ARCHIVED – Summative Evaluation of the Metropolis Project Phase II: Knowledge Transfer Activities and Impacts

1. Introduction

This report presents the findings and conclusions of the evaluation of the knowledge transfer activities in place during Metropolis Phase II (2002-03 to 2006-07) and their impacts.

The report is divided into five sections: (1) background information on Metropolis and context of the evaluation, (2) evaluation methodology, (3) knowledge transfer and knowledge system conceptual framework, (4) evaluation findings and (5) conclusions.

1.1 Background

The Metropolis Project (Metropolis) was established in 1995/96 as a joint initiative of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). Its purpose was to support research and public policy development on population migration, cultural diversity and the challenges of immigrant integration in cities in Canada and around the world. Funded by SSHRC and a consortium of federal departments and agencies, the Canadian Metropolis project consists of five regionally distributed Centres of Excellence each of which is a partnership between all levels of government, academic researchers and community organizations. The first four Centres listed below were established at the start of Phase I (1995). The Atlantic Centre was established in January 2004 during Phase II.

  • Montreal Centre for Research on Immigration, Integration and Urban Dynamics (IM);
  • Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS);
  • Prairie Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Integration (PCERII);
  • Vancouver Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM); and
  • Atlantic Metropolis Centre (AMC).

All five Centres work closely with government and community partners, supporting research and knowledge transfer activities in the thematic domains identified for the overall program: economic, social, educational, health, citizenship, public/political participation, and justice. The Centres involve over 20 universities and several hundred affiliated researchers, graduate students and post-doctoral fellows.

The activities of the Metropolis Project are coordinated by the Metropolis Secretariat that is funded by CIC as part of its contribution to the joint initiative.

The Metropolis Project also has an international component that is not funded directly by Canada but that does involve many of the researchers, government departments and organizations that participate in the Canadian Metropolis Project. The Metropolis International Steering Committee coordinates the research activities of the international Metropolis Project.

1.1.1 Program objectives

According to the Metropolis Result-Based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF), the program’s goal is to improve policies for managing migration and diversity in major cities, by:

  • Enhancing academic research capacity on migration and diversity
  • Focusing academic research on critical policy questions, options and program delivery mechanisms
  • Developing effective ways to use research in decision-making. [ Note 2 ]

1.1.2 Governance

At the federal level, the Interdepartmental Committee (IDC), provides overall strategic direction. It is composed of the federal funding partners. The Metropolis Secretariat, located in CIC, provides ongoing coordination and program promotion.

The Metropolis Secretariat provides secretarial functions and leadership to the International Steering Committee and coordinates the activities of the international project.

The Metropolis project is funded by SSHRC and a consortium of federal departments and agencies [ Note 3 ].

Each Metropolis Centre also has a governance structure. Although their mandates and composition vary across the Centres, each governance structure is composed of representatives of stakeholder groups, including federal and provincial government departments, municipal governments, and non-governmental organisations (NGO) involved in immigration and settlement issues in each region.

The overall accountability structure of the program during Phase II is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Metropolis Project Accountability StructureNote 4 ]

The overall accountability structure of the program during Phase II

1.1.3 Budget

The total budget for Metropolis, excluding the Secretariat, was $7,911,062 between 2002-03 and 2006-07. Table 1 provides a detailed breakdown of the budgeted amounts committed to the Metropolis Centres during Phase II.

Table 1: Metropolis Phase II Budget

Phase II – Metropolis funding to the five centres
Departments / Agencies 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 TOTAL
Multi-year MOUs
SSHRC 550,000 680,000 625,875 625,875 625,875 3,107,625
CIC 455,000 483,437 568,750 568,750 568,750 2,644,687
PCH 150,000 159,375 187,500 187,500 187,500 871,875
Solicitor General 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000
Status of Women 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 150,000
RCMP 15,000 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 45,000
ACOA   9,375 37,500 37,500 37,500 121,875
CMHC 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 375,000
HRDC/HRSDC  85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 425,000
One-year Contributors
PWGSC 60,000         60,000
Justice 15,000 15,000       30,000
PSC 15,000 15,000       30,000
TOTAL GRANT 1,385,000 1,569,687 1,627,125 1,627,125 1,627,125 7,911,062

1.2 Context

Metropolis was reviewed three times during 2006 including a mid-term review conducted by SSHRC, a CIC internal review, and a SSHRC evaluation of the Joint Initiatives Program Mechanism, for which Metropolis was a case study. The current evaluation is jointly sponsored by CIC and SSHRC. Its focus is federal research users perceptions of, and satisfaction with, Metropolis’ Knowledge Transfer (KT) products, activities and outcomes, during Phase II.

