The need to establish a positive relationship between the source of the knowledge and the user organization to achieve knowledge utilization is an established principle of knowledge transfer. Yet, the process of establishing such a relationship and its impact on knowledge utilization remains relatively unexplored in the field of workplace health and safety. This article describes such a knowledge transfer intervention with three manufacturing workplaces. Using qualitative methods, a knowledge broker documents and evaluates a knowledge transfer intervention and the utilization of a body of research on workplace health and safety. This article explores the issues of intensity, duration, and the interactive nature of positive relationship building and highlights the implications for knowledge transfer on workplace health and safety.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada. 2001. Knowledge transfer for work-place health & safety 19 and 20 November. Conference proceedings.
2.
Beaton, D. E., D. C. Cole, M. Manno, C. Bombardier, S. Hogg-Johnson, and H. S. Shannon. 2000. Estimating the burden of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in newspaper workers: What difference do case definitions make? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation10 (1): 39-53.
3.
Cole, D. C., S. A. Ibrahim, H. S. Shannon, F. Scott, and J. Eyles. 2001. Work correlates of back problems and activity restriction due to musculoskeletal disorders in the Canadian National Population Health Survey (NPHS) 1994/95 data. Occupational and Environmental Medicine58:728-734.
4.
Cousins, B., and K. Leithwood. 1993. Enhancing knowledge utilization as a strategy for school improvement. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization14 (3): 305-333.
5.
Elden, M., and R. F. Chisholm. 1993. Emerging varieties of action research: Introduction to the special issue. Human Relations46:121-142.
Fauske, S., D. A. Wilkenson, and M. Shain. 1996. Communicating alcohol and drug prevention strategies and models across cultural boundaries: Preliminary report on an ILO/WHO/UNDCP interagency program. Substance Use & Misuse31 (11/12): 1599-1617.
8.
Fullan, M. G. 1993. Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
9.
Fullan, M. G., with S. Stiegelbauer. 1991. The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
10.
Goldenhar, L. M., A. D. LaMontagne, T. Katz, C. Heaney, and P. Landsbergis. 2001. The intervention research process in occupational safety and health: An overview from the NORA Intervention Effectiveness Research Team. Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine43:616-622.
11.
Green, L. W., and J. Johnson. 1996. Dissemination and utilization of health promotion and disease prevention knowledge: Theory, research and experience. Canadian Journal of Public Health Nov/Dec:S11-S17.
12.
Huberman, M. 1989. Predicting conceptual effects in research utilization: Looking with both eyes. Knowledge in Society: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer2 (3): 6-24.
13.
Huberman, M.. 1990. Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study. American Educational Research Journal27 (2): 363-391.
14.
Huberman, M.. 1994. Research utilization: The state of the art. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization7 (4): 13-33.
15.
Huberman, M., and M. Gather-Thurler. 1991. De la recherche a la pratique: Elements de base? (From research to practice). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang SA, Editions Scientifiques Européennes.
16.
Israel, B. A., S. J. Schurman, and M. K. Hugentobler. 1992. Conducting action research: Relationships between organization members and researchers. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science28 (1): 74-101.
17.
Karasek, R., and T. Theorell. 1990. Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.
18.
Kerr, M. S., J. W. Frank, H. S. Shannon, R. W. K. Norman, R. P. Wells, W. P. Neumann, C. Bombardier, and the Ontario Universities Back Pain Study (OUBPS) Group. 1998. Independent biomechanical and psychosocial risk factors for low back pain at work. American Journal of Public Health91 (7): 1069-1075.
19.
Knott, J., and A. Wildavsky. 1980. If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization1 (4): 537-578.
20.
Kramer, D. M. 2002. From knowledge transfer to transformation: A manufacturing workplace intervention study. Ph.D. diss., Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/ University of Toronto.
21.
Landry, R. 1999. Climbing the ladder of research utilization: Evidence from social science research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science, 28-31 October, in San Diego, California.
22.
Landry, R., N. Amara, and M. Lamari. 2001. Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy30:333-349.
23.
Lavis, J. N. 2000. What do we know about knowledge transfer to decision-makers? Paper presented to the Board of the Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, Ontario.
24.
Lee, G., and T. Garvin. 2003. Moving from information transfer to information exchange in health and health care. Social Science & Medicine56:449-464.
25.
Lomas, J. 1997. Improving research dissemination and uptake in the health sector: Beyond the sound of one hand clapping Policy Commentary C97-1. Hamilton, Canada: McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis.
26.
Louis, K., S. Rosenblum, and J. Molitor. 1981. Strategies for knowledge use and school improvement. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
27.
National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR). 1998. A review of the literature on dissemination and knowledge utilization July 1966. Retrieved from http://www.ncddr.org/du/products/review/index.html.1-44.
28.
Panel on Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Workplace, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2001. Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Workplace: Low Back and Upper Extremities. 301-329. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29.
Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
30.
Rich, R. F. 1997. Measuring knowledge utilization: Processes and outcomes. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization10 (3): 11-24.
31.
Robson, L. S., M. F. Polanyi, M. S. Kerr, H. S. Shannon, J. M. Eakin, A.-S. Brooker, and D.C. Cole. 1998. What is a “healthy workplace?” In Human factors in organizational design and management VI, edited by P. Vink, 539-544. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
32.
Robson L. S., C. Severin, D. C. Cole, and G. Hepburn. 2001. Institute for Work & Health-St. Michael's Hospital collaborative development of a healthy workplace balanced scorecard: Identification of SMH priorities in employee health and safety and potential indicators. Interim report and discussion paper, Institute for Work & Health, Toronto.
33.
Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
34.
Rosenstock, L., and S. B. Thacker. 2000. Toward a safe workplace: The role of systematic reviews. American Journal of Preventive Medicine18 (4S): 4-5.
35.
Savoie, J. Y. 2001, November. Summation of conference. Paper presented at the Public Forum on Knowledge Transfer for Workplace Health & Safety, November, in Toronto, Ontario by the Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada.
36.
Sullivan T., and J. Frank. 2000. Restating disability or disabling the state: Four challenges. In Injury and the new world of work, edited by T. J. Sullivan, 3-24. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
37.
Valente, T. W., and E. M. Rogers. 1995. The origins and development of the diffusion of innovations paradigm as an example of scientific growth. Science Communication16 (3): 242-273.
38.
Van de Ven, A., D. E. Polley, R. Garud, and S. Venkataraman. 1999. The innovation journey.New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
Walshe, K., and T. G. Rundall. 2001. Evidence-based management: From theory to practice in health care. The Milbank Quarterly79 (3): 429-457.
40.
Weiss, C. H. 1979. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review39:426-431.
41.
Weiss, C. H.. 1981. Measuring the use of evaluation. In Utilizing evaluation: Concepts and measurement techniques, edited by J. A. Ciarlo, 17-33. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
42.
Weiss, C. H.. 1991. Policy research: Data, ideas, or arguments? In Social sciences and modern states: National experiences and theoretical crossroads, edited by P. Wagner, C. H. Weiss, B. Wittrock, and H. Wollmann, 307-332. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Weiss, C. H., with M. J. Bucuvalas. 1980. Social science research and decision-making. New York: Columbia University Press.
44.
Wheatley, M. J. 1994. Leadership and the new science: Learning about organizations from an orderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
45.
Yin, R. K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods, 2d ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
46.
Zohar, D. 2002. The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor injuries in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior23:75-92.
