National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR) Improving the Usefulness of Disability Research: A Toolbox of Dissemination Strategies Guides to Improving Practice, Number Two July 1996 Improving the Usefulness of Disability Research: A Toolbox of Dissemination Strategies, Guides to Improving Practice, Number Two 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 two july 1996 Improving the Usefulness of Disability Research: A Toolbox of Dissemination Strategies Nurturing the Use of Disability Research Many improvements have been made in disseminating disability research. But while research results generally are available to those who seek them, they are not widely accessible to several critical audiences: persons with disabilities, their families, advocates, or direct service providers. There is a difference between availability - which may mean, for example, that a scholarly article may be found in a professional journal, or that a final report will be sent upon request - and accessibility, which implies ease of access and simplicity of comprehension and use. The gap between the creation and use of disability research is even wider among under-represented groups, particularly people living in poverty and those from racial, ethnic, and cultural minority groups. Why, after years of effort and the substantial literature regarding dissemination and knowledge use, do the gaps between research and use remain? The most frequently suggested reason is a lack of communication between researchers and their intended audiences. Researchers tend not to know their audiences well, and often fail to appreciate their concerns, priorities, and circumstances. As Fuhrman (1994) notes, "Understanding client needs is a complicated business if it is taken seriously." Another problem is that dissemination is not a high-status activity among researchers; it must compete with more apparently rewarding activities for precious project resources. And finally, those involved in dissemination tend to underestimate the complexities of the dissemination process and to rely on ineffective strategies. As discussed in the first guide in this series, Improving the Links between Research and Practice: Approaches to the Effective Dissemination of Disability Research, dissemination no longer can be considered merely a task of "getting the word out."The literature on knowledge use reveals that the Biblical observation, You reap what you sow, is overly simplistic when applied to resarch use. Dissemination traditionally has been considered mostly a matter of tossing the seeds of information into the landscape. But we know that, for seeds to thrive and eventually produce apples or brussels sprouts, other factors are also important. Plants require fertile soil, frequent nourishment, a lack of - or at least some advantage over - the competition (bugs, blight, weeds, other vegetables), and time. To conclude this analogy, those responsible for dissemination must be concerned with reaping as well as sowing. Important Elements of Dissemination Four major elements must be considered in developing and implementing an effective dissemination plan: the dissemination source, that is, the agency, organization, or individual responsible for creating the new knowledge or product, and/or for conducting dissemination activities, the content or message that is disseminated, that is the new knowledge or product itself, as well as any supporting information or materials, the dissemination medium, that is, the ways in which the knowledge or product is described, "packaged," and transmitted, and the intended user of the information or product to be disseminated. To be effective, dissemination efforts must address a range of factors related to each of these elements. Fortunately, the literature on dissemination offers concrete ideas and strategies related to each of these areas. ELEMENTS AND ISSUES RELATED TO THE DISSEMINATION PROCESS Elements of Dissemination Issues In Effective Dissemination Source Perceived competence Credibility of experience Credibility of motive Sensitivity to user concerns Relationship to other sources trusted by users Elements of Dissemination Issues In Effective Dissemination Orientation toward dissemination and knowledge use Content Credibility of research and development methodology Credibility of outcomes Comprehensiveness of outcomes Utility and relevance for users Capacity to be described in terms understandable to users Cost effectiveness Research design and procedures Relationship between outcomes and existing knowledge or products Competing knowledge or products Medium Physical capacity to reach intended users Timelines of access Accessibility and ease of use, user friendliness Flexibility Reliability Credibility Cost effectiveness Clarity and attractiveness of the information "package" User Perceived relevance to own needs User's readiness to change Information sources trusted Format and level of information needed Level of contextual information needed Dissemination media preferred Capacity to use information or product (resources, skills, and support) Considering the Source The dissemination source may include not only the individuals or agency that produced the research outcomes, but also any intermediaries, or linking agents, who work to disseminate the results to intended users. Studies show that the source of new products and information is generally more important, in terms of encouraging use among intended audiences, than the specific nature and quality of what is being disseminated. Moreover, users tend to accept ideas, information, and assistance from sources that they already know and trust. The importance of building relationships among researchers, linking agents, and potential users, then, cannot be overestimated. Suggestions for facilitating this process, gleaned from the research literature, include the following: Keep your dissemination