DOCSLIB.ORG

Knowledge Broker Capabilities: Translating Knowledge Into Action for Healthcare Quality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DRAFT – NOT FOR CIRCULATION Knowledge Broker Capabilities: Translating Knowledge into Action for Healthcare Quality. Narrative Review and Analysis of Literature Contents 1. Background and Purpose.........................................................................3 2. Scope .......................................................................................................3 3. Methods....................................................................................................4 4. Results .....................................................................................................4 4.1 Knowledge translation models ............................................................5 4.3 Integration with healthcare teams .......................................................7 4.4 Operating as a collaborative network..................................................8 4.5 Bridging the worlds of research and practice ......................................8 4.6 Identifying and solving problems.........................................................8 4.7 Accessing and identifying knowledge .................................................9 4.8 Describing and organising knowledge ................................................9 4.9 Analysing, appraising and interpreting knowledge..............................9 4.10 Combining and presenting knowledge............................................10 4.11 Contextualising and customising knowledge ..................................10 4.12 Building relationships and networks................................................11 4.13 Facilitating organisational change...................................................11 4.14 Sustaining knowledge in action.......................................................12 4.14.2 Building workforce capabilities in knowledge into action. .........12 4.14.3 Embedding knowledge in education.........................................12 4.14.4 Disseminating and spreading knowledge .................................13 4.14.5 Monitoring knowledge implementation and outcomes.............13 4.15 Knowledge broker attributes ...........................................................14 5. Discussion..............................................................................................14 6. Conclusion..............................................................................................16 7. References.............................................................................................19 1 DRAFT – NOT FOR CIRCULATION Summary This narrative review of published literature on the knowledge broker role identifies key knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours which enable knowledge brokers to bridge the domains of research and practice. Knowledge brokers apply these capabilities through close collaboration with healthcare teams to help them apply knowledge in frontline practice, planning and policy, and embed knowledge in healthcare improvement. The review highlights that knowledge brokering involves a diverse range of capabilities which combine the strengths of established evidence-based practice (based on “know-what”) and more emergent quality improvement approaches (drawing upon “know-how” and “know-who”). In combination, these capabilities can provide a powerful knowledge system to underpin healthcare improvement, implementation support and innovation. This literature describes the broad range of clinical and non-clinical disciplines that can participate in knowledge brokering. It emphasises the importance of collaboration within knowledge broker teams or networks, to combine complementary areas of expertise. As identified through this analysis, knowledge broker capabilities fall broadly into three categories: 1. Applying inquiry and knowledge management techniques to define and solve problems . This is supported by use of technology and other tools to access, identify, describe and organise knowledge. This provides a foundation for combining and presenting knowledge in a format that is relevant to context and audience, embedding knowledge in routine practice wherever possible. 2. Facilitating relationships and networks , among people and across organisations, based on sharing tacit knowledge – e.g. expertise and experience. Fostering connections, dialogue and interaction In this way helps to generate innovation as well as to expedite uptake of knowledge into practice. 