Knowledge Mobilization Intermediaries in EducationFormer Proposal Title: Knowledge mobilization intermediaries in education: A mixed methods study comparing research use and its impact on policy and practice in Canada,

London and Australia

CSSE, Montreal, 2010

Amanda Cooper

Ontario Institute for Studies in EducationUniversity of Toronto

Theory and Policy Studies in Education Department252 Bloor Street West

Toronto, OntarioM5S 1V6Canada

E-mail: amanda.cooper@utoronto.ca

**Earlier version presented at AERA, Denver, 2010

Abstract

The gap between research evidence, policy and practice is common across sectors, disciplines and organizations. Many third party agencies and intermediaries (often called knowledge brokers) have arisen as a response to the challenge of connecting research to policy and practice. First, this paper briefly outlines findings (from a study that utilizes interventions to examine research use by educational leaders in Canada) that suggest intermediaries have a potentially powerful role to play increasing research uptake in practice contexts. Second, it provides a literature review of intermediaries - exploring terminology, models and empirical work, albeit sparse, across sectors. Finally, it proposes new ways to conceptualize intermediaries’ roles in knowledge mobilization in education. Ultimately, this paper explores the increasingly prominent role of intermediaries in strengthening connections between research, practice and policy in education.

Key Words

Knowledge mobilization; education; intermediaries; third parties; knowledge brokers; research utilization

2

Introduction

The gap between research evidence, policy and practice is commonly lamented across sectors, disciplines and organizations (Boaz et al., 2007; Cooper, Levin & Campbell, 2009; Davies, Nutley, & Smith, 2000; Lemieux-Charles, & Champagne, 2004; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). I use the term knowledge mobilization (KM), originally coined by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), to encapsulate efforts to address research-policy-practice gaps in education. In SSHRC’s definition, KM means “moving knowledge into active service for the broadest possible common good”:

Here knowledge is understood to mean any or all of (1) findings from specific social sciences and humanities research, (2) the accumulated knowledge and experience of social sciences and humanities researchers, and (3) the accumulated knowledge and experience of stakeholders concerned with social, cultural, economic and related issues (SSHRC, n.d.).

My conception of KM differs from SSHRC in that it does not incorporate ALL knowledge and experiences from stakeholder groups; conversely, I see KM as a focused attempt to increase the use of research knowledge specifically, outside of academia. Hence, my definition of KM is as follows:

Knowledge Mobilization (KM) includes intentional efforts to increase the use of research evidence (data collected through systematic and established formal processes of inquiry from widely accepted bodies of empirical work, rather than from single studies) in policy and practice at multiple levels of the education sector – between individual, organizational, and system levels. This means “the evidence (however construed) can be independently observed and verified, and that there is broad consensus as to its contents (if not interpretation)” (Davies, Nutley & Smith, 2000, p. 2). KM occurs through iterative, nonlinear social processes involving interaction among two or more groups (researchers, policymakers, practitioners, knowledge brokers, community members) in order to improve the broader education system.

Common criticisms of the evidence-based movement and associated terminology (KM in education; knowledge transfer, exchange or translation in the health sector; knowledge management in the business sector) include: the narrow view of ‘knowledge’ as empirical research; the assumption that practitioners are rationale actors; concerns of research overshadowing the importance of professional expertise and judgment; educators lacking the time necessary to seek out, assess and use evidence in daily practice; debate surrounding the criteria for assessing the quality of evidence; and the ironic lack of evidence surrounding these efforts! (Lemieux-Charles & Champagne, 2004; Nutley, Walter & Davies, 2007).

I acknowledge that there are many important factors that influence policy and practice, beliefs, values, organizational culture to name a few; however, I maintain that research can provide an external check for our beliefs and practices. Stakeholders in education hold many views that influence KM and whether or not particular research messages are resisted or incorporated. When research aligns with beliefs, it is often adopted more quickly than when it runs counter to intuition and pre-existing professional attitudes (Cordingley, 2008; Levin, 2004, 2008; Nutley et al., 2007; Timperley, 2010).

There are many examples in literature in health and education where professional practices based on values or intuition have proven to be ineffective or even harmful according to the research (Estabrooks et al., 2003; Lemieux-Charles & Champagne, 2004; Nutley et al., 2007).

3

Examples in education include tracking or retention in grade or corporal punishment. It took decades for this last practice to change, and research evidence had an important part to play in changing professionals’ beliefs.

KM based on research evidence, from credible bodies of research knowledge, has the potential to debunk some of the views that exist in education (such as smaller classes improving student outcomes, or that education cannot counteract external family and societal factors) that are simply not consistent with large bodies of research evidence. Though I also recognize, sometimes the research also turns out to be wrong, even occasionally in comparison to conventional wisdom. In some cases, today’s conventional wisdom is yesterday’s research. So while I argue that research provides an important external balance to professional opinion and experiences, this point is not necessarily one directional.

The literature on KM highlights that research use (or the lack thereof) is a function of the interaction among a number of different organizational contexts that exist within systems (Amara et al., 2004; Nutley et al., 2007). Levin (2004, 2005, 2006) identifies, from the cross-disciplinary research on KM, three areas where this work occurs: research producers (primarily universities), research users (ministries of education, teachers, school districts, principals, and professional organizations), and third party agencies that mediate between the two groups (charitable foundations, research centers, government agencies, providers of professional development, media, think tanks, lobbyists, funding agencies and so on).

Much of the research that does exist on KM focuses on research producing contexts (e.g. Belkhodja & Landry, 2007; Landry et al., 2001) and research using contexts (e.g. Amara et al., 2004; Biddle & Saha, 2002; Cordingley, Bell, Evans & Crawford, 2004; Cordingley, 2008; Lavis, Robertson, et al., 2003) with very few studies addressing the intermediary organizations that participate in research use processes. This paper focuses on the many third party agencies and intermediaries1 (often called knowledge brokers) that have arisen as a response to the challenge of addressing research-practice-policy gaps in education.

Significance

Most professionals come in contact with research indirectly, through various mediating processes such as professional development, media, professional or consultancy organizations (Cooper, Levin & Campbell, 2009; Nutley et al., 2007). These third parties fulfill a variety of functions: from providing training in research literacy, to tailoring and adapting research products contextually to make research more accessible and relevant to busy professionals (Honig, 2004; Nutley, Walter & Davies, 2007).

The number of intermediaries in education is rising. Think tanks in the US alone have “quadrupled from fewer than seventy to more than 300 between 1970 and the turn of the century” (Rich, 2004, p. 4). Honig (2004), labeling intermediaries ‘the new middle management’, also maintains that the number of intermediaries in education has increased dramatically in the past decade. Sugrue (2008) similarly provides an overview of the many established and emerging national and international educational intermediaries highlighting that while ‘these lists are not exhaustive...they are illustrative of recent proliferation of both statutory and less permanent bodies” (p.58). The rising number of intermediaries is not matched by empirical studies investigating them; in fact, very little empirical work on intermediaries exists.

