The content and format of these summaries were developed based on extensive consultation with Canadian public health decision makers [35] and formed the content of the tailored messages sent to participants in both the tailored messages and KB intervention groups of the RCT. The KB was responsible for disseminating these summaries electronically as well as in hardcopy to participants in the KB group, along with other relevant evidence as needed or requested. The KB also sent the full text articles of the systematic reviews to those in the KB intervention group. However, an additional, and perhaps more robust tool for planning, implementing and evaluating knowledge brokering would be the application of a broader framework of knowledge transfer. This would mean that evaluative efforts could move beyond focusing on the different types of activities which could be performed by a knowledge broker towards a broader, more process oriented approach based on the underlying principles and processes of transferring knowledge into action. Such a framework forms the basis of our ongoing research on the processes and practices of knowledge brokering in a mental health context (Ward, House et al. 2009).
These tasks seemed to fall more into support and capacity-building, rather than facilitation and evaluation. Some companies we know are exploring the use of a “scouting” function to help characterize and organize the networks available to managers. Such a function could be located within a company’s central strategy group or (to draw on knowledge from suppliers) the procurement unit. Companies with learning and development functions could draw on their rich outside connections with academics and other experts.
To gain buy-in, the team implemented these ideas gradually over the following year, starting with a new code of conduct, which outlined the utility’s expectations for vendors. After getting the key ones to accept the code’s principles, the team began sharing new self-assessment tools that helped these suppliers determine when their actions didn’t square with the utility’s expectations and outlining ways to begin rectifying any problems. This research has implications for practitioners who are often working with idealised notions of the broker and a ‘two communities logic’. Knowledge brokers are usually presented as a solution to a problem conceived as needing to bridge unconnected science and policy communities (Wehrens, 2014). We have argued that brokers are embedded in a set of complex and value-laden relations rather than operating as detached actors. They build as well as bridge and blur boundaries as they work across operational and knowledge system levels of co-production.
What is Knowledge Brokering?
A knowledge broker can report on other people’s knowledge, skills, and expertise to create products and services. A knowledge broker can extract his own knowledge, skills, and expertise to create products and services. He doesn’t have to be an expert business broker definition on a field, but someone who is 2-3 steps above his target audience. [this model includes] a website containing summarised information from a wide range of sources and provides a rapid response question and answer service for policy makers.
- The final report from the project recommends the use of knowledge brokers as go-betweens, linking the policy, public sector, industry and academic communities.
- Professional knowledge brokers are nomads in the liminal space between fields, native to neither one nor the other; when this space is annexed, they risk becoming refugees without a natural homeland.
- Their aim was to break down the barriers between research and practice by encouraging researchers to become credible messengers and decision makers to become research champions.
Viewing knowledge brokering from the perspective of its role domains can provide a means of organizing these elements to advance our understanding of knowledge brokering. The objectives of this special interest article are (1) to describe the context for knowledge brokering in health care, (2) to provide an overview of knowledge translation theories applied to knowledge brokering, and (3) to propose a model outlining the role domains assumed in knowledge brokering. The Role Model for Knowledge Brokering is composed of 5 role domains, including information manager, linking agent, capacity builder, facilitator, and evaluator. We provide examples from the literature and our real-world experience to demonstrate the application of the model.
Capacity Builder
I have been influenced by a series of mentors, books, training programs and courses, and I use a selective combination of the best strategies, techniques, and tactics including methods from the KBB program. Plus I acquired knowledge and skills throughout my 25+ entrepreneurial journey that I will share with you. He needs an advertising budget or knowledge to reach his ideal clients effectively with the least amount of time and money. He needs marketing skills (as with every business) to perform market and competition research, to identify “hot” market segments and untapped opportunities, spot and track his ideal clients, and attract them.
Resources
It is an exercise in exploring what are the equivalent of Jungian archetypes for our roles in the knowledge economy. Russell and colleagues [39, 44, 52] evaluated the impact of a 6-month KB intervention on changes in physiotherapists’ knowledge of four clinical assessment tools. Participants completed self-report questionnaires to assess their knowledge prior to the KB intervention, immediately following the intervention and again at 6 and 12 months post-intervention. Data revealed participants’ knowledge of all measurement tools significantly increased following the intervention and was sustained 1 year later, suggesting an effective KB approach. Having experience in coordinating project design and development, considerations of evaluation in these early stages is key to successful implementation and knowledge translation activities. A systematic literature review was completed using a modified version of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) appraisal tool[JC1] to trace the emergence and characteristics of the knowledge broker role across disciplines internationally and in the United States.
A Guide to Expert Networks: Understanding Their Benefits
However, given that KBs represent a costly and intensive KT strategy, it is important to both understand how they function and to establish rigourous evidence of their effect before widespread use is encouraged [49]. To our knowledge, the studies included in this review represent the current breadth of evidence exploring the functions and effectiveness of KBs in health-related settings. Despite the broad scope of our inquiry, there was a paucity of data related to the effectiveness of KBs. Waqa et al. [33] reported that their participants developed evidence-informed policymaking skills through a series of KB-led training workshops; they cited participants’ perceptions [32] and the production and presentation of 20 policy briefs by their participants to high-level officials [33] as evidence of this skill development. In addition, Yost and colleagues [48, 49] evaluated the effectiveness of tailored KB strategies to enhance capacity for evidence-informed decision-making and found that participants who worked closely with the KB demonstrated a change in evidence-informed decision-making skills [49].
