Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) is a model of collaborative research, where researchers work with Knowledge users who identify a problem and have the authority to implement the research recommendations. Knowledge users have unique expertise pertaining to the research topic, including Knowledge of the context and the potential for implementation. Researchers bring methodological and content expertise to the collaboration.

This commentary examines the claim made by Borst et al that Knowledge Translation (KT) should look to Science and Technology Studies (STS), the sociology of Translation, and constructionist views on Knowledge, and begin to think of the sustainability of a certain practice as construction work in continuous progress, and not as states to be reached once and for all. While endorsing this claim, the present commentary also argues that what it calls the “epistemic reframing” behind the new construal of KT in Borst must be supplemented with approaches that goes beyond the sociology of Translation. The commentary claims that this epistemic shift hinges upon a shift in the narrative framing of KT, and that we need to consider the broader narrative and historical ideology of Knowledge dissemination behind KT, and that a failure to do so, leaves us with KT seen as a linear transmission of “true” Knowledge to peoples and places lacking such Knowledge.

Knowledge Translation was created in response to the Knowledge-do gap. With the growing number of research projects, utilization of research Knowledge roused interest. One of its defects, which are seen more in developing countries, is the scarcity of recognized practical Knowledge Translation applications. The actions taken to strengthen Knowledge Translation can be classified into three categories of ‘push, pull and exchange’. In Iran, some of the interventions effective in Knowledge Translation, may not have primarily taken place with this aim, but can however be effective in it. Some of the measures taken specifically in Iran’s research system are: capacity building of human resources for Knowledge Translation, better utilization of research by the Ministry of Health and Medical Education, creating necessary incentives among medical universities, identification of barriers and proposing interventions. Pilots of Knowledge Translation interventions are concerned with ‘push’ activities whose main focus is to support Knowledge Translation activities and promote active strategies (or increase interaction between researchers and decision makers during research and utilization of results). Long-plan programs such as ‘Iran’s Health Innovation and Science Development plan have also been designed for the future. These include formation of centers for reducing the Knowledge-do gap in the form of Knowledge and health technology Translation centers.

Knowledge Translation and implementation science have made many advances in the last two decades. However, research is still not making expedient differences to practice, policy, and service delivery. It is time to evolve our approach to Knowledge production and implementation. In this editorial we advance research coproduction as a neglected pathway to impact. Our starting point is that research impact is a function of how research is done and who is involved, arguing that researchers and non-researchers have an equal voice and role to play. We outline principles of coproduction including sharing power, valuing different sources of Knowledge and viewpoints, equality, open communication, inclusivity, and mutuality. We consider implications at micro, meso, and macro system levels. In calling for this shift in the way Knowledge is produced and applied, we anticipate it leading to inclusive research that more rapidly translates to better, more equitable health and care for all.