National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR) Improving the Links between Research and Practice: Approaches to the Effective Dissemination of Disability Research Guides to Improving Practice, Number One July 1996 Improving the Links between Research and Practice: Approaches to the Effective Dissemination of Disability Research, Guides to Improving Practice, Number One is published by the National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR) which is operated by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL). Neither SEDL nor the NCDDR discriminate on the basis of age, sex, color, creed, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, marital or veteran status, or the presence of a disability. Material in these pages may be copied with credit to NCDDR. The contents of this document were developed under a grant (#H133D50016) from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), U.S. Department of Education. The NCDDR is funded 100% by NIDRR at $500,000 per project year. These contents do not necessarily represent the policy of SEDL, NIDRR, or the Department of Education; do not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. This document is available in alternate formats upon request Copyright 1996 by Southwest Educational Development Laboratory National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research guides to improving practice, number one july 1996 Improving the Links between Research and Practice: Approaches to the Effective Dissemination of Disability Research A Dilemma within a Dilemma: Strengthening Dissemination Practice The purpose of research is to be of use: to change current practice, or to confirm it. Yet the process of moving new understandings and new products from research to practice is long and cumbersome. For many innovations, the timeline involves decades, even generations. Although there are good reasons for moving carefully - new research needs to be evaluated, replicated, and refined - too often the pace of change is set, not by a rigorous process of review and refinement, but by a failure of new ideas to span the gap between the research community and the world of practice. The task of dissemination is precisely to bridge that gap. The problem is that dissemination has fallen prey to the very dilemma it seeks to address. That is, research on dissemination, or knowledge utilization as it is sometimes called, has yielded a wealth of information about what does and does not work. But those understandings, for the most part, have not moved from the research community - i.e., from those who study the process of knowledge use - to the practice community - to those actually responsible for disseminating research outcomes. As a result, most dissemination practices are still based on a mechanistic, linear conception of dissemination as a process of "getting the word out." This information guide and the series of guides that will follow are designed to help disability researchers access the information they need to strengthen dissemination efforts. This guide describes findings about knowledge use that have changed our basic understandings as to how dissemination works; it also suggests ways of linking research and practice. The second guide in the series will outline some specific strategies related to the four key dissemination elements of source, message, medium, and user. A third guide will focus on effective channels for reaching persons with disabilities. Subsequent guides will address problems that disability researchers encounter as they seek to implement new dissemination approaches. Seed Corn, Can Openers, and Mouse Traps: The Complexities of Knowledge Use Dissemination approaches within the fields of rehabilitation and education traditionally have been drawn from the agricultural extension model, whose basic presumption is that people will use good ideas and products (new hybrids of seed corn or erosion control strategies, for example) if only they have access to information about them. The success of the agricultural extension model, along with other experience, tells us that this presumption is true - in some cases, and under specific circumstances. However, even with its superior funding, strong coordination, and close links with practitioners, the agricultural extension system has proved to be much less effective when the outcomes to be disseminated stray from agricultural production technology into areas calling for attitudinal or behavioral changes. As a number of experts point out, most research "is not used as a can opener is used" (Huberman, 1987). Many research outcomes have implications for the ways in which programs are run, services are provided, money is allocated, information is interpreted, or materials are used. In cases where change is conceptually complex, and in cases where substantive change is demanded in individual or organizational beliefs or behaviors, the process of knowledge use is vastly more complicated. Even in cases where the can opener approach does apply - for example, in the use of new adaptive devices - the process is not always so simple. As the old marketing analogy goes, just because you have built a better mouse trap does not guarantee that people will rush out to buy it. To be interested in your mousetrap, potential users must (1) have mice, (2) be bothered enough by the mice that they are ready to take action, (3) feel comfortable with the effects of your mousetrap on the user, the user's household, the mice, and perhaps the broader environment as well, (4) have confidence that they