The knowledge mobilization plan is one page of an SSHRC Insight Grant, and it is often the page written last, the night before the internal deadline. It is also scored. A plan that lists "a conference talk and a journal article" tells reviewers you have not thought about who outside your field needs the finding.
This guide is for Canadian researchers writing that section for SSHRC, or the knowledge translation parts of a CIHR application. It covers what the forms ask and how they are scored, which costs you can put in the budget, free planning tools, and the outputs and tools that turn a plan into something reviewers can picture. For what to do after the grant, keeping a record of reach, see our guide on showing your research reached people.
What SSHRC Asks For, and How It Is Scored
SSHRC defines knowledge mobilization as "the reciprocal and complementary flow and uptake of research knowledge between researchers, knowledge brokers and knowledge users". In the forms, it shows up in more than one place. At the time of writing (October 2026), the main programs look like this:
| Funding opportunity | KMb plan length | Where KMb is scored |
|---|---|---|
| Insight Grants (October 2026) | Maximum one page | The plan under Feasibility (20%); past KMb under Capability (40%); expected outcomes under Challenge (40%) |
| Insight Development Grants (February 2026) | Maximum 2,000 characters | The plan under Feasibility (20%); past KMb under Capability (30%); outcomes under Challenge (50%) |
| Partnership Grants, Stage 2 (2026) | Maximum two pages | Reviewers also weigh EDI considerations in the design of KMb activities |
| Partnership Development Grants (2026) | Maximum two pages | Mandatory section of the application |
The Insight Grant deadline for that competition has passed, and instructions are updated for each round, so check the version for your own competition. Two details matter more than the length. First, Insight Grant applications "must receive a score of 3.0 or higher for each of the three criteria to be recommended for funding," so a weak Feasibility score can sink a strong idea. Second, Capability looks back at "evidence of past knowledge mobilization activities (e.g., films, performances, commissioned reports, knowledge syntheses...)", so what you did on your last paper counts on this application.
The Insight Grant instructions say the plan should cover "methodologies and approaches to engage appropriate target audiences or participants", "timeframes or a schedule for the intended knowledge mobilization activities", and how these fit the project's knowledge mobilization objectives. SSHRC also encourages dissemination "in both official languages, whenever feasible and/or appropriate."
What CIHR Asks For
CIHR calls it knowledge translation, and its Project Grant peer review manual says it "falls into two main categories, end of grant KT and integrated KT." It is not scored as a separate criterion. The manual weights Significance and Impact at 25%, Approaches and Methods at 50%, and Expertise, Experience and Resources at 25%, The application instructions say knowledge translation approaches "should be considered" under Significance and Impact when applicable, and under Approaches and Methods that knowledge translation approaches, methods and/or strategies "should be well-defined". So KT runs through the two criteria that carry 75% of the score.
- Integrated KT. If you flag your project as integrated KT, the instructions say "you must identify at least one Principal Applicant who is a knowledge user," and the application may be assessed by knowledge-user reviewers as well as researchers.
- End-of-grant KT. The manual says "the onus is on the researcher to select the most appropriate vehicle for the intended knowledge-user audience," and expects "more ambitious goals and comprehensive strategies" when audiences outside the research community need the findings.
- The lay abstract. It runs to about 2,000 characters, and CIHR says it is used "to inform the public and Parliament." Treat it as your first plain-language summary.
Free Tools for Writing the Plan
You do not need to start from a blank page. These planning tools are free or mostly free:
- Knowledge Translation Planning Template. Melanie Barwick's template from SickKids is free "for internal research or educational purposes" after you leave an email address. The template itself walks through 13 components, from knowledge users and main messages to evaluation and budget items, and reminds you to "include all KT costs in your budget for funders."
- CIHR's own planning guide. The Guide to Knowledge Translation Planning at CIHR works through five factors: goals, audience, strategies, expertise and resources. Its key question for the last one is blunt: "Does the budget allocate adequate financial support to implement the plan?"
- Research Impact Canada. The network's free Dissemination Guide of Guides includes a form-fillable dissemination planning worksheet.
- Your university's KMb unit. Many have one. York University's unit says it works "with researchers to develop KMb plans for grant applications" on its resources page, and the UTSC Library lists help creating knowledge mobilization plans. Ask early, before the internal deadline.
Outputs That Fill a Plan, and the Tools for Each
A plan reads as credible when each audience gets a named output, a time and a person responsible. The funders' own pages name the outputs they expect to see:
| Output | Named by | Tools and guides |
|---|---|---|
| Plain-language summary | CIHR's KT guide lists "plain-language summaries" | Our guide to writing a plain language summary |
| Policy brief | SSHRC's Connection Grants list "development of policy briefs" | Our guide to getting research in front of policymakers |
| Infographic | York's KMb unit offers infographic guides and templates | A figure tool whose licence covers publication |
| Video or audio | SSHRC names "audiovisual products"; CIHR's KT guide names "podcasts" | A phone, captions, or a paper-to-media service |
| Project or lab page | CIHR's KT guide names "web-based activities (e.g. postings, wikis, blogs, podcasts, etc.)" | Our guide to a publications page that gets read |
| Workshops and events | Both funders name them | Note the rules on speaker costs below |
Budget for It: What Is Eligible
Plans that cost nothing usually do nothing, and reviewers know it. At the time of writing (October 2026):
- SSHRC. The Insight Grant instructions say costs related to "open access publishing activities" and "dissemination in both official languages" are eligible, and ask you to justify costs "for communicating results to audiences, stakeholders and the public." SSHRC's merit review manual calls open access article processing charges "an appropriate expense." But Insight Grant funds "cannot be used for remuneration and/or the travel and subsistence costs of presenters or guest speakers," so a public event needs another plan for speakers. SSHRC's Connection Grants fund events and outreach separately.
- CIHR. The Project Grant budget has a Knowledge Translation section for "costs associated with disseminating your research results," and the peer review manual notes that "the costs of dissemination are eligible expenditures in all CIHR grants." CIHR's KT guide lists resources such as "graphic design/layout", "writer/editor/copy editor" and "web-related costs (blogs, podcasts, wikis, website development/maintenance)". One of its worked examples budgets for a writing consultant "to prepare lay summaries of the research findings."
Whether a particular service qualifies is a question for your research grants office, and it is easier to answer before submission than after award.
Where Amplify Fits
Several outputs in the table above can come from one source: the paper itself. Amplify generates a video abstract of about 3 minutes, a vertical short of 45 to 60 seconds, an audio brief in English (with 21 more languages on request, including French), and a one-page, print-ready infographic from the PDF you upload and nothing else. Every piece carries the title, the authors and a link back to the paper of record.
Each format arrives as three variants you can edit line by line, a person reviews every format before it is released, and nothing publishes until you approve it. That matters for a KMb plan, because what you promise reviewers is a message that stays faithful to the findings.
The embeddable widget puts every format beside the paper on your project or lab page with one script tag, and its analytics show reads, listens, questions asked and languages. That record of reach is useful in a final report and when you describe past knowledge mobilization in your next application. If you plan to use a service like this, name it as a dissemination output and cost in the plan, and confirm eligibility with your grants office.
Write the plan the way you would write the methods: named audiences, named outputs, dates, owners and a budget. Then the one page does its job, for this application and for the next.
