What do the acronyms TEDx, ASD and iKT have in common?

Source: What do the acronyms TEDx, ASD and iKT have in common?

This week’s guest post comes from the ASD Mental Health site, Dr. Jonathan Weiss’ Blog. It was first published on April 13, 2016 and is reposted here with permission. 

by Drs. Jonathan Lai & Jonathan Weiss

On Saturday May 28^th, the Chair in ASD Treatment and Care Research^[1] will be hosting Spectrum, a TEDxYorkUSalon focussing on concerns relevant to transition-age youth and to adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

When the Chair was first launched, we asked stakeholders (e.g. people with ASD, clinicians, family members, policymakers, and researchers) how they wanted to be engaged with, both in terms of what we’re doing, and what was going on in the Canadian field of autism research. The message was clear: we need more than one approach, for multiple types of audiences, including those we already knew as well as those in the autism community we had not yet reached. So how best to develop a dynamic, accessible, and efficient way of exchanging knowledge about autism across so many different perspectives? This is where TEDx comes in.

Our upcoming event is part of our strategy of innovative knowledge mobilization and stakeholder engagement. Since knowledge translation is a learning process among stakeholders with different perspectives and expertise, we have involved people with ASD, parents, researchers, educators, policy makers, and service providers as presenters. The presenters will give short 8-minute talks which will be placed online following the event and made freely accessible to the public.

The well-known and appreciated TED format is all about developing, refining, and sharing ideas in an entertaining way, both for those present in the physical audience, as well as those in a virtual audience who can access the talks worldwide. It’s a format, and a brand, that has tremendous recognition and a demonstrated ability to break down complex knowledge into a format that can appeal to a wide range of audiences: it’s open to everyone. Since our goal is share the knowledge that’s been generated in the Canadian autism community openly, we are creating broadly appealing content that will be available through the TEDx in-person and online platforms. We believe it will be an effective method to bring multiple perspectives together and listen to one another.

How can you plan your own TEDx event?

A TEDx event is not an easy thing to coordinate or one that can be developed in only a few months time. You will need dedicated personnel; we have one person (JL) who is dedicated to coordinating all aspects of the day over a 12 month period, for about one day a week.  Our timeline was as follows, based on our capacity:

Timeline (# months in advance of event date)	Task to be completed
10 months	Read TEDx guidelines, craft vision and goals
9 months	Find a venue and date, have an budget
8 months	Curate speakers, identify sponsors and partners
7 months	Construct a program (running order)
6 months	Form your teams (A/V, volunteers)
5 months	Coach speakers (monthly emails, one-on-one sessions)
5 months	Build a website (marketing)
2 month	Promote to your audience (marketing)

First, craft your vision and goals (10 months ahead of time). It’s important to think through and articulate your vision (how would you define success?) and then identify how you can evaluate whether and to what extent you achieved your goals. Our vision and goals were to: 1) make topics of ASD research accessible, 2) build enthusiasm about research and 3) expand reach globally to people living with ASD, students and service providers. This shaped the types of questions we asked on our evaluation forms. For example, we hope that the TEDxYorkUSalon event will lead to greater excitement, optimism and familiarity about Canadian research in ASD and with regard to how people view ASD more generally. We ask questions about these topics in an optional questionnaire when they register, and will do so again after the event, to measure individual change.

As you begin this goal setting and visioning process, read the guidelines to know what goals are feasible. The TEDx Organizer’s Manual had many helpful tips and a step-by-step guide on how to organize an event like this properly. Since this is our first time, we had a steep learning curve. There are various guidelines for the different types of events. TEDx licenses are given to people based on location (e.g. TEDxNewYork, TEDxToyko, TEDxUniversityofLeeds, TEDxYorkU) and there are different guidelines for each event type with respect to: the number of attendees, types of sponsorships, branding of the event etc. We decided to run a Salon event under TEDxYorkU – a smaller event run under approved TEDx license holders because it allows us to explore a more specific topic rather than a general theme. Your vision and goals must align with the type of event – as that determines the structure that enables what you can do.

