Reflection from Silvia Capezzuoli │Senior Consultant
www.imainternational.com, IMA International – Innovation, Relationships and Trust, Consultancy and participatory training for international development

This is my first KM Forum, so I was not sure what to expect. I am not working in the health sector, nor in academic research, so the points I have focussed on below are what resonates for me as a practitioner in international development.

I appreciated the initial inclusive definition setting the context for the Forum: Knowledge includes research-based knowledge, practice-based knowledge and wisdom gained from experience.

From the outset, Vicky Ward explained that the longer term aim of the KM Forum is to form a loose community who can support each other, and learn from each other, given that the place we inhabit as knowledge brokers/ mobilisers can often be a lonely place, one of filling the gaps between ‘spaces.’

I liked the way the ‘ethos’ was declared at the very start; the informal nature of the Forum was methodologically chosen as the best way to foster learning, sharing, networking and encourage creativity. Personally, I felt very comfortable with this, as it speaks to much of the work I am familiar with, however I appreciate that some participants may have had different expectations.

On the whole, I felt the design of the day, the way it was planned and ran – a combination of minimal presentations, poster sessions, workshops and Open Space – was definitely conducive to sharing, exchange and peer-to-peer learning. Other participants whom I spoke to  during the day also echoed this feeling.

Highlights from keynote speaker Dez Holmes, from Research in Practice:

Countering the more traditional idea that evidence-based research in generated in one space, with the expectation that it will be taken up and used by practitioners in a different space,  Dez made the point of including and honouring the voice of those whom we support. There is a need to capture the voice of lived experience and treat this as evidence, giving it the weight it deserves. Clearly participatory, user-centric and more holistic approaches lend themselves to this.

Ultimately it is about making a case for what is meaningful to those we are wanting to influence. So for evidence to be taken up and used, translated into practice, researchers need appeal to practitioners’ professional values, sense of purpose and ‘ikigai’ (raison d’etre). To “capture hearts and minds” to get your message across, you need to be able to step into the other’s shoes.

A clear message is that knowledge needs to be understood and perceived as woven into organisational practice; in other words it is systemic, and not bolted on. Leaders at all organisational levels need to rolemodel this, working with emergent change in complex systems, rather than trying to simplify these.

The importance of relational work also became apparent; inter-professional relationships can help or hamper knowledge brokerage. We all have our subjective relationship with knowledge and evidence, and this in turn can be affected by the system within which we operate. So investing in personal and organisational relationships is a necessary step to building trust, which in turn helps to shape opinions, make suggestions and influence change.

Day 2 evolved along the same design lines as day 1. We started with 3 morning workshops. The one on ’What next for Knowledge Mobilisation?’ asked 2 questions: ‘What are we not thinking about?’ And ‘What do we still need to learn?’ Our small group conversations surfaced issues of power dynamics (whose knowledge is valued? Who is part of the discussion?); the importance of buy-in from leaders and influencers; recognising that changing our own and others’ behaviour is a slow process so there is a need for continuous reminders/ prompts about KMb……

Open space options were generated on day 1 as people wrote down issues they wanted to explore more in-depth the next day. So on day 2 there were 6 options, which gave people more opportunity to actually express themselves in smaller groups. The discussion on Models of knowledge sharing brought us back to two basic questions:

  • Why do we want to engage with knowledge sharing processes (i.e. our purpose, linking to Keynote presentation of day 1)
  • Who do we want to engage with (who are the stakeholders)

Once these two questions are answered in full, the How? and What? in terms of KM easily fall out of these and can be developed.

One helpful approach to models from an educational provider perspective is to consider three dimensions of knowledge sharing, and for each then delve deeper to explore how and what to share. The three dimensions are:

  • Promoting learning, generating knowledge, stimulating and inspiring curiosity for knowledge
  • Consulting and listening, being receptive to others, actively making sense of knowledge
  • Co-creating and co-producing knowledge

Another entry point is to be aware through which lens we look at those people we engage with. Everyone has 3 identities in some shape or form: personal, professional and community. The knowledge we share will differ depending on which lens we look through, and which identity we take on ourselves.

Highlight from keynote speaker, Vicky Ward – University of Leeds:

Vicky Ward shared her practical tool for knowledge sharing as part of her keynote presentation. We debated the extent to which this set of questions divided into 3 categories (key area of concern, what is known/ not known, access and use of knowledge) can be used by teams/ groups themselves, or whether it needs an outsider/ facilitator to prompt the questions. The questions themselves, resonating those used in action learning sets, are aimed at helping people take a step back and think slightly differently from their usual thought patterns. This process allows for insights to emerge and new thought connections to be made which would otherwise go unnoticed given our personal set ways of sharing knowledge, and the assumptions we make about others’ knowledge.