Introduction

Bridging the gap between produced research knowledge and action, policy, and/or practice has been a common goal across disciplines for the past few decades, often involving synthesis, analysis, dissemination, and application [1]. However, there has been some confusion in the use of various terms and definitions to represent this goal and its application process. In academia, for example, terms such as knowledge translation, knowledge mobilization, and knowledge transfer are widely utilized [2]. Similarly, Canada’s Tri-Agencies, the three main federal funding agencies for research, employ varied terminology and definitions for disseminating research knowledge. For instance, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) [3] defines knowledge mobilization as an umbrella term encompassing activities related to the production and use of research results, including synthesis, dissemination, transfer, exchange, and co-creation by researchers and knowledge users. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), on the other hand, use terms like knowledge translation, integrated knowledge translation (IKT), and end-of-grant knowledge translation, emphasizing a dynamic and iterative process of knowledge synthesis, dissemination, exchange, and ethically-sound application [4]. The manuscript will adopt the term K* to collectively refer to these terms [5].

There has been a recent trend for utilizing research findings to inform practices, policies, and decisions through K* efforts. However, there is still a significant gap in research application, and knowledge derived from research has not effectively translated into health practices and policies [6]. The gap between research findings and application can be attributed to sociocultural, organizational, and economic factors that play a significant role influencing the research and mobilization process [1,7]. Furthermore, academics may lack readiness to engage in K* work, or if they do, their existing heavy workload limits their capacity to do so [8]. This disconnect significantly impacts community members, who are often knowledge users.

Similarly, community-based participatory research (CBPR) is recognized as a shift in the research paradigm that can enhance the utilization of research knowledge by involving knowledge users more extensively in the research process [9]. Like K*, CBPR also includes different aspects of shared and active community engagement in the research process, as well as enhancing community health through the integration of research and action [10]. In particular, CBPR complements IKT by emphasizing a democratic process of co-creating knowledge that aligns closely with the needs of knowledge users [9]. Thus, CBPR is essential for research that aims to enhance the health and wellbeing of individuals who are systematically marginalized or discriminated against. Traditional research has often been characterized by an unequal power dynamic between researchers and participants, a gap that CBPR can address [11]. For example, Christensen [12] and Morton Ninomiya et al. [13] have demonstrated the effectiveness of CBPR in engaging Indigenous communities in a respectful and culturally responsive way that led to impactful research outcomes. The essence of K* lies in the significance it brings to research. To promote equity and sovereignty-deserving communities, it can be argued that it is ethically imperative to ensure that community-driven K* needs are integrated into CBPR.

Objectives

With the diverse terminology and definitions used to describe the “knowledge-to-action” gap, there is understandable confusion and potential frustration regarding the operationalization and use of K* terms. A preliminary search of databases revealed no current or ongoing scoping reviews on this topic. The involvement of community members and partners from equity seeking, deserving, or denied groups is essential for research committed to 1) addressing health and wellness inequities faced by different communities and/or 2) “nothing about us without us”. Similarly, we propose to conduct a scoping review study that is conducted by a team of scholars that are part of at least one equity seeking, deserving, or denied community themselves.

For the purposes of this scoping review, we define equity seeking, deserving, or denied groups as people who are structurally and systemically secluded by those in power – groups such as Indigenous communities; refugees, newcomers, and asylum seekers; settled racialized diasporas; two spirit, lesbian, gay, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and more (2SLGBTQIA+) communities; individuals with mental health challenges, disabilities, or chronic conditions; and older adults. We use the term ‘community partners’ to refer to non-academic members of equity seeking, deserving, or denied groups communities who are actively involved in the design, implementation, or dissemination of K* projects related to academic research. This includes, but is not limited to, community-based organizations, Indigenous knowledge keepers, community health workers, and individual community members.

Research questions

The scoping review will answer the following questions about research aimed at supporting and serving non-academic equity and/or sovereignty-seeking/deserving/denied communities:

1. How are terms and concepts around knowledge mobilization (K*) being used, defined, and cited in published literature?
2. In what ways are community partners involved in K* priorities, planning, and efforts?
3. What are reported wellbeing-related impacts and outcomes being addressed within communities through K* efforts?