will be able to properly operate your mousetrap, (5) be able to afford your mousetrap, and (6) believe that your mousetrap is enough of an improvement on the mousetraps they already have bought, or could buy, to warrant the investment. In addition - and perhaps most critically - they must trust the information they have obtained about the safety, reliability, effectiveness, and ease of use of your mousetrap. Here are some findings from the research on knowledge use that suggest a few of the complexities of the dissemination process: The actual quality of research is less important, in terms of the likelihood of its getting adopted and used, than the extent to which it fits with users' established beliefs and experience. The source of information about research outcomes is also more important than the quality of the research. People tend to trust sources with whom they have established relationships. The credibility of information sources relates to two factors: perceived expertise and perceived trustworthiness. The more intensely people are involved with an issue, the more likely they are to question both the expertise and the trustworthiness of those whose information contradicts their own understandings. When research does get used, the resulting practices, programs, or products are often quite different from the researcher's original conception. People cannot always be relied upon to make decisions that appear, by external standards, to be in their own best interests. Horses before Carts, or Putting the User First The preceding research findings all focus on characteristics of the potential users of new knowledge or products. This attention to the user represents one of the major shifts in understanding about effective dissemination. Traditionally, dissemination theories and strategies have focused primarily on the message, or content, to be disseminated (the "innovation," that is, the new research findings, programs or products) or on the medium of dissemination (the channels used to get the message out, such as news releases, electronic networks or interactive video). Traditional approaches acknowledged that the dissemination source (including intermediary information sources, called linking agents) and the intended users are elements that must be considered, but the primary attention lays elsewhere. Now the intended users of research are recognized as the most critical element in dissemination. Experts now perceive knowledge use as a cognitive function, that is, as a learning activity. Research on dissemination and social cognition have converged to provide deeper understandings about how people process new information and about what is required for dissemination to work. Current perspectives on knowledge use draw from a theory of learning known as constructivism, which has moved to the forefront of educational theory in recent years. According to constructivist principles, knowledge is not a "thing" - a static, inert object to be "sent" and "received." Rather, knowledge is a fluid set of understandings shaped both by those who originate it and by those who use it. "This casts the user as an active problem-solver and a constructor of his or her own knowledge, rather than as a more passive receptacle of information and expertise" (Hutchinson and Huberman, 1993). Slates, Sponges, and Construction Sites: Knowledge Use as a Learning Process Beliefs about how learning takes place often are articulated as metaphors. The tabula rasa, the image of the human mind as a blank slate to be written upon, was once the most common metaphor; this theory of learning also has been called "the bucket theory of the mind" (Backman, 1982), in which the brain is viewed as an empty vessel into which knowledge is poured. Another common image is that of the learner as sponge, "soaking up" knowledge - a role that is somewhat more active than that of empty vessel, although what the learner absorbs is taken in wholesale, without filtering or processing. A metaphor often used in this era of technology is that of the brain as a computer, which processes in an orderly, systematic fashion the information that is received from outside sources. None of these metaphors adequately describes the ways in which learners process information. New knowledge is not merely filtered and sorted, but transformed by the learner's pre-existing experience and understandings. The metaphors that suggest this perspective are those of building and shaping new structures. As Huberman (1990) describes, "Prior understandings are the mold into which new information is poured, such that the new understandings may not correspond to the researcher's conception of his own study." Why does such transformation occur? Learners, from the youngest children to the oldest adults, are constantly seeking to make sense of our environment. We seek to regularize our existence, that is, to repeat pleasant or productive experiences and to avoid repeating painful or unpleasant experiences. To do so, we identify patterns and make predictions; in short, we "construct" explanations that seem to make sense, based on our personal experiences and on our interactions with the people who are important to us. Knowing, then, "is an adaptive activity" (von Glasersfeld, 1995), concerned with reaching functional understandings about the various aspects of living. From this viewpoint, the extent to which an individual's existing understandings may be "right" or "wrong," according to an objective or external standard, is essentially irrelevant. What matters is how well those understandings work in helping