Enlarging the knowledge transfer realm through engagement with research stakeholders: a conversation attempt with action research

ABSTRACT

Many knowledge transfer studies analyze channels that carry knowledge from university to industry and society. Action research has become a method to produce and transfer scientific knowledge at the same time; however, knowledge transfer studies rarely employ action research, and action research has rarely addressed the topic of knowledge transfer. Hence, there have been few opportunities to reflect upon the boundaries between the object of knowledge transfer studies and the knowledge transfer embodied in action research. Here, we present a first theoretical attempt to fill this gap, clarifying the concepts at play and drawing lessons for knowledge transfer studies about the dimensions through which knowledge transfer occurs in the communicative space generated during action research. We also ground our reflections on the suitability of introducing action research in knowledge transfer studies by conducting interviews with some of the most influential researchers in the field. Action research is posited as a way to increase engagement with research stakeholders, as called for by current demands to achieve higher societal impact. Engagement is highlighted as a source of key concepts and improved interpretation of results in knowledge transfer studies.

RESUMO

Muitos estudos de transferência de conhecimento analisam os canais que transportam a produção de conhecimento entre a universidade, a indústria e a sociedade. Nos últimos tempos, a pesquisa-ação se converteu em um método para produzir e transferir conhecimento científico. No entanto, os estudos de transferência normalmente não contemplam como objeto de estudo os processos de pesquisa-ação e a pesquisa-ação tampouco aborda o tema da transferência de conhecimento. Diante dessa situação, têm sido poucas as oportunidades para refletir sobre os limites entre o objeto dos estudos de transferência de conhecimento e a transferência de conhecimento interno na pesquisa-ação. Neste trabalho apresentamos uma primeira aproximação que pretende completar este vazio. Por um lado, esclarecendo os conceitos em jogo e, por outro, extraindo lições para os futuros estudos de transferência de conhecimento e processos de pesquisa-ação. Também fundamentamos nossas reflexões sobre a introdução à pesquisa-ação nos estudos de transferência de conhecimento mediante a realização de entrevistas com alguns dos pesquisadores mais influentes no campo. A pesquisa-ação se posiciona como uma forma de aumentar o engajamento com as partes interessadas na pesquisa, atuando frente as demandas atuais para gerar um maior impacto social. Este engajamento se destaca como uma fonte de conceitos-chave e uma melhor interpretação dos resultados nos estudos de transferência de conhecimento.

RESUMEN

Muchos estudios de transferencia de conocimiento analizan canales que llevan el conocimiento de la universidad a la industria y la sociedad. La investigación-acción se ha convertido en un método para producir y transferir conocimiento científico al mismo tiempo; sin embargo, los estudios de transferencia de conocimiento rara vez emplean la investigación-acción, y la investigación-acción rara vez ha abordado el tema de la transferencia de conocimiento. Por lo tanto, ha habido pocas oportunidades para reflexionar sobre los límites entre el objeto de los estudios de transferencia de conocimiento y la transferencia de conocimiento incorporada en la investigación-acción. Aquí presentamos un primer intento teórico para llenar este vacío, aclarando los conceptos en juego y extrayendo lecciones para los estudios de transferencia de conocimiento sobre las dimensiones a través de las cuales ocurre la transferencia de conocimiento en el espacio comunicativo generado durante la investigación-acción. También fundamentamos nuestras reflexiones sobre la idoneidad de introducir la investigación-acción en los estudios de transferencia de conocimiento mediante la realización de entrevistas con algunos de los investigadores más influyentes en el campo. La investigación-acción se posiciona como una forma de aumentar el compromiso con las partes interesadas en la investigación, como lo exigen las demandas actuales para lograr un mayor impacto social. Este compromiso se destaca como una fuente de conceptos clave y una mejor interpretación de los resultados en los estudios de transferencia de conocimientos.