3. Building organisational capacity and capability for translation of knowledge into practice and policy . This includes development of organisational culture and values for use of knowledge, as well as approaches that help to sustain widespread application of knowledge in practice. This includes building workforce skills in using knowledge; embedding use of knowledge in education; targeted dissemination and spread of knowledge; promoting use of practice data and quality measures; monitoring and measuring impact of use of knowledge. Taken together, the findings from this review provide a strong foundation for development of a knowledge broker capability framework which aligns application of knowledge with the skills, behaviours and values of quality improvement. 2 DRAFT – NOT FOR CIRCULATION Knowledge Broker Capabilities: Translating Knowledge into Action for Healthcare Quality. Narrative Review and Analysis of Literature 1. Background and Purpose 1.1 The NHSScotland strategic review “Getting Knowledge into Action for Healthcare Quality” (1) defines a vision of a national network of knowledge brokers, integrated with clinical and improvement teams. This collaborative network will draw participants from a variety of backgrounds, including librarians, clinical effectiveness, public health, research, informatics, and clinical practice. Collectively, members of this network will provide a portfolio of services which support practitioners to apply knowledge in frontline practice, and embed knowledge in healthcare improvement activities. 1.2 This literature review aims to identify knowledge, skills, behaviours, attitudes and values associated with the knowledge broker role. This analysis will continue to inform development of the capability framework for the NHSScotland knowledge broker network. 2. Scope 2.1 The Canadian Institute for Health Research definition of knowledge translation was used as the basis for identifying knowledge broker roles which facilitate the translation of knowledge into healthcare practice: “a dynamic and iterative process that includes the synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve health, provide more effective health services and products, and strengthen the healthcare system.” (2) 2.2 The scope of this overview included roles formally described as “knowledge brokers” as well as other terms used for knowledge support roles involving integrated working with healthcare teams to support translation of knowledge into practice – notably, clinical librarians, informationists, and, in some instances, healthcare practitioner roles. Knowledge broker roles associated with public health or clinical practice, originating from any professional background, both clinical and non-clinical, and working in research, education or practice, were all within scope. This literature review is primarily concerned with the capabilities required by individual healthcare workers in knowledge broker roles, though aspects may also be pertinent to teams, organisations and even whole countries operating as knowledge brokers. 2.3 While the primary focus of this review is on knowledge broker capabilities in the health setting, the original literature search identified knowledge broker functions in settings broader than healthcare, and reference is made to learning from wider contexts where appropriate. 3 DRAFT – NOT FOR CIRCULATION 3. Methods 3.1 The following databases were searched via The Knowledge Network: Cochrane Library including CRD Medline EMBASE CINAHL PsycInfo ASSIA HMIC ERIC EMERALD LISTA Campbell Collaboration Biomed Central Web of Science Social Science Citation Index Google search World Health Organisation website Some sources were identified via citation searches or from articles identified in the original K2A review. Search terms used knowledge translation knowledge broker* knowledge exchange knowledge gap evidence gap knowledge role* capabilit* framework* competenc* framework health librarian clinical librarian informationist clinical information specialis* outreach librarian clinical teams outreach librarian knowledge manage* 3.2 Abstracts were reviewed and fulltext obtained for articles which described knowledge broker roles. Given the practical focus of this literature overview, where available, systematic reviews were used as the main source of information for the primary research articles they covered. References to knowledge, skills, behaviours, values and attitudes were extracted, and common themes identified across articles. These themes are described below where they occurred across more than one primary article. 4. Results 4 DRAFT – NOT FOR CIRCULATION 4.1 Knowledge translation models 4.1.1 Reports of the knowledge broker role primarily referred to two models of knowledge translation: The Knowledge to Action model (3): This describes a knowledge creation process linked to a planned action cycle, with fluid boundaries between the two. While this model stresses the iterative and fluid nature of knowledge translation, it is underpinned by the positivist principle of driving towards, and determining,
Recommended publications
  • Knowledge Brokering in Canada’S Health System

