Search

Organisations whose mission is to fund health research are increasingly concerned with ensuring that the research they fund is used productively. The resulting interest in the concept of “knowledge transfer” has involved introducing policies to prompt researchers to think about their role, not just as knowledge producers, but as translators of research findings. In New Zealand, researchers can be asked, in their application for funds, to provide an account of what will happen to their research results. They are then judged on the quality of that account. However, little is known about how effectively this type of policy influences researchers to do more to make connections with those who use their findings. Using the explanatory power of the realist evaluative approach, this thesis examines the implementation of new instructions by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC) for providing knowledge transfer pathways in research applications. A focus of the research is on how these instructions change (or do not change) the mind-set of researchers. Key informant interviews were held, and the scholarly and grey literature examined, to develop an initial theory on how researchers would be influenced by such instructions. Individual interviews were then held with researchers, seeking their reflections on what they had originally written in a specific knowledge transfer pathway and how this then matched up with what actually happened; these interviews were then used to refine the initial theory. Finally, an on-line survey was conducted with those who sat on the HRC’s research assessing committees in the 2014/15 funding round in order to refine the theory further. The final theory identified six mechanisms, which under different contexts, explain how the HRC’s knowledge transfer policy works (or does not work) to prompt researchers to reason differently. A continuum of reasoning in the form of a dimmer switch was used to explain circumstances where researchers may be

The principle focus of this study has been a reflection on my planning methodology since 1988. Teachers planning from 19882002 was predominantly individual and was aided by the gradual introduction of State and Commonwealth produced documents. These documents assisted in topic choices and assessment outcomes.Important influences transformed my planning. The first occurred in 1996 and the second in 2002. In 1996 I was involved in the production of a resource kit for teachers titled, Its Working Career and Work Education, Kindergarten to Year 8. During the compilation of this resource kit my planning incorporated the 1995, Teaching and Learning in Science Planning Guide, which resembled constructivism by building knowledge and understanding. In 2002 the curriculum in Tasmanian State Schools was transformed with the introduction of the Essential Learnings Framework 1 and 2. This curriculum innovation had implications on teachers planning methodology with a strong emphasis on collaborative planning.Studies and critiques of environmental units were undertaken in 2000, 2003 and 2004 to ascertain the effectiveness of my planning methodology. The underlying principles of constructivism provided a lens to improve perceived deficiencies in my classroom practice. The inclusion of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) assisted in making constructivism visible. A strong purpose therefore evolved from the study; a more effective planning methodology.