KEYWORDS:

• Knowledge transfer
• action research
• research stakeholders
• communicative space
• societal impact

PALAVRAS-CHAVE:

• Transferência de conhecimento
• pesquisa participante
• grupos de interesse de pesquisa
• espaço comunicativo
• Impacto social

PALABRAS CLAVE:

• Transferencia de conocimiento
• investigación participativa
• grupos de interés de la investigación
• espacio comunicativo
• impacto social

1. Introduction

In the last decade, there has been a growing demand for and interest in promoting the participation of a wide range of stakeholders in research and innovation. One relevant example is the responsible research and innovation (RRI) approach that was endorsed by the EU Framework Programme for R&D, Horizon 2020, and mainstreamed in the new EU programme Horizon Europe.¹ RRI includes among its main elements the public engagement of stakeholders, which is a way of making R&I more democratic and connected with societal challenges.² Moreover, numerous high-level policy documents – for instance, the Lamy Report (European Commission 2017, 20ff), in its references to the European “Open Science Agenda” – have emphasized the need for further democratization of knowledge (production), more participatory research and also social innovation (Invernizzi 2020; Gerber 2018). Other emerging science, technology and innovation policy framings emphasize the role of stakeholders within the science system, particularly those relating to society, citizenship, and cultural agents. For instance, the “productive interactions” approach argues that if learning occurs during the course of a relationship between academic researchers and other stakeholders, this affects the social impact of the research (Spaapen and Van Drooge 2011). Similarly, the literature on the “societal impact of research” claims that this impact is likely to be higher if stakeholders are involved in the generation and evaluation of results (Bornmann 2013; D’Este et al. 2018). The Quadruple Helix framework directly incorporates society or culture as the fourth actor in innovation – together with government, industry and university (Carayannis and Campbell 2009). The idea of “situated knowledge” recommends research agendas based on specific contexts and formulated by non-academic actors (Goñi Mazzitelli, Zeballos, and Bianco Bozzo 2021). These approaches openly reflect knowledge transfer as occurring in, and being the outcome of the interaction of a variety of stakeholders. However, the observational research paradigm used in most knowledge transfer studies does not “engage” with this variety of stakeholders but merely “observes” them. Engagement with stakeholders is the basis for novel forms of knowledge transfer and can improve narratives about the public value of research interactions (Azagra-Caro, González-Salmerón, and Marques 2021).

It is due to this new demand for a democratization of knowledge production that we seek to explore how knowledge transfer studies can benefit from the action research methodology – an approach that situates participants’ concerns and problems and their engagement at the center of the research process (Lewin 1946; Kemmis and McTaggart 2005; Bradbury 2015). The consideration of this dialogue between a research field and a methodological approach has the aim to reflect on their potential shared grounds for advanced mixed-methods research designs. To this end, our study consists of three steps.

First, we conceptualize knowledge transfer and action research, highlighting their differences and their overlaps. We focus on the large body of knowledge transfer studies that analyzes channels which carry knowledge from university to industry and society. However, these knowledge transfer studies rarely employ action research, and action research has rarely addressed the topic of knowledge transfer explicitly. Here, we reflect upon the boundaries between the object of knowledge transfer studies and the knowledge transfer element embodied in action research.

Second, we debate the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating action research in knowledge transfer studies, through interviews with some of the top experts in the field. Their visions suggest that although the adoption of action research by knowledge transfer studies would be complex, engagement with stakeholders could also be inspiring for researchers in the field, and they provide specific examples.

Third, we present a hypothetical example of a knowledge transfer study conducted by means of action research. It illustrates the theoretical overlaps between knowledge transfer and action research and how action research can contribute to research designs in the field of knowledge transfer. The focus is on the societal impact of research, a hot topic in knowledge transfer studies.

We conclude the study with some further reflections and a research agenda on the introduction of action research into knowledge transfer studies.

2. Back to basics

2.1. What is knowledge transfer?³

Much of the above discussion referred to university-industry or university-society knowledge transfer. However, the concept of knowledge transfer was originally applied in the analysis of the business sector. It refers to a situation in which if one organizational unit generates knowledge, and another unit within the company gets access and uses that knowledge, then knowledge transfer has taken place (Tsai 2001). Various definitions revolve around this notion; e.g. “knowledge transfer in organizations is the process through which one unit (e.g. group, department, or division) is affected by the experience of another” (Argote and Ingram 2000, 151). Knowledge transfer can also be external; i.e. between companies (Argote and Ingram 2000). Thus, the concept can also be applied to intersectoral relationships, covering the whole spectrum of actors of the innovation system (Wehn and Montalvo 2018), as well as particular sectors like universities and industry (Agrawal 2001). In the latter case, knowledge transfer is regarded as “the mechanisms by which university science moves to the economy” (op. cit.: 285). In this regard, the label “knowledge transfer” transcends academic use and has been applied in university management to name university-industry knowledge transfer offices (Pinto and Fernández-Esquinas 2018).

