Month: November 2023

How to do knowledge mobilisation? What we know, and what we don’t

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Hannah Durrant, Rosie Havers, James Downe and Steve Martin

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Improving evidence use: a systematic scoping review of local models of knowledge mobilisation’.

Knowledge mobilisation (KM) describes a process for enabling the use of research evidence in policymaking and public service design and delivery. Approaches to KM have evolved over the last two decades – away from one-directional efforts to push research out to decision makers towards a kaleidoscope of research-policy-practice engagement across overlapping phases of knowledge production and policy action. These processes are generally poorly understood at local levels of decision-making, where the specificities of policy and public service context can undermine generic ‘what works’ claims.

Our recent Evidence & Policy article, ‘Improving evidence use: a systematic scoping review of local models of knowledge mobilisation’, identifies three key features of local KM as well as highlighting the gaps in our understanding of how KM is done and with what effect. 

Our aim was to determine how KM is done ‘on-the-ground’, which can get obscured in frameworks that emphasise complexity while simplifying process. We argue that more detail is needed on these practices of KM to inform and improve process. Equally, attention is also needed on demand for and impact of evidence on policy and practice decisions.

Continue reading →

Engaged scholarship entrepreneurship and policy impact

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Kiran Trehan

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Compatible bedfellows? Engaged scholarship entrepreneurship and policy impact’.

In a rapidly evolving world, the role of entrepreneurship research and its impact on policy is more critical than ever. In this blog, I expand on my commentary on Johnson (2023) by exploring the intricate relationship between theory and its real-world application, shedding light on the uncertainty that has long surrounded entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) research. For years, the debate on how research can truly impact practice has been at the forefront of social science discussions (Beyer & Trice, 1982; Starkey and Tempest, 2005; Rynes, 2007; Trehan et al., 2018, 2022). This debate has emphasized the need for applied research in entrepreneurial scholarship that reflects the actual experiences of businesses.

Recognizing and appreciating the importance of research impact is not just a strategic concern for university business schools; it’s a measure of research’s real-world value. The gap between researchers and practitioners has significantly influenced how research is perceived, with academics focusing on ‘rigor’ and practitioners on ‘relevance’. Striking a balance between these expectations is crucial for both communities (Trehan, 2022). Edwards (2018) asserts that achieving policy impact is not only desirable but feasible, despite challenges such as engaging small business owners and the requirement for sustained interaction over time. Policy impact is attainable, but significant challenges persist, particularly in catering to the needs of small business owners and maintaining prolonged engagement.

Continue reading →

What can we learn from local government research systems?

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Andrew Booth, Emma Hock and Alison Scope

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review’.

Local government has been unfairly characterised as a black hole when it comes to getting evidence into practice. While it is true that work remains to be done to cultivate interest in research across local government, our recent review found plenty of evidence of academia, local officials and other partners collaborating to make a difference around the generation and use of locally-meaningful research.  

What seems to be less common, however, are coordinated approaches to organising research activity within and across an entire local government system. What can we learn from diverse approaches that harness mechanisms across different local government systems?

Continue reading →