ARC West’s funding ended on 31 March 2026. This site is an archive and is no longer updated.
26 November 2025
Dr Helen Baxter, Research Fellow in Knowledge Mobilisation and Implementation at NIHR ARC West, reflects on how knowledge mobilisation is relevant to public contributors. This blog was written by Helen with the help of insights and corrections from public contributors Steve Strong, Adele Webb, Anna Ferguson Montague. It was also reviewed by colleagues with expertise in knowledge mobilisation, Dr Clare Thomas and Dr Emma Douglass.
I have been trying for some time to write a blog aimed at public contributors, on what knowledge mobilisation might offer. It has not gone well so far. I’m using too many academic terms to explain quite straightforward things, resulting in a complete muddle. Instead, as suggested by my co-authors, here is a list of key questions and my best attempt to explain, after a bit of help from Steve, Adele, Anna, Clare and Emma.
Knowledge mobilisation means making knowledge ready for action.
Within health and social care, it is recommended as a field of study that increases the chances of research leading to benefits for society.
This is mainly because those practising and studying knowledge mobilisation are focused on how knowledge can be created, blended and moved to make it more useful to others. This is often done in the form of conversations, interactions and discussions by individuals or groups that are two-way across organisations or communities.
It is a lot more than the dissemination of research findings. We now know that it’s best to begin knowledge mobilisation before a research study is designed, continuing throughout and for some time afterwards.
I must admit after so many conversations with professional colleagues and public contributors, I would like to.
Knowledge mobilisation seems to be a term that causes confusion and brings the wrong images to mind. The term originates from Canada, where concerns about the low uptake of research findings were first raised. Since then, a lot of research studies have explored how to mobilise knowledge better and if we changed the terminology now there is a risk we could lose the connection to this very important evidence base. This is frustrating, especially due to its connection with the very popular term of coproduction.
Coproduction is a participatory method with its own literature base. When doing knowledge mobilisation, it may be appropriate to use a coproduction approach, but knowledge mobilisation can also be done well, using other less resource intensive methods.
As a method, coproduction is so much more than working together. It requires attention to the sharing of power, including all perspectives and skills, respecting and valuing the knowledge of all those working together on research, reciprocity, building and maintaining relationships.
Coproduction is an excellent way to conduct research with underserved groups and has been suggested as a ‘way of being’ rather than of doing. However, it has also been criticised as resource intensive and at risk of exacerbating inequalities if not treated as an approach in its own right.
Good question, and the answer is that we think so.
We know from the literature that if knowledge flows in both directions, as it does for example in a conversation, it seems to be more likely to lead to something being done. We also know that the incorporation of a range of viewpoints, perspectives and ideas makes the knowledge generated more useful to others.
Ways of doing this can range from researchers working in health and social care settings to develop an understanding of how things work there, to public contributors joining a research project as part of the delivery team.
The less resource intensive options of workshops and meetings can also mobilise knowledge successfully. Knowledge brokers, working across organisations to mobilise knowledge, have been shown to be effective. This has recently been tried successfully with Health Ambassadors from underserved communities connecting with research teams.
Particularly in applied research, a lot of this type of work is done as good practice to ensure all voices are heard.
Many public contributors working with research teams may feel that they have been part of a knowledge mobilisation process for some time, or at least I would like to think so.
What knowledge mobilisation as an academic field can offer is a way to understand what is working, why it is working and how we can do it better. This understanding will help us strengthen what is called the ‘impact pathway’ in research projects. This is the route to societal benefit that all research studies should be following to justify their existence.
The UK government spent £17.4 billion in 2023 on research and development. This was an increase on the previous year of 8%.
Within health and social care, the traditional practice of researchers publishing papers and hoping someone will read them is now considered unacceptable. Likewise, adopting practices that are not evidence-based, which appear to involve communities and professions but don’t demonstrate a connection to societal change, will struggle to attract funding.
Although not perfect, the field of knowledge mobilisation focuses on understanding and applying processes that increase the likelihood of actionable research being used. We hope that it may demonstrate ways in which we can not only mobilise knowledge better but by doing so increase the value of research to society as a whole.