Although the aforementioned definition of knowledge transfer is very broad, initial studies about university-industry links implicitly restricted its use to the knowledge transfer of research results. This is evident in studies about the commercialization of these results via formal, more institutionalized transfer channels like university patent licensing or spin-off creation (Buenstorf and Geissler 2013). Later studies recalled the higher contribution of the public research system through informal transfer channels like contracts, projects or consultancy, which admit that knowledge exchange occurs in the process (Hayter, Rasmussen, and Rooksby 2020; Link, Siegel, and Bozeman 2007). Informal channels largely coincide with mechanisms for academic engagement, or knowledge-related collaboration by academic and non-academic agents (Perkmann et al. 2021). Acknowledging engagement with research stakeholders is closer to the original, broad definition of knowledge transfer.

2.2. What is action research?

Kurt Lewin is regarded as one of the pioneers of action research (Argyris et al. 1985) and the first person to use the term “action research” to refer to a specific research approach in which the researcher generates new social knowledge about a social system, while at the same time attempts to change it (Lewin 1946).

As O’Leary (2014, 168–170) indicates, action research has some key elements that differentiate it from other research traditions: (1) It is grounded in real problems and real-life situations and it seeks to understand these problems and implement solutions within the context. (2) It pursues action and knowledge, as enacting change is seen not as the end product of knowledge, but valued as a source of knowledge in itself. Nevertheless, knowledge production is understood as a disciplined process, ensuring credibility and rigor. (3) Action research calls for collaboration between researchers, practitioners, and any other interested stakeholders. Without key stakeholders as part of the research process, outsiders are limited in their ability to build rich and subtle understanding, or implement sustainable change. (4) Action research is understood as a cyclical process that takes shape as knowledge emerges and works through a series of continuous improvements in cycles that, generally, involve some variation in observation, reflection, planning and action.

According to Kemmis and McTaggart (2005), this cyclic process can be visualized as spirals with self-reflective cycles of actions. An example of this is given below:

• Plan a change

• Act and observe the process and consequences of change

• Reflect on the processes and consequences

• Replan

• Act and observe the changes

• Reflect again

See Figure 1 for a visual representation.

Figure 1. Cycles of reflection and action based on McNiff and Whitehead (2012).

Through these cycles of planning, action, and reflection, communicative spaces are created. “Communicative spaces” are understood here as “social arenas for constructive dialogue and creative problem-solving among stakeholders on issues of common concern” (Bodorkós and Pataki 2009, 314). Figure 2 represents the idea of the communicative spaces that are created through the cycles that take place during action research.

Figure 2. Communicative spaces that are created through cycles of reflection and action.

Another relevant characteristic of action research is its extended epistemology, including four kinds of knowledge that can be produced through the different interactions: (a) experiential knowledge is gained through direct face-to-face encounters with persons, places, or things; (b) practical knowledge means knowing “how to” do something, demonstrated in a skill or competence; (c) propositional knowledge is knowledge “about” something, expressed in statements and theories; and (d) presentational knowledge is the means by which we first order our tacit experiential knowledge of the world into spatiotemporal patterns of imagery, and then symbolize our sense of their meaning in movement, sound, color, shape, line, poetry, etc. The development of presentational knowledge is an important – and oft-neglected – bridge between experiential knowledge and propositional knowledge (Heron and Reason 2008).

2.3. The paradigms behind knowledge transfer studies and action research

The attachment to different scientific paradigms may explain the disconnection between knowledge transfer studies and action research. Knowledge transfer studies normally rely on positivism and postpositivism, whereas action research relies on a participatory paradigm. Table 1 summarizes the opposite characteristics of the items that define each set of concepts, adapted from Lincoln, Lynham, and Guba (2011). Of course, this is a simplification because we excluded critical theory, constructivism, and other paradigms that both knowledge transfer and action research may follow, and because the characteristics in the table may not appear so easily recognizable in practice. However, the table expresses the intuition that knowledge transfer studies and action research are different because they respond to distinctive views about how to legitimize contributions to their respective fields.

Table 1. Basic beliefs and paradigm positions on selected practical issues of alternative inquiry paradigms.

