Below will be attached the assignment outlines. The topic is about athlete health wellness and nutriotion and we have a “pretend” community partner that is interested in learning more about the differences needed in diets, nutriotion and health and wellness overall compared to non athletes. I will also attach the 3 sholarly links below that we will use to refence. You can also create the interview questions and things like that.
https://koreascience.kr/article/JAKO200211921119471.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Razalee-Sedek/publication/271730035_Dietary_Habits_and_Nutrition_Knowledge_among_Athletes_and_Non-Athletes_in_National_University_of_Malaysia_UKM/links/5619322a08ae78721f9cfe7d/Dietary-Habits-and-Nutrition-Knowledge-among-Athletes-and-Non-Athletes-in-National-University-of-Malaysia-UKM.pdf
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/42152313/HealthPDF-libre.pdf?1454685349=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DComparisons_of_risky_health_behaviors_be.pdf&Expires=1711140883&Signature=ZDQQFYPd88mAx~o4VApnWByYInVf9kC9BJkvnazE9yYnTsP3hOkzPw-NctxIfYCVwVEZWtJbAL8~8Ys9AP24xXsBF06DRHLRXk0b2Ny1211KIpf1EmqHbU5ooFL7FrTZZ2XAnlf-NU3oWQ8HPQl2Ia0y2fbfrWjlLTj0VUaF44zs7~FRB0SQF3YU3IF1NK1uNZh-zj4oUB5fXlISYV3mcuicwxcApaFDKp0oMQRYUVqgy7jRGLnySGwZlbAmLGLyHxwLvZ9JUU6ZpxrYSJKzalYvolGE4p7mdVdzcgHiyVHI4coKUzridtp0jOK~nQBRFq03QuhMRvChDM8KYmW-bw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
Table of Contents for Major Project Outline
Table of Contents for Major Project Outline
1.0 Background: Why KM?
2.0 Overview of the KM Major Project
Part A. Role of Knowledge Mobilizer
1. Summary of the Research Knowledge
2. Interview with a “Pretend” Community Partner
3. Report on the KM Concepts Used to Bridge the Know-do gap
Part B. Role of Pretend Community Partner
3.0 Additional Major Project Requirements
1. Preamble to be Shared with Your “Pretend” Community Partner Prior to Interview
2. Semi-structured, Informal Interview Questions
4.0 Length and Formatting Requirements
1.0 Background: Why KM?
More and more, researchers are beginning to recognize that the information generated by research can and should be user-friendly, so it can benefit people in the community.
For the past two decades, there has been a growing trend toward using knowledge translation and knowledge mobilization (KM) to assist various communities of individuals.
Revealed is that, typically, there is a “know-do” gap between what researchers know about various topics and what information those in the community need to know to make life better for community members.
In the field of KM, it has become very apparent that it is information from both researchers and the community that are both valuable and can be shared to gain the best outcomes.
2.0 Overview of the KM Major Project
In this project, students will come to understand the knowledge mobilization process better by taking on each of two roles, including the following:
a) the role of a knowledge mobilizer (on a KM team) and
b) the role of a “pretend community partner” (alone, or with other students)
Part A. Role of Knowledge Mobilizer
Students will have several tasks in the role as knowledge mobilizer. Students will be required to become a partner on a KM team and, together, produce the following:
a) a summary page of the research knowledge on a specific topic of interest to your community partner(s) (worth 15 percent)
b) a report on what KM/KT techniques which you, as knowledge mobilizers, used to share information with your community partner(s) (worth 25 percent)
c) a copy of the interview notes used during the sharing of the information (worth 10 percent)
These tasks, together, are worth 50 percent of a student’s grade and are outlined in these next 3 sections.
1. Summary of the Research Knowledge
The purpose of preparing a summary of research knowledge on any given topic is to share that knowledge among various stakeholders. Various stakeholders include community partners (a pretend community partner, in this case), professionals, decision makers, and knowledge mobilizers (you as a student).
Using the issue/topic area that your community partner(s) selected, your KM team will be required to review three scientific articles on that issue/topic (e.g., housing, physical health, mental health, family networks, water resources, Aboriginal issues, religion, etcetera).
Then, your KM team will be required to develop one integrated summary.
This summary will be prepared by applying underlying KM principles, e.g., knowledge translation, collaboration, and knowledge mobilization.
The actual summary is to be about a page in length and easily understood in the pretend community partner(s)’ lay terminology, but it must contain the key information from the articles about which the interviewee wants or needs to know. Language choices will be important to the topic area and also to the community partner’s ability to participate.
In order to be able to prepare the summary, knowledge mobilizers will require a pre-meeting conversation with their “pretend” community partner to find out what topic the partner would like to know about, and perhaps to gather a bit of background on the partner, e.g., what education level he or she may have and/or what is her or his culture.
The summary could also be presented as a flow diagram or in some other format that is useful for conveying information to/with community partners.
