Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
http://scx.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Science Communication can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://scx.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/1/116
Social Epistemology
Theory for the Fourth Wave of
Knowledge Transfer and Exchange
Research
Science Communication
Volume 29 Number 1
September 2007 116-127
2007 Sage Publications
10.1177/1075547007305166
http://scx.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Nora Jacobson
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Knowledge transfer and exchange has become an increasingly important practice in the arena of publicly funded health and social research. Throughout
its history, investigators have used a variety of borrowed theories to explore and
explain the determinants, processes, and results of knowledge transfer. As the
context in which knowledge transfer takes place has changed, so too has the
theory used to explore and explain the process. This article reviews the role
of theory in knowledge transfer and exchange research and proposes a
novel source for potentially useful new theory in the current context: social
epistemology.
Keywords: knowledge transfer and exchange; knowledge utilization; knowledge translation; research utilization; social epistemology
Authors Note: This work was supported by a grant from the Deans Fund New Staff
Competition in the Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto. Please address all correspondence to Nora Jacobson, Health Systems Research and Consulting Unit, Centre for Addiction
and Mental Health, 33 Russell St., Toronto, ON M5S 2S1, Canada; phone: 416-535-8501, ext.
4229; fax: 416-979-4703; e-mail: nora_jacobson@camh.net.
116
Downloaded from http://scx.sagepub.com by Pedro Moscoso on April 24, 2009
117
exchange research and propose a novel source for potentially useful new
theory: social epistemology.
118
Science Communication
119
120
Science Communication
doing, they instruct readers in how to plan a project and suggest both logic
models and domains that may be used in the assessment of project results.
Third, and finally, knowledge transfer theories, models, and frameworks
play a role in the development of research agendas by suggesting general
and specific areas for further research. Carol Weisss (1979) early work on
the seven meanings of research utilization has had an ongoing influence on
investigations of the settings and circumstances in which different types of
use might be favored. Application of the diffusion of innovations theory has
led to further research on many of the theorys proposed determinants of
adoption and use: for example, studies that investigate the characteristics of
the environments (e.g., organizations) in which knowledge transfer occurs
(or fails to occur).
A complete accounting of theory adoption and use in the field of knowledge transfer and exchange is beyond the scope of this article. However, the
general overview provided by Backer and the subsequent developments
described above suggest that there is a reciprocal relationship between
theory and knowledge transfer practice and research. Just as theory often
leads practitioners and investigators to new endeavors, so project results
and research findings also lead to new theoryor to an awareness of a need
for new theory.
Research in knowledge transfer and exchange has generally been more
focused on using theory to explain, plan, or research transfer and exchange
processes than on using it to understand knowledge and the relationships
between knowledge and these processes. However, the trends noted by
Backer (1991) as early harbingers as a fourth wave (particularly greater
attention to accountability, greater awareness of ethics in research, and the
globalization of knowledge), along with an increasing recognition of the
ways in which knowledge is constituted by interactive knowledge transfer
(Elliott and Popay 2000), suggest a need for theory that is focused on the
knowledge part of knowledge transfer and exchange. Social epistemology
is a source for such new theory.
Social Epistemology
Social epistemology is the study of the social contours of knowledge.
Librarians Margaret Egan and Jesse Shera coined the term in 1952 (Budd
2002; Zandonade 2004). Writing about the need for an underlying theory of
bibliography, they defined social epistemology as the study of those
processes by which society as a whole seeks to achieve a perceptive or
121
122
Science Communication
123
Each variant of social epistemology described abovedescriptive and normative, veristic and constructivistcan contribute to the explanatory, intervention and evaluation development, and research agendasetting functions of
theory in knowledge transfer and exchange described earlier. Bringing social
epistemology into knowledge transfer and exchange will shift the focus of the
field, enhancing the breadth and depth of research questions and approaches.
Explanation. A descriptive approach would aid researchers in the task of
identifying the determinants and results of knowledge transfer and exchange
projects. Guided by social epistemology, the focus of this endeavor might
change from understanding the process of transfer to one of understanding
the impact of different settings or transfer strategies on the knowledge that
is being transferred. From a veristic perspective, the aim would be to understand the conditions under which justified truth belief is more easily transferred than belief that is not justified. From a constructivist perspective, the
task would be to map the power dynamics of different knowledge transfer
strategies and the impact of these dynamics on what does and does not
124
Science Communication
125
Conclusion
Theory in knowledge transfer and exchange risks turning narrow and
mechanistic. Social epistemology is an esoteric subject, one that can be difficult to access without training in philosophy, but its core ideas are extremely
relevant to understanding the practice of knowledge transfer and to making
research in knowledge transfer broader and more intellectually dynamic.
Adoption of concepts from social epistemology will push researchers to focus
on knowledge to better define the substance of what it is they are transferring
(a descriptive project) and what it is they want to transfer (a normative one).
Both veristic and constructivist social epistemologies provide frameworks for
critical examination of current knowledge transfer practices and research.
While the former may suggest questions about effectiveness, the latter directs
attention to issues of power and equity. Such examination is important, even
crucial, to meeting the expectations of accountability and ethical conduct in
the context of globalization that characterizes the present fourth wave of
knowledge transfer and exchange.
References
Backer, T. E. 1991. Knowledge utilization: The third wave. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion,
Utilization 12 (3): 225-40.
Barnes, B., and D. Edge, eds. 1982. Science in context: Readings in the sociology of science.
Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press.
Berwick, D. M. 2003. Disseminating innovations in health care. JAMA 289 (15): 1969-75.
Boggs, J. P. 1992. Implicit models of social knowledge use. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion,
Utilization 14 (1): 29-62.
Budd, J. M. 2002. Jesse Shera, social epistemology and praxis. Social Epistemology 16 (1): 93-98.
Caplan, N. 1979. The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American
Behavioral Scientist 22 (3): 459-70.
Crosswaite, C., and L. Curtice. 1994. Disseminating research resultsthe challenge of bridging the gap between health research and health action. Health Promotion International 9
(4): 289-96.
126
Science Communication
Dery, D. 1986. Knowledge and organizations. Policy Studies Review 6 (1): 14-25.
Dobbins, M., D. Ciliska, R. Cockerill, J. Barnsley, and A. DiCenso. 2002. A framework for the
dissemination and utilization of research for health-care policy and practice. The Online
Journal of Knowledge Synthesis for Nursing 9 (7).
Egan, M. E., and J. H. Shera.1952. Foundations of a theory of bibliography. Library Quarterly
22: 125-37.
Elliott, H., and J. Popay. 2000. How are policy makers using evidence? Models of research utilization and local NHS policy making. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 54:
461-68.
Fricker, M. 1998. Rational authority and social power: Towards a truly social epistemology.
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98: 159-77.
Fuller, S. 2002. Social epistemology. 2nd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Goldman, A. 2001. Social epistemology. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, edited
by E. N. Zalta. Retrieved December 2, 2005, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/
spr2001/entries/epistemology-social/
Goldman, A. I. 2002. Pathways to knowledge: Private and public. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hanney, S. R., M. A. Gonzalez-Block, M. Buxton, and M. Kogan. 2003. The utilization of
health research in policy-making: Concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health
Research Policy and Systems 1 (2). Retrieved December 2, 2005, from http://www.healthpolicy-systems.com/content/1/1/2
Hardwig, J. 1991. The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 88 (12): 693-708.
Herie, M., and G. W. Martin. 2002. Knowledge diffusion in social work: A new approach to
bridging the gap. Social Work 47 (1): 85-95.
Huberman, M. 1990. Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study.
American Educational Research Journal 27 (2): 363-91.
Huberman, M. 1994. Research utilization: The state of the art. Knowledge and Policy: The
International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 7 (4): 13-33.
Knorr-Cetina, K., and M. Mulkay, eds. 1983. Science observed: Perspectives on the social
study of science. London: Sage.
Landry, R., N. Amara, and M. Lamari. 2001. Utilization of social science research knowledge
in Canada. Research Policy 30: 333-49.
Langley, A. 1989. In search of rationality: The purposes behind the use of formal analysis in
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 34: 598-631.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lester, J. P., and L. J. Wilds.1990. The utilization of public policy analysis: A conceptual
framework. Evaluation and Program Planning 13: 313-19.
Logan, J., and I. D. Graham. 1998. Toward a comprehensive interdisciplinary model of health
care research use. Science Communication 20 (2): 227-46.
Lomas, J. 2000. Connecting research and policy. ISUMA 1 (1): 140-44.
McConkey, J. 2004. Knowledge and acknowledgement: Epistemic injustice as a problem of
recognition. Politics 24 (3): 198-205.
Oh, C. H., and R. F. Rich. 1996. Explaining use of information in public policymaking. Knowledge
and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 9 (1): 3-35.
Resnik, D. 1996. Social epistemology and the ethics of research. Studies in History and
Philosophy of Science 27 (4): 565-86.
127
Nora Jacobson is a scientist in the Health Systems Research and Consulting Unit at the Centre
for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada, and an assistant professor at the University of
Toronto.