    Knowledge Brokering in Canada’S Health System

    THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF KNOWLEDGE BROKERING IN CANADA’S HEALTH SYSTEM A report based on a CHSRF national consultation and a literature review December 2003 This document is available on the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation web site (www.chrsf.ca). For more information on the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, contact the foundation at: 1565 Carling Avenue suite 700 Ottawa, Ontario K1Z 8R1 E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: (613) 728-2238 Fax: (613) 728-3527 Ce document est disponible sur le site web de la Fondation canadienne de la recherche sur les services de santé (www.fcrss.ca). Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements sur la Fondation canadienne de la recherche sur les services de santé, communiquez avec la Fondation : 1565, avenue Carling, bureau 700 Ottawa (Ontario) K1Z 8R1 Courriel : [email protected] Téléphone: (613) 728-2238 Télécopieur: (613) 728-3527 The Theory and Practice of Knowledge Brokering in Canada’s Health System A report based on a CHSRF national consultation and a literature review December 2003 Table of Contents Main Messages ...............................................................................................i Executive Summary.......................................................................................ii Knowledge Brokering in Canada .................................................................. 1 Why brokering?............................................................................................. 2 What is a broker?..........................................................................................
  • Exploring the Function and Effectiveness of Knowledge Brokers

    Exploring the Function and Effectiveness of Knowledge Brokers

    Bornbaum et al. Implementation Science (2015) 10:162 DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0351-9 Implementation Science SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Open Access Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis Catherine C. Bornbaum1,2*, Kathy Kornas1, Leslea Peirson4 and Laura C. Rosella1,3,5 Abstract Background: Knowledge brokers (KBs) work collaboratively with key stakeholders to facilitate the transfer and exchange of information in a given context. Currently, there is a perceived lack of evidence about the effectiveness of knowledge brokering and the factors that influence its success as a knowledge translation (KT) mechanism. Thus, the goal of this review was to systematically gather evidence regarding the nature of knowledge brokering in health-related settings and determine if KBs effectively contributed to KT in these settings. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using a search strategy designed by a health research librarian. Eight electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus, SocINDEX, and Health Business Elite) and relevant grey literature sources were searched using English language restrictions. Two reviewers independently screened the abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data, and performed quality assessments. Analysis included a confirmatory thematic approach. To be included, studies must have occurred in a health-related setting, reported on an actual application of knowledge brokering, and be available in English. Results: In total, 7935 records were located. Following removal of duplicates, 6936 abstracts were screened and 240 full-text articles were reviewed. Ultimately, 29 articles, representing 22 unique studies, were included in the thematic analysis.
  • Knowledge Brokerage in a Software Engineering Firm - Towards a Practical Model for Managing Knowledge Work in Social Networks

    Knowledge Brokerage in a Software Engineering Firm - Towards a Practical Model for Managing Knowledge Work in Social Networks

    Knowledge Brokerage in a Software Engineering Firm - Towards a practical model for managing knowledge work in social networks Tomas Hellström, Ulf Malmqvist and Jon Mikaelsson IMIT WP: 2001_118 Datum: 2001 Antal sidor: 24 Institute for Management of Innovation and Technology Knowledge brokerage in a software engineering firm: Towards a practical model for managing knowledge work in social networks Tomas Hellström* Ulf Malmquist^ Jon Mikaelsson€ * IMIT and Innovation Engineering and Management Chalmers University of Technology SE-412 96 Gothenburg Sweden Tel: +46 31 772 4422 Fax: +46 31 772 1917 Email: [email protected] ^ IMIT and Skanova Networks and FENIX Research Program Stockholm School of Economics Sweden € IMIT and Volvo Car Corporation and FENIX Research Program Chalmers University of Technology Sweden This report is a result of a project funded by Cap Gemini Forum on the Future of Knowledge Management Abstract The present paper outlines the philosophical background as well as a practical case of so-called decentralized management of knowledge work. It is argued that top-down perspectives on knowledge have dominated management initiatives in this area, at the expense of naturally occurring, or emergent work patterns of R&D organizations. A model of management based on semi-organized individual knowledge exchange or “brokerage” is proposed as a solution. This alternative is exemplified in a case study from a software engineering firm. The paper proposes a number of principles that may be used to guide the development of similar models elsewhere. 2 INTRODUCTION The recent upsurge in management writings on the management of knowledge in organizations has put many taken for granted doctrines on the spot.
  • Key Components of Collaborative Research in the Context of Environmental Health: a Scoping Review

    Key Components of Collaborative Research in the Context of Environmental Health: a Scoping Review

    Published by AU Press, Canada Journal of Research Practice Journal of Research Practice Volume 13, Issue 2, Article R2, 2017 Review: Key Components of Collaborative Research in the Context of Environmental Health: A Scoping Review Osnat Wine Department of Pediatrics University of Alberta, Edmonton, CANADA [email protected] Sarah Ambrose Department of Health Sciences Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA [email protected] Sandy Campbell John W. Scott Library University of Alberta, Edmonton, CANADA [email protected] Paul J. Villeneuve Department of Health Sciences Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA [email protected] Katharina Kovacs Burns School of Public Health University of Alberta, Edmonton, CANADA [email protected] Alvaro Osornio Vargas Department of Pediatrics University of Alberta, Edmonton, CANADA [email protected] The DoMiNO Team Page 1 of 32 Published by AU Press, Canada Journal of Research Practice Abstract In a collaborative research process, the participation of interdisciplinary researchers and multi-sectoral stakeholders supports the co-creation, translation, and exchange of new knowledge. Following a scoping review methodology, we explored the collaborative research processes in the specific context of environment and human health research. Initially, our literature search strategy identified 1,328 publications. After several phases of reviewing and applying screening criteria to titles, abstracts, and full text, 45 publications were selected for final review.
  • Knowledge Brokering: the Missing Link in the Evidence to Action Chain? Evidence and Policy, 5 (3)