Item	Positivism and postpositivism	Participatory
Ontology	Realism – “real” reality but apprehendable, at least only imperfectly and probabilistically apprehendable	Participative reality – subjective objective reality, co-created by mind and given cosmos
Methodology	Experimental/manipulative; verification or falsification of hypotheses; chiefly quantitative methods, may include qualitative methods	Political participation in collaborative action inquiry; primacy of the practical; use of language grounded in shared experiential context
Knowledge accumulation	Accretion – “building blocks” adding to the “edifice of knowledge”; generalizations and cause-effect linkages	In communities of inquiry embedded in communities of practice
Goodness or quality criteria	Conventional benchmarks of “rigor”: internal and external validity, reliability, and objectivity	Congruence of experiential, presentational, propositional, and practical knowing; leads to action to transform the world in the service of human flourishing
Values	Excluded – influence denied,	Included – formative,
Inquirer position	“disinterested scientist” as informer of decision-makers, policy-makers, and agents of change	primary voice manifests through aware self-reflective action; secondary voices in illuminating theory, narrative, movement, song, dance, and other presentational forms
Training	Technical and quantitative; substantive theories	Co-researchers are initiated into the inquiry process by facilitator/researcher and learn through active engagement in the process; facilitator/researcher requires emotional competence, democratic personality and skills
Action	Not the responsibility of the researcher; viewed as “advocacy” or subjectivity, and therefore a threat to validity and objectivity	Intertwined with validity; inquiry often incomplete without action on the part of participants
Control	Resides solely in researcher	Shared to varying degrees

Source: adapted from Lincoln, Lynham, and Guba (2011).

In this sense, knowledge transfer studies usually operate under the idea that reality is beyond perception, but is at least understandable through theories, and that observable phenomena may provide empirical evidence to support them. The further the researcher remains, both emotionally and ethically, from the studied phenomena, then the greater the objectivity and rigour of the analysis, and hence the possibility of generalizing the findings. In contrast, action research considers that reality is socially constructed, so that the definition between researchers and other social agents of the questions and the answers builds useful theoretical and practical knowledge. The incorporation of emotional and ethical aspects accepts that results depend on the context and facilitate their interpretation. Some have called the positivist paradigm “inquiry from the outside” and the participatory paradigm “inquiry from the inside,” to emphasize their opposition (Brannick and Coghlan 2007; Evered and Louis 1981).

We have been careful to state that knowledge transfer studies usually or normally adhere to a positivist approach, but this is not necessarily the case. Theoretically, they still have room to understand and construct, and not only to explain and predict. The boundaries between the concept of knowledge transfer and the underlying paradigms behind knowledge transfer studies are therefore blurred. In practice, however, the most cited works in the field of knowledge transfer rarely include action research, such as those identified in some recent literature reviews: Skute et al. (2019, tables 1 and 2); Sjöö and Hellström (2019, table 1A); and Bastos, Sengik, and Tello-Gamarra (2021, table 4). These and other recent literature reviews do not include action research in their research agendas (e.g. Bozeman, Rimes, and Youtie 2015; Hmieleski and Powell 2018; Vick and Robertson 2018; Perkmann et al. 2021). One exception is Nsanzumuhire and Groot (2020), who argue for the appropriateness of action research for knowledge transfer studies in developing countries.

Table 2. Timeline of the action research initiative.

Month(s) and year phase
February 2024	1st meeting
February–April 2024	Action 1
April 2024	2nd meeting
April 2024–July 2024	Action 2
July 2024	3rd meeting
July 2024–October 2024	Action 3
October 2024	4th meeting
October 2024–November 2024	Action 4
November 2024	5th meeting
Action Research paused by decision of participants
February 2025	6th meeting
February 2025–March 2025	Action 5
March 2025	7th meeting

3. The usefulness and drawbacks of action research and increased engagement with research stakeholders for knowledge transfer studies

Between December 2019 and May 2021 (a big lapse due to the COVID-19 pandemic) we conducted three in-depth semi-structured interviews with North American and European experts in knowledge transfer studies to understand some of the benefits and drawbacks of the adoption of action research and increasing engagement with research stakeholders. They are some of the most influential authors in the field of knowledge transfer worldwide. One was selected from among the top senior pioneers of this scientific area (now also a highly visible editor of one of the leading journals), and the other two were authors of some of the most recently cited works in the topic, according to Skute et al. (2019, table 2). In the case of these two authors, the fact that their respective papers employed a variety of qualitative and quantitative methodologies was also taken into consideration, in order to enrich the heterogeneity of their perspectives. We offered anonymity to the authors to reduce social desirability bias. The interviews, around 45 minutes long, were recorded and transcribed, and were followed up with emails to resolve specific questions which arose from our reading of the transcripts.