audience small. Working in-depth with smaller numbers of potential users will produce much richer results than spreading your activities thinly over a broader audience. Working in-depth means, among other things, providing ongoing, interactive, personal contact with intended users. (More about this later.) Work through intermediaries who already have established relationships with intended users. Professional associations, for example, can help you reach direct service providers; independent living centers and advocacy groups can provide links to persons with disabilities and their families. Remember that building relationships with intermediaries requires depth and continuity of contact as well. Remember, too, that research outcomes are altered, even transformed, in the process of being adopted and used; linking agents will reinterpret your research, both consciously and unconsciously, as they absorb it and pass it on to potential users. The more closely you work with intermediaries, and the fewer the number of links in your chain between researcher and user, the more fidelity you can expect in the translation of your research outcomes. Pay attention to your own assumptions and biases. It is always important to acknowledge that, while seeking objectivity through a variety of rigorous standards, research is susceptible to the biases and perceptions of the researcher. This acknowledgement can help to reduce the sense of distance between researcher and user. As disability research and development projects seek to address increasingly diverse audiences, attention to assumptions and preconceptions becomes even more critical. Critics point out, for example, that "dominant cultural values related to individualism, self-reliance, and work are evident in rehabilitation legislation, policies, and procedures (e.g., individualized written rehabilitation program plans, independent living programs)" (Duarte and Rice, 1992). Cultural and ethnocentric biases can influence the selection of research and development topics, the formulation of research questions, data collection strategies and other research methods, and the interpretation of results. Common problems include errors in racial and ethnic classification, population sampling, an overemphasis on between-group difference, and underemphasis of within-group differences. Orient your organization, as well as your project, toward research use. Studies suggest that when researchers actively gear their work to use by specific groups, research utilization improves. Fuhrman (1994), for example, discusses the need for "building a client-based research agenda... and developing forms for research that bring producers and users closer together." These latter include collaborative, or action research projects. Organizational structures and reward systems also can play important roles in facilitating research use. One major study (Dentler, 1984) recommends that each agency's board of directors and CEO "give dissemination a reasonably strong and clear place in the mission" of the organization. Dissemination specialists should not be compartmentalized, but rather "dealt into the applied research, policy planning, development, and evaluation functions" of the organization. Both accountability and reward structures should place strong emphasis on effectiveness in promoting the use of research outcomes. The Content to be Disseminated The nature and quality of the research outcomes themselves are, of course, important to the effectiveness of dissemination efforts. However, as mentioned earlier, other factors can carry even more weight. The quality of research content appears to be a necessary, but insufficient, consideration in the successful use of research outcomes. Perhaps the most important attribute of research, in terms of its chances of being used, is its compatibility with users' needs and beliefs. Other important attributes include the complexity of the product or finding, the extent to which it can be observed and tested, and the advantages it appears to offer relative to other outcomes. The ways in which research outcomes are described and communicated - the language, syntax, and descriptive techniques, as well as the amount and kinds of information that are provided - also have a major influence on use. The following are recommendations drawn from the literature that can help to improve the chances for research utilization: Focus on "the real world of practice." The more that research outcomes are congruent with the concerns and needs of potential users, the more likely they are to be used. You can help assure this congruence by involving potential users in research activities. Use staffing, advisory committees, surveys, focus groups, and other techniques to inform your work at key stages: as you select a research topic and formulate questions, as you identify data collection sources and strategies, as you analyze the results, and as you determine how and to whom you will disseminate the outcomes. Worry about the kinds of information you disseminate. The research on knowledge utilization suggests a number of guidelines in this area. In many instances, and particularly where there are implications for major changes in users' understandings or behaviors, it is important to address the question of why as well as how. Don't move too quickly from ideas to techniques. Dissemination tends to focus on techniques and strategies that help users to make choices and implement new approaches. To make decisions, however, users often need "a different, more fundamental kind of knowledge" (Kennedy, 1989) that includes a focus on "fundamental principles and ideas." Try to emphasize "current rewards," focusing on "positive behavior more than negative consequences of current behavior." As you move from why to how, concentrate on key questions, such as "Does it work?" and "How can I replicate this in my organization?" (Backer, 