    Knowledge Brokering: the Missing Link in the Evidence to Action Chain? Evidence and Policy, 5 (3)

    promoting access to White Rose research papers Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ This is an author produced version of an article published in Evidence and Policy. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/75808/ Published article: Ward, V, House, A and Hamer, S (2009) Knowledge Brokering: The missing link in the evidence to action chain? Evidence and Policy, 5 (3). 267 - 279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/174426409X463811 White Rose Research Online [email protected] Authors: Dr Vicky Ward Leeds Institute of Health Sciences Room 2.04 Charles Thackrah Building 101 Clarendon Road Leeds LS2 9LJ (0113) 343 0848 [email protected] Professor Allan House Leeds Institute of Health Sciences Charles Thackrah Building 101 Clarendon Road Leeds LS2 9LJ Dr Susan Hamer Room 4.12 Baines Wing School of Healthcare University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT Knowledge Brokering: The missing link in the evidence to action chain? Abstract The importance of transferring healthcare research into policy and practice is widely acknowledged but so too is the complexity of doing so. Translating, transferring and implementing research is a messy and complex process and it is sometimes thought that neither healthcare professionals nor researchers are best placed to carry out these tasks. A frequently discussed alternative is the use of individuals or organizations to act as intermediaries or knowledge brokers. Positioned at the interface between research and practice, they are seen as the human force behind knowledge transfer. In their role as intermediaries these individuals and organizations perform a variety of functions including managing research and other information, facilitating linkage between parties and developing the skills of both researchers and practitioners.
  • Project Management Office a Knowledge Broker in Project-Based

    Project Management Office a Knowledge Broker in Project-Based

    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 31–42 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman Project management office a knowledge broker in project-based organisations ⁎ Sofia Pemsel a, , Anna Wiewiora b a Lund University, Sweden b Queensland University of Technology, Australia Received 29 September 2011; received in revised form 14 March 2012; accepted 22 March 2012 Abstract Current research into project management offices (PMOs) has stressed the PMOs' potential to act as knowledge brokers between projects, and between project and top management. Nonetheless, the literature does not provide sufficient evidence of the brokering role of PMOs. The research reported here aims to examine PMO's functions from a knowledge sharing perspective and explore whether or not these functions reflect the knowledge sharing needs of project managers (PMs). These issues are investigated through a cross-case analysis of seven organisations. The main contribution is insight into how PMs share knowledge and awareness of the need to structure PMOs to align with PMs' nature, needs and expectations in order to improve knowledge sharing in PBOs. Finally, some practical steps for helping PMOs to better adapt their functions to the needs of PMs and their learning and knowledge sharing style are proposed. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. Keywords: Knowledge management; Knowledge sharing; Project management office; Project manager; Project-based organisation 1. Introduction but characteristically for both types, it's an organisation that is capable of handling many projects (Artto et al., 2011). Projects are temporary organisations, with an intentional The expected benefits of establishing a PBO are that the death, purposefully designed to provide benefits for a permanent temporary project organisation and the PBO should work organisation or certain stakeholders through complex problem- jointly.
  • Knowledge Brokering As an Evidence-Based Strategy

