Validating A knowledge transfer framework in health services

The study of knowledge transfer (KT) has been proceeding in parallel but independently in health services and in business, presenting an opportunity for synergy and sharing. This paper uses a survey of 32 empirical KT studies with their 96 uniquely named determinants of KT success to identify ten unique determinants for horizontal knowledge transfer success. These determinants, the outcome measure of Knowledge Use, and separate explicit and tacit transfer flows constitute the KT Framework, extending the work of previous KT framework authors. Our Framework was validated through a case study of the transfer of clinical practice guideline knowledge between the cardiac teams of selected Ontario hospitals, using a survey of senders and receivers developed from the KT literature. The study findings were: 8 of 10 determinants were supported by the Successful Transfer Hospitals; and 4 of 10 determinants were found to a higher degree in the Successful than non-Successful transfer hospitals. Taken together, the results show substantive support for the KT Framework determinants, indicating aggregate support of 9 of these determinants, but not the 10th - Knowledge Complexity. The transfer of tacit knowledge was found to be related to the transfer of the explicit knowledge and expressed as the transfer or recreation of resource profile and internal process tacit knowledge, where this tacit transfer did not require interactions between Sender and Receiver. This study provides managers with the building blocks to assess and improve the success rates of their knowledge transfers.

Who controls whom? Interaction dynamics and success of university-industry initiatives

This chapter looks into the importance of having a clear identity of a boundary spanner in determining the role of the partners in a university-industry knowledge transfer programme. It highlights issues around the relationship between the business and the graduate as the boundary spanner, where the university's level of control differs between two programmes: Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) and Knowledge Exchange and Enterprise Network (KEEN) programme. The four case studies illustrate interesting points since the university is the employer for the KTPs associate and the business is the employer for the KEEN associate, whilst successful KTP and KEEN projects rely on a full understanding of the role of the graduate within the business.

Knowledge creation: revisiting the 'ba' humbug people and 'latent' knowledge in organizational learning

Knowledge management theory has struggled with the concept of `knowledge creation'. Since the seminal article of Nonaka in 1991, an industry has grown up seeking to capture the knowledge in the heads and hearts of individuals so as to leverage them for organizational learning and growth. But the process of Socialization, Externalization, Combination and Internalization (SECI) outlined by Nonaka and his colleagues has essentially dealt with knowledge transfer rather than knowledge creation. This paper attempts to fill the gap in the process - from Nonaka's own addition of the need for "ba" to Snowden's suggestion of that we consider "Cynefin" as a space for knowledge creation. Drawing upon a much older theoretical frame - work the Johari Window developed in group dynamics, this paper suggests an alternative concept - latent knowledge - and introduces a different model for the process of knowledge creation.

Culture in Transfer: Translation and Transcultural Communication International Conference

It is widely acknowledged that interpreters need to have knowledge of the cultures represented by the languages they work with (e.g. Roy 2002, Angelelli 2004, Wadensjŏ 2008). However, it is not clear what interpreters are expected to do with this knowledge. Some scholars recommend that interpreters be cultural mediators (e.g. Katan 2004 & 2014). As an attempt to examine existing guidelines on interpreters’ roles in the face of cultures/cultural issues, the research reported in this paper compares and contrasts the codes of conduct for interpreters from a number of associations and institutions in the UK, the US and China. The research has collected three different sets of data and has sought to investigate (1) in what ways interpreters are expected to do with their knowledge of cultures; (2) to what extent interpreters’ role as cultural mediators is referred to or defined in these codes of conduct; and (3) whether or not relevant guidelines are practically helpful for interpreters to deal with the range of cultural issues they may encounter in interpreting. Data analysis suggests that while cultural knowledge is a requisite for interpreters, the expectation for them to be cultural mediators may depend on the types of interpreting setting they work with and further guidelines are needed so that interpreters are clear on what they are required to do in dealing with cultural issues. The paper then discusses the implications of these findings and points to some directions for future research. Key references Brunette, L., G Bastin, I. Hemlin and H. Clarke (ed.). The Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. Hale, S. 2007. Community Interpreting. Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. The International Association of Conference Interpreting, 2015. Interpreting Explained. Available from: http://aiic.net/; accessed on 24 June 2015 Katan, David, --- 2004. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators. St Jerome. --- 2014. Workshop: Translation at the cross-roads: time for the transcreational turn? University College London. Martín, Mayte C. & Mary Phelan, 2009. Interpreters and Cultural Mediators – different but complementary roles. In: Translocations: Migration and Social Change. ISSN Number: 2009-0420 (online) McDonough Dolmaya, Julie, (2011. Moral ambiguity: Some shortcomings of professional codes of ethics for translators. In: The Journal of Specialised Translation. Issue 15, January 2011 (online). Pöchhacker, F., 2008. Interpreting as Mediation. In: (ed.) Valero Garcés, C. and Martin, A, Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: definitions and dilemmas, pp. 9-26. John Benjamins Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Roy, Cynthia B., 2002. The Problem with Definitions, Descriptions, and the Role Metaphors of Interpreters. In: (ed.) Pöchhacker, Franz & Miriam Shlesinger, The Interpreting Studies Reader. Routledge. Wadensjö 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.