The questionnaire included three blocks to fulfill our objective of exploring how knowledge transfer studies can benefit from action research methodology. The first one was aimed at producing a common understanding of action research, and at identifying the opinion of the interviewees and their previous experience regarding action research. We presumed they did not have any previous experience, because their scientific work had not used it, as far as we knew. Therefore, a second block of questions asked about involvement in softer modalities of engagement with research stakeholders, to recall advantages and disadvantages that we could potentially extrapolate to action research, or use to evaluate the convenience of these softer alternatives. Finally, a third block of questions compared some of our interviewees’ past work with their own and others’ current work (i.e. to see how the field had evolved), to trigger reflections on whether action research or engagement with research stakeholders would have been beneficial to accelerate the apparition of new findings. Gläser and Laudel (2015, 310) state that these kinds of triggers contribute to the informational yield from interviews. They demonstrate the efforts made by the interviewer and help to build trust; they contribute to creating a favorable atmosphere by confronting the interviewee with a new perspective on his or her work (i.e. the interviewer is not only asking for information but also is providing some); they prompt narratives about the content of research, and activate memories.⁴

3.1. Benefits and drawbacks of action research

The initial viewpoint is that the introduction of action research in knowledge transfer studies would answer some of the demands for the joint coproduction of knowledge between researchers and their stakeholders called for by public bodies and greater society (see Introduction). One advantage of action research for knowledge transfer studies is, as mentioned in Section 2.2 (Heron and Reason 2008), that it can go beyond propositional knowledge and introduce other types of knowledge:

It is the sort of secondary approaches that are not used very much in traditional applied research: metaphorical understanding, experiential understanding. Trying to bridge cognitive frames in ways that are explicit, symbolic. (Researcher 1)

There was some agreement that engagement with stakeholders would have identified new research questions, and would have accelerated the emergence of new ideas. For instance, most of the past work of our interviewees dealt with university interactions with industry, whereas their current work also includes interaction with other societal actors:

The issue of citizen participation, for example, would have appeared much earlier in the agendas, of those of us who did [knowledge transfer], if we had been more aware of this iteration of dialogue with the actors. (Researcher 2)

Despite its advantages, action research can only benefit knowledge transfer studies under certain circumstances. For instance, there must be some minimum starting conditions to expect action research to be fruitful, such as the topic and the trust, capacity and motivation of the participants.

[Success] depends on the topic: some topics are much more amenable than others […]. It depends on how much trust there is between and among the producers. And it also depends on very specific characteristics of the producers. For example, the human capital they bring to the project, the extent of which they think the project is salient and are motivated by it. And the extent to which they agree among themselves, not with the outside, or previously outside, researchers, but as a user, producer group […]. In some cases, people go away being more antagonistic than they were before. (Researcher 1)

In this sense, cognitive distance from non-academics may be important. When we asked one researcher why they started with more action research-like methods and abandoned them soon after, their answer was quite graphic:

It was a disaster. Many problems. Trying to involve practitioners is always difficult. We had to write to the companies, to call them … (Researcher 3)

This fragment reflects that conducting research with stakeholders is more time consuming than without them, and that the researchers’ social skills and conscientiousness become an asset (Azagra-Caro and Llopis 2018). Action research is, therefore, no silver bullet. Notwithstanding its potential usefulness in certain circumstances, individual resistance and institutional barriers may still hinder its acceptance. The individual challenge is to accommodate a new practice into scientific routines, especially from a different paradigm, as was argued in previous sections:

Every time you embrace another method or approach, then, there’s a startup cost. People have to learn how to do it […]. The primary thing that you would find problems with is the background in training of a lot of people who do knowledge transfer […]. You’d have a lot of upfront explaining to do and convincing because they would think that, well, that’s not real science. This is: “we move away, we develop our data, we gather propositions, we test them”, and that’s called, “that’s subjective, that’s not science” […]. Don’t even worry about it because it would take too long to convince them, too long to train them, too long to get them enthusiastic about it. But you could find some people who were interested and could be won over to doing research that way. (Researcher 1).