Ultimately it’s crucial to stick with TED’s strictly prescribed format, which can be difficult for us researchers who are used to having full control over the design and execution of our own events. By choosing to go with the TEDx format, it meant letting go of some of that control. We learned that we had to be flexible – working with a brand with licensing guidelines, we had to adapt each time we were constrained by requirements. For instance, we had to ensure the number of presenters and attendees were approved and that sponsors were not related / perceived to influence/bias talk content. Further, we had to figure out how to brand the event properly – the Event webpage couldn’t be associated with our research brand (Chair website, ASDMentalHealth Blog, or even York University). We would encourage on-going communication within your team and those involved so everyone is on the same page.

Looking for an appropriate venue, we kept in mind not only costs but accessibility for families – as well as technical requirements for our event (e.g. lighting, staging). With the depth and breadth of enthusiastic, passionate Canadian researchers, advocates and parents available, we had no difficulty finding individuals who could fit the TED requirements. Our speakers are up for the challenge, currently being coached to chiselling their passion, knowledge and experience into a tight 8 minutes. Similarly, finding partners and sponsors for the event was not a big challenge. Many organizations that shared the same vision of KT and gladly supported us, including the Faculty of Health at York University, NeuroDevNet, Kerry’s Place, Geneva Centre for Autism, Sinneave Family Foundation, and the Ontario Brain Institute.

We worked with an expert at York University who has successfully run TEDxYorkU over the last few years (Thanks Ross!), building on his success and his wisdom about what’s required in terms of advising speakers, creating an exciting schedule, space and technological issues. NeuroDevNet’s KT Core will be in attendance to engage with stakeholders and capture this engagement on video. Video taping of individual speakers is also being arranged through York University’s Learning Technology Services video team, who have had experience working with TEDxYorkU in the past and were familiar with TEDx guidelines.

Overall, familiarity with TEDx guidelines, building a team (e.g. with sponsors, speakers, technical support) and having consistent communication with those involved within is important to create a successful event. The exchange of ideas and having different perspectives (not just researchers) is, after all, the point of doing iKT!

For more information about this event, and how to register, please visit: http://www.tedxyorkusalon.org/ or contact Dr. Jonathan Weiss (jonweiss@yorku.ca) or Dr. Jonathan Lai (jonlai@yorku.ca) for details.

---

_{[1] The Chair in Autism Spectrum Disorder Treatment and Care Research is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in partnership with Autism Speaks Canada, the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorders Alliance, Health Canada, NeuroDevNet and the Sinneave Family Foundation. Additional support from York University and ORION’s O3 Collaboration.}

Sustainability and Knowledge Translation: sessions at Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Forum 2015

by Anneliese Poetz, KT Manager, NeuroDevNet

This past Thursday May 14, 2015 and Friday May 15, 2015 the 2015 Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Forum took place at the Grand Bibliotheque in Montreal, QC. The Canadian Knowledge Mobilization forum is the national conversation on KT/KMb practice and an excellent way not only to build our own skills but to brand NeuroDevNet as a leading KT organization.  In fact, it was during this event that David Phipps (NeuroDevNet KT Lead) received the “2015 President’s Award for innovation” in “recognition of his extraordinary contribution to the field and practice of Knowledge Mobilization in Canada and internationally”.

Peter Levesque presents Knowledge Translation award to David Phipps at CKF 15
Photo credit: Pedro Ruiz

The overall theme of the conference was “Creativity as Practice: Mobilizing Diverse Ways of Thinking”. I both learned from other presenters, and shared my own knowledge.

In the workshop “Narratives, video and smartphones as KT tools for youth” (by Sean Muir) I learned that the ‘formula’ for maximizing effectiveness of KT with youth is: grab their attention with a shocking image or story, present your content/message, and then end with something positive. Sean used examples of videos and posters to illustrate this point. In the workshop on “Mobilizing your message through documentary video: research findings as cinematic narrative” (Callista Haggis et al.) the takeaways for creating KT videos were “done is better than perfect”, “show don’t tell” and “think about what you want your target audience to think, feel, do”. In this case, the documentary was both to present research findings in an alternative format, as well as to inspire discussion about the issues presented in the video toward possible infrastructure changes to accommodate the needs of an aging population.

NeuroDevNet’s KT Core Lead, David Phipps, participated in leading 2 sessions. One session was with Purnima Sundar (Ontario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health) and Renee Leduc (NCE Secretariat).

The audience gained insight into the 3 common reasons why research grant applications fail: 1) lack of meaningful end user engagement, 2) unclear pathway to impact, and 3) poor evaluation of KM (Knowledge Mobilization) and of impact. The NCE Secretariat provided tips on how to prepare a successful research funding application, and held an interactive session asking for the audience’s ideas for what the NCE Secretariat could do to help applicants be more successful. Ideas included: successful applicants’ mentoring of new applicants, creation of how-to videos to accompany written grant application instructions, and provision of examples.

David moderated the session on “the paths of sustainability for KMb” in which I was one of the 4 presenters. I presented on the KT Core’s evaluation framework, indicators, and 3 factors relating to sustainability: relevance (how does what we’re doing fit with our priorities), leadership (who is responsible for ensuring outcomes are met), and financial (can cost-effective strategies be used).   The presentations were 10 minutes each. When the presentations were over, each presenter took their discussion question to a corner of the room and invited attendees to join their group (depending on which question most interested them) and discuss it further in terms of their own context.

The questions were:

– How are people attempting to influence sustainability across diverse settings with the use of tools?
– How can we sustain KT implementation through strategic planning?
– How can team capacity and culture be shaped over time to best meet the needs of knowledge users?

And my question was:

– What factors should be considered with respect to sustainability?

I had about 12 people in my breakout discussion group. Although I had a discussion question prepared, I received several questions about what NeuroDevNet’s KT Core does in terms of evaluation and also about database design and development. After the breakout discussions we returned to the large group and each presenter did a ‘report back’ about what their group discussed.

“Anneliese provided a great overview of the process she developed to measure the relevance and impact of knowledge translation products. Her experience was very relevant as our organization is currently exploring different methods of evaluating our work. We look forward to learning more about Anneliese’s indicators and database.”
– Sheena Gereghty, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse

If you are a NeuroDevNet researcher or trainee and would like help with KT videos, advice on event evaluations and/or evaluation of your other KT activities and products, contact the KT Core to find out how we can help.

Knowledge Translation (KT) Best Practices for Networks of Centres of Excellence

By: Anneliese Poetz, KT Manager, NeuroDevNet

It all started in Halifax at the NCE KT Best Practices Symposium, hosted by MEOPAR when the NCE Secretariat co-presented with David Phipps and me on indicators and reporting for Knowledge Translation (otherwise known as KM or Knowledge Mobilization).  Afterwards, we were invited to co-present on the first day of a 2-day meeting that took place in Ottawa on March 30 and 31, 2015 on KT Best Practices for NCEs.

David J. Phipps, Lead, Knowledge Translation (KT) Core, NeuroDevNet. Photo by: Hans Posthuma Photography. Manager, Communications – NCE Secretariat

The day that David and I co-facilitated the meeting in Ottawa on behalf of NeuroDevNet, there were 2 other NCEs (Canadian Water Network, PREVNet) and the Ontario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health who also actively participated presenting their tools for KT.  There was a lot of behind the scenes preparation in the months and days leading up to the event.   Each of these 3 organizations provided tools they had created for themselves: CWN and CYMH shared their KT planning tools, while PREVNet’s contribution was an example of an evidence-informed tool for practitioners.

David moderated part 1, which consisted of presentations, panel discussion and Q&A for each of the 3 tools.  Once the audience had a chance to learn what the tools were all about, I facilitated part 2 which was all about applying them.  The KT planning tools were applied to case studies from their respective organizations, and also to the PREVNet anti-bullying guide which was adapted to be a real-life ‘case study’ – in essence, the group would help develop a KT plan for PREVNet to be able to achieve the greatest awareness, dissemination and eventual uptake, implementation and impact of their KT product.

Photo by: Hans Posthuma Photography. Manager, Communications – NCE Secretariat

Representatives from each of these 3 organizations circulated amongst the participants to answer questions and provide guidance if needed.  Overall, the group of over 60 NCE executives took the task seriously and came up with some great ideas!  When the break out groups reported back to the large group, their feedback was typed onto a large screen ‘live’ so everyone could see, and so there would be a record of their ideas – especially for the benefit of PREVNet so they could apply the KT planning ideas suggested by the group.

Sharing tools for KT is important because it helps advance the field of KT, the sense of community among NCEs, and perhaps most importantly maximize the potential for each NCE to achieve the uptake, implementation and impact of their research findings.  Providing attendees the opportunity to learn about and then apply one of the tools in a small group (social learning) was intended to increase the likelihood that they’d use (or adapt) one or more of the tools to their own NCE’s context.