In the public policy context, KT consists of efforts to ensure relevant research knowledge is available to, and used by, policy makers and service providers [ Note 5 ]. The goal is to improve policy and programs. KT has two main dimensions. The first is making existing research knowledge available to the right decision-makers, at the right time, and in the right form. Often this is termed knowledge or research dissemination. The second dimension of KT involves collaboration between knowledge producers (researchers) and knowledge users (policy makers and service providers) throughout the research process. This often is termed the co-production of knowledge. A review of the KT and public policy literature shows that both knowledge transfer and its utilization are improved when researchers and research users collaborate during all phases of the research process, including priority setting, research design, data collection, analysis and application of research results [ Note 6 ].

Knowledge brokers increasingly are used to facilitate both the dissemination of already existing research knowledge and the establishment and maintenance of collaborative relationships between researchers and research users [ Note 7 ]. Brokering effective and sustainable collaborations between researchers and research users is challenging for a number of reasons, including the fact that it requires research organizations (e.g., universities) and research user organizations (e.g., government departments and agencies) to recognize, value and support financially and administratively KT activities. Within both universities and government this is done unevenly.

KT is one of the key objectives of Metropolis. The current evaluation, however, is the first to assess its KT processes and products. Its objective is to assess the extent to which Metropolis has been successful in transferring research knowledge to federal government policy-makers. While it is recognized that the Metropolis Centres have other partners in addition to federal government organizations, such as provincial and municipal governments and non-governmental organizations, this evaluation concentrated on knowledge transfer to the Metropolis federal funding partners; and specifically the five largest contributors (i.e. department/organization that contributed at least $75,000/year to Metropolis during Phase II), which were CIC, SSHRC, Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC), Canadian Heritage (PCH), and the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).

The Metropolis Centres, of course, have other valuable and essential partners including provincial and municipal governments and non-governmental organizations but they are not part of the evaluation. Also, the International Metropolis Project is not included because it does not receive core funding from the federal partners. The Atlantic Metropolis Centre of Excellence, established in 2004, also was not included because it was not fully functioning throughout the whole of the study period.

Although the study is a retrospective evaluation of Metropolis KT products and processes during Phase II (2002-03 to 2006-07), the findings also are intended to provide some initial observations and insights into this activity for Phase III.

The Metropolis Evaluation Advisory Committee, whose membership included representatives from SSHRC, CIC, PCH, HRSDC and CMHC (all of which contributed at least $75,000 per year to Metropolis during Phase II), provided oversight for the study. This oversight Committee reviewed the work plan and data collection tools for the evaluation, and participated in the oral presentation of the preliminary findings. Members of the Committee also liaised with their departments, ensuring departmental interests and concerns were being addressed. Committee members supported the data collection activities by identifying appropriate documentation and interviewees from their respective organizations. In addition, an evaluation expert was included on the Evaluation Advisory Committee to provide evaluation expertise and guidance.

An evaluation team including representatives from the CIC and the SSHRC evaluation divisions was established to manage the study. The evaluation team approved the detailed methodology and throughout the evaluation reviewed the work of the consultants. An external academic representative was included on the team, as an expert in knowledge transfer. This expert provided advice and guidance regarding knowledge transfer mechanisms, and reviewed the project methodology and research tools, as well as participated in some of the case studies.

Data collection took place between January and August 2008. Evaluation team representatives participated in most of the data collection activities.

The balance of this report consists of four main sections. Section 2 describes the methods used. Section 3 consists of a brief outline of the conceptual framework used to organize the study. Section 4 presents the findings. Section 5 summarizes the conclusions.

___________

2. Results-Based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF),
Version 4: July 26, 2005, SSHRC, p. 4.

3. More details on the funding is provided in section 1.1.3.

4. Results-Based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF), Version 4: July 26, 2005, SSHRC, p. 5.

5. There are a variety of related concepts currently in use as synonyms or alternatives to knowledge transfer. For a brief discussion of this ‘terminological tangle’ see H. D. Dickinson (with P. Graham), 2009. Knowledge Transfer & Public Policy: A Literature Review and Synthesis. Paper prepared for CIC.

6. H. D. Dickinson (with P. Graham), 2009. Knowledge Transfer & Public Policy: A Literature Review and Synthesis. Paper prepared for CIC.

7. R. G. Havelock, 1986. “Linkage: Key to Understanding the Knowledge System.” In Knowledge Generation, Exchange and Utilization, edited by G.M. Beal, W. Dissanayake and S. Konoshima, 211-43. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.; H. D. Dickinson with P. Graham, 2009.

For definitions of knowledge broker functions and roles, see appendix E.

Page details

Date modified: