Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptual challenges in the translation of research into practice: it’s not just a matter of “communication”

  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

ABSTRACT

This paper identifies key barriers to the translation of science into practice and policy and makes recommendations for addressing them. It focuses on the challenges of translation within the field of tobacco control, but we argue that the insights are widely generalisable. Actor-Network Theory is used to frame an analysis, supplemented by focussed discussions with international tobacco control practitioners (service delivery and advocacy) and researchers. The central challenge to translation is that researchers and practitioners have different “practical ontologies”. Researchers use findings from specific contexts to generalise to universal principles, while practitioners try to use these generalisations to inform their work in what are typically a somewhat different set of specific contexts. Neglecting the need to translate back from the general to the particular means research syntheses are not framed to meet practitioners’ needs. Traditional knowledge broking roles need to be extended to better align the needs of researchers and practitioners. This may be facilitated by more creative use of “social computing” to enable real-time input into research syntheses from all interested parties, including input to the questions that research addresses. To do this systematically requires that we construct “generalisation gradients” to help practitioners apply general research conclusions to their particular situation and researchers to identify the relevance of their work. Disadvantaged communities in particular need help, since there is typically less research directly applicable to their contexts; thus, they need to generalise more.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig 1

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Bryant, T. (2002). Role of knowledge in public health and health promotion policy change. Health Promotion International, 17(1), 89–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bickford, J., & Kothari, A. (2008). Research and knowledge in Ontario tobacco control networks. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 99(4), 297–300.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Grning, T., Strnk, C., & Gilmore, A. B. (2008). Puffing away? Explaining the politics of tobacco control in Germany. German Politics, 17(2), 140–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mørk, B. E., Aanestad, M., Hanseth, O., & Grisot, M. (2008). Conflicting epistemic cultures and obstacles for learning across communities of practice. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(1), 12–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Green, L. W., Ottoson, J. M., García, C., & Hiatt, R. A. (2009). Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization and integration in public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 30, 151–174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hill, D., Borland, R., & Karazija, B. (1991). Centre for behavioural research in cancer. British Journal of Addiction, 86, 257–262.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Law, J., & Hassard, J. (Eds.). (1999). Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements in a sociology of translation: domestification of the scallops and fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief (pp. 196–233). London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jensen, T. E. (2001). Performing social work: competence, orderings, spaces and objects. Psychology (p. 201). Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope—essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mol, A., & Law, J. (1994). Regions, networks and fluids: anaemia and social topology. Social Studies of Science, 24, 641–671.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Young, D., Borland, R., & Coghill, K. (2010). An actor-network theory analysis of policy innovation for smoke free places: understanding change in complex systems. American Journal of Public Health, 100(7), 1208–1217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Valente, T. W., & Fosados, R. (2006). Diffusion of innovations and network segmentation: the part played by people in promoting health. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 33(7 Suppl.), 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Best, J. A., & Hiatt, R. A. (2008). National cancer institute of Canada joint working group on translational research and knowledge integration. Knowledge integration: conceptualizing communications in cancer control systems. Patient Education and Counseling, 71, 319–327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Landry, R., Lamari, M., & Amara, N. (2003). The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Administration Review, 63, 92–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: how little things can make a big difference. New York: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Westfall, J. M., Mold, J., & Fagnan, L. (2007). Practice-based research: “blue highways” on the NIH roadmap. JAMA, 297(4), 403–406.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Law J., Moser I. (2010) Managing, subjectivities and desires. Retrieved October 4, from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/law-moser-managing-subjectivities-desires.pdf.

  21. Jensen, C. B. (2004). A nonhumanist disposition: on performativity, practical ontology, and intervention. Configurations, 12(2), 229–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wilden, A. (1972). System and structure: essays in communication and exchange. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Snow, C. P. (1993). The two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Breton, E., Richard, L., Gagnon, F., Jacques, M., & Bergeron, P. (2008). Health promotion research and practice require sound policy analysis models: the case of Quebec’s tobacco act. Social Science & Medicine, 67(11), 1679–1689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Globalink. Retrieved from http://www.globalink.org/.