1 I use the terms intermediary, third party and knowledge broker interchangeably throughout the paper.

4

Research agencies (e.g. William Grant Foundation) and prominent scholars in the field are highlighting the importance of intermediaries’ roles in KM and emphasizing the need for empirical work on third parties in the KM process (e.g. Davies & Nutley, 2008; Honig, 2004; Nutley et al., 2007; Levin, 2004, 2008). Researchers and educators are beginning to ask who is involved in these roles, what functions they perform, how they accomplish these tasks, and what impact these third parties play, could play or should play in educational improvement initiatives (Datnow & Honig, 2004; Feldman, 2001; Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate & Kyriakidow, 2004; Kitson, Harvey & McCormack, 1998; Sin, 2008).

Organization of the paper

This paper is organized into four sections: the first is a brief overview of the original study that acts as a catalyst for the paper. The second section is a literature review on intermediaries exploring the multiple terms, models as well as empirical studies that exist across sectors. The third section outlines some personal contributions to conceptualizing KM and intermediaries in education.

Research use by leaders in Canadian secondary schools

This paper arises as an offshoot from a mixed methods study examining research use by leaders in Canadian secondary schools. The original study, funded by the Canadian Education Association (CEA), involved the collaboration of a faculty of education research team at OISE (University of Toronto) and eleven participating school districts in four provinces across Canada. This project explored research use among secondary school leaders (superintendents, principals and others with designated leadership roles) in Canada using pre- and post-intervention quantitative survey data as well as qualitative data collected from implementing modest interventions in nine school districts to increase research use.

The original study starts from the framework developed by Levin (2004) and similar framing by Nutley et al (2007) suggesting that knowledge and use of research in schools depends on: characteristics of research (accessibility, perceived quality), characteristics of the educators and schools (research background, interest level, supporting processes and structures), and the role of third parties as distributors of knowledge (general and professional media experts, professional development providers).

Our research team implemented three interventions to increase research use among educational leaders in nine school districts. Three districts were assigned to each intervention: (1) A system to share research (providing districts with a website containing research reports and executive summaries) (2) Study groups (principals were provided with research reports, executive summaries and guided questions for three sessions) (3) Districts conducted research to collect local data (we provided districts with the survey instrument and methodology to obtain data on the post-destinations of a former cohort of students).

Findings

This paper briefly describes qualitative data from districts on the role of intermediaries involved in the most ‘successful’ interventions (for more details on the original study please visit www.oise.utoronto.ca/rspe).

5

Interventions

In each intervention, one of the three school districts outperformed their counterparts (as determined by conference calls with districts exploring extent, nature and uptake of research materials). As we delved into reasons why this occurred we realized that, in all three cases, the successful districts had an individual responsible (a knowledge broker) for facilitating these interventions.

One district, in particular, was much more successful in its efforts. This district was involved in the most difficult intervention (having districts conduct their own research to collect local data). This district utilized an intermediary (a district research services team) that acted as a knowledge broker throughout the project. Students from three schools involved in the intervention in this district, assisted by the intermediary, created a number of products to present to senior administration in their district the following year including:

A report comparing two research surveys in their district (one from this study, and one from another CEA project, Tell Them From Me)

A power point presentation on the results of post-secondary destinations surveys

A YouTube video presenting the findings A student voice handout for educational leaders in the district

This district also, through meetings of the research services team, dedicated time to creating and thinking through a knowledge mobilization plan for the student outputs created from the project. This district intended to use and circulate these products in meetings with district administrators in the following academic year. This timeline for KM from the project was set to happen after the study had been completed; hence, while the district sent us final versions of the products, we do not know about extent and nature of use with educational leaders in the district or the subsequent impact of this use on district and school planning.

Importance of facilitation

Participants across districts consistently spoke of the need for facilitation in order to increase knowledge mobilization. Where interventions had virtually no uptake, leaders mentioned the lack of formalized role coordinating their efforts: “I think one of our struggles is that we don’t have a formal facilitator” (Secondary School Principal, Study Group District B). One principal discussed the need for facilitation in order to address the discrepancy between the acknowledgement of the importance of research and modest levels of actual use:

We are looking at ways of supporting teachers to access and utilize research; hence, the need for a facilitator. I think for many of us, that’s still where we are at - that [increasing research use] still requires [facilitation]. For the most part, the majority of teachers will not seek [research] out on their own, unless there is someone there that prompts them to do so or facilitates it (Secondary School Principal, Website District A).

Another argument for facilitation revolved around these individuals possessing particular skills to optimize engagement with research: “It is important to have a facilitator who will bring skills to keep people in the discussion” (Elementary Division Leader, Study Group

6

District A). Special skills were also mentioned in relation to creating action plans from discussion of research.

As stated earlier, a significant finding that arose from the intervention phase of our original study relates to the role of intermediaries and the importance of a key person dedicated to KM. As one participant highlighted:

I do think there is a huge role for us as knowledge brokers, of moving things along that also it helps if we know our local context so we’re able to take from the material and align it with things we are already doing in our districts, it is pretty important to have someone in-house to do that work. (Manager, Data District C).

This recurrent theme throughout the intervention phase of the study prompted us to further explore the roles of facilitators in successful districts. To this end, we created post-intervention interview questions for those individuals who acted as knowledge brokers in the most ‘successful’ districts and set up a conference call to discuss how they conceptualized their role in the intervention in relation to its uptake in their districts (Appendix A). We asked these facilitators to describe how they defined their role in the intervention, what benefits resulted from their interaction, barriers they faced, skills necessary for knowledge brokers in school districts, leverage points for intermediaries within the system and other key learnings from their involvement in the project (Table 1).

Table 1Interviews with key facilitators in successful interventions

Categories ResponsesDefinition of role Facilitator, salesperson, coach, cheerleader, coordinator, brokerHow the user benefits from knowledge broker

Districts need someone to bring context to research projects, figure out the pieces, and have enough credibility with principals to convince schools to take on projects that increase research use.

Barriers to KM projects Survey fatigue on the part of users and practitioners Roles and functions of knowledge brokers

• Research and Program evaluations• Consultation to schools, departments, committees• Training (staff development, university students)• Teacher inquiry • Facilitation of External Research• System Surveys• System data crunching (perception, achievement, etc.)• Navigating the world of academia and the world of school

boardso Astute in language, priorities, and processes in each worldo Emergent – tolerate ambiguity – have the broad research

design but need to be flexible in its implementation – lots of back and forth, compromise, problem-solving

Necessary skills for knowledge brokers

• Understanding of research methodology (critical appraisal skills, research synthesis techniques, design, ethics, etc.)

• Knowledge of the literature in education• Track record within academia, track record within districts

(credibility)

7

• Interpersonal skills – intuitive, flexible, organized, articulate• Ability to translate complex information into the bottom-line

that is relevant for the knowledge user (and take practice-based evidence to researchers in a credible manner)

Leverage points for intermediaries in education to increase KM

• Alignment of research with current priority initiatives• Tap into existing PD – infuse (or at least pepper) with

research• Senior administration interest and support of research (also

key influentials like system principals)• Grassroots interest and support of research• Federation interest and support of research – this is huge.

