The study's central question revolves around the effectiveness of incentives in fostering greater engagement between academic faculty, particularly within a School of Public Health (SPH), and decision-makers involved in evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM). This research stems from a broader investigation into the role of SPH faculty in influencing EIDM, where the significance of incentives emerged as a primary concern. Boyer's (1996b) call for "scholarship of integration" provides a compelling backdrop, emphasizing the need for academia to actively contribute to solving societal problems. The study aims to add to the existing literature on academic incentives for knowledge translation (KT) by examining the prevailing practices within one SPH, understanding faculty perspectives on incentives, and ultimately offering recommendations to SPH leadership. The implications of this study extend to Higher Education Institutes (HEIs), policymakers at all governmental levels, and those interested in improving evidence-based public policy.

The literature review highlights the growing number of studies on facilitators and barriers to research utilization by policymakers. However, empirical work specifically addressing incentives for knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) or integrated knowledge translation (IKT) between researchers and decision-makers remains limited. A common barrier cited in existing research is the lack of appropriate institutional incentives. The review also notes a shift in funder priorities, with increased emphasis on demonstrating the social return on research investments. Funders are integrating IKT into their core missions and incorporating "Pathways to Impact" requirements into research proposals. While academic incentives have traditionally focused on knowledge production (publications, grants, presentations), the review underscores the need for better recognition of KTE activities which are often embedded within the "service" pillar of academic scholarship, with existing methods of evaluation found to be inadequate. The complexity of KT, encompassing pre- and post-grant activities, presents a challenge in developing appropriate evaluation indicators.

This study employed a mixed-methods approach, building upon a prior phase involving social network analysis and surveys. The second phase, the focus of this paper, involved semi-structured interviews with a subsample of faculty from a US-based SPH. The subsample was selected based on their level of engagement with government decision-makers, encompassing highly engaged and non-engaged faculty. The semi-structured interview guide was refined based on phase I results and non-participant faculty review. Faculty engagement was defined as "interaction, communication, outreach or exchange that was active or underway" during the study period. Interviews were conducted in-person, via video conference, or telephone, and lasted between 30 and 75 minutes. Data was analyzed using ATLAS.ti software, employing a framework analysis approach to identify emerging themes. Ethical approval was obtained, and all participants provided verbal consent. The respondent overview reveals a balanced representation across gender, academic tracks (professorial and scientist), and leadership positions within the SPH. Initially, participants were categorized as "engaged" or "non-engaged", but this distinction proved less useful in Phase II due to nuances in their engagement history.

The findings reveal diverse perspectives on the role of incentives in promoting faculty engagement. Some faculty strongly opposed incentives, emphasizing the intrinsic rewards of KT and viewing it as a moral obligation. For these faculty, engagement is driven by altruistic motivations, and barriers like time and funding are secondary to the inherent value of the work. This view was particularly prevalent among senior faculty involved in policy-relevant research. Conversely, other faculty expressed support for incentives, seeing them as a signal of importance, encouragement to engage in uncertain territory, and a means to acknowledge and reward existing efforts. Concerns regarding potential negative consequences were also prominent. Faculty expressed worries about incentivizing superficial efforts, penalizing less-equipped faculty, creating an imbalance in valuing different aspects of the work, and leaving valuable contributions unrewarded due to the challenges in measuring and documenting intangible KTE activities. Four broad categories of incentives emerged from the interviews: (a) Monetary Support (including grants, discretionary funds, salary relief, and funder-mandated requirements), (b) Professional Recognition (internal and external acknowledgements), (c) Academic Promotion (adjusting promotion criteria to better value KTE contributions), and (d) Capacity Enhancement (training in networking, communication, and advocacy skills). The study also explored alternative strategies to enhance engagement, such as establishing a separate academic track attracting engagement-focused faculty, modifying recruitment strategies to seek relevant skills, outsourcing KT activities, and leveraging internal institutional structures as KT platforms. The paper distinguishes three faculty typologies: choice-disengaged (opposing incentives), choice-engaged (intrinsic motivation renders incentives unnecessary), and suboptimally-engaged (supportive of incentives to overcome barriers).

The study's findings address the research question by demonstrating the complexity of incentivizing faculty engagement in KTE. The diversity of perspectives highlights the need for a nuanced and context-specific approach. The results emphasize that a simple, uniform incentive structure is unlikely to be effective. The findings resonate with existing literature highlighting the challenges of measuring and rewarding intangible activities. The varying perspectives among faculty (choice-disengaged, choice-engaged, suboptimally-engaged) underscore the need to consider the diverse values and professional goals within the academic community. The study's contribution lies in offering a rich qualitative understanding of faculty perspectives and suggesting alternative strategies beyond solely relying on individual incentives.

This study reveals the complexity of using incentives to enhance faculty engagement with decision-makers. While monetary support, professional recognition, academic promotion, and capacity enhancement were all identified as potential incentives, the study cautions against overlooking potential unintended consequences. A shift towards engagement-ready institutions, rather than solely focusing on individual incentives, is advocated. Further research could explore the long-term impact of different incentive models and investigate effective methods for measuring intangible outcomes related to KTE.

The study's limitations include the focus on a single SPH, potentially limiting the generalizability of findings. While efforts were made to mitigate social desirability bias, the possibility remains. The qualitative nature of the data limits the ability to make quantitative statements about the prevalence of different perspectives. The self-reported nature of engagement levels may also introduce some bias.