Preparation of the summary will mean the following:
· In the role of knowledge mobilizer(s), KM teams will carry out the following tasks:
· understand and explore a topic that interests the “pretend” community partner interviewee
· understand and actually use KM concepts by drawing such concepts from any the following:
a) Bennett and Jessani and Pablo Mendez on bridging the know-do gap
b) the map associated with successful knowledge translation and mobilization, as per Graham et al’s article
c) Lavis’ 5 questions
d) the 5 concepts that guide the Indigenous model of KM
e) Gagliardi’s notion of IKT to truly integrate community partners in the KM process
f) barriers and facilitators that can help or hinder the knowledge translation/mobilization processes
g) Raheim’s perspective on sharing knowledge, as researchers, with the researched, and
h) Jansen and McWilliams work on sharing knowledge with family members when a member is incontinent.
This paper can be done so that students work in pairs.
2. Interview with a “Pretend” Community Partner
To gain insight about a certain topic that is expected to benefit a certain community, KM teams are asked to conduct a collaborative interview with their “pretend” community partners:
a) who have a topic of interest to be researched and
b) whose topic relies on a literature search (to a maximum of 3 articles) in the UPEI library system.
The information about, and/or from, the “pretend” community partners will and should help guide the knowledge translation and mobilization processes.
For this interview, KM team interviewers will take notes, rather than carry out a recording of the interview. All interview notes need to be submitted along with the Report, as an addendum.
The questions that can guide the interview are attached in Section 3.0 – B (below).
3. Report on the KM Concepts Used to Bridge the Know-do gap
Each KM team is required to hand in a Report on the KM concepts and strategies used to bridge the know-do gap.
This report must identify how student teams were able to bridge the “Know-do gap,” which heavily integrates concepts of KM/KT, including strategies to engage the community partner, the topic area being summarized, and any info or insights learned during the collaborative interview process.
Elaborating on the discussion about Bridging the know-do gap
The discussion outlined in the Report should accomplish 2 goals:
1. focus on how and why students used KM concepts from the following, as needed:
i. any of Bennett and Jessani and/or Pablo-Mendez on bridging the know-do gap
ii. any parts of the map associated with successful knowledge translation and mobilization, as per Graham et al’s article
iii. Lavis’ 5 questions
iv. Any of the 5 concepts that guide the Indigenous model of KM
v. Gagliardi’s notion of IKT to truly integrate community partners in the KM process
vi. Any barriers and facilitators that can help or hinder the knowledge translation/mobilization processes
vii. Any of Raheim et al’s insights or claims on sharing knowledge, as researchers, with the researched
viii. Any of Jansen and McWilliams many parts of the social processes on sharing knowledge with family members, when a member is in need
2. The discussion should also include a brief description on the following:
i. difference between the academic information on the topic researched by the student KM team and the summary prepared for the “pretend” community partner(s)
ii. whether or not and how the summary helped during the interview and
iii. how your KM team members, as knowledge mobilizers, came to understand the perspective of their “pretend” community partners and
iv. what actions are being intended with the knowledge being shared.
Part B. Role of Pretend Community Partner
In the role of a pretend community partner, students are expected to carry out the following activities: (worth 5 percent)
a) choose a topic to be researched in the UPEI library system
b) share your chosen topic/issue with KM team members
c) make themselves available to be interviewed by a knowledge mobilizer team of students
d) provide some guidance on what the topic would be used for in the community so as to benefit the community in some way
3.0 Additional Major Project Requirements
1. Preamble to be Shared with Your “Pretend” Community Partner Prior to Interview
We are carrying out a project known as a knowledge mobilization process, where knowledge from the research world is shared with community members and knowledge from community members on the same topic is shared with researchers. The process is expected to be collaborative and so, as our community partner, please know that your knowledge input has equal value and is considered to be an important contribution to the overall process.
2. Semi-structured, Informal Interview Questions
Introduce the KM team members and community partners
Share the summary page on the chosen topic area, going through this exercise at a pace that is comfortable for the community partners.
Questions:
Students can use the following types of questions for their informal (informal means there is no set ordering to the questions, and the questions are set up to guide the conversation) interviews with their “pretend” community partners:
1. Can you please share with us some of your own knowledge about the topic you wished to have researched?
2. Now, that we have shared knowledge on your topic of interest to your community, what do you believe can be done to make research on your topic more accessible to people who could use it?
[Interview Probe: websites, pamphlets, fact sheets, Youtube videos, etc]
3. How will the knowledge we have shared among ourselves today be used in the community?
4. Do you believe this knowledge will be beneficial to others in your community?
5. How will the knowledge be beneficial to you or to others?
6. How might you use the knowledge we are sharing here, today, in your day-to-day life?
4.0 Length and Formatting Requirements
Several additional requirements are as follows:
The length of the Report part of the paper (Bridging the Know-do-gap) should be about 6 – 8 pages, double-spaced.
The summary should be placed at the beginning of the Report, as all revolves around that summary.
The interview notes should be attached to the end of the Report.
Concepts used from the course should include a text reference and year to the authors of the concept employed. Thus, discussing Gagliardi et al’s concept of integration requires that students place (Gagliardi et al 2016) in the text. The references do not need to be included in the bibliography.
NO concepts are to be directly quoted. Concepts should be in students’ own words.
The bibliography should include the three articles referenced for the topic search.