Key learning from your experiences as a knowledge broker

• There needs to be infrastructure of some kind for this to work (to facilitate it, and to lend it credibility)

• Ideally this would be someone’s position – when it is 1/3 of someone’s role it gets lost

• Those in the role really need to understand KM work, and all of the nuances and subtleties of organizational relationships

The need for formal roles, resources and capacity was reinforced by the fact that districts with more capacity for this work, tended to engage more intensely with the interventions. Facilitators discussed the multiple tensions in districts between the promotion of research (raising the profile of research) versus actually conducting research and data analysis versus communicating research findings to practitioners, all of which require different orientations and skills.

Another interesting finding arising from these discussions was the influence of the location of the research team or research project (and the resulting autonomy or lack thereof) to its uptake in the system. Ultimately, participants outlined that the effectiveness of KM efforts has a lot to do with “to whom you report.” One knowledge broker went on to outline that in the early days of constituting external research capacity (embedded in district but outside of schools), it is difficult to avoid being everyone’s service bureau, where colleagues are continually calling to ask ‘what does research say about x’. While arguably important, these multiple requests can quickly become distractions from district priorities. Location within the larger district can be crucial to intermediary’s ability to function effectively:

Ultimately, we ended up in the director's office, that's given us a tremendous amount of latitude. Other people can see us as an organizational tool as opposed to being someone's worker, and I think that that's one of the things that has helped us to get out of what other districts are distracted with or wired down with (Manager, District Research Team).

Similarly, in another district that was more successful with uptake of the intervention (materials from the study were used in a province wide professional development event for administrators) responsibility for the project was located at the district level with support from senior leadership:

I don't spend a lot of time on [research use]; it happens to be the one of a hundred of different types of things that I'm asked to do just because of the nature of my job and where it fits in the organization, and it can change by the day, because it's really hooked on to what happens in the superintendent's office. At the same time, that

8

gives it a bit of clout….the power [is] attached to it because of where it resides (Coordinator of initiatives and information).

So the level at which KM efforts originate and are endorsed potentially influence its credibility and uptake (this might also be a reason that certain initiatives are resisted, as they are conceptualized as top-down).

This study led me to further explore the role of intermediaries in facilitating KM in education. Next, is a literature review on intermediaries that was catalyzed by these findings, followed by my conception of KM and intermediaries as a result of the review, and, finally, I propose a process for assessing KM needs and matching these needs with specialized roles that knowledge brokers can play in order to increase research use in education.

Literature Review: Intermediaries

As outlined earlier, intermediaries are increasingly involved in facilitating research use across sectors; consequently, researchers are beginning to ask who is involved in these roles, what functions they perform, how they accomplish KM tasks, and what impact these third parties play, could play or should play in educational improvement initiatives (Datnow & Honig, 2004; Feldman, Nadash & Gursen, 2001; Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Kitson, Harvey & McCormack, 1998; Sin, 2008). I will review the literature on intermediaries outlining some definitions from the literature, provide examples of knowledge brokering models, and outline dimensions and characteristics that might differentiate intermediaries. I conclude this section with a conception of intermediaries to guide future research.

Multiple terms utilized interchangeably to describe third party roles

What counts as an intermediary in education (or other sectors) is not clear from the existing literature. Many terms (Table 2) that describe mediating processes are often utilized interchangeably, such as knowledge brokers, intermediaries, third party agencies, facilitators, boundary spanners, and so on (Honig, 2004; Levin, 2008; Thompson, Estabrooks & Degner, 2006; Ward, House & Hamer, 2009).

These definitions differ largely by sector. The definitions from the health sector all identify the role in terms of connecting researchers and producers for the purpose of knowledge mobilization; hence, these definitions are usefully applied to my conception of these roles in education. The business sector has an expansive literature on intermediaries, but these conceptions primarily deal with innovation in competitive corporate environments; hence, they are less useful in understanding the role intermediaries might play increasing knowledge mobilization in education or other public services. The term ‘broker’ means different things in different areas:

In business, a broker is an agent, promoter, dealer, fixer, trader, someonewho buys and sells; in politics, a broker is a diplomat, mediator, go-between,negotiator; in the information world, a broker is someone who knows howto access or acquire information and who provides a gateway to informationresources; in education, a broker is a proactive facilitator who connectspeople, networks, organizations and resources and establishes the conditionsto create something new or add value to something that already exists.(Jackson, 2003, p. 4)

Term Sector Definition & SourceIntermediaries Education Intermediaries are organizations that occupy the space in-between at least two other parties. Intermediary organizations primarily

function to mediate or to manage change in both those parties. Intermediary organizations operate independently of these two parties and provide distinct value beyond what the parties alone would be able to develop or to amass by themselves. At the same time, intermediary organizations depend on those parties to perform their essential functions. (Honig, 2004, p. 67)

Innovation broker

Innovation brokers help to mobilise innovations, identify opportunities that the current system undervalues and they broker relationships between disparate parts of the system. These organisations mediate both knowledge and relationships for their clients (Horne, n.d., p.3)

Knowledge broker

Middlemen, intermediaries, or agents who act as negotiators, interpreters, messengers or commissioners between different merchants or individuals (“broker”, 2010)

Health Knowledge brokers mediate between researchers and user communities. Individuals serving as brokers must understand both the research process and the users’ decision-making process (Jacobson, Butterill & Goering, 2003, p. 98)Knowledge brokering links researchers and decision makers, facilitating their interaction so that they are able to better understand each other's goals and professional culture, influence each other's work, forge new partnerships, and use research-based evidence. Brokering is ultimately about supporting evidence-based decision-making in the organization, management, and delivery of health services (CHSRF, 2003, p. 2)Knowledge brokering is the various people-based actions of knowledge exchange and adoption….knowledge brokering is typically used to refer to processes used by intermediaries (knowledge brokers) in mediating between sources of knowledge (usually science and research) and users of knowledge. Knowledge brokering is usually applied in an attempt to help knowledge exchange work better for the benefit of all parties (Land & Water Australia, 2006, p. 7)

Business Individuals or organizations that cross policy and practice divides (Sin, 2008, p. 86)Knowledge brokers can play an important role in open innovation processes. They act as catalysts, accelerating the combination of complementary knowledge and skills necessary to solve innovation problems, by making the right connections and links with solvers and seekers. In this way, knowledge brokers can help increase collaborative advantage Sousa, 2008, p. 22).Third parties who connect, recombine, and transfer knowledge to companies in order to facilitate innovation (Cillo, 2005, p. 404).

Research Broker

Business Those who package and retail the intellectual outputs of the research community to policymakers (Sundquist, 1978 in Sin, 2008, p.86)General Research brokers make ideas matter and use their intellectual authority to verify certain forms of knowledge as more accurate,

persuasive or objective.... promote ideas and attempt to push them onto the public/government agenda (‘soften’ the climate of opinion towards particular alternatives). (Stone, Maxwell & Keaton, 2001, p.35).

Mediator General This is the intellectual worker as enabler, fixer, catalyst and broker of ideas. Perhaps the salient feature, though, is the association of mediators with movement. The mediator is simply the one that gets things moving. (Osborne, 2004, p.440)

Table 2Popular terms used in various sectors to describe third party roles.