    Knowledge Brokering As an Evidence-Based Strategy

    Knowledge Brokering as an Evidence -Based Strategy KTER Center’s State of the Science Conference on Employment Research September 5, 2019 Copyright © 2019 American Institutes for Research (AIR). All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from AIR. Submit copyright permissions requests to the AIR Publications Copyright and Permissions Help Desk at [email protected]. Users may need to secure additional permissions from copyright holders whose work AIR included after obtaining permission as noted to reproduce or adapt materials for this presentation. Knowledge Brokering as an Evidence -Based Strategy Maureen Dobbins, RN, PhD Summit Conference 2019 Portland, Maine Funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada | Affiliated with McMaster University Production of this presentationFol haslow been us m@adencc posmt s ible through Suivez a fi-nancnousial @ contccnmributoion from the Public Health Agency of Canada. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Public Health Agency of Canada. Objectives • Define knowledge brokering • What does the science say • Evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) model • Stages of change theory to guide evaluation • Examples from public health in Canada • Recommendations for vocational rehabilitation (VR) settings 3 NCC Determinants NCC of Health Aboriginal Antigonish, Nova Health Scotia
  • Processes and Methods for Interdisciplinary Problem Solving and Technology Integration in Knowledge-Intensive Domains Malte Schoefer

    Processes and Methods for Interdisciplinary Problem Solving and Technology Integration in Knowledge-Intensive Domains Malte Schoefer

    Processes and Methods for Interdisciplinary Problem Solving and Technology Integration in Knowledge-Intensive Domains Malte Schoefer To cite this version: Malte Schoefer. Processes and Methods for Interdisciplinary Problem Solving and Technology Inte- gration in Knowledge-Intensive Domains. Mechanical engineering [physics.class-ph]. Arts et Métiers ParisTech, Paris, 2015. English. tel-01157923 HAL Id: tel-01157923 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01157923 Submitted on 28 May 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial| 4.0 International License 2015-ENAM-0005 École doctorale n° 432 : Science des Métiers de l’ingénieur Doctorat ParisTech T H È S E pour obtenir le grade de docteur délivré par l’École Nationale Supérieure d'Arts et Métiers Spécialité “ Génie Mécanique ” présentée et soutenue publiquement par Malte SCHOEFER le 10 Avril 2015 Processes and Methods for Interdisciplinary Problem Solving and Technology Integration in Knowledge-Intensive Domains Directeur de thèse : Améziane AOUSSAT Co-encadrement de la thèse : Nicolas MARANZANA Jury M. Emmanuel CAILLAUD, Prof. Dr., ICUBE, Université de Strasbourg Président T Mme Luciënne BLESSING, Prof. Dr.-Ing., Ingénierie, Université du Luxembourg Rapporteur M.
  • Evaluation Units As Knowledge Brokers: Testing and Calibrating An

    Evaluation Units As Knowledge Brokers: Testing and Calibrating An

    EVI0010.1177/1356389016638752EvaluationOlejniczak et al.: Evaluation units as knowledge brokers 638752research-article2016 Article Evaluation 2016, Vol. 22(2) 168 –189 Evaluation units as knowledge © The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav brokers: Testing and calibrating DOI: 10.1177/1356389016638752 an innovative framework evi.sagepub.com Karol Olejniczak Centre for European Regional and Local Studies (EUROREG), University of Warsaw, Poland Estelle Raimondo George Washington University, USA Tomasz Kupiec EGO s.c. – Evaluation for Government Organizations, Poland Abstract Evaluation units, located within public institutions, are important actors responsible for the production and dissemination of evaluative knowledge in complex programming and institutional settings. The current evaluation literature does not adequately explain their role in fostering better evaluation use. The article offers an empirically tested framework for the analysis of the role of evaluation units as knowledge brokers. It is based on a systematic, interdisciplinary literature review and empirical research on evaluation units in Poland within the context of the European Union Cohesion Policy, with complementary evidence from the US federal government and international organizations. In the proposed framework, evaluation units are to perform six types of brokering activities: identifying knowledge users’ needs, acquiring credible knowledge, feeding it to users, building networks between producers and users, accumulating
  • COMING to TERMS with Knowledge Brokering and Translation