“David and Anneliese facilitated a great hands-on practical session.  Solid KM practices are increasingly recognized as important elements of a network’s strategic plan.  The participants were left with a variety of very useful tools to choose from and apply to their unique needs.”
– Stéphanie Michaud, Deputy Director of the NCE program

The KT Core provides support for KT Events. If you are planning an event that has a KT component, contact the KT Core to find out how we can help.

Bringing NCEs together to share KT Best Practices

by Anneliese Poetz, KT Manager, NeuroDevNet

During plenary: David Phipps, NeuroDevNetKT Core Lead, commenting on one of the presentations

During the week of January 26-29, 2015 MEOPAR NCE hosted a symposium in Halifax, Nova Scotia for all NCEs to gather and share what they are doing in terms of “best practices” for KT within their network. There were presentations in the morning, and the afternoons were allocated to 3-hour workshops on various topics.

 

 

From one of the workshops: Different ways to convey the same message about coastal erosion

I learned something important from one of the workshops I attended: that providing the same message in different formats is key for people to understand and remember the message (which is the first step toward being able to apply the message in practice/policy). One format of the message might be a photo that illustrates what might happen in a certain situation, while another way to convey the same message could be an interactive display: either an online tool or a hands-on model that can be physically manipulated to see what happens in different scenarios, yet another option is to hold a community event and encourage broad participation.

There were approximately 100 attendees, which included representatives from NCEs at different stages of maturity. GRAND NCE just finished its first 5 years and provided information about their open source tool they created called the “forum”. It is for project leads to be able to do collaborative reporting with their trainees, upload their presentations and publications, and export citations directly to their common CV. Mike Smit from GRAND said they wished they’d had this at the beginning, however it took them several years to develop – it is open source and an available for any NCE (especially new ones!) to use. TREKK described their quick reference sheets for ER physicians working in a ‘regular’ ER (not specifically for pediatric patients) who need reliable evidence-informed and quick information about how to treat the most common ailments children are brought to the ER for. These evidence-informed tools for practitioners go through a rigorous process before they are finalized. New NCEs such as Glyconet, SERENE-RISC and CellCan commented that this event was a good opportunity to learn from more experienced NCEs about KT practices and management systems.

NeuroDevNet’s KT Core (David Phipps and I) co-presented with the NCE Secretariat (Renee Leduc). Renee presented on progress reporting and KTEE expectations from the perspective of the NCE Secretariat:

Leduc Phipps Poetz: Development of indicators for measurement at each stage of Knowledge Translation from Research to Impact

and led an exercise with participants that helped them link their Network’s goals with outputs and outcomes:

Leduc handout: Linking Goals, Outputs, Outcomes with your Indicators

David and I presented on the Co-Produced Pathway to Impact KTEE evaluation framework, indicators for measuring KT services and impact, and their database system that was created for tracking data on our suite of indicators that were created over the past 16 months:

Poetz, Phipps, Leduc: Development of Indicators for Measurement at Each Stage of Knowledge Translation from Research to Impact

Anneliese and David provided a hands-on exercise for participants that acted as a “part 2” to Renee’s exercise because following goals, outputs and outcomes is the need to create indicators – so this 2nd handout was a worksheet that helps to fully define indicators:

Poetz Phipps Leduc: Handout_Anatomy of an Indicator Worksheet, MEOPAR KT Best Practices Symposium Halifax, Nova Scotia January 26-29, 2015

 

‘your presentation was the most valuable of all the sessions…it was your session alone that made the conference worthwhile attending’ – CellCan NCE

Booths set up in main area

This event provided a great opportunity to network and get to know other NCEs in the NCE Program. Part of networking included the opportunity to set up a booth at no cost. Across from NeuroDevNet and ResearchImpact booths was the CYCC NCE booth. I tweeted and picked up some copies of checklists they produced for: involvement of children and youth in research, having impact on policy, and others that could be useful to NeuroDevNet’s work as we approach Cycle II. Several attendees found the materials at the NeuroDevNet (and ResearchImpact) booth(s) interesting, particularly the ResearchSnapshots and brochures explaining our services. Many NCEs expressed interest in emulating NeuroDevNet’s KT Core model including the CPPI framework and associated services, as well as our staffing model of a KT Lead, KT Manager and KT Coordinator.

The KT Core live-tweeted from the event from @anneliesepoetz and @neurodevnetKT and several of these were retweeted by @neurodevnet and @ MEOPAR_NCE.

