{"id":1257,"date":"2026-06-14T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-14T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/wp\/knowledge-mobilisation-translating-research-into-policy-practice\/"},"modified":"2026-06-14T09:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-06-14T09:00:00","slug":"knowledge-mobilisation-translating-research-into-policy-practice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/casrai.org\/wp\/knowledge-mobilisation-translating-research-into-policy-practice\/","title":{"rendered":"Knowledge mobilisation: translating research into policy and practice"},"content":{"rendered":"

There is a comfortable assumption, still widespread, that good research speaks for itself — that if findings are sound and published, the world will notice and act. The reality is otherwise. The distance between a finding sitting in a journal and that finding changing a policy, a clinical practice or a professional routine is often vast, and it is rarely crossed by accident. Bridging it is a discipline in its own right, variously called knowledge mobilisation<\/strong>, knowledge translation or knowledge exchange: the deliberate, skilled work of moving research into the hands of the people who can use it, in a form they can act on. This article examines that work, drawing on the engagement, impact and SDG domain<\/a> of the CASRAI Dictionary.<\/p>\n

Why dissemination is not enough<\/h2>\n

For a long time the implicit model of getting research used was a one-way push: do the research, publish it, perhaps issue a press release, and assume uptake will follow. This model fails repeatedly, and understanding why is the starting point for everything else. Practitioners and policymakers are busy, work under different pressures and timescales than researchers, and rarely read academic journals. Research findings often arrive in a form — long, hedged, technical — that is ill-suited to a decision that must be made next week. And evidence almost never speaks with one voice; using it well requires interpretation, contextualisation and judgement about how it applies in a particular setting. Simply making research available, in short, does very little. Getting it used requires actively engaging with the people who might use it, understanding their needs, and shaping the evidence so it can inform what they actually do.<\/p>\n

The Knowledge-to-Action cycle<\/h2>\n

One of the most widely used frameworks for thinking about this is the Knowledge-to-Action<\/strong> cycle, which models how knowledge moves from creation into application. It distinguishes the knowledge creation<\/em> process — in which raw research is refined and synthesised into more usable forms such as syntheses and tools — from an action cycle<\/em> of activities involved in applying knowledge: identifying a problem and the relevant knowledge, adapting it to the local context, assessing barriers and facilitators to its use, selecting and tailoring interventions, monitoring use, evaluating outcomes, and sustaining the change. The framework’s great value is that it treats application as an active, iterative process with its own steps, rather than as something that simply happens once research exists. It makes clear that adapting knowledge to context, and attending to the barriers in a particular setting, are not afterthoughts but central to whether evidence ever gets used.<\/p>\n

Tools of the trade<\/h2>\n

Knowledge mobilisation has developed a repertoire of practical instruments and tactics. Among the most important:<\/p>\n