the person make sense of, and function in, her or his environment. Ackerman (1995) explains that "from a learner's point of view, there are no such things as misconceptions. There are only discrepancies, either between points of view or between a person's activity and some unexpected effects of this activity." What is functional, i.e., a useful adaptation, may vary from person to person, or organization to organization. The user's self-interest and self-image sometimes include considerations that conflict with what may, in terms of efficiency or cost benefits or effectiveness of operation, appear to be the "best" solution. Rewriting the Laws of Physics: Sometimes Believing Is Seeing, and Not Vice-Versa Merely telling people that their ideas or practices are wrong, or ineffective, or outdated, or that a better mousetrap is available to replace the one they are currently using, is generally an inadequate approach to encouraging change. Almost all of us have had the experience of arguing about politics, or some other issue, or even about a memory or fact ("We went to Florida in 1972, not 1973!"), and feeling frustrated when we present what seems to be irrefutable evidence supporting our point of view - and the other person clearly is not swayed. Research shows that people cling tenaciously to their beliefs and ideas. A classic experiment in constructivism involves learners (including adult learners) who observe two objects falling from some height to the ground. The laws of physics tell us that, no matter what an object weighs, it will fall at the same speed, so that a rock and a paper clip, for example, when dropped at the same time will land at the same time. But most non-physicists believe, based on extrapolations from other experience with heavy and light objects, that the rock will fall faster than the paper clip - and experiments show that, in observing the two objects fall, people often "see" the rock hit the ground before the paper clip. Our expectations can shape not only what we believe but what we actually experience. In order to change their pre-existing understandings learners first must recognize, and be bothered by, the "discrepancies" that Ackerman mentioned. As Shapiro (1994) points out, "There must be a reason to decide to make a shift in thinking." Or as Backer (1994) puts it, "People and organizations develop the energy to change when faced with real pain." When old ways do not seem to be working as well as they should, when current explanations cannot account for a new circumstance, when the status quo is no longer comfortable, these are times when real change in understandings and behavior are possible. Getting to Know You: Implications for Dissemination Efforts What does all this mean for those whose responsibilities include the dissemination of research outcomes? It means, first, that dissemination is not synonymous with publication. Merely sending out information, whether via an article in a scholarly journal or the World Wide Web, will not get the job done. You must be concerned with use, which means that you must be concerned with users - i.e., your intended dissemination audiences, their worries, beliefs, constraints, and priorities, and the people whose opinions they tend to value. In a nutshell, the implications are: (1) know your intended user audiences, and (2) make sure your audience knows you. Some suggestions for facilitating this mutual acquaintance are included below. Understand user needs, contexts, and readiness for change. Plan for dissemination as you plan for other elements of your project. Begin by thinking carefully about who your intended audiences are; make a list of potential users. These may include: health care professionals, disability service providers, people with disabilities, their families, advocacy organizations, protective agencies, independent living centers, associations of disability-related professionals, public schools, state and federal agency staffs, policymakers, other researchers, other rehabilitation engineers, and journalists. (Keep in mind that a focus on persons with disabilities and their service providers has become a priority for federal agencies supporting disability and rehabilitation research.) Assess what you know about each target user group, particularly their resources, their priorities and any concerns they may have about the research topic you plan to address. Keep in mind that there will be differences within as well as between user groups; in social marketing, the strategy of audience segmentation provides ways of subdividing target groups based on both demographic and "psychographic" differences (Backer, 1994). Supplement your own understandings by collecting information about each user group. There are a variety of techniques (and paid consultants) to help with this task of audience analysis. One increasingly popular strategy is the use of focus groups, also known as "group depth interviews." A focus group usually involves eight to twelve individuals, who meet from one to three hours to discuss a particular topic. A moderator promotes interaction among all group members and keeps the discussion on point. The moderator's skills and the selection of focus group participants are critical factors in the effectiveness of this strategy (Stewart and Shamdasani, 1990). Involve users in research and development activities. By involving representatives from target audiences in your project activities, you can (1) increase the chance of obtaining outcomes that are relevant to user needs, (2) improve your credibility with target audiences, and (3) find ways of disseminating your results that communicate effectively with intended users. Collaborative, or action research, in which researchers and practitioners jointly plan and conduct research activities (usually qualitative research), is an increasingly popular approach. In addition, there are more modest ways of involving potential users. Consider your staffing patterns carefully, seeking to involve staff members who represent potential user groups. Advisory committees can be useful, although you will need to move beyond the traditional strategy of selecting a panel that serves merely cosmetic purposes. Pick representatives who are willing to work; interact with them as often as possible, informally as well as officially; don't wait for an annual or semiannual meeting. Actively seek input and feedback at all major stages of your effort: as you (1) select research topics and (2) frame research questions, (3) determine data collection strategies and sources, (4) analyze your results, and (5) select dissemination approaches. You can use focus groups, conversations with an advisory committee, even written surveys to obtain such feedback. In addition, there are structured techniques available; one of these is described in the literature review from which this information guide was drawn. (See Information Sources, below.) Build relationships. The research on knowledge utilization indicates clearly that users rely on the information sources they already know and trust, and that personal interaction is by far the most effective - and usually an absolutely essential - channel for assuring the use of research outcomes. It is important, then, to build personal relationships with potential users wherever possible, and to link with intermediaries who have established relationships with your target audiences. An important consideration is the size of the target audience to which you address your dissemination effort. There is always a push-pull relationship between the need to keep dissemination audiences small, so that you can use approaches that are known to be effective, and the need to make your audience as broad as possible, so that you can help the greatest numbers and also satisfy funding sources about the scope and importance of your research project. (Fortunately, funding sources are beginning to place greater value on in-depth strategies.) One solution is to develop a dissemination plan that delineates several levels of target audiences: a small group that is targeted for in-depth, interpersonal assistance, and larger groups that are targeted for broader information-sharing strategies. Another approach is to work closely with intermediaries, who in turn carry out much of the work of dissemination on your behalf. Keep in mind, however, that the greater the number of links in the dissemination chain, the more opportunities there are for research outcomes to be reshaped or transformed. (Remember the childhood game of "gossip," in which one person whispers something to another, who passes the message on, etc., and the final iteration bears no resemblance to what was originally said?) Don't make assumptions about people based on their readiness to change. Finally, as you work to disseminate the results of your resarch, it is important to keep in mind that resistance to change is not necessarily a negative circumstance. Never underestimate your audience's grasp of an issue or their capacity for making improvements; never make judgments based solely on a person or group's reluctance to adopt your particular point of view. Information Sources and Recommended Reading The information in this guide was drawn in large part from A Review of the Literature on Dissemination and Knowledge Utilization, a report developed by the National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR). This literature review, which includes an extensive bibliography, is available from the NCDDR. The research literature on knowledge utilization spans a number of disciplines, most notably education, sociology, and marketing. Few major studies relate specifically to disability and rehabilitation research, so it is necessary to extrapolate from experience in other disciplines. For additional information about issues discussed in this guide, the following sources are recommended: Backer, T.E., Readiness for change, educational innovations, and education reform. A report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education. Los Angeles: Human Interaction Research Institute, 1994. Blasiotti, E.L., "Disseminating research information to multiple stakeholders: Lessons from the experience of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research." Knowledge, March 1992, pp. 305-319. Fuhrman, S., "Uniting producers and consumers: Challenges in creating and utilizing educational research and development." In Tomlinson & Tuijnman, eds., Education research and reform: An international perspective, pp. 133-147. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1994. Fullan, M.F., The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press, 1991. Hutchinson, J., & Huberman, M., Knowledge dissemination and utilization in science and mathematics education: A literature review. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1993. Steffe, L.P., and Gale, J., Eds., Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995. Stewart, D.W., and Shamdasani, P.N., Focus groups: Theory and practice. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 20. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1990. ---------- End of Document