This is the first bit that I referenced in the introductory paragraph, the part of the literature review that opened my eyes into how knowledge brokerage can be formalized, tracked, and implemented consistently in a large project-based, research-heavy organization. This sparked my interest and I found that the role of knowledge broker is heavily employed, or at least heavily reported on, in government or policy related organizations that engage in research on many different levels. If we follow this model, unless coming from a background in architecture or design, a knowledge manager cannot fulfill the role of a knowledge broker because they would not posses the requisite subject matter expertise. For instance, a practice leader can have a periphery role as a knowledge broker because of their connections to both the people and the practice. A librarian or marketing professional in the KM role, while being well connected at the firm, might not possess the practice area expertise to complete this model.
Additionally, Campbell et al. [36] reported ‘direct impacts on policy or practice’ (p. 104) as a result of their KB initiative, which described ‘evidence check’, an approach to providing policy makers with rapid reviews of evidence. Previous work has identified the qualities of KBs that are important, but until now, we have not had a model describing what KBs actually do in their day-to-day work. The Role Model for Knowledge Brokering not only provides this clarity, but also helps organizations support the learning needs of brokers while evaluating their impact.
When surveyed afterward, team members unanimously agreed that knowledge brokering increased the effectiveness of their projects—and two-thirds said it did so “greatly.” On average, it helped the teams design new processes twice as quickly as they would have expected to do by using conventional techniques. Half of my time is dedicated to the Translating Emergency Knowledge for Kids (TREKK) project, which has forged a national network of pediatric emergency professionals, united by a common goal — to improve emergency care for kids no matter where they live in the country. It is believed that a greater degree of face-to-face interaction between the KB and the participants would have been useful for developing the relationship, tailoring interventions, and promoting EIDM capacity. Effective strategies are required to facilitate partnership development and encourage individuals to work collaboratively with KBs. In addition, it is believed that several participants from each health department should have been involved in the KB intervention, thereby creating a critical mass in the organization with the skills and capacity for EIDM. Lastly, the KB must be cognisant of many factors that may affect success, such as political and organizational changes, issues of confidentiality, competing interests and priorities, and turf issues within and between organizations.
In 2003, the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) developed a report on the theory and practice of knowledge brokering in Canada’s health system [13], which acknowledged the need for additional evidence to assess the efficacy of KB approaches and best practices. While some have advocated for the use of KBs as a mechanism to facilitate KT [17, 19, 20], others suggest that the lack of evidence about how knowledge brokering works and its potential effectiveness limits the development and application of the KB role [8]. To address this gap, we sought to (1) identify and examine the activities and tasks which comprised the KB role in health-related settings and (2) assess whether KBs have effectively contributed to KT in health-related settings. They work with a variety of stakeholders to close the gap between research and practice, and facilitate the development of relationships that are critical to effective KT. The knowledge broker role needs to be integrated into advanced practice curricula (i.e., doctoral studies) to teach the necessary skills and provide experiential learning. There is much potential for the nurse scientist in the role of a knowledge broker to change the availability and access to information, improve health literacy, and reduce health disparities among varying communities, particularly within the contexts of social justice and empowerment (O’Fallon, Wolfe, Brown, Deary, & Olden, 2003).
Specifically, KBs engaged in-person through site visits to stakeholders’ organizations [21] and meetings [29, 38] that included both one-on-one [34] and larger group [29, 34, 39] discussions. While it’s impossible to fully predict the path open innovation will take over the coming five to ten years, our research already shows that knowledge brokering could transform the way companies develop and improve their core business processes. Nevertheless, like other forms of open innovation, it requires considerable change on the part of managers. Visits in person and by video yield less useful knowledge because they subtly distract team members from the experience of listening while subconsciously encouraging them to form irrelevant value judgments based on the speaker’s appearance, expressions, and so on. A knowledge broker should start the conversation by describing experiences related to the process issue, simply by telling the story. Knowledge brokers often work at the interface of research and policy, but can also work amidst research and health care, research and business, research and the public (patient engagement) [2] — or a mix of any of these.
In the second post in this series I’ll dive deeper into the skills required for knowledge brokering and community management to explore the similarities and differences between the two roles. We’re now mid-way through the first year of the AAAS Community Engagement Fellows Program (CEFP), funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The first cohort of Fellows is made up of 17 scientific community managers working with a diverse range of scientific communities.
Hence, although there was the semblance of detachment, mainly through processes and protocols, it was impossible for our brokers to operate as detached actors in this contentious water planning context. ZCs were established in the midst of institutional upheaval in Canterbury when in 2010 central government dismissed ECan’s elected councillors under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act, 2010 (the ECan Act) (see Rennie, 2010). This move allowed central government to appoint its chosen commissioners to run the regional council and suspend regional council elections.