IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i5p1561-d326384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the Impact of Knowledge Mobilization Strategies to Inform Urban Stakeholders on Accessibility: A Mixed-Methods study

Author

Listed:
  • Delphine Labbé

    (Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
    Rehabilitation Research Program, Vancouver, BC V5Z 2G9, Canada
    Current address: Disability and Human Development, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL 60608, USA.)

  • Atiya Mahmood

    (Department of Gerontology, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC V6B 5K3, Canada)

  • William C. Miller

    (Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
    Rehabilitation Research Program, Vancouver, BC V5Z 2G9, Canada
    ICORD Research Centre, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada)

  • W. Ben Mortenson

    (Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
    Rehabilitation Research Program, Vancouver, BC V5Z 2G9, Canada
    ICORD Research Centre, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada)

Abstract

Urban areas offer many opportunities for people with disabilities, but limited accessibility may prevent their full engagement in society. It has been recommended that the experience-based perspective of people with disabilities should be an integral part of the discussion on urban accessibility, complementing other stakeholder expertise to facilitate the design of more inclusive environments. The goals of this mixed-method study were to develop knowledge mobilization (KM) strategies to share experience-based findings on accessibility and evaluate their impact for various urban stakeholders. Using a participatory approach, various KM strategies were developed including videos, a photo exhibit and an interactive game. These strategies were evaluated based on various impact indicators such as reach, usefulness, partnerships and practice changes, using quantitative and qualitative methods. The findings suggested that the KM strategies were effective in raising the awareness of various urban stakeholders and providing information and guidance to urban planning practices related to accessibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Delphine Labbé & Atiya Mahmood & William C. Miller & W. Ben Mortenson, 2020. "Examining the Impact of Knowledge Mobilization Strategies to Inform Urban Stakeholders on Accessibility: A Mixed-Methods study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-16, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:5:p:1561-:d:326384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/5/1561/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/5/1561/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Janice Rieger & Megan Strickfaden, 2016. "Taken for Granted: Material Relations Between Disability and Codes/Guidelines," Societies, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, February.
    2. Laura Meagher & Catherine Lyall & Sandra Nutley, 2008. "Flows of knowledge, expertise and influence: a method for assessing policy and practice impacts from social science research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 163-173, September.
    3. Kothari, Anita & Wathen, C. Nadine, 2013. "A critical second look at integrated knowledge translation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 187-191.
    4. Helen Larkin & Danielle Hitch & Valerie Watchorn & Susan Ang, 2015. "Working with Policy and Regulatory Factors to Implement Universal Design in the Built Environment: The Australian Experience," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-15, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cole, Stroma & Wardana, Agung & Dharmiasih, Wiwik, 2021. "Making an impact on Bali's water crisis: Research to mobilize NGOs, the tourism industry and policy makers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. Rau, Henrike & Goggins, Gary & Fahy, Frances, 2018. "From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 266-276.
    3. Nicola Francesco Dotti & André Spithoven, 2017. "Spatial perspectives on knowledge brokers: Evidence from Brussels," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(10), pages 2203-2222, October.
    4. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    5. Nasreen S. Jessani & Akshara Valmeekanathan & Carly M. Babcock & Brenton Ling, 2020. "Academic incentives for enhancing faculty engagement with decision-makers—considerations and recommendations from one School of Public Health," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Dorian Aliu & Ayten Akatay & Armando Aliu & Umut Eroglu, 2017. "Public Policy Influences on Academia in the European Union," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(1), pages 21582440176, February.
    7. Stefan P. L. de Jong & Jorrit Smit & Leonie van Drooge, 2016. "Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: A policy paradox," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 102-114.
    8. Hawkins, Richard & Langford, Cooper H. & Saunders, Chad, 2015. "Assessing the practical application of social knowledge: A survey of six leading Canadian Universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 83-95.
    9. Stina Hansson & Merritt Polk, 2018. "Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 132-144.
    10. James A. Cunningham & Kristel Miller & Jose-Luis Perea-Vicente, 2024. "Academic entrepreneurship in the humanities and social sciences: a systematic literature review and research agenda," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1880-1913, October.
    11. Natasha A. Layton & Emily J. Steel, 2015. "“An Environment Built to Include Rather than Exclude Me”: Creating Inclusive Environments for Human Well-Being," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-17, September.
    12. Borst, Robert A.J. & Kok, Maarten Olivier & O’Shea, Alison J. & Pokhrel, Subhash & Jones, Teresa H. & Boaz, Annette, 2019. "Envisioning and shaping translation of knowledge into action: A comparative case-study of stakeholder engagement in the development of a European tobacco control tool," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(10), pages 917-923.
    13. Edwards, David M. & Meagher, Laura R., 2020. "A framework to evaluate the impacts of research on policy and practice: A forestry pilot study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    14. Pauline Zardo & Adrian G Barnett & Nicolas Suzor & Tim Cahill, 2018. "Does engagement predict research use? An analysis of The Conversation Annual Survey 2016," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, February.
    15. Brian W. Head, 2014. "Research and its policy relevance," Chapters, in: Robert Stimson (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Spatially Integrated Social Science, chapter 27, pages 603-616, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Rossi, Federica & Rosli, Ainurul & Yip, Nick, 2017. "Academic engagement as knowledge co-production and implications for impact: Evidence from Knowledge Transfer Partnerships," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1-9.
    17. Jorrit P Smit & Laurens K Hessels, 2021. "The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods [Systems Thinking, Knowledge and Action: Towards Better Models and Methods]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 323-335.
    18. Maëlle Corcuff & François Routhier & Stéphanie Gamache & David Fiset & Jean Leblond & Marie-Eve Lamontagne, 2022. "Implementation Determinants of Knowledge Mobilization within a Quebec Municipality to Improve Universal Accessibility," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-13, November.
    19. Kerstin Sell & Franziska Hommes & Florian Fischer & Laura Arnold, 2022. "Multi-, Inter-, and Transdisciplinarity within the Public Health Workforce: A Scoping Review to Assess Definitions and Applications of Concepts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-23, September.
    20. Gunnar Sivertsen & Ingeborg Meijer, 2020. "Normal versus extraordinary societal impact: how to understand, evaluate, and improve research activities in their relations to society?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 66-70.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:5:p:1561-:d:326384. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.