Methods

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The scoping review will only include primary studies published in English in which authors identify 1) their understanding of K* terminology with a definition, description, or citation; 2) how academic researchers engaged with non-academic community partners; 3) what K* efforts took place; and 4) how K* efforts impacted individual, family, and/or community wellbeing. We will exclude grey literature sources including reports, books, commentaries, and theses/dissertations from the scoping review. Because of the rise of international discourse and explicit interest in K* in health and wellness research that started around the 2010s, the date limit will be from 2010 to present. Only papers that are about equity and/or sovereignty seeking/deserving/denied communities will be included. The inclusion and exclusion criteria and their rationale are listed in Table 1 below.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Inclusion/exclusion Criteria and Rationale.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310660.t001

Data extraction and analysis

Data extraction.

The scoping review extraction fields (Table 2) was developed by ST, RB, and MMN to record key K* information from the literature that will be selected, including author, reference, and relevant results aligned with the study’s research question [32]. Data from all included full-texts will be manually extracted and recorded in Covidence [31]. Two researchers will read through the K* literature and extract the data separately. The researchers will then meet to discuss and compare the extracted data to ensure accuracy and reliability.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Data Extraction and Analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310660.t002

Data analysis.

We will use thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke [33,34] to identify, analyze, and report on themes within the open-ended extracted data. The analysis of extracted open-ended and descriptive K* information and outcomes will be analyzed over six phases: [1] becoming familiar with the data, [2] generating initial codes, [3] searching for themes, [4] reviewing the themes, [5] defining and naming themes, and [6] producing the final report.

Once the extracted data is approved, the research team will each familiarize themselves with it and conduct an initial analysis independently before discussing and reaching a consensus on themes. After the consensus is reached, the team will re-analyze and revise the data results one more time before sharing them with the rest of the research team. Finally, in the sixth phase, the analysis findings will be incorporated into the results section, supported by quotations from the literature.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this scoping review analysis is the first of its kind. Since 2010, there have been related reviews conducted on integrated knowledge translation with health policies [35,36] a realist evaluation of knowledge transfer implementation by health researchers [37]; knowledge translation and its supported definitions, theories, models, and frameworks [38]; and knowledge translation in Indigenous health research [39], for example. Our scoping review analysis will gather a broader disciplinary scope of literature and terminology than other reviews to date. Our scoping review is unique in that it will focus on studies where non-academic community partners are presented as being clearly invested and engaged in K* efforts – in ways that address inequities and support sovereignty, improving the health and wellness of equity-deserving/seeking/denied communities.

There is growing interest globally within academic and research institutions, research funding bodies, and government priorities to support research with equity-seeking/deserving/denied communities. Evidence to suggest the growing interest are reflected in university strategic plans, Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action, targeted funding calls, and government public health frameworks, for example. Despite the increased attention to “applied research” with emancipatory goals, community-based researchers have been writing about limitations, challenges, and the inequitable nature of research funding timelines, accountabilities of researchers and funders to communities – for many years. Given that most scientific research is written, and therefore framed and curated, by academic researchers, it will be interesting to see how authors use K* terminology with vagueness to imply research “value” versus describing in compelling detail how community made informed decisions around K* priorities and activities.

We assert that research training programs and curriculum in disciplines invested in human health and wellbeing must educate, mentor, and model K*. That said, there is a dearth of training and research in the area of K* with equity or sovereignty-seeking/deserving/denied communities. The asymmetry between potential and actual transformation through research can be addressed, in part, by making exemplary K* research more visible and calling on authors of future papers study and report on how K* was planned, prioritized, implemented, and evidenced.

Conclusion

The combination of using a scoping review to gather, examine, and visualize literature reporting on K* terminology, definitions, and priorities in research with equity or sovereignty-seeking/deserving/denied communities globally will paint an aerial view and nuanced summary of impactful research. Our study findings will be used to draw attention to examples of transformative research as well as reveal patterns of K* activities, outcomes, ethics, and accountabilities across geographies and disciplines.

Supporting information