Trust: bridging the research–practice gap [Forum special series]

This article is part of a special series of summaries of keynotes and presentations from the KM Triversary Forum 2025.

In the early 2000s when I worked at the WorldFish Center, a member of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), we advocated for simple innovations to help fishers and farmers in vulnerable communities based on scientific research that was highly specific and localized to the communities served¹.

Even when the research was sound, there were many unknowns that could disrupt adoption. Therefore, it was important for the communities we worked with to feel comfortable with the researchers, in observing and learning from the communities and at the same time, for the communities to be willing to share their livelihood struggles and concerns openly.

Collaboration between both the fishing communities and the researchers was crucial to ensure (i) that our research had scientific rigor and, (ii) that it could be applied to practice. This was not always easily achieved.

Communication is key but how willing were these communities to share crucial local knowledge that researchers needed?

Also, how willing would they be to accept what the researchers shared in return?

The short answer – trust.

Many WorldFish researchers spent years in the field, working closely with fishing communities, establishing a respectful and mutually beneficial relationship. Trust was built over time.

Going beyond researcher-grassroots stakeholder relationships, the same applies for cultivating trust at the workplace, especially for knowledge workers like us. As a knowledge management (KM) practitioner who has worked with multiple teams / departments at various stages of maturity, I have observed one common theme over the years – the main predictor of success for a KM program is in the level of trust people had within the team and also, externally, among their stakeholders.

In many organizations in Asia, it is information technology (IT) that popularly leads KM efforts with knowledge treated as an object to be quantified, codified and stored. To some extent most explicit knowledge can be handled this way. However, buying into sophisticated IT systems instead of investing in staff does a huge disservice to the organization.

A study by Holste and Fields² showed a 25% variance in people’s willingness to share tacit knowledge when two types of trust were met:

1. Affect-based trust that is built through mutual care and concern among staff, which lead to stronger personal ties that motivate them to share knowledge easily.
2. Cognition-based trust that puts the focus on a colleague’s reliability and competence, where their professional reputation serves as criteria for people’s willingness to use tacit knowledge they share. (See Case Study 1: Benchmarking CGIAR research outputs).

Organizations that work extensively with tacit knowledge would do well to invest in both affect-based trust and cognition-based trust in the workplace. By supporting an organizational culture that places importance on their people – encouraging colleagues to get to know each other, acknowledging their contributions and celebrating their successes – they move closer to cultivating both types of trust at work.

Participatory processes that build trust

Participatory processes developed in the 60s / 70s sought to democratize and empower communities into action. Built on the foundation of respecting the values and rights of an individual/ group / culture, these processes were later adapted as VIPP (Visualization in Participatory Programmes)⁴, a collective manual of knowledge exchange tools used extensively in UNICEF South Asia for knowledge exchange in the 80s and 90s.

These processes have since been adapted in many toolkits including the KS Toolkit (KM4Dev)⁵ and UNICEF’s Knowledge Exchange Toolbox⁶. Inclusive, participatory and fun, VIPP tools are low-tech, low-investment, and high on returns.

A really powerful VIPP tool I use often in workshops is the River of Life, a personal reflection tool that is simple yet versatile. Introduced as an icebreaker or team-building activity, participants draw a river as a metaphor representing their lives on a piece of paper, where they highlight milestones, challenges and celebrations using boats, rocks, fish, bridges etc.  Participants are often surprised by what they discover about themselves through this simple exercise. When they share their ‘Rivers’ with others, people are quickly able to empathize with their struggles and understand them better. A great tool for people to get to know each other personally, it helps build alliances quickly in workshop settings and improves group dynamics.

Another versatile VIPP tool that promotes greater engagement in large-scale, face-to-face workshops or conferences is the Information Marketplace. Poster presentations are produced before or during the workshop and exhibited as part of a gallery. Instead of passively watching PowerPoint slides in a conference, people are encouraged to walk, listen to and contribute to conversations. Presenters share information with others and gather feedback in real-time. A highly participatory tool, it facilitates more meaningful knowledge exchange and has great potential to connect people on a deeper level, and consider opportunities for future partnerships.

VIPP tools have been used successfully to engage stakeholders and build greater understanding across cultures while addressing concerns respectfully despite their differences. (See Case Study 2: Knowledge exchange with isolated communities in Bhutan).

Many of these participatory tools can be used at work too, not only during events. For example, off-site meetings that include networking time for activities like Walkabouts or hikes, have been known to help people bond over shared experiences.

Most of us are virtually connected to strangers via our mobile phones, and there has been a shift in how we communicate, if we can call it that.  With VIPP tools, we are ‘forced’ to be more aware and present in how we interact with others. While these tools may appear to have an old-world feel about them, they accomplish a lot in terms of engaging people:

• Inclusivity: with the right tools, everyone has an opportunity speak up and voice out their opinions; language barriers are reduced through visualized tools like role play or graphic drawings; hierarchies are minimized.
• Empathy: creative storytelling that helps people imagine another’s experiences, beyond the differences to see the similarities.
• Participatory: people are present and actively engaged in listening, they are guided pro-actively and able to ask the right questions; information exchange and collective learning.

Building trust in a virtual space

As more meetings and workshops opt for a virtual / hybrid format to accommodate remote participation, it is always a challenge to encourage people to be present as active participants in these virtual arenas.

We had an opportunity to test this out during a recent Knowledge SUCCESS (Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs) project activity aimed at developing a network of KM Champions among family planning professionals. Open to KM practitioners across Asia, this activity entailed significant commitment from them over several weeks. These were busy individuals with full time work/life commitments.

The Asia KM Champions learning series⁷ attracted participants from nine countries, including Afghanistan, Cambodia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Philippines. Recognizing the diversity in the group, we adapted several VIPP tools successfully to create a supportive environment for learning and sharing, making sure to actively engage the participants. (See Case Study 3: Bringing online groups together to create mutual understanding and build trust).

We tend to gravitate towards shiny new toys like IT systems, social media tools and AI interfaces, and while these are helpful, it favours digital exclusion and that is not a good launching pad for trust-building. In bridging the gap between research and practice, we need to connect with our stakeholders in an equitable manner and level the playing field.

Investing in trust doesn’t have to cost a fortune. People are motivated to share when they feel safe, respected and appreciated. Creating an environment that cultivates trust can be as simple as using participatory VIPP tools to close that gap.

Biography:

Meena Arivananthan is a knowledge management and strategy development specialist with close to two decades of experience in international development. A certified facilitator, she is the principal author of several KM manuals including UNICEF’s Knowledge Exchange Toolkit. Her career includes key KM leadership roles at the WorldFish Center, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and, most recently, the Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs under the Knowledge SUCCESS project. Passionate about science   communication, Meena leverages her academic background in microbiology to help researchers reach their goals. She focuses on participatory learning and building inclusive environments where collaboration and reflection can thrive.

Presentation resources: PowerPoint slides.

Header image source: WorldFish, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

AI statement: AI was not used in the preparation of this article.

References: