168
M. Pütz and R. Brassel
9.2 Conceptualising “Knowledge Transfer”
and “Knowledge Exchange”
The scholarly debate on knowledge exchange in science/policy interaction has
been unfolding for quite some time. According to Fazey et al. (2013: 20), knowledge exchange is “a process of generating, sharing, and/or using knowledge
through various methods appropriate to the context, purpose, and participants
involved.” Accordingly, this definition implies two basic understandings of knowledge exchange: (a) knowledge exchange in a wider sense, as an overarching concept
encompassing a variety of subjacent concepts (e.g. knowledge transfer, the coproduction of knowledge); (b) knowledge exchange as a specific concept, incorporating “a two- or multiple-path process with reciprocity and mutual benefits, maybe
with multiple learning, but not necessarily recognition of the equitable value of the
different forms of knowledge being exchanged” (Fazey et al. 2013: 20).
In line with these basic understandings by Fazey et al. (2013), other scholars
provide similar overviews of knowledge exchange theories and concepts. Nutley et al.
(2014) distinguished rational-linear models, context-focused models, interactive
models and post-modern models of practice-policy interaction. Stewart et al. (2014)
differentiated among “knowledge transfer”, “knowledge exchange” and “knowledge
interaction”. They regarded “knowledge transfer” to be linear models of knowledge
uptake, dominating between the 1960 and 1990s, which required the effective packaging and communication of knowledge. The concept of “knowledge exchange”,
which emerged in the 1990s, was seen as the result of social and political processes,
and required effective relationships. Finally, “knowledge interaction”, which has
emerged in more recent years, has been regarded as embedded in systems and
cultures, and which requires effective integration within organisations. Kamelarczyk and Gamborg (2014) distinguished between knowledge transfer models and
knowledge interaction models: for them, knowledge transfer was characterised as
a linear and one-way model, clearly separating the worlds of science and policymaking, and working under the assumption that knowledge was produced as a clearly
defined, ready-to-use product. In contrast, knowledge transaction sees science and
policymaking as an undivided whole, and characterised by blurry boundaries. Here,
knowledge is coproduced in cycles. Kamelarczyk’s and Gamborg’s (2014) concept
of knowledge transaction thus corresponds to the concepts of knowledge exchange
and knowledge interaction proposed by Stewart et al. (2014).
A review of the literature on knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange in
science/policy or science/practice interaction reveals that many scholars agree on
these two basic concepts of “knowledge transfer” and “knowledge exchange” (Fazey
et al. 2014). Firstly, there is a consensus that concepts of knowledge transfer that have
emerged since the 1950s (e.g. Lasswell 1956) have understood transfer as a linear,
one-way or unidirectional activity of knowledge production, from science to policy
or practice (see Stone 2001; Pregering 2004; Birkland 2005; Böcher and Krott 2014;
Kamelarczyk and Gamborg 2014; Stewart et al. 2014; Linke et al. 2014). Second,
there is also a consensus that knowledge transfer may be complemented or substituted
M. Pütz and R. Brassel
9.2 Conceptualising “Knowledge Transfer”
and “Knowledge Exchange”
The scholarly debate on knowledge exchange in science/policy interaction has
been unfolding for quite some time. According to Fazey et al. (2013: 20), knowledge exchange is “a process of generating, sharing, and/or using knowledge
through various methods appropriate to the context, purpose, and participants
involved.” Accordingly, this definition implies two basic understandings of knowledge exchange: (a) knowledge exchange in a wider sense, as an overarching concept
encompassing a variety of subjacent concepts (e.g. knowledge transfer, the coproduction of knowledge); (b) knowledge exchange as a specific concept, incorporating “a two- or multiple-path process with reciprocity and mutual benefits, maybe
with multiple learning, but not necessarily recognition of the equitable value of the
different forms of knowledge being exchanged” (Fazey et al. 2013: 20).
In line with these basic understandings by Fazey et al. (2013), other scholars
provide similar overviews of knowledge exchange theories and concepts. Nutley et al.
(2014) distinguished rational-linear models, context-focused models, interactive
models and post-modern models of practice-policy interaction. Stewart et al. (2014)
differentiated among “knowledge transfer”, “knowledge exchange” and “knowledge
interaction”. They regarded “knowledge transfer” to be linear models of knowledge
uptake, dominating between the 1960 and 1990s, which required the effective packaging and communication of knowledge. The concept of “knowledge exchange”,
which emerged in the 1990s, was seen as the result of social and political processes,
and required effective relationships. Finally, “knowledge interaction”, which has
emerged in more recent years, has been regarded as embedded in systems and
cultures, and which requires effective integration within organisations. Kamelarczyk and Gamborg (2014) distinguished between knowledge transfer models and
knowledge interaction models: for them, knowledge transfer was characterised as
a linear and one-way model, clearly separating the worlds of science and policymaking, and working under the assumption that knowledge was produced as a clearly
defined, ready-to-use product. In contrast, knowledge transaction sees science and
policymaking as an undivided whole, and characterised by blurry boundaries. Here,
knowledge is coproduced in cycles. Kamelarczyk’s and Gamborg’s (2014) concept
of knowledge transaction thus corresponds to the concepts of knowledge exchange
and knowledge interaction proposed by Stewart et al. (2014).
A review of the literature on knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange in
science/policy or science/practice interaction reveals that many scholars agree on
these two basic concepts of “knowledge transfer” and “knowledge exchange” (Fazey
et al. 2014). Firstly, there is a consensus that concepts of knowledge transfer that have
emerged since the 1950s (e.g. Lasswell 1956) have understood transfer as a linear,
one-way or unidirectional activity of knowledge production, from science to policy
or practice (see Stone 2001; Pregering 2004; Birkland 2005; Böcher and Krott 2014;
Kamelarczyk and Gamborg 2014; Stewart et al. 2014; Linke et al. 2014). Second,
there is also a consensus that knowledge transfer may be complemented or substituted