  26. Cochrane Reviews. Retrieved from http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/.

  27. Rapoport, R. N. (1970). Three dilemmas in action research, with special reference to the tavistock experience. Human Relations, 23(6), 499–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Information, systems and information systems: making sense of the field. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kock, N. (2004). The three threats of action research: a discussion of methodological antidotes in the context of an information systems study. Decision Support Systems., 37(2), 265–286.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Abraham, C., & Michie, S. (2008). A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychology, 27, 379–387.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Fishbein, M., & Cappella, J. N. (2006). The role of theory in developing effective health communications. The Journal of Communication, 56, S1–S17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Borland, R., Young, D., Coghill, K., & Zhang, J. Y. (2010). The tobacco use management system: analyzing tobacco control from a systems perspective. American Journal of Public Health, 100(7), 1229–1236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fafard, P. (2008). Evidence and healthy public policy: insights from health and political sciences. Ottawa: National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  35. McDaid D. (2010) Transferring research to policy and practice: quo vadis? International Journal of Integrated Health Care. 2009; 9(Suppl.): e45. Retrieved October 4, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2707552/.

  36. Emery, F. (1993). Educational paradigms: an epistemological revolution. In M. Emery (Ed.), Participative design for participative democracy (pp. 40–85). Canberra: Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Borland, R., & Cummings, K. M. (2010). Advancing tobacco control by effective evaluation. In N. Gray, P. Boyle, Henningfield, J. Seffrin, & W. Zatonski (Eds.), Tobacco: science, policy and public health (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Fong, G. T., Cummings, K. M., Borland, R., Hastings, G., Hyland, A., & Giovino, G. A. (2006). The conceptual framework of the international tobacco control (ITC) policy evaluation project. Tobacco Control, 15(3), iii3–iii11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Thompson, M. E., Fong, G. T., Hammond, D., Boudreau, C., Driezen, P., & Hyland, A. (2006). Methods of the international tobacco control (ITC) four country survey. Tobacco Control, 15(3), iii12–iii18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Borland, R., Yong, H.-H., Wilson, N., Fong, G. T., Hammond, D., Cummings, K. M., et al. (2009). How reactions to cigarette packet health warnings influence quitting: findings from the ITC Four-Country survey. Addiction, 104(4), 669–675.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Fathelrahman, A. I., Omar, R., Awang, R., Borland, R., & Fong, G. T. (2009). Smokers’ responses toward cigarette pack warning labels in predicting quit intention, stage of change, and self-efficacy. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 11(3), 248–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hosking, W., Borland, R., Yong, H.-H., Fong, G. T., Zanna, M., Laux, F., et al. (2009). The effects of smoking norms and attitudes on quitting intentions in Malaysia, Thailand, and four Western nations: a cross-cultural comparison. Psychology & Health, 24, 95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hammond, D., Arnott, D., Dockrell, M., Lee, A., & McNeill, A. (2009). Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adult and youth: evidence in support of plain packaging. European Journal of Public Health, 19, 631–637.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Xiao S, Kohrman M. Anthropology and China’s health promotion and tobacco. The Lancet, 2008. Retrieved December 14, 2010, from http://www.stanford.edu/dept/anthropology/cgi-bin/web/?q=system/files/XiaoKohrman(2).pdf.

  45. Tobacco Control Intelligence System (TCIS). Retrieved from http://dtoba.urbits.com/.

Download references

Funding

This project was funded by the Inaugural Sally Birch Fellowship in Cancer Control, offered under the auspices of The Cancer Council Australia, and by a Developmental Research Grant from the Roswell Park TTURC funded by The US National Institutes of Health Contract P50 CA111236-04(PP-2).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Inaugural Sally Birch Fellow in Cancer Control and Senior Social Scientist, Tobacco Control Unit, Cancer Council Victoria, 100 Drummond St, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia

    David Young PhD

  2. Nigel Gray Distinguished Fellow in Cancer Control, Tobacco Control Unit, Cancer Council Victoria, 100 Drummond St, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia

    Ron Borland PhD

Authors
  1. David Young PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ron Borland PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Young PhD.

Additional information

Implications

Practice: The needs of practitioners are not well understood by researchers, in part because the two groups employ different "practical ontologies", therefore mechanisms are needed to ensure practice issues inform research.

Policy: Knowledge broking functions need to be expanded and “Wiki-like” systems, that can facilitate research synthesis, are a potential means of enhancing knowledge flow in a way that allows practitioners to have their questions addressed quickly.

Research: Researchers need to pay more attention to the generalization gradients of their findings; that is, the extent to which research generalizations translate into particular practice situations, and this will involve new forms of research.

About this article

Cite this article

Young, D., Borland, R. Conceptual challenges in the translation of research into practice: it’s not just a matter of “communication”. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 1, 256–269 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-011-0035-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-011-0035-1

KEYWORDS

Search

Navigation