Understanding and Strengthening Knowledge Exchange and Mobilization in Social Work Academia

Background and Purpose
Knowledge exchange and mobilization (KxM) is a methodology and field of inquiry that aims to strengthen connections between research, policy, and practice (SSHRC, 2019). KxM involves more than dissemination; it is a relational process that enhances the capacity of those involved and the validity of co-produced knowledge. Despite growing interest, KxM remains conceptually diffuse, with varying terminology that obscures its identity as a distinct research orientation (Cooper & Levin, 2010). This study investigated how KxM is understood and enacted, and identified opportunities to enhance its application in social work.

Methods
This study is part of a broader interdisciplinary examination of KxM across four professional disciplines at a research-intensive university. An online mixed-methods survey was distributed to graduate students, faculty, and staff across social work, nursing, and education. This abstract presents findings from social work.
Twenty-three participants responded: nine faculty and 13 graduate students. Participants rated their understanding, competence, and perceived importance of KxM, and identified current activities, collaborators, and learning needs. Three open-ended questions explored how KxM informs their work, institutional support, and perceived barriers.
Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative content analysis (Schreier, 2012) was applied to open-ended responses.

Results
Sixty-seven percent of faculty reported involvement in community-based participatory research, collaborating primarily with non-profits (78%), followed by government and public groups (44%), healthcare (33%), and public/private sectors (11%). Graduate students followed similar trends.
Knowledge sharing with non-academics occurred mainly through traditional methods like presentations and workshops (78 - 89%), with 44% using more accessible strategies (e.g., social media, community materials, capacity-building). Forty-four percent engaged in KxM to influence policy or practice; 11% focused on implementation. Graduate students mirrored these patterns but were less involved in knowledge brokering (14% vs. 78% of faculty).
All participants rated KxM as highly important, with most reporting medium knowledge levels. Faculty were ambivalent about further learning; graduate students expressed strong interest. Graduate students identified varied barriers, most commonly lack of education (n=2), while faculty cited time (n=5) and lack of departmental support (n=3).

Conclusions and Implications
Faculty and graduate students value KxM, but competence varies and practices remain primarily dissemination-focused, with limited attention to implementation or impact planning. Engagement is lower with sectors that could drive larger-scale change, such as healthcare and public/private sectors. The alignment in faculty and student engagement patterns signals a need to disrupt the status quo of how KxM is modeled and taught. Structural barriers -such as time, limited academic recognition, disciplinary silos, and weak community connections - persist. Expanding scholarly impact criteria, recognizing the time needed for relationship-building, and embedding KxM capacity-building in social work education are critical to advancing community-engaged research with social justice impact.