1988). Speak your users' language. You would never think of sending a brochure in Portuguese to an audience who speaks and reads only Mandarin. Yet studies consistently show that research outcomes are often incomprehensible to intended users. Recommendations for effectively "translating" research outcomes into usable, comprehensible messages include: Be as brief and clear as possible. Avoid jargon. Use repetition. Define your terms. Keep to a "low level of abstraction" (Halffner, 1973). Use analogies. Cite concrete examples and experiences. The Dissemination Medium Match the medium to the user. Perhaps the most basic finding in the literature on research utilization is that users cannot attend to a message that they do not receive. Those responsible for dissemination often get excited about new and powerful media, such as electronic networks or interactive video. In fact, the new "small media," especially the personal computer, do hold vast potential for getting research outcomes into the hands of an ever-broadening audience. However, it is critical to know and use the channels that are accessible to your intended users. The proliferation of digital technologies has raised new equity concerns; persons living in poverty and certain ethnic minorities are much less likely than others to have access to personal computers and electronic networks. And keep in mind that basic services, such as captioning for persons with deafness, are still not available to many people with disabilities (Leung, 1992). Remember the primacy of personal interaction. No finding is as consistent, or as ever-present, in the dissemination literature as the importance of personal contact. "Sustained interactivity," as Huberman (1990) calls it, is critical to dissemination success. The more complex and challenging the research outcomes, in terms of changing behavior or belief, the more important ongoing personal interaction becomes. Personal contact can take many forms, from site visits to conference presentations to e-mail to telephone conversations. While some research concludes that a certain level of face-to-face contact is essential, most important are (1) the frequency of contact, (2) the depth of support, and (3) the continuity of contact over a sustained period of time. Above all, change requires time, and support over time. Use multiple media. Studies also show that a combination of print or other media, along with interpersonal strategies, is most effective in promoting knowledge use. Low-intensity efforts that use a single dissemination channel simply will not achieve dependable results. As you make your dissemination plan, choose a mix of channels and formats, preferably including print; electronic networks, newsgroups, and databases; multimedia options such as video, CD-ROM, radio, or television; and, of course, ongoing personal interaction. Reaching the Intended User Recognizing the user as an active participant in determining how she or he will make use of new information, rather than a passive recipient of knowledge, is perhaps the most important element in current understandings about knowledge use. The first guide in this series focused in-depth on issues related to the users of disability research. Two important points will be repeated here. Know and address the user's context and concerns. To be used, research outcomes must address the resources, needs, concerns, and circumstances of a potential user's daily life. Most experts conclude that the most effective way to assure such relevance is to involve intended users in project activities from the beginning, with ongoing and substantial interaction throughout the life of the research or development project. As noted earlier, staffing patterns, advisory committees, focus groups, surveys, and other strategies can help accomplish this goal. Don't wait till the end of your project to worry about who your dissemination audience may be; dissemination must begin when research begins. Pay attention to users' "readiness to change." Keep in mind that knowledge use is a process of learning, and of change. Readiness to change is a state of mind that involves (1) the user's perception that change is needed, and (2) the willingness to overcome fears, doubts, and other resistances in order to make that change. Studies show that external incentives to change are much less powerful than internal incentives. It is important, then, to know what motivates your intended users and to tailor your dissemination to those motivations. There are also specific strategies that you can use to help users to overcome resistance to change. 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. This literature review, which includes an extensive bibliography, is available [add information]. For additional information about issues discussed in this guide, the following sources are recommended: Edwards, L.A., Using knowledge and technology to improve the quality of life of people who have disabilities: A prosumer approach. Philadelphia: Knowledge Utilization Program, Pennsylvania College of Optometry, 1991. Fuhrman, S. (1994, April) 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, DC: N.S. Department of Education. Fullan, M.F., The new meaning of educational change. Second edition. New York: Teachers College Press. Paisley, W.J., and Butler, M., Eds., Knowledge utilization systems in education. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1983. Rogers, E.M., The diffusion of innovations. Third edition. New York: Free Press, forthcoming. [NOTE: Please check on this; I'm not sure when this book is due out, or whether it's actually published by the Free Press. That's who did the last edition.] Westbrook, J., "Promoting change through information dissemination and utilization." Regional Rehabilitation Exchange Update Vol. 2, No. 1, 1994. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. ---------- End of Document