Final translational research powerpointslides final 5 30-14[1]
1. Considering Scholarly Practitioners as
Translational Researchers
Bryan Maughan, University of Idaho
Debby Zambo, Associate Director CPED
Tricia Browne-Ferrigno, University of
Kentucky
Presentation at the 2014 CPEC convening
2. Session Overview
Guiding Questions [25 minutes]
What is translational research?
Why is it needed in education?
Who are translational researchers?
How do translational researchers engage the system?
What does their training entail and promote?
Group Work [25 minutes]
Share Out [20 minutes]
Closing Reflection [10 minutes]
4. Challenges: Research is Typically
Not Accessible or Useable
Reasons for the “knowing-doing gap” (Ball, 2013)
• Research is often inaccessible to those who need it.
• Research is often not aimed at the public good because large-
scale solutions do not address the problems that matter most.
• Practitioners and policymakers rarely engage in research that
informs their work.
• No forum exists for collaboration among educational
practitioners, policymakers, and researchers.
5. Translational Research Originated in Medical
Field: Typically Two Types
1. Applying discoveries generated during basic laboratory
research to the development of trials and studies in humans
(i.e., cross the laboratory to human divide in quick and
efficient manner).
2. Developing research aimed at enhancing the adoption and
understanding of promising practices in the community,
such as cost-effectiveness of prevention and treatment
strategies (i.e., cross the laboratory to community divide in a
cost effective manner).
6.
7. Translational research is
DIFFERENT from both basic
and applied research because it
• includes “action steps”
• forms partnerships with the community
• generates co-authored interventions and
measures of effectiveness
8. Given these ideas, the
TRAINING of translational
researchers often entails
• Common and individualized curricula
with problem-based, critical thinking
foci
• Transdisciplinary work
• Mentoring
9. Scholarly Practitioners
• Blend practical wisdom with professional skills and
knowledge to name, frame, and solve problems of
practice.
• Use practical research and applied theories as tools
for change because they understand the importance
of equity and social justice.
• Disseminate their work in multiple ways.
• Have an obligation to resolve problems of practice by
collaborating with key stakeholders, including the
university, the educational institution, the
community, and individuals.
14. Break-Out Questions: How can we
encourage scholarly practitioners to . . .
Ask pragmatic questions about teaching, learning, policy,
and environments required to conduct research and use
tools appropriate for making critical decisions? That is, adopt
cultural orientations that lead to problem finding that is normative and analytical,
personal and intellectual, particular and universal, experiential and theoretical
(Bulterman-Bos, 2008; Labaree, 2003) [Group 1 with Debby]
Became better reflective thinkers able to address problems
of practice? [Group 2 with Bryan]
Work together on transdisciplinary teams or teams across
multiple institutions (i.e., form network improvement
communities)? [Group 3 with Tricia]
15. While in Small Groups
• Brainstorm ideas to answer your
overarching question (and other
questions)
• Create a poster that captures your
group’s ideas
• Select reporter(s) to share your work
with the entire group
16. Closing Reflection
What have you learned today about
developing scholarly practitioners
who can act as translational
researchers?
17. References
Ball, A. (2013). To know is not enough: Knowledge, power and the zone
of generativity. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 283-293.
Bulterman-Bos, J.A. (2008). Will a clinical approach make education
research more relevant for practice? Educational Researcher, 37(7), 412-420.
Choo, C. W. (2006). The knowing organization: How organizations use
information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2007). CGS Task Force report on the
professional doctorate. Washington, DC: Author.
Labaree, D. F. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational
researchers. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 13-22.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy, 41(155), 1-18.
Smith, J. S., & Helfenbein, R.J . (2009). Translational research in
education. In W. S. Gershon (Ed.), The collaborative turn: Working together
in qualitative research (pp. 89-102). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W.M. (2002). Cultivating communities
of practice: A guide to managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Publishing.
Notes de l'éditeur
Trish – save introductions of participants for small groups
Trish
We have all heard about the theory to practice gap
And another way to think about this is research is lost in translation
It emerged in response to concern over the long time lag between scientific discoveries and changes in treatments, practices, and health
policies that incorporate the new discoveries
broader than “applied research.”
They strive to: 1) expedite movement between basic research and patient-oriented research so that new or improved understanding or standards of care get implemented; 2) facilitate the movement between patient-oriented research and population-based research to ensure the implementation of best practices; and 3) promote interactions between laboratory-based research and population-based research so the robust scientific understanding gained from research is understood at all levels (Smith & Helfenbein, 2008; Butlerman-Bos, 2008).
transdisciplinary work – opportunities to work with others in varied disciplines on common problems and work on multi-disciplinary teams aimed at developing innovative ideas and approaches;
common curricula that teachers the student about research (e.g., design, analytical procedures, protection of participants, funding sources, and technology);
individualized curricula bases on student’s interests and guided by a learner-centered advisory committee;
field work that fosters critical thinking and builds practical knowledge
Translational researchers work within the broader field.