10

Jackson’s definition of broker in relation to education is useful for my conceptualization of intermediaries in a number of ways. First, it defines the role as proactive. Secondly, it outlines a number of important aspects (connections between people, networks, organizations and resources) and lastly, it highlights that brokers add value.

The literature review only revealed two definitions from education beyond Jackson’s- a study on policy implementation by Honig, 2004 (to be described more fully later) and a new term coined by Matthew Horne in the UK, innovation broker, that has recently emerged in the education sector paralleling the business sector conception of a knowledge broker. Horne critiques using the term ‘intermediary’ on the grounds that it is “commonly used in technical and policy documents but sounds a little passive – a mere go-between. Broker is a more active term indicating a role that connects people but also generates and facilitates innovation” (Horne, n.d., p.37). While innovation is not a central focus of my conception of intermediaries, it is not excluded from some of the functions that intermediaries might play in education.

Multiple models of intermediaries roles

In addition to the multiple terms that exist for the role of intermediaries, there are also a number of knowledge brokering models (Table 3). These knowledge brokering models predominantly originate in health and business, but the functions and dimensions listed are relevant to education.

Honig (2004) notes that intermediaries are particularly difficult to identify and study because many studies refer to intermediary organizations without defining what makes them intermediary, and many organizations self-identify themselves as intermediary organizations (often, this is one more designation added to a host of others):

These trends make it difficult to discern what intermediary organizations are, what they do, and how they operate. Accordingly, research, policy and practice provide weak guides for what may be productive and appropriate roles for this increasingly prominent participant in education policy implementation (pp. 65-66).

Part of the confusion surrounding intermediaries is that virtually all types of individuals and organizations are mentioned in the literature: charitable foundations, different kinds of research centres, government agencies, bridging organizations, professional organizations, individual researchers, media organizations (for example publishers), think tanks, lobbyists, policy entrepreneurs, libraries, educational and technical institutes, community based organizations (CBOs), grass roots organizations, local resource centers, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) (Nutley et al., 2007; Levin, 2004; Max Lock Center, n.d).

Diverse types of intermediaries can have very different roles depending on their purpose, so discussing intermediaries in a holdall category is not helpful:

It is meaningless, however, to discuss intermediaries as an amorphous monolithic entity. Instead, the evidence-based policy and practice enterprise should engage in sustained discussion around the identification of who intermediaries may be, why they may play brokerage roles in particular contexts, how they perform such roles, and what this impact might be. It is likely that roles and functions may be fluid and context-dependent. A greater understanding of such intermediaries and the roles they perform will be beneficial to a more sophisticated understanding of the process of linking policy to practice (Sin, 2008, p. 98).

11

Sector Model, Factors affecting KM Health (Lavis, Robertson, et al., 2003)

This model is a five prong KM organizing framework: (1) the message, (2) the target audience, (3) the messenger, (4) the knowledge transfer process and supporting communications infrastructure, (5) evaluation. Lavis emphasizes that importance of credibility and trust, and suggests that researchers working through trusted intermediaries (knowledge brokers) as messengers might address researchers’ time constraints, limited interest of, and skills applicable to KM, while at the same time enhancing the messenger’s credibility; therefore, ultimately increasing research uptake by users.

Health,(Land & Water Australia, 2006)

(1) Network Knowledge Brokers are members of a specific network, for example the World Health Organisation (WHO) or the Australian Wildlife Health Network. They use their networks to transfer information between the ABCRC and that network.(2) Issues-based Knowledge Brokers champion particular issues so that programs respond to high priority issues and stakeholders have a single point of contact for information arising from multiple research projects.(3) Program-based Knowledge Brokers are Research Program coordinators who ensure research projects are integrated across the various Programs.(4) Project-based Knowledge Brokers are members of a research project team. They work with the research team and the end-users to ensure that expectations of the research project are managed and that the needs of the end users are met, leadingto improved research adoption.

Health (Jacobson, Butterill & Goering, 2005)

Six stage model of consultancy that could be applied to different roles that KM brokers could play in user organizations: (1) Pre-entry: in which the context for the consulting project is set (2) Entry, in which the consultants and clients define the central issues and the project scope (3) Diagnosis, in which consultants assisted by clients gather and analyze data (4) Intervention, in which clients and consultants interpret the analyse data (5) Exit, in which consultants write and present report (6) Post-exit in which the client does or does not implement the recommendations. This model involves four types of work: business work (budgeting and hiring), project management work, substantive work (gathering, synthesizing, and applying knowledge) and political work (interpersonal and political context).

Business (Cillo, 2005)

This model is based on (1) cognitive distance between the contexts and (2) the complexity of the knowledge to be transferred. Information-Broker (low distance/low complexity): core function is transfer, sporadic interaction among groups. Knowledge Coder (high distance/ low complexity): core function is knowledge codification, sporadic interaction among groups; Integrated Knowledge Broker (low distance, high complexity): core functions access and transfer, continuous interaction among groups, knowledge transferred by directly interacting with two parties needing to share knowledge; Pure Knowledge broker (high distance, high complexity): core functions are access, recombination and transfer, involves continuous interaction among groups.

Business (Sin, 2008)

Five consultancy approaches to knowledge brokering: (1) Cross-pollinators work across sectors and, by virtue of these interactions, can often identify and apply benefits among sectors (2) Matchmakers help bring research producers and users together in order to build shared understanding among stakeholders (3) Translators and processors interpret and adapt research to suit particular contexts and users (4) Multiple dissemination routes: These brokers make research available in diverse formats, using a variety of techniques in order to increase impact (5) Articulators of user perspectives: These brokers introduce users to new evidence while simultaneously giving feed back to research producers about the needs of users (summarized and adapted from pp. 93-96)

Table 3Knowledge brokering models

12

My conceptualization of intermediaries (at the end of this paper) attempts to act on the recommendations of Honig and Sin by disaggregating intermediaries along a number of dimensions arising from my analysis of the literature.

Empirical studies on intermediaries from across sectors

As the recognition of the increasing number and importance of intermediaries involved in KM processes across sectors has grown, studies have begun to examine research use by intermediaries.

Lavis et al. (2003) surveyed 265 directors of applied research organizations (both applied health research organizations, N= 134, and applied economic/social research organizations, N=131). They defined applied research health research organizations “as research groups studying the effectiveness and efficiency of clinical services and health care systems” (p. 230). They defined economic and social research organizations “as research groups studying the effectiveness and efficiency of government economic/social programs and economic/ social policy systems” (p. 230).

This sample included four types of organization: autonomous research groups, semiautonomous research groups in universities, semiautonomous research groups in federal or provincial government departments, and semiautonomous research groups in Quebec’s largest regional health authorities. They excluded university departments or schools, virtual networks of researchers, management-consulting firms, marketing-research firms, professional membership organizations and research groups that had existed for less than a year. Hence, their sample was made up primarily of intermediaries.