Some positivist and postpositivist researchers still question whether action research is scientific – partly for substantial reasons like the predominance of anecdotal evidence over literature review to build theory, the looseness of causal relationships and the limited quantitative measurement of impact (Tekin and Kotaman 2013; Kock, McQueen, and John 1997). However, under the participatory paradigm, what matters in order to legitimize science is the definition of relevance with non-academic actors, the enhanced explanatory power of theories that are able to problematize and deal with complexity, and the multi-level conception of impact – aspects in which action research overcomes positivist and postpositivist research (Tekin and Kotaman 2013; Kock, McQueen, and John 1997). The lesson is to be realistic and facilitate a smooth transition to practitioners ready to embrace action research of their own free will. However, there is still the conflict with the incentive system:

In many evaluation criteria, it is not prioritised “less and better” but “more and not so good” […]. If there was a pressure especially on quality, that interaction [with stakeholders] would have greatly benefited the quality of the final product. Instead of running to publish that article, run to try to refine what we are finding through our results together with the actors, who have provided us with the primary information. I think it would have improved the quality of the product. (Researcher 2)

3.2. Softer modalities of engagement with research stakeholders: motivations and benefits

When we asked our interviewees whether they had conducted activities similar to action research, they typically mentioned using free consultancy, interviews to ground theory or to design surveys. In the case of free consultancy, a kind of altruistic, outside-the-box thinking may also justify action research:

They’re social services, social workers […]. Let’s be perfectly honest. The main reason is they usually didn’t have any money. So they’re very open to working [with researchers]. Most of the pro bono work that I do is related to my social and political commitments […] [I just] haven’t been publishing mostly […]. I think a lot of people do publish it, but a lot of people don’t. A lot of people who are volunteers like me, who are researchers and do pro bono work […]. The idea behind a pro bono project is that it’s a good thing. We don’t care where it’s published. (Researcher 1)

The interviewee was not implying that some work for free was not intellectually challenging or publishable, but that these were not the main motivations. In fact, when PhD students were involved, publishing once more became an objective, in order to favor their careers. As in the previous section, the key is to align institutional incentives with societal and ideological demands.

Another set of motivations involves the ethical concerns of repaying stakeholders for their contributions. An expert in survey research reflects about typical feedback to participants:

I have the feeling that many times people who have answered the questionnaire [will think:] “F***, look at these … They have produced their article (5 years late). They never told me anything other than that regrettable report they have produced. They have never turned to us again at all” […]. It seems that I am abusing the trust they have placed in us when it comes to answering a questionnaire, which is time they offer you […]. We are losing the possibility of establishing a much stronger link with who has been the primary information provider. (Researcher 2)

These considerations are related to the impact of engagement with stakeholders on scientific ethics, but there may be concrete benefits in practice, for instance in survey research:

Some things are open to debate, to fine-tune a lot, for example, in the case of [a specific scientific field] it was, “How do you measure innovation in your field?”. I was carrying the innovation schemes that we have to use, but these guys said, “No, this is not like that … you need to take into consideration this type of aspect … ”. For that, it was phenomenal for us to interview the [practitioners], but for other aspects of the questionnaire, it was irrelevant. (Researcher 2).

These “other aspects” were validated psychometric scales, which researchers do not have much margin to change. Researcher 3 also agreed that interviews with the target population informed and improved his/her survey items, and reported wider benefits from interviews, even for purely academic research:

Interviews helped me clarify the research problem. […]. It was useful to get ideas from practitioners; they were more insightful. (Researcher 3)

More concretely, this researcher suggested that a meaningful concept in the field of knowledge transfer today arose through conversations with practitioners.

Finally, engagement is also useful to better understand the results, from an outsider’s view:

I wrote a report and organised a workshop with practitioners, for dissemination. Dissemination helped me to better interpret the meaning of research data – you have two views: the researcher and the practitioner. (Researcher 3)

4. A hypothetical example of a knowledge transfer study with action research (and with actual knowledge transfer)

A hypothetical process of action research to be carried out in City X in the near future, e.g. from February 2024 to March 2025, could serve to illustrate the various overlaps between action research and knowledge transfer. In this process, two science policymakers, two university researchers (not the authors of the resulting papers), two technology transfer officers, two company R&D managers and two representatives from non-governmental organizations would investigate collaboratively in order to answer these research questions: (1) What kind of research practices and experiences foster the contribution of academic researchers to societal impact and how can they be improved through collaborative spaces between different social agents? (2) How can we redefine (unpack, deconstruct, reflect) societal impact?