If you are a NeuroDevNet researcher or trainee, or if you represent one of Canada’s NCEs and would like to know more about NeuroDevNet’s KT Core services please visit our website and/or contact the KT Core.

Does an attractive presentation make you less credible? 5 myths about academic presentations

by Anneliese Poetz, KT Manager, NeuroDevNet

I have attended more presentations, academic and non-academic, than I can count. The most memorable were the ones that used slides containing attractive graphics, photos and little text, supplemented by story-telling; in fact, some of them I remember vividly even several years later. I recently worked with a scientist on powerpoint slides for a very important presentation. After rendering the slides to be more graphic and less text-heavy, this person was worried that they’d be perceived as less credible as a scientist by their peers. As a scientist, presenter, and audience member it had never occurred to me that giving (or attending) such a presentation could be a bad thing.

This made me wonder, how many other scientists are out there who think the same way? If this is a popular belief, it might explain a lot – text-heavy slides (death by bullets), often intermingled with complicated un-readable diagrams crammed onto a slide seem to be the norm in academia. There are exceptions, including Dr. SidneyEve Matrix of Queen’s University.

If you are one of these academics, let me dispel some myths right now:

Creating visually appealing slides is both an art and a science.

1) Scientists, including your peers, are human beings too. As such, they appreciate visuals just as anyone else would. Slides that do not help you make the point that you are talking about should either a) be removed, or b) reworked to be more visually appealing. How do I know this, you might ask? I am a scientist myself and I have attended a broad range of presentations both good and bad. Put yourself in their shoes – how would you feel if you had to hear your own presentation as it is right now?

2) Being a good presenter with good (or no) slides as an aid does not reduce your credibility as a scientist. In fact, what does reduce your credibility is having slide after slide of bullet points that you need to read to the audience – this is what we refer to in Knowledge Translation as “death by bullets”. Slides should be thought of as a visual supplement that is primarily for the audience’s benefit, to help you make your point using visuals that are related to what you are talking about.

3) You don’t have to tell them every detail in your presentation. Cramming your slides full of tables with all the stats, margins of error, etc. is not going to help if your audience can’t read it. Ask yourself, what is the point of what I am trying to say here? Choose the most important piece(s) of information you need from that and find a way to graphically represent it on your slide to help you make your point (using the rule of thumb: one slide per point you are trying to make). For example, if you are trying to say that a trend is increasing – create a visual (graph) that shows that, with large clear labels and graphics. If you are showing that one percentage is higher than the rest, create a bar graph to show how these measures compare with the rest (so people can instantly see that the one percentage is larger than the rest, backing up what you are saying about it), don’t put a table of percentages that people have to “work” (study) to understand. The place to provide detailed explanations is a) during the question/answer period and b) in your published scientific papers.

4) Breaking your bullet points into one-slide-per-point-you-are-making (with a picture) does not make your presentation time longer. The “one slide per minute of talking” rule is misleading. I think it is a disservice for you to be taught this in grad school – if you follow the advice in #1 to create more visually appealing slides, this requires you to take each bullet and put it on its own slide with a picture that helps you make your point. Whether you click to the next bullet point or the next slide takes the same amount of time. Similarly, you may have one engaging slide up for several minutes while you tell a story that relates to the photo on it. So let go of the old-school rule that you gauge the length of your presentation by how many slides you have. At the end of the day, whatever the number of slides you end up with, you also need to practice and make sure you time out properly – but ensuring you stay within the allotted time for your presentation should not set the limit for the number of slides you use.

5) The slides are for the benefit of your audience, not you. I believe the reason why many (poor) presenters read their slides is because they believe the slides are for their own benefit. When I was a kid, I had to write and present a speech each year, and we were allowed to have cue-cards in our hands but we were not allowed to read from them. The bullet points on the cue cards were for the purpose of reminding us what to say next if we forgot. Many presenters use powerpoint as though the slides are cue-cards that the audience can see. In this way, the presenter has made the slides for their benefit, without thinking much about the audience. By creating visually engaging slides it still benefits the presenter by reminding them what they were going to talk about next, and shows you care about the audience by making it easy for them to get the point of what you are saying.

As part of its suite of services, NeuroDevNet’s KT Core provides advice and consultation on how to create engaging presentations.  Contact the KT Core for tips, tools, and/or advice on a slide deck you are currently preparing about your research findings.