Advertisement

Perspectives of Knowledge Translation Within Sustainable Product Development

  • Harald E. OttoEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

A closer look at current activities in and methods used for knowledge production, problem-solving, business operating, and policy-making reveals that traditional approaches are increasingly becoming subject to severe modifications and revisions as well to theory as to practice. Knowledge seems to transform into a kind of commodity with knowledge production itself widely viewed as the driving force of both the economy and the sciences in developed nations. However, generation of knowledge seems to have become as complex, uncoordinated, and unsustainable as the current dynamic interactions between society and nature. This state of affairs is reflected, among other things, by the dereliction and shortcomings of policy instruments and programs to produce outcomes as planned and by the prevalence of various hurdles, which still impede the diffusion of newly emerging knowledge and insight aimed at supporting sustainable development. Hence, there appears to be a huge gap between what we know and what is currently done. In this chapter, selected aspects are discussed pertaining to knowledge translation with a focus on balancing learning/unlearning, knowledge organization and representation, and knowledge flows related to reverse innovation.

Keywords

Knowledge brokering and transfer Knowledge organization Learning/unlearning Reverse innovation 

References

  1. 1.
    Knorr-Cetina K. Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hacking I. The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. In: Pickering A, editor. Science as practice and culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1992. p. 29–64.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ryle G. The concept of mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1949.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferguson ES. Engineering and the mind’s eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vincenti WG. What engineers know and how they know it. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pitt J. What engineers know. Techné. 2001;5(3):17–30.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frodeman R. Interdisciplinary research and academic sustainability: managing knowledge in an age of accountability. Environ Conserv. 2011;38(2):105–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M. The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. 10th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2010.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M. Rethinking science: knowledge in an age of uncertainty. 9th ed. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fuller S. The governance of science. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Res Policy. 2000;29(2):109–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gupta AK, Tesluk PE, Taylor MS. Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis. Organ Sci. 2007;18:885–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greve HR, Taylor A. Innovations as catalysts for organizational change: shifts in organizational cognition and search. Adm Sci Q. 2000;45:54–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salge TO, Vera A. Benefiting from public sector innovation: the moderating role of customer and learning orientation. Public Adm Rev. 2012;72(4):550–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quintane E, Casselman RM, Reiche BS, Nylund P. Innovation as a knowledge-based outcome. J Knowl Manag. 2011;15(6):928–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Woolf SH. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA. 2010;299(2):211–3.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Strauss SE, Tetroe J, Graham I. Defining knowledge translation. Can Med Assoc J. 2009;181(3–4):165–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Curran JA, Grimshaw JM, Hayden JA, Campbell B. Knowledge translation research: the science of moving research into policy and practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011;31(3):174–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci. 2012;7:50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J. How can research organizations more effectively transfer knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q. 2003;81(2):221–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lomas J. The in-between world of knowledge brokering. Br Med J. 2007;334:129–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ward V, House A, Hamer S. Knowledge brokering: the missing link in the evidence to action chain. Evid Policy. 2009;5(3):267–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bornbaum CC, Kornas K, Peirson L, Rosella LC. Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis. Implement Sci. 2015;10:162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meyer M. The rise of the knowledge broker. Sci Commun. 2010;32(1):118–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    CHSRF. The Theory and Practice of Knowledge Brokering in Canada’s Health System. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2003.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pennell KG, Thompson M, Rice JW, Senier L, Brown P, Suuberg E. Bridging research and environmental regulatory processes: the role of knowledge brokers. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(21):11985–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    DePasse JW, Lee PT. A model for reverse innovation in health care. Glob Health. 2013;9:40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kulasabanathan K, Issa H, Bhatti Y, Prime M, del Castillo J, Darzi A, Harris M. Do international health partnerships contribute to reverse innovation? A mixed methods study of THET-supported partnerships in the UK. Glob Health. 2017;13:25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Harris M, Weisberger E, Silver D, Dadwal V, Macinko J. That’s not how the learning works—the paradox of reverse innovation: a qualitative study. Glob Health. 2016;12:36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Syed SB, Dadwal V, Rutter P, Storr J, Hightower JD, Gooden R, Carlet J, Nejad SB, Kelly ET, Donaldson L, Pittet D. Developed—developing country partnerships: benefits to developed countries? Glob Health. 2012;8:17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tyfield D, Wilsdon J. Low carbon China: disruptive innovation and the role of international collaboration. Nottingham, UK: The University of Nottingham, China Policy Institute; 2009. Paper no. 41.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Snowdon AW, Bassi H, Scarffe AD, Smith AD. Reverse innovation: an opportunity for strengthening health systems. Glob Health. 2015;11:2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mytelka LK. Locational tournaments, strategic partnerships and the state. In: Gertler MS, Wolfe DA, editors. Innovation and social learning. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan; 2002. p. 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Casillas JC, Acedo FJ, Barbero JL. Learning, unlearning and internationalisation: evidence from the pre-export phase. Int J Inf Manag. 2010;30(2):162–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. A theory of organizational knowledge creation. Int J Technol Manag. Special issue on unlearning and learning for technological innovation. 1996;11(7/8):833–45.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rabbiosi L, Santangelo GD. Parent company benefits from reverse knowledge transfer: the role of the liability of newness in MNEs. J World Bus. 2013;48(1):160–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rushmer R, Davies HTO. Unlearning in health care. Quality and Safety. 2004;13(Suppl. II):ii10–5.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Antonacopoulou EP. Impact and scholarship: unlearning and practicing to co-create actionable knowledge. Manag Learn. 2009;40(4):421–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Otto HE. Reverse flow of knowledge and the development of sustainable energy systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on EcoBalance; Oct 27–30; Tsukuba, Japan. 2014. Paper no.: 28D5-3.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Govindarajan V, Trimble C. Reverse innovation: create far from home, win everywhere. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Prahalad CK. Bottom of the pyramid as a source of breakthrough innovations. Product Innovat Manag. 2012;29(1):6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Simon HA. Studying human intelligence by creating artificial intelligence. Am Sci. 1981;69(3):300–9.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Savelsbergh ER, de Jong T, Ferguson-Hessler MGM. Competence-related differences in problem representations. In: van Sommeren M, Reimann P, de Jong T, Boshuizen H, editors. The role of multiple representations in learning and problem solving. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1998. p. 262–82.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Briggs G, Shamma DA, Cañas AJ, Carff R, Scargle J, Novak JD. Concept maps applied to mars exploration public outreach. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Concept Mapping, Sept 14–17; Pamplona; 2004. p. 109–116.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Eppler MJ. Making knowledge visible through intranet knowledge maps: concepts, elements, cases. In: Holsapple CW, editor. Handbook on knowledge management. Berlin: Springer; 2003. p. 189–206.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Novak JD, Cañas AJ. The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool. Inf Vis. 2006;5(3):175–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Novak JD. Learning, creating, and using knowledge: concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. New York: Routledge; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Clariana RB, Engelmann T, Kozlov M. The influence of graphical or textual representations on team concept map form: further validation of a measure of knowledge structure. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Concept Mapping, vol. 1; September 5–9, Tallinn, Estonia. 2016. p. 351–54.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Probst GJ, Raub S, Romhardt K. Managing knowledge: building blocks for success. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; 2000.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Authier M, Lévy P. Les Arbres de Connaissance. Paris: La Découverte; 1999.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kaplan J. Handbook on trees of knowledge. SCATE project, study circles: a tool for empowerment, Socrates Programme, Grundtvig Action. Brussels: European Commission; 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Engineering and Mathematical SciencesPolytechnic University of MarcheAnconaItaly

Personalised recommendations