This action research would be accompanied by an external expert that would come from Country Y university, a local facilitator, and two note keepers who would help in different participatory periods. Specifically, the action research would be based on the Cooperative Inquiry methodology, defined as a “a way of working with other people who have similar concerns and interest to yourself, in order to: (1) understand your work, make sense of your life and develop new and creative ways of looking at things and (2) learn how to act to change things you may want to change and find out how to do things better” (Heron and Reason 2008, 142). In doing so, participants have an opportunity to develop their critical awareness of the theories and ideas they bring to action in the world, and the extent to which their behavior and experience are congruent with these theories. Thus, in the process of inquiry, both theory and practice are developed (Heron and Reason 2008).

Hypothetically, the action research would begin in February 2024 and continue until March 2025; during these thirteen months, five cycles of planning-action-reflection-planning would take place, as presented in Table 2.

This action research experience could be considered lengthy, but every action research is unique and depends on the availability, interest, and dynamics between participants. However, at the end of the process, there would be a common feeling that keeping the energy and commitment to the process going over thirteen months had been too demanding. In the next subsections we present three hypothetical scenarios in which action research can include or not knowledge transfer.

4.1. Action research without communicative spaces and cycles but with knowledge transfer

An example of this exchange (represented in Figure 3) would be the first explanation given by the Country Y expert and the local facilitator who would present a lecture on conceptual and methodological issues related with the societal impact of research. This would occur before defining and implementing the actions.

Figure 3. Action research without communicative spaces and cycles but with knowledge transfer.

4.2. Action research without knowledge transfer

An example of this relationship (illustrated in Figure 4) would occur when participants carry out actions individually. For instance, reflexive writing on their own needs from academic research and its links with societal impact, or reading texts and books on different visions of academic research and the societal impact of research.

Figure 4. Action research without knowledge transfer.

4.3. Action research with knowledge transfer

The majority of the activities performed during the action research would be considered action research with knowledge transfer (represented in Figure 5). Here, we would include all the exchanges and interactions produced between participants in the “reflexive” periods of the different cycles. In these periods, participants would come together to reflect on the previous action through reflexive writing and reading, as mentioned above. Furthermore, action research with knowledge transfer would be considered to occur in the actions with external actors: interviews conducted by the participants in which science policymakers, university researchers, technology transfer officers, company R&D managers and representatives from nongovernmental organizations would give their perspectives on the idea of societal impact of research; or conversations between participants and other research stakeholders. In these examples, both researchers and other actors would produce knowledge transfer.

Figure 5. Action research with knowledge transfer.

Due to all these interactions, this action research experience would produce different kinds of results, a group of which would be catalogued as “propositional knowledge”: for instance, an agreed redefinition of societal impact. Examples of experiential knowledge (gained through direct face-to-face encounters with persons, places, or things) would be insights about the importance of attitudes (open-minded, respectful, curious) as a part of an action research project, and about power dynamics that are always present in this kind of participatory process. With regard to practical knowledge, the action research would give the participants insights on how to deal with conflicts or with power imbalances during the process. Lastly, this action research would generate several examples of presentational knowledge. For example, maps representing networks of actors would be produced during the various encounters.

5. Conclusion

Policy and analytical framings of knowledge transfer studies increasingly call for more engagement with stakeholders in research. The democratization of science, participatory research, and social innovation become crucial elements for justifying research impact. All this legitimizes knowledge transfer as a field for even further inquiry. However, university-society knowledge transfer studies fail to take stock of this opportunity, due to lack of engagement. Action research is a promising way to overcome this limitation.

Action research involves the creation of a space in common for university and non-university actors, where they develop knowledge together, through bilateral knowledge transfer between them. Actually, our approach emphasizes that knowledge transfer during action research is mainly bilateral, rendering the term “transfer” inappropriate for its reductionism. “Knowledge exchange” could better depict the interactions at stake. This may be true of many other interactions, even without action research. In this paper, we have sought to examine the similarities and differences between knowledge transfer and action research, and establish conceptual categories to delineate their borders. We hope that in so doing we have clarified their deeper meaning and motivated the adoption of action research for advanced mixed-methods research designs in the field of knowledge transfer.

Our research opens the floor for discussion of other conceptual questions; e.g. is action research a knowledge transfer mechanism? In other words, should the typical study on knowledge transfer mechanisms list action research among joint research, R&D contracts, spinoff companies, patent licensing, etc.? We do not think so, because action research is transversal to many of those mechanisms. Nevertheless, a more precise conceptualization could follow. In addition, at the conceptual level, it would be worth enlarging the discussion to how the overlap between knowledge transfer and action research relates to approaches such as transdisciplinary research.

