Subscribe or unsubscribe to the KT Canada mailing list
Research project ideas?!
A group of us are trying to put together the next MPD grant for KTTC. Based on our meeting in Toronto (April 2011), we are going to focus our next meeting on projects… We already have a couple project ideas from the Toronto meeting, but are there any other ideas you have?
Dwayne is the lead on the grant. So contact him if you have ideas, comments for our next grant!
I was at a helpful workshop this morning about getting grants funded. The presenter hit on a few questions that I recalled being brought up in Winnipeg, so I am transcribing a few notes that others might find useful:
1. The phrase, “contact the program officer,” came up over and over. (And over.) This helps to focus the grant application and make sure that you tailor it to meet the needs of the funding org.
When I first heard about this as a student, I was very surprised. I had naively imagined the process differently. I have since learned (and successfully applied the concept) that getting in touch ahead of time is a smart way to avoid wasting everyone’s time — yours and theirs — and an excellent way to increase your chances of writing a successful proposal.
2. In Winnipeg, we talked about sitting in on review panels and learned that CIHR no longer allows that. However, FYI, there is a video put out by the NIH that gives something of an idea of how a panel might work. (I will see if any of our established KT scholars can comment on differences between NIH and CIHR processes.) The video can be streamed or downloaded here:
Inside the NIH Grant Review Process
3. Common issues that show up with young/new investigators include: a) overly ambitious timelines and goals, and b) failure to clearly explain aims, process and impact to reviewers (who are busy people and who may be outside your field.)
Some good websites to check out:
Fundamentals of Grantsmanship: lots of great advice from Janet Rasey, University of Washington
Research Funding Opportunities for New and Young Faculty: a list of funding opportunities courtesy of UC Berkeley (US-based but some may be open to Canadian researchers)
Career Advancement: from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (also US-based, but with plenty of relevant information)
NIAID Grants Tutorials: from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (advice more generally applicable as well, see overview here)
The NIH video is great, so are the tips…thanks Holly. I’d love to see a video clip of a review of qualitative research proposals. Does anyone know if anything like that exists? Thanks.
Ryan DeForge 11:40 pm on September 15, 2011 Permalink
what about a position paper that somehow informs / influences those who are / will be involved in the renegotiation of the Cdn Health Accord? the time in TO could be spent (by what would essentially be editors of the paper’s contributions) either soliciting, reviewing, and/or writing their own parts into the collaboratively produced paper.
Ryan DeForge 11:57 pm on September 15, 2011 Permalink
k, that last one wasn’t really a ‘research project idea’ per se … rather, it was one of those ‘Let’s write a paper’ ideas! i’ll keep thinking about it … my mind’s wandering/wondering about that notion so characteristic of the KTTC: “our diversity is our strength”.
so while i’m at first thinking along the lines of identifying a project idea based on something that’s obviously common to us all, perhaps, in order to tap into ‘diversity as strength’, we could identify an idea that’s based on something that’s NOT so obviously common to us, then (somehow
surprise ourselves/others by taking myriad different tacks to redress the issue. (if/)when i come up with something more concrete, i’ll Post again; meanwhile, if anyone wants to run with the idea, chime in!
by the way, UWO’s hosting a symposium tomorrow to mark the first year of a new grad program jointly run by the Faculties of Health Sci and of Information and Media Studies … ie, FHS + FIMS yields the “HIS” grad program – Health & Information Studies. (A poor acronym, one might say if they though patriarchy is what makes us sick). Anyway, Jacqueline Tetroe is a speaker (Ian Graham’s sometimes academic partner) and so is Gordon Guyatt (an EBM founder of sorts), and Diane Finegood (whose work draws on complexity theory). The theme for the day is, Reconciling Evidence Based Practice with Practice Based Evidence. If it’s juicy enough, i’ll Post some highlights (or maybe another more concrete research project idea!)
Ciao,
RTD.