Lavis et al.’s study used the five prong model (Table 3) which explores KT (Knowledge translation is the analogous term for KM in the health sector) in regards to (i) the message – what is transferred (ii) the target audience- who is it transferred to (iii) the messenger- who transfers knowledge (iv) the knowledge-transfer processes and supporting communications infrastructure- how is knowledge transferred and (v) evaluation – the effect of KT. The survey covered the five domains outlined in the framework by asking:

1. What do research organizations transfer to their target audiences, and at what cost? (message)

2. To whom do research organizations transfer research knowledge, and with what investments in targeting them? (target audience)

3. By whom is the research knowledge transferred, and with what investments in assisting them? (messenger)

4. How do research organizations engage target audiences in the research process (and do they use supporting communications infrastructure such as websites and newsletters to transfer research knowledge)? (KT process)

5. Do research organizations perform evaluative activities related to knowledge transfer? (evaluation) (p. 231)

They found that even in these intermediary organizations, with an explicit focus on KT, only about one third had developed strategies beyond the simple transmission of research reports and

13

summaries or had actionable messages. They also found that 60% of these organizations tailored KT approaches to specific audiences, but only 39% of respondents dedicated resources to get to know their audiences and 20% dedicated resources to skill building among their target audiences. Even internally, few organizations used resources to enhance capacity through skill building among KT staff (22%), getting to know the research literature on effective approaches to KT (21%), or learning what constitutes a ‘credible’ message for their audiences (17%).

Research organizations did however have dedicated staff with KT duties (63%), and a significant minority created explicit incentives (e.g. performance goals/measures, targeted stipends) for staff to engage in KT activities (42%). In these organizations, on average 14% of their research budget was allocated to KT. Almost all used websites to supplement interactive processes (91%), with 60% using newsletters and 33% using listservs. Only 10% of these organizations reported any type of evaluative activity related to KT.

The overall finding was that health research organizations quite often reported transferring research knowledge in ways consistent with our understanding of how to best undertake such activities, more frequently than economic/ social research organizations. Even in intermediary organizations, however, KT efforts remain modest across a number of areas. While the amount of staff with explicit roles and the fact that some resources are dedicated explicitly to this work were promising, “directors…were remarkably frank about their not evaluating their knowledge transfer activities” (p. 240). The need to evaluate KT efforts is critical to understanding which strategies are more and less effective in different contexts.

Another interesting finding from this study was:

Canadian research organizations that identified [multiple] audiences tended to report transferring research knowledge in ways consistent with our understanding of how to undertake such activities more frequently than did research organizations that identified fewer possible groups as target audiences…this may reflect a greater commitment to KT among those research organizations that exist to serve multiple target audiences (i.e., serving multiple target audiences is more complicated, so more resources are dedicated to it, a possibility borne out by the gradient in both the mean and median proportions of research budgets spent on knowledge transfer (p. 242).

Hence, looking at intermediaries that deal with more stakeholder groups, might teach us more about the different types of KM strategies that are needed with different groups in education.

Another recent study by Lomas (2007) surveys 400 knowledge brokers in the health sector (only a few of whom have full time designation in this role). He found that knowledge brokers spend about 30% of their time on transforming knowledge (reading and disseminating research) and 20% of their time on intermediation (actually linking decision makers and researchers). The remaining time was spent in management duties or teaching. Lomas categorized knowledge brokers in relation to their location within the broader system and found that 30 % were based in universities, 10 % were in foundations or research funding agencies and the remaining 60 % resided in different levels of the health system such as hospitals or regional health authorities.

Lomas (2007) outlines a number of attributes and skills of knowledge brokers from his extensive work in this field:

14

Entrepreneurial (networking, problem solving, innovating) Trusted and credible Clear communicator Understands the cultures of both the researcher and decision making

environments Able to find and assess relevant research in a variety of formats Facilitates, mediates and negotiates Understands the principles of adult learning (p. 130)

Lomas (2007) describes four major brokering activities, utilizing the example of the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF): Setting the research agenda (consulting with key stakeholders to increase chances of research uptake and linking funding to collaboration with organizations within the system); facilitating applied research (Graduate student awards to ensure work in this area, inclusion of decision makers of co-investigators as a formal requirement, co-production of research-syntheses with people who can implement the results); disseminating research (plain language summaries, virtual networks along priority theme areas, organizing face-to-face events among multiple stakeholders on priority areas); getting research used (funding and evaluating selected knowledge brokers, providing workshops for health professionals on tools and techniques for research use, fellowship training programs for decision makers in research application) (p. 131).

Robinson et al. (2005) list a number of linking activities aimed at supporting research uptake and evidence-based practice in their study of research use in the health sector including: regular communication, training/retreats, collaboration, co-sponsorship, networking, facilitation, informal training, advocacy, research information, volunteer development, research, monitoring/feedback, research dissemination, technical support, resource provision, modular training, informal training and supporting existing groups. The list of activities is diverse and each could be conducted by a KM intermediary, but it is not always clear how these are distinct activities (for example research information versus research dissemination).

Robinson et al. maintain that these common linking functions and activities fit the characterization by Anderson’s et al. (1999) of linking activities as focusing on (1) awareness, (2) communication and (3) interaction, but this study adds a fourth function of capacity building.

Facilitators and barriers affecting linking systems included skilled and committed people, funds/resource, priority/buy-in, leadership, communication, partnerships and structure. In the end, while Robinson et al. found improvements to capacity enhancement and implementation of heart health programs; they could not draw any conclusions between specific types of linking mechanisms used and outcome measures reported.

Honig’s (2004) study of four groups involved in policy implementation in the US is one of the only empirical studies explicitly investigating intermediaries in the education sector, although it is not specifically about knowledge mobilization intermediaries, but about program or policy implementation. She labels intermediaries ‘the new middle management.’ At the outset of her study, she states her intention to address the knowledge gap surrounding intermediaries, maintaining that “despite their growing number, research and experience teach little about intermediary organizations” (p.65). She attempts to address this knowledge gap by answering three questions:

15

(a) What defines intermediary organizations as a distinct organizational population?

(b) What functions do intermediary organizations serve in education policy implementation?

(c) What conditions constrain/enable intermediary organizations in carrying out their functions (p.66)?

Honig draws on organizational ecology literature in order to answer the first research question by identifying two dimensions of likeness which define an organizational group: 1) similar technical core (functions) and 2) dependence of population members (p.67). She outlines five dimensions along which intermediaries vary:

levels of government (or types of organizations) between which they mediate composition of intermediaries (membership) location (internal versus external intermediary organizations) scope of intermediaries’ work (within a single district or across multiple jurisdictions) funding/revenue sources (summarized p.68)

Honig (2004) also highlights a number of functions of intermediary organizations arising from her study including: knowledge of sites and policy systems, regular meetings, documentation and dissemination of information, simplified information about experience, ongoing knowledge building processes, social and political ties to sites and policy systems, translation of sites’ demands into actionable terms, buffers for sites, administrative infrastructure, site and central office systems for resource allocation, staff time, standards and accountability (summarized from p. 72-80). This list is diverse and reveals the range of activities in which intermediaries can be involved when dealing with different organizations; part of this arises from different organizations having different needs in the change process.

Taken together, these studies contribute to our knowledge base on what knowledge brokers are spending time on, where they are located in the system, what attributes contribute to their effectiveness and what type of KM activities intermediary organizations are conducting.

