Well defined by the Canadians¹, Knowledge Translation (KT) is practiced everywhere in the world, or should be practiced everywhere in the world. There should be words in every language in the world to describe KT. The French speaking Canadians propose a French Translation. How do you talk about KT in your native language?

In French, two words; ‘connaissance’ and ‘savoir’ are used to describe knowledge. However, we know that when we talk about KT, we refer to the scientific knowledge produced by research, also called evidence or research findings. This is not the most difficult part of the concept to translate. The most difficult part has to do with the second word: ‘translation’. Two French words including ‘application’ and ‘transfert’ have been used as English equivalents for translation of the KT concept. A third one has also been considered: ‘translation’.

‘Application’

The word chosen by the French Canadians to describe translation is ‘application’. When back translated  into English, ‘application’ refers to  “the action of applying something onto a surface, with the aim of sticking the thing onto the surface²”. This however is very far from what the KT concept means. During KT, one never forces anybody to adhere to new scientific knowledge. Behind the French meaning of ‘application’ notion also lies the  top-down down movement (from researchers’ world to the policymakers) which is not appropriate².

‘Transfer or ‘translation’?

‘Transfer’ is the other French word used to mean translation. However, this word also gives a wrong idea of what  KT³is. In English, transfer means “to move something or somebody from one place to another”. There are 2 limitations to the use of transfer. First KT is not only moving knowledge from the researchers’ world to the policy world. Second, at least in French it indicates a relationship with one direction only.

It may be very tempting to use another French word: ‘Translation’. In the mathematical jargon, this word describes a 2 direction linear relation.  Whereas ‘translation’ and ‘transfert’ refer to a linear relation, neither word seems adequate. Above all KT is non-linear and requires multiple pluri-direction relations⁴!  

Rather than use these words some prefer exchange which does not imply a linear relationship between two partners, but opens towards a multi-actor and interactive process.

K* for ‘Connaissance-étoile’

It is quite impossible to list all terms employed to describe KT actions. These terms generally cover overlapping complementary notions²  including; “knowledge sharing, knowledge management⁵, knowledge use, knowledge appropriation. Although without much success, some authors have proposed the use of the generic word K*(K star), to cover all these declinations.

However, once this word is translated into French, it loses its meaning and its attractiveness: ‘knowledge-star’ does not mean anything in French. Several authors have underlined this lack of standardization as a barrier to systematically reviewing KT literature.

Despite much criticism⁴, translation remains the main word used and is sometimes associated with exchange, to make KTE. In this blog, with the objective of promoting standardization, we have however chosen to use the Canadian French translation ‘application des connaissances’.

In your respective languages: Portuguese, Amharic, Bantou, Chinese, Arabic, Woloff, Hindi, etc. how do you translate KT? How do you communicate about it? Which words do you use and why? We would very much like to hear from you about this important topic.

1.  Canadian Institutes of Health Research - CIHR. (2003). at <http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/193.html>
2. Application. Larousse, dictionnaire de français at <http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/application/4707?q=applica...
3. Davies, H., Nutley, S. & Walter, I. Why ‘knowledge transfer’ is misconceived for applied social research. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 13, 188–190 (2008).
4. Greenhalgh, T. & Wieringa, S. Is it time to drop the ‘knowledge translation’ metaphor? A critical literature review. J. R. Soc. Med. 104, 501–509 (2011).
5. Kingston, J. Choosing a Knowledge Dissemination Approach. Knowl. Process Manag. 19, 160–170 (2012).