On an epistemological level, let us recall that the use of action research is mostly a natural consequence of researchers engaging in a participatory research paradigm. This might be why analysts of knowledge transfer, who predominantly follow other, more orthodox, paradigms, have not used action research. Going one step further, we could ask, “What if knowledge transfer studies embraced action research?” Researchers in the field would generate knowledge transfer at the same time as they reflected on it. This would increase coherence between the subject and the object of the study – an opportunity which does not exist in other fields, and which professionals could consider.

We hope that everything described above serves to illustrate the potentialities that the intersection between knowledge transfer and action research communities can produce, both theoretically and practically – this undoubtedly being a rich avenue for future developments. However, we do not advocate a sudden mass adoption of action research. To start with, the participatory paradigm and societal engagement have their own flaws in practice (Aceros and Domènech 2021; Albornoz and Pérez Ones 2020). The process should be voluntary and progressive. At the very least, the aim of this paper is to raise awareness of the usefulness of softer modalities of engagement with stakeholders for scholarly reasons, without the necessary contractual relations that condition the academic agenda. Engagement has helped important concepts in the field to flourish, providing a better interpretation of results and an improved survey item definition. Nevertheless, because adding action research and engagement in knowledge transfer studies on top of conventional methods, would require longer research periods, we make an appeal to ease the pressure to publish. This would contribute not only to the democratization of science but to the higher quality and ethical standards of research.

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to the anonymous interviewees for their cooperation, and to Matthias Geissler, Isabel Bodas-Freitas, and Nabil Amara for their revision of an earlier version of this paper. Thanks are due also to attendants of our sessions at the Third Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and Humanities (RESSH) Conference (2019) and the Technology Transfer Society (T2S) Conference (2018).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities (CSO2016-79045-C2-2-R Project of the Spanish National R&D&I Plan) and the AICO\2021\21 Project of the Valencian Government funded Joaquín M. Azagra Caro's contribution to the special section. Alejandra Boni’s contribution is part of the RDI project PID2019-107251RB-100 granted by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033.

Notes on contributors

Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro

Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro is a scientific researcher at INGENIO (CSIC-Polytechnic University of Valencia). He develops research in Science, Technology and Innovation studies. His topics are university-industry interactions, knowledge transfer, university patents, academic artists and science fiction.

Alejandra Boni

Alejandra Boni is Full Professor at the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, and deputy director of the INGENIO Research Institute (CSIC-UPV). She lectures in the Master's on Development Cooperation at UPV. Her research analyzes the relationships between human development, collective social innovation, and transformative learning. She has also a wide experience in the development aid ambit with links with public and non-governmental actors. She has more than 60 national and international publications and has been principal researcher in 19 projects and contracts. She is former Vice-president of the International Development Ethics Association and Extraordinary Professor of the University of the Free State, South Africa. She has been visiting researcher in African, American and European universities.

Notes

1 https://newhorrizon.eu/responsible-research-and-innovation-in-horizon-2020-and-horizon-europe/ [last accessed: 20/5/2022].

2 https://rri-tools.eu/public-engagement [last accessed: 20/5/2022].

3 For the sake of brevity, we skip here the delimitation of concepts related to knowledge transfer, such as knowledge spillovers/flows/diffusion/dissemination/exchange/interactions/collaboration/cooperation/sharing, access to the knowledge base, etc., and the distinction between technology and knowledge (Gopalakrishnan and Santoro [2004] offer an interesting angle on this distinction, which somehow anticipates the current important difference in the field between academic engagement and commercialization). However, regarding the quite extended concept of “spillovers,” it may be worth noting that throughout this article, the notion of knowledge transfer embedded in action research is more compatible with that of spillovers mediated by face-to-face contacts than with that of “pure” spillovers, where reading codified information is all that matters (Acosta, Azagra-Caro, and Coronado 2016).

4 We confronted the interviewees with relatively recent complex typologies of knowledge transfer channels and motivations (Orazbayeva et al. 2020; D’Este et al. 2019; Freitas and Verspagen 2017), the consideration of societal in addition to industrial impact (D’Este et al. 2018), and new hybrid identities in academia (Lam 2020; Azagra-Caro, Fernández-Mesa, and Robinson-García 2020; Noriega 2020).