A word of caution

There are a number of barriers also associated with knowledge brokers’ role in translating research to suit various contexts. One concern relates to the quality of the interpretation of research by intermediaries. Sin (2008) cautions about some possible negative consequences of using intermediaries:

It cannot be assumed that all types of intermediaries are adept at interpreting the range of evidence required for a variety of purposes. This may be particularly so when evidence may not have been produced with intermediaries in mind. It is, moreover, clear that different intermediaries (whether individuals or organizations) have their own agendas and vested interests and these can all have a range of direct and indirect impacts on how and in what ways the worlds of evidence, policy and practice are linked (p. 97).

While intermediaries have the potential to play an important role in knowledge mobilization, it cannot be assumed that they be a panacea in connecting research, policy and practice.

16

Some Personal Contributions to Understanding KM and Intermediaries in Education

Intermediaries function predominantly in the white space of the education system

In education, we often try to identify what areas of an organization or system have the largest capacity for improvement. This is critical to ensuring that resources are targeted at the right area in order to get the biggest bang for the buck! The term white space, in visual arts, refers to the space between text and images; it is not considered blank or insignificant space, but rather an important aspect of how people interpret and understand particular messages (Boulton, 2007). This concept has been adapted by Rummler and Brache (1991) in process management where ‘white space’ is articulated as the area between the boxes in an organizational chart. Often, in organizations and systems, no one is explicitly in charge or responsible for the white space even though critical interactions and functions happen between these clearly demarcated boundaries, departments and organizations. This is where things fall between the cracks as no one takes explicit ownership which often results in misunderstandings or a lack of progress. Rummler and Brache (1991) maintain that the white space is the area in which an organization has the greatest potential for improvement:

All organization structures have white space. The mission is not to eliminate white space. The mission is to minimize the extent to which white space impedes processes and to manage the white space that must exist. If you organize by product, there’s white space between products. If you organize by function, there’s white space between functions.... there is...white space between projects, between processes...and between people (emphasis in original, p.183).

I apply this analogy of white space to KM and intermediaries (Figure 1). The oft-cited gaps that occur between research, practice and policy happen in the white space of the education system:

Figure 1. Knowledge Mobilization occurs in the white space of shared systems

17

between universities, funding agencies, ministries of education, school districts, schools, professional associations, community organizations and the many other organizations which comprise the broader system.

Figure 1 shows the white space of the broader education system on the left side. Each organization also has white space, and so each of the organizations on the left side can be looked at individually to reveal white space within the organization as well, as depicted by the right side of the figure. KM occurs predominantly in the white space of a system or organization. This is what makes KM so challenging, because its success is predicated upon linkages and connections between and within educational organizations. Often, KM work is not explicitly designated within OR between organizations; hence, it does not get prioritized. Rather, KM (if it happens at all) occurs mostly in an ad hoc manner (Cooper et al., 2009; Nutley et al., 2007).

I propose that intermediaries operate predominantly in the white space of education, spanning organizational boundaries in order to connect and facilitate interaction among various stakeholders. The literature on intermediaries almost always highlights the fact that intermediaries have an in-between vantage point that is critical to their function. Sometimes this middle position occurs between groups or organizations; other times, this in-between positioning is conceived in terms of disciplines, sectors or even countries depending on the context and mandate of the intermediary. OECD for instance is situated between multiple countries in educational initiatives.

Different types of intermediaries

As stated earlier, there are many different types of intermediaries. Coburn (2005) outlines two types of actors in education: system actors are “individuals and organizations that constitute state and local governance of schooling” (p. 24) whereas non-system actors are “not formally part of the system” (p. 24). She also outlines various types of non-system actors based on Rowan’s (2001) identification of three classes of private organizations that play a role in education:

…for-profit firms, including textbook publishers, instructional program vendors, and other service providers; membership organizations, such as professional associations, advocacy groups, and networks; and nonprofit organizations, including universities, research firms, and quasi governmental agencies that provide research and development and technical assistance or act as intermediaries (p. 24).

Table 4 illustrates, based on the literature of intermediaries, my attempt to categorize the different types of intermediaries in education.

While I am hesitant to contribute a new term to an area already filled with jargon, I also find that the multiple definitions fail to describe adequately a key type of intermediary organization. I use the term ‘KM intermediary’ to describe organizations whose active role between research producers and users is a catalyst for knowledge mobilization. Many organizations do KM intermediary work as one part of a much broader mandate. In contrast, what I call KM intermediaries have explicit goals and dedicated resources to address research-practice-policy gaps by enhancing i) capacity for and ii) uptake of research evidence in educational practice

18

settings. Capacity, in terms of this study, is the capability of educational organizations to mobilize and incorporate research into educational policies and practices.

Table 4Different types of intermediaries that exist in education in CanadaCATEGORY TYPE EXAMPLES Governmental Intermediaries

Research branches with ministries of education

Ontario Research and Evaluation Strategy branch

District research services E-Best, HWDSBEvaluation Organizations EQAO

Not-for-profitIntermediaries

Universities (Research Centers, programs) RSPEThink tanks Fraser InstituteAdvocacy Organizations People for educationNetwork Organizations CEA, CCLNon-governmental Organizations Free the ChildrenThink tanks Fraser Institute

For-profit Intermediaries Textbook publishers, instructional program

vendorsThompson Corporation

Consulting companies AporiaMembership organizations

Professional Associations OSSTF, ETFO, OCT

I conceive of intermediaries along a continuum (Figure 2). The further an individual or organization is towards the right end of the continuum, the more of a KM intermediary they are by my definition and defining characteristics. Each of the dimensions from the continuum is elaborated on:

Organizational features & KM Capacity

1. MISSION (Stated Intention & Major Activity): KM intermediaries must have stated their intention to do KM work deliberately. While many others may be doing this type of work in an ad hoc fashion or as a small part of what they do, I am interested in those organizations whose explicit mandate and strategic direction involves a predominant focus on increasing research use in policy and practice in education. This means that KM is a major activity of the organization. KM intermediaries’ involvement in research use goes beyond a rhetorical commitment. They go beyond ‘telling’; hence, they do not simply give talks or make products (although these are important). They are also involved in more robust activities (such as building networks and so on).

2. DEDICATED RESOURCES: KM intermediaries have committed resources allocated to strengthening connections between research, policy and practice in education. This can include formal roles (people to do the work), funds to work with other organizations or formal research capacity.

19

ORGANIZATIONAL FEATURES AND KM CAPACITY

ImplicitAd hoc activity

MISSION Explicitly Stated

& Major Activity

Ad hoc RESOURCES

Dedicated KM

Informal STAFF ROLES

Formalized KM

Party affiliatedPOLITICAL AFFILIATION

Non-partisan

Restricted AUTONOMY

Self- governing

KM PROCESSES

TacitMESSAGE

Research- Based

One groupLINKAGES

Multiple dissimilar

groups

Figure 2: A continuum of knowledge brokering

3. STAFF ROLES: KM intermediaries have full-time employees with formalized KM roles included in their job descriptions

4. POLITICAL AFFILIATION: KM intermediaries have no overt political position. While no organization is completely neutral, some organizations are much more clearly politically affiliated while others strive for independence and political neutrality.

