. I’ve never been ‘taught’ how to do a proper press release, convene a conference, etc. In the academy, it is believed that this kind of ‘extra’ stuff will be done by someone else; let academics be academics and publicists be publicists! The solution to this, at least at my institution, is that we have a really, really great press group on campus that will spin research findings to the public for the academics. They will also, if you ask nicely, help teach scholars how they might present their work to a larger public audience. In essence, I don’t know that PhD students *necessarily* need to learn how to disseminate widely on their own: university resources can provide assistance and guidance, as well as possibly courses for students in their future dissemination endeavors.
(3) Accessibility. In most of the seminars, conferences, and such that I’ve been to, it comes across that few academics are taught how to give a presentation that doesn’t require truly extensive citing of somewhat obscure theorists to make very interesting points. There isn’t a problem with this approach to conferencing when you’re amongst academics, but to encourage knowledge dissemination students need to learn how to express key points without relying on a massive literature to make their point; in essence, they need to be taught/learn how to give different kinds of talks to different audiences. This is a key skill, and I expect that it’s useful for various elements of life, including job talks and should be encouraged through graduate and post-graduate training sessions.
(4) Outreach assisted by faculty. I would agree with the position that the ability to mobilize knowledge is likely linked, in some way, with how a faculty member does/doesn’t work with a broader, non-academic community. In my own case, the senior scholars I work with are all involved in various non-academic sectors, which has substantially enhanced my visibility outside of the academy. I also, however, think that students themselves have to take it upon themselves to find and think through how their work links to a larger community and then push their way into those communities; as scholars they can bring a great deal, but (again) need to be sensitive to the different audiences that they are communicating with.
In essence, I would maintain that ‘knowledge mobilization’ or (what I prefer) ‘knowledge accessibility’ should be encouraged by senior scholars and promoted by young scholars. There are fewer and fewer academic jobs in the social sciences and humanities that are tenure track, and more and more PhDs every year: not preparing new PhDs to speak and write to attract attention for ‘non-academic’ jobs does an incredibly disservice to those new PhDs, and senior (and non-senior as well) scholars should start focusing on giving their students a chance at the working world rather than largely preparing them to sink or swim on their own if they are forced to pursue non-academic jobs at the completion of their degree.
.-= Christopher Parsons´s last blog ..Choosing Winners with Deep Packet Inspection =-.
This is a hot topic in Australia as well. But, as usual, Unis are resorting to managerial approaches: at our uni they have appointed a part-time careers advisor who specialises in assisting graduating PhD students but doesn’t have one herself and has only the haziest idea of what doing a PhD means – my interview with her was painful as she chirped on with uninformed but positive messages in response to all my questions.
The idea that a supervisor might take responsibility for guiding a PhD student to any career out of academia does have some currency here: industry linkages, partly funded by the Aus Research Council, are now becoming a more common way of funding PhDs. But these are almost entirely in actual industry, so applied science disciplines are the main beneficiaries. Some humanities/SocSci people have been very inventive with them – there was one about 8 years ago in which some academics entered into an ARC linkage arrangement with some student organisations to investigate the makeup of the PhD cohort in Australia. Two PhD theses were written from that grant, as well as several useful academic papers. There is also some work being done through these industry linkages with health administrations in the health fields that are outside medicine, which has a fairly strong grip on the only national health funding body, the National Health and Medical Research Council. That body almost never funds studies that don’t follow the medical/ RCT/postitivist model..
This is an interesting area of thinking, in my (admittedly biased!) opinion. It is part of reconceptualising the doing of a PhD as a way of increasing national knowledge and community skills, rather than as an apprenticeship for academia. I hadn’t come across the KMb approach, but will follow that up.
.-= M-H´s last blog ..In the meantime… =-.
Great discussion! I think one of the biggest challenges for Social Sciences/Humanities is teaching both academics and graduate students that their work or the skills they build while doing the research actually have VALUE outside the academy. My feeling is everyone is pretty comfortable believing that doing research for it’s own sake is a noble goal (and it is) but that doesn’t pay the bills if you can’t get an academic job.
I found it really hard to see I had a number of skills beyond my knowledge of representations of women’s health in magazines that could be tranferred to non-academic employment; and I had to do all of that on my own. Like M-H said, the career centre staff didn’t understand or even know how to approach the job search process.
In the end it wasn’t my academic specialization that got me employed, it was all the skills that came along with it–I would call that skill mobilization instead.
.-= Dr. Steph´s last blog ..Toe-Up Socks for Every Body =-.