Ryan DeForge 4:49 pm on September 19, 2011 Permalink
Sept 19 2011:
What i learned from Jacqueline Tetroe on Sept 16 when i sat beside and heard her speak at the inaugural symposium of the the Health & Information Sciences graduate program * * * (and i’ll add too, what i’d like to hear more about):
o she/we wondered aloud if there is indeed a case to be made for post-docs remaining in the same region/area as their doctoral work so as to enable the continued or enhanced leverage of built relationships
o complexity stems from the assertion that no matter how strong the evidence is, evidence is mediated by context, context, context
o on iKT being transdisciplinary … not multi or inter, wherein people rarely actually listen to one another, but transdisciplinary where respect and dialogue and active, empathy listening occur
o on iKT as being ‘mode 2’ knowledge, as being pragmatic, as essentially entailing (i) the shared development of the RQ, (ii) shared interpretations of the Findings are made together, and (iii) there’s a focus on moving evidence into practice
o iKT requires researchers’ senses to be on full alert when moving ‘practice based evidence’ (PBE) into evidence-based practice (EBP) and EBP into PBE (ie, the two sides of knowledge-action cycles)
o on iKT and PAR/PR having a close relationship; iKT is participatory, but the purists’ tenets of PAR differ from those of iKT; see Maccauley, BMJ, and see a module by Maccauley on the cihr website
o on what different KT grants cihr offers:
• synthesis
• knowledge to action
• PHSI
• MDP
• in all cases, applications are reviewed by a ‘user’ and a ‘producer’ according to:
o (i) potential impact and
o (ii) scientific merit,
ie:
• RQ,
• research approach,
• feasibility,
• outcomes
o by engaging others’ interests, readiness improves to in turn improve the potential for impacting practice
* * *
(what i’d like to hear more about) …
o upon being asked how to reconcile CIHR’s love affair with Cochrane with the assertion in her ‘Graham & Tetroe Chapter (10) on the KTA framework that “the framework falls within a social constructivist paradigm and privileges social interaction and adaptation of research evidence that takes local context and culture into account as key mechanisms necessary for turning knowledge into action” (p. 209) … ie, CIHR loves decontextualized evidence, but the best implementation strategies hinges on understanding local context. How is this to be reconciled? Tetroe’s response (only) reiterated that Yes, CIHR has a close relationship with and continues to support Cochrane, and Yes, the assessment of context remains vital for KT … which i take to be a recapitulation of the polar views that create the tension rather than a response that reconciles the tension inherent in having to recontextualize decontextualized knowledge. (Why not create and privilege and respond to contextualized knowledge?!?)
o on the KTA cycle being based on 29 planned action theories (which i take to be behaviorally focused) … what might the model look like (or how might it be improved/weakened) were it to be premised on a wider variety of theories — such as relational or socio-political theories (egs, actor-network theory, political economy theory)? what are its presumed shortcomings/strengths for only being premised on planned action theories?
* * *
is this how any one imagines(d) using this blog? i feel like i/we are faced with this paradox of needing to care more and less about what this blog is for (!)
more … i wonder who’s out there? anyone? is this kind of story/info/posting what they were looking for? a good use of their time? my time?
less … if my or anyone’s content is good or response-worthy, then someone will say so; similarly, people will inevitably self-select to this blog … or not.
such a paradox can be reconciled i think by just writing what’s on m/y/our minds.
RTD.
Robin Urquhart 10:15 pm on September 19, 2011 Permalink
Ryan,
Thanks for your thoughts. I, for one, like this kind of info/story/posting … and will likely be more apt to respond than with perhaps more traditional ‘here’s an upcoming event’ postings (though they are certainly valuable also). A few brief thoughts as I was reading:
1) I’ve actually thought a lot lately about the importance of the relationships I have built over the past 5-6 years and have had conversations with folks about what this means for my career. In two words – probably invaluable. I’ve always been one to think that training in different places is highly beneficial, though I’m beginning to put more and more ‘weight’ into the relationships I’ve built over my time in Halifax. So, in regards to yours/Jacqueline’s conversation, I also think there is a case to be made for post-docs to remain in same region to enable maintenance of built relationships. Moving to a new place could potentially mean *years* of building relationships again … who knows?
2) I FULLY agree there are many tensions between CIHR’s ‘predominant’ KT perspectives (e.g., support of systematic reviews, KTA cycle based on planned action cycles) and the reality that implementation/KT is dependent on context, context, context (and context has a whole lot to do with our socio-political, economic, and historical setting). I would LOVE to one day soon see a Virtual Seminar Series revolve around these tensions …
Thanks again. Hope things are going well.
Cheers,
Robin
Vivian Chan 2:27 pm on September 20, 2011 Permalink
On Ryan’s question, “is this how any one imagines(d) using this blog?”
Yes (for me) – this is a place where we can discuss/rant/have a bit of back and forth about ideas and concepts that are associated with all things KT.
Also wondering who’s out there reading this but yet to feel the urge to post
Evelyn Cornelissen 1:27 pm on September 21, 2011 Permalink
YES, YES, YES! This is exactly how I envisioned the blog being used. I find this discussion very worthwhile – one, because I like to hear others’ views of the KT questions/issues that I, too, am grappling with; and two, because it expands my network of colleagues to have these discussions with…and who knows where these discussions might lead, e.g., future research collaborations.
On doing a postdoc at the same place as PhD, I agree with this, too…in part to continue to establish one’s network, and in part to continue with research started during one’s PhD…I don’t know about the rest of you, but my PhD work has brought up more questions for me than it has answered! …So many areas to explore more fully, so much more to do. And wouldn’t it be great to continue with that work at the same institution and to bring in collaborations with colleagues met through the KTTC?
On transdisciplinary vs. multi or inter-disciplinary…I grappled with this in clinical practice and have come to believe that the collaboration between team members has more to do with the actual team members than it does with the term used.
Finally, I didn’t realize this discussion was happening on the blog as I came to rely on my RSS feeds to see if there was anything new on the blog…and replies to posts aren’t highlighted in my RSS feeds (just an fyi for others of you who may be relying on RSS feeds).
Keen to hear others’ views…