5. AUTONOMY: KM intermediaries should have some degree of independence and autonomy from the governance structure of the education system, through their external position in the system.

KM INTERMEDIARY

20

KM Processes

6. MESSAGE (Research as the main form of evidence): KM involves the mobilization of research knowledge from bodies of research (rather than single studies).

7. LINKAGES: KM intermediaries are defined by building relationships between research producers and research users (either practitioners or policymakers). The more different target audiences and groups they are involved in, the more KM they are doing.

This continuum might be useful in future research in order to distinguish between the different kinds of intermediaries that exist in education, especially in relation to their roles in KM.

A process for using intermediaries to increase KM as educational change agents

I offer the following four step process for using intermediaries to increase KM in education:

1. Identifying the problem (What type of research-policy-practice gap exists?)

2. Specialized function of intermediary (What role can a specialized broker play?)

3. Strategies to utilize (Depends on what problem KM is seeking to address)

4. Create a KM strategic plan to suit organizational context

Step 1: Research-policy-practice Gap Identification

Identifying what type of research-policy-practice gap exists is essential for KM because, to a large extent, how the problem is framed determines what type of strategies and efforts are needed to improve the situation. McLaughlin (2008) maintains that “implementation studies seldom make the problem problematic” (p. 176). How a problem is defined becomes critical to how it is ultimately addressed: “specification of the problem sets the course for both policy and practice and pushes alternative conceptualizations of an issue off the table” (McLaughlin, 2008, p. 176). While a “gap” between research, policy and practice is consistently cited throughout the literature, rarely do authors identify what type of gap they seek to address. It is important to note, however, that different types of KM gaps exist, that require different types of strategies and efforts. In some instances, there is no research available on a particular topic (a knowledge gap); therefore, new empirical evidence needs to be gathered. In other cases, there is too much research for users to sort through or to determine what sources are most reliable (searching for a needle-in-a-haystack gap); so, a system to effectively search for research is necessary. Another scenario has conflicting research which prevents organizations from determining the best course of action (an alignment gap). In other cases, ample research is available and consistent but is not being put into practice; hence, behaviour remains the same even in the face of overwhelming evidence (a behaviour gap). The gap can also be conceptualized in terms of the “two communities” argument (Caplan, 1979) which can manifest itself as a lack of interaction between research and practice communities (a linkage gap) or as a lack of understanding and alignment between two disparate communities even if they interact often (a communication gap). Sometimes, organizations may not be able to pinpoint where the gap is located, but they can tell

21

there is some form of problem due to some type of end result (an outcome gap). Table 5 outlines different research-policy-practice gaps.

Table 5Identifying specific research-policy-practice gaps.

PROBLEM GAPDearth in research Knowledge GapInformation overload Needle-in-a-haystack gapLack of research literacy Skills gapResistance despite evidence Behaviour gap

No ways to find, share research Infrastructure gapLack of linkages Silos gap

Not enough interaction Linkage frequency gapLack of understanding despite interaction

Communication gap

Contradictory research, results in competing choices and views

Alignment gap

Source of problem unknown Outcome gapProblem known, but need successful model or 3rd party assistance

Expertise gap

This list is by no means exhaustive; it is simply my initial attempt to begin addressing this oversight throughout the literature. It is important to keep in mind that not everyone will necessarily agree with the framing of the problem or how to proceed to address educational issues: “Recognising the tensions and dilemmas, consistencies and contradictions, while not

These research-practice-policy gaps can occur either within an educational organization OR between organizations in the education system. Depending on whether they occur internally or externally (between organizations) they may require different KM efforts.

22

being paralysed by them, becomes an important first step in setting an agenda for the further of educational change” (Sugrue, 2008, p. 4). I propose research-policy-practice gap identification as a crucial first step to creating a KM strategy.

Step 2 and 3: What roles can intermediaries play in addressing KM gap identified

Steps two and three examine what role intermediaries can play in addressing particular research-policy-practice gaps. Many knowledge brokering approaches have emerged from the literature that can be applied to education. Researching the impact of these various approaches will improve our understanding of how best to utilize third party organizations to mobilize relevant knowledge to the pertinent stakeholder groups. Table 6 attempts to link research-policy-practice gaps to knowledge broker roles and strategies in order to show how we may begin thinking about this process.

Table 6Linking research-policy-practice gaps to intermediary roles and KM strategies

GAP Intermediary Role KM StrategiesKnowledge Gap Conduct new research Planning and conducting research collaboratively to

suit needs of relevant parties Needle-in-a-haystack gap

Translator Searchable research databases

Skills gap Co-ordinate training Professional development sessions, circulating educational materials

Behaviour gap Building consensus This requires multiple strategies: policies and training to effect change

Infrastructure gap

Build organizational processes

Creating shared space, utilizing technology to find and share research

Silos gap Connector/ Bridge Building networks and teams across diverse educational organizations within the system (universities, ministries, districts, and so on)

Linkage frequency gap

Connector/Bridge Scheduling and coordinate meetings, preparing relevant materials, elists

Communication gap

Negotiating shared understanding

Cultivating knowledge about demands of different roles; teaching necessary skills

Alignment gap Negotiating shared Understanding

Building shared understanding through dialogue

Outcome gap Identify Problem Tools to assess organizational strengths and weaknesses surrounding KM

Expertise gap Cross-pollinator or matchmaker

Connecting relevant parties (data base of experts); providing solutions from other sectors that might be amenable

23

By beginning to elucidate the different intermediaries that exist, and what roles they might potentially play in KM, educational organizations might be able to incorporate these third party agencies into improvement initiatives.

Step 4: Creating a KM strategic plan suited to organizational context

KM strategic plans need different emphases based on the type of educational organization. For instance, ministries of education are quite different (in mandate and function) than schools. Too often, implementation studies fail to consider the differences among these diverse organizations. A recent study by Belkhodja et al (2007) attempts to address this oversight by exploring the extent and organizational determinants of research use in the Canadian health system, by surveying 928 managers and professionals in ministries, regional authorities, and hospitals. Their findings suggest that different organizational determinants vary in impact depending on the type of organization. For instance, training activities related to research were non-significant variables in ministries and regional authorities, but significant in hospitals. Research relevance was a non-significant variable in ministries, but significant in both regional authority organizations and hospitals. A surprising finding is that adaptation efforts (research results in plain language, examples of how to use the results, implications for practice and visual appeal) had no impact on how much research was used in all three types of health organizations. Instead, they found that interaction and contextual considerations of production and practice environments were much more influential than format.

A better understanding of the organizational determinants that are most important to effective KM in education is needed to help organizations better identify areas for improvement and target resource allocation to maximize impact within their particular context. Ministries versus practice organizations (such as schools or hospitals), for instance, need to focus on different areas to optimize KM because of their different mandates, roles and contexts within the shared education system. This stage will attempt to create strategic KM plans based on these different educational settings.

Conclusion

If empirical data reinforces what many suspect, knowledge brokers have the potential to orchestrate and enhance knowledge mobilization through a unique ability to span and connect the many balkanized organizations, departments and stakeholder groups that comprise our education system.