Not a methodology
Translational research calls for a particular kind of thinking—a way of thinking about ourselves as being inseparable from the community and the objects within it. From what I have read, some of the roots of translational research are found in the works of Michael Polanyi, a late 20th Century philosopher who wrote extensively about knowledge creation and different “kinds” of knowledge. He writes of a metaphor that juxtaposes the creation of a map to a traveler’s use of the map. The metaphor explains the often-challenging relationship between knowledge derived from immediate sensory experience and the knowledge derived from abstract theory or scientific experiment are not compatible typically, but it can be.
When I travel to new places I rely on a map. It guides me to where I want to go and I trust it will help me not get lost. Here is the interesting point Polanyi made while thinking about different ways of thinking about the map, and the map user: The map represents the results of analytical thinking. Careful observations and statistical analysis. The map as a theory, as in object in and of itself, cannot be misled, but I, the one using the map, can be. If I get lost I may blame the map, but it is not the map that is deluded, it is I. The map, according to Polanyi, represents theory. Thinking of the map as a theory, I see that the theory remains unaffected even though I get lost. However, the map is without the second kind of knowledge Polanyi describes—sensory knowledge. There are no inputs or outputs on the map—it is a stagnant tool. I own it and use it and, at least for the moment, the information it provides become part of me, and I become part of it—like knowledge does.
During my conscious use of the map, I experience my self—my moods, emotions, cognitive and meta-cognitive inputs and outputs. My senses are alive. In my present travels I can see what the map, or the map-makers could not see—the boulders, trees, slight bends in the road, or the sinkhole that swallowed the road. During my trip I have been acquiring sensory data—I have reflected upon it and learned where to go and not to go—where the map went wrong and where it went right. Having experienced, or applied the map to my travels, I have an experiential idea of what it means and how I will use or not use it in the future. I may want to improve the map.
You see, the knowledge that produced the map (or theory) was based on a cartographer’s view of the world after objectively studying longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates of an area with the use of magnetic compasses and advanced mapping software. Although creators of the map used complex science to develop it, others with complex sensory experiences can improve it. This distinguishes the two kinds of thinking Polanyi described. One is Normative and the other Analytical. (explain these terms). What we have come to accept in our unstable and incomplete sciences is the need for humility. The ability to toss out the map (or theory) once more complete version has been made.
Click: Translating analytical knowledge into normative, or experiential knowledge can increase our understanding of certain phenomena we want to investigate. We live in real-time, real-life situations somewhat detached from external observations and analytical mechanistic evaluations. On one end we have craft or tacit, and cultural knowledge. Polanyi said, “We know more than we can tell.” While working practice we develop habits of repetition. Our hearts and hands connect with what we do and we develop an intuitive sense about our work and the people we work with—what Polanyi calls, “knowing what” and “knowing how.” Being fully engaged in our work, we can’t escape it. It becomes a part of us—wherever I go, there I am.
On the other end of the spectrum is the analytical Knowledge (CLICK). As academics, we often tell more than we know, which, I believe, means that because we don’t know what is happening on the ground, we really can’t tell the practitioners how to improve without some impunity. An analysts we are explorers, question developers curiously seeking more knowledge about “how-to.” We have methodologies to help us research (or re-tell, look again) the practitioner’s story, but are detached. (CLICK) The practitioner’s challenge is to become aware of both dimensions—both kinds of knowledge, and translate one into the other. (CLICK)
This is a visual representation of what I’m talking about. You can see the iterative cycle of generative learning created by the translational research model. Enframing is the self-reflective practitioner/researcher who sees themselves within the system. Examining self every time you look at a piece of research and asking, how will this impact my research, myself, and my practice. From the particular to the general/universal (Generalities flow upward from particular examples to broader, more universal generalizations (Lakatos, paraphrased by Toulmin, 2001, p. 108, as cited in Bulterman-Bos, 2008, p. 417)).
After some practice in these two dimensions, one develops wisdom of practice—the capacity to make sound judgments and act with integrity. We enhance our craftsmanship, which at this stage we may adopt Cooksey definition of craftsmanship: “the ability to make a gift of your work.”
Briefly mention the 4 points from Ball.
Another way to think about it is that it can become more complicated. The wisdom can be used in the system differently. To translate the research they operate within a system. Knowledge does not exist in a vacuum. To think about how our “kinds” of knowledge connects to the system, and the people in the system means we should consider both the micro and macro systems. Our individual sphere of influence is limited. There are wider societal interests and holistic perspectives that do not reduce human experience to a single dimension. At work, in the community, or in families we operate as a part of a much larger whole. By combining the skills and competencies from multiple perspectives a new kind of knowledge emerges along with new questions.
We, as educators work within a complex system of human interactions, which requires skilled and disciplined craftsmanship. When those with the craft combine with others of the craft, the results of knowing and doing has the potential to improve exponentially. Choo speaks of “group tacit knowledge” (Choo, The Knowing Organization, p. 167), wherein you do not only own competence, but that of the competencies of others. Today’s problem solving will require multiple perspectives. This leads us to the benefits of transdisciplinary and collaborative research.
![Session Overview
Guiding Questions [25 minutes]
What is translational research?
Why is it needed in education?
Who are translational researchers?
How do translational researchers engage the system?
What does their training entail and promote?
Group Work [25 minutes]
Share Out [20 minutes]
Closing Reflection [10 minutes]]()