    COMING to TERMS with Knowledge Brokering and Translation

    COMING TO TERMS with Knowledge Brokering and Translation By Zoë Sofoulis Sky Hugman Philippa Collin Amanda Third BACKGROUND PAPER For Knowledge Ecologies Workshop Case Studies in Knowledge Brokering and Translation Institute for Culture and Society UWS Parramatta 28 November 2012 Coming to Terms with Knowledge Brokering and Translation Zoë Sofoulis, Sky Hugman, Philippa Collin, Amanda Third1 Institute for Culture and Society, UWS INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this paper is to clarify terminology and raise key questions in order to provide a shared starting point for discussions amongst participants in the workshop ‘Case Studies in Knowledge Brokering and Translation’ to be held by the Institute for Culture and Society at UWS Parramatta campus on November 28, 2012. Although a number of UWS academics conduct research under conventional paradigms in the lab, the clinic, the library and the database, many have also gained significant experience in the kind of research implied in the University’s vision of ‘Bringing knowledge to life in Greater Western Sydney through community and business engagement with our learning and our research’, and its goals to ‘Develop focused, relevant and world-class engaged research’, including through ‘effective research partnerships’. UWS’s success at achieving such objectives has been recognised, for example in the 2010 ERA exercise which accorded ‘world class’ status to the Centre for Cultural Research (now the Institute for Culture and Society), a pioneer in humanities research partnerships and applied cultural research. The strength of our University’s relations with relevant regional industry, government, community and educational organisations was a major factor in its being selected as a Regional Centre of Excellence in Education for Sustainability by the University of the United Nations in 2012.
  • Engineering Serendipitous Innovation Through Knowledge Brokering

    Engineering Serendipitous Innovation Through Knowledge Brokering

    InImpact: The Journal of Innovation Impact: ISSN 2051-6002 : http://www.inimpact.org Vol. 7. No. 1 : pp.206-215 : inkt14-030 Engineering Serendipitous Innovation through Knowledge Brokering Victor Newman* & David Jai-Persad** *Centre for Innovation, Imagination & Inspiration; **Greenwich Research & Enterprise: the University of Greenwich Abstract British SMEs and much larger organizations are running a huge innovation deficit that has yet to be calculated. The cost of not applying what is known and relevant to delivering new value is probably incalculable and the problem is the permeability of new ideas within existing organizations restricted by the power of legacy operations, cultural inflexibility and lack of peripheral vision. This working paper provides examples of serendipitous innovation through discovery, proposing social innovation approaches based on connecting innovative SMEs’ knowledge and capability through a systemic approach to knowledge brokering through utilising current functions within the University of Greenwich in a novel partnership to connect innovators and transform profitability. A simple Knowledge Application Culture model is introduced. 1. Innovation Deficit Context Back in 2010, Henry Chesbrough pointed out that the few ideas adopted at Palo Alto Research Center that made it to market were all innovations that fitted Xerox’s existing business models [1]. Those ideas that escaped and changed the world of personal computing all required new customised business models. It is only possible to guess at the impact that legacy innovation models is having on innovation-attrition, but if we include the impact of legacy new product development models where risk is calculated on the novelty of innovation, it becomes obvious that having innovative ideas is not the problem, but building satisfactory eco- systems that turn them into new value is becoming increasingly difficult as minor differentiation and extensions around current products, services and business models becomes the norm.
  • The Rise of the Knowledge Broker Morgan Meyer

    The Rise of the Knowledge Broker Morgan Meyer

    The Rise of the Knowledge Broker Morgan Meyer To cite this version: Morgan Meyer. The Rise of the Knowledge Broker. Science Communication, SAGE Publications, 2010, 32 (1), pp.118-127. 10.1177/1075547009359797. hal-00493794 HAL Id: hal-00493794 https://hal-mines-paristech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00493794 Submitted on 29 Dec 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. NOTE: This article has been published in the journal Science Communication, 2010, vol. 32, n. 1 The Rise of the Knowledge Broker Morgan Meyer Mines ParisTech, France Abstract Knowledge brokers are people or organizations that move knowledge around and create connections between researchers and their various audiences. This commentary reviews some of the literature on knowledge brokering and lays out some thoughts on how to analyze and theorize this practice. Discussing the invisibility and interstitiality of knowledge brokers, the author argues that social scientists need to analyze more thoroughly their practices, the brokering devices they use, and the benefits and drawbacks of their double peripherality. The author also argues that knowledge brokers do not only move knowledge, but they also produce a new kind of knowledge: brokered knowledge.