24

References

Amara, N., Ouimet, M., & Landry, R. (2004). New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication, 26(1), 75-106.

Belkhodja, O., Amara, N., Landry, R., & Ouimet, M. (2007). The extent and organizational determinants of research utilization in Canadian health services organizations. Science Communication, 28(3), 377-417.

Boulton, M. (2007). White space. Graphic Design, 230. Retrieved March 21, 2009 from http://www.alistapart.com/articles/whitespace

“Broker” (2010). Oxford dictionary online. Retrieved April 4, 2010 from www.oed.com

Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(3), 459-70.

CHSRF (2003). The theory and practice of knowledge brokering in Canada's health system. A report based on a CHSRF national consultation and a literature review. Retrieved February 1, 2009 from http://www.chsrf.ca/brokering/pdf/Theory_and_Practice_e.pdf

Cillo, P. (2005). Fostering market knowledge use in innovation: The role of internal brokers. European Management Journal, 23(4), pp. 404-412.

Coburn, C. (2009). The role of nonsystem actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27 (1), 23-52.

Cooper, A., Levin, B., & Campbell, C. (2009).  The growing (but still limited) importance of evidence in education policy and practice.  Journal of Educational Change, 10(2-3), 159-171.

Cordingley, P. (2008). Research and evidence-informed practice: focusing on practice and practitioners. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(1), 37-52.

Datnow, A., & Honig, M. (2008). Introduction to the special issue on scaling up teaching and learning improvement in urban districts: The promises and pitfalls of external assistance providers. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 323–327.

Davies, H., Nutley, S., & Smith, P. (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol: Policy Press.

25

Feldman, P. H., Nadash, P. and Gursen, M. (2001). Improving communication between researchers and policy makers in long-term care: or, researchers are from Mars; policy makers are from Venus. The Gerontologist, 41 (3), 312-21.

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, T., MacFarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidow, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581-629.

Honig, M. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65-87.

Horne, M. (n.d.). Honest brokers : brokering innovation in public services. The innovation Unit. Retrieved on April 7 from www.innovation-unit.co.uk

Kitson, A., Harvey, G. & McCormack, B. (1998). Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceputal framework. Quality in Health Care, 7, 149-58.

Jackson, N. (2003). Introduction to brokering in higher education. In N. Jackson (Ed.), Engaging and changing higher education through brokerage (pp. 3-20). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Jacobson, N., Butterill, D., & Goering, P. (2005). Consulting as a strategy for knowledge transfer. The Milbank Quarterly, 83(2), 299-321.

Land & Water Australia (2006). Australia Biosecurity Cooperative Research Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases. Knowledge for Regional NRM: Connecting researchers & Practitioners. Retrieved December 15, 2008 from http://www.daffa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/29096/knowledge_regional_nrm.pdf

Lavis, J., Robertson, D., Woodside, J. M., McLeod, C. B., Abelson, J. (2003). How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Quarterly, 81(2), 221-248.

Lavis, J., Ross, S., & Hurley, J. (2002). Examining the role of health services research in public policymaking. The Milbank Quarterly, 80(1), 125-154.

Lavis, J. (2006). Research, public policymaking, and knowledge-translation processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 37- 45.  

Lemieux-Charles, L., & Champagne, F. (2004). Using knowledge and evidence in health care: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Levin, B. (2004). Making research matter more. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(56). Retrieved November 15, 2008 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n56/

26

Levin, B. (2008). Thinking About Knowledge Mobilization. Paper prepared for an invitational symposium sponsored by the Canadian Council on Learning and the Social Sciences and Humanities research Council of Canada. Vancouver. Available at http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/rspe/Conference_Presentations_Publications/index.html

Lomas, J. (2007). The in-between world of knowledge brokering. British Medical Journal

Max Lock Center. (n.d.). Intermediaries in knowledge transfer and exchange. Guide 4. Retrieved February 18, 2009 from http://www.wmin.ac.uk/builtenv/maxlock/KTweb/KT_Guide4.htm

McLauglin, M. (2008). Beyond “misery research”. In C. Sugrue, (Ed.). The future of educational change: International perspectives (pp.176-185). London and New York: Routledge.

Mitton, C., Adair, C. E., McKenzie, E., Patten, S. B., & Perry, B. W. (2007). Knowledge transfer and exchange: Review and synthesis of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly, 85(4), 729-768.

Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007).  Using evidence: How research can inform public services.  Bristol: Policy Press.

Osborne, T. (2004). On mediators: Intellectuals and the ideas in the knowledge society. Economy and Society, 33(4), 430-447.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2000). The knowing- doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Robinson, K., Elliott, S., Driedger, M., Eyles, J., O’Loughlin, J., Riley, B., Cameron, R. & Harvey, D. (2005). Using linking systems to build capacity and enhance dissemination in heart health promotion: A Canadian multiple-case study. Health Education Research, 20(5), 499-513.

Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space in the Organization Chart. Jossey Bass Business and Management Series. Jossey-Bass.

Sin, C. H. (2008). The role of intermediaries in getting evidence into policy and practice: some useful lessons from examining consultancy- client relationships. Evidence & Policy, 4 (1), 85-103.

Sousa, M. (2008). Open innovation models and the role of knowledge brokers. Inside Knowledge, 11(6), 18-22.

27

Stone, D., Maxwell, S., & Keaton, M. (2001). Bridging Research and Policy. An International workshop funded by the UK department for international development. Retrieved March 15, 2010 from http://depot.gdnet.org/newkb/fulltext/Bridging.pdf

Sugrue, C. (Ed.). (2008). The future of educational change: International perspectives. London and New York: Routledge.

Thompson, G., Estabrooks, C., & Degner, L. (2006). Clarifying the concepts in knowledge transfer: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53 (6), 691-701.

Timperley, H. (2010). Using evidence in the classroom for professional learning. Paper presented at the Ontario Education Research Symposium, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Walter, I., Nutley, S., & Davies, H. (2003). Developing a taxonomy of interventions used to increase the impact of research. Research Unit for Research Utilisation, Department of Management, University of St Andrews, St Andrews.

Ward, V., House, A., & Hamer, S. (2009). Knowledge brokering: the missing link in the evidence to action chain? Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 5(3), 267-279.

28

Appendix A: Interview with knowledge brokers in ‘successful’ districts

Thank you for agreeing to this additional conference call. Districts that were most ‘successful’ in each intervention, had assigned responsibility for the project to an individual in a more formalized way (knowledge broker). Our team would like to talk to you because of the special role that you played in your districts facilitating the interventions.  We would like to talk to you about acting as knowledge brokers throughout this process.  

Here are some questions that we had in mind to frame the discussion:

1.      How would you define your role in this intervention?

2.      What were some of the benefits that resulted from your role?

3.      What type of resistance, if any, did you meet while trying to increase research use in school districts?

4.      What skills do you think are necessary to be a knowledge broker in education?

5.      What do you see as leverage points for intermediaries within the education system?

6.      How could these interventions (or KM in general) be improved in education by using intermediaries and facilitation?

7.      Do you have any other comments or key learning that you think are important to mention?