Background: Brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners (BIBS) bridge research and policy or practice, and can elevate the role of evidence in decision making. However, there is limited integration of the literature across different sectors to understand the strategies that BIBS use, the skills needed to carry out these strategies, and the expected outcomes of these strategies.Aims and objectives: In this review, we characterise the strategies, skills, and outcomes of BIBS across the literature in education, environmental, health and other relevant sectors.Methods: We included 185 conceptual and review papers written in English that included descriptions or conceptualisations of BIBS in the context of knowledge transfer or research use in the education, environmental, health, or other relevant sectors (for example, social services, international development). For each included paper, we extracted and coded information on sector, BIBS strategies, skills, and outcomes.Findings: Our review revealed five strategies used by BIBS that were emphasised in the literature. Specifically, 79.5% of papers mentioned facilitating relationships, 75.7% mentioned disseminating evidence, 56.8% mentioned finding alignment, 48.6% mentioned capacity building, and 37.3% mentioned advising decisions as strategies used by BIBS. Additionally, papers described skills and expected outcomes that were common across these strategies as well as those that were unique to specific strategies.Discussion and conclusions: We discuss implications of these findings for understanding how BIBS interface with knowledge users and producers as well as directions for future research on BIBS and the professionalisation of BIBS roles.<br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>The literature describes five key strategies used by brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners.</li><br /><li>Facilitating relationships and disseminating evidence are the most common strategies described.</li><br /><li>Common skills include clear communication and expertise in research, policy, and change processes.</li><br /><li>Common outcomes include increased research uptake, awareness of user needs, and knowledge exchange.</li></ul>
Background: A growing literature focuses on the roles of brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners (BIBS) in addressing the challenges of transferring research evidence between the research and practice or policy communities.Aims and objectives: In this systematic review, we examined two research questions: (1) where, how, and when are different BIBS terms (broker, intermediary, and boundary spanner) used? and (2) which BIBS terms get defined, and when these terms are defined, who are BIBS and what do they do?Methods: We conducted literature searches designed to capture articles on BIBS and the transfer of research evidence. We extracted information about eligible articles’ characteristics, use of BIBS terms, and definitions of BIBS terms.Findings: The search revealed an initial pool of 667 results, of which 277 articles were included after screening. Although we coded 430 separate uses of BIBS terms, only 37.2% of these uses provided explicit definitions. The terms, ‘broker’ and ‘brokerage’, were commonly applied in the health sector to describe a person engaged in multiple functions. The term, ‘intermediary’, was commonly applied in the education sector to describe an organisation engaged in dissemination. Finally, the terms ‘boundary spanner’ and ‘boundary spanning’ were commonly applied in the environment sector to describe people or organisations that engage in relationship building.Discussion and conclusions: Results demonstrated that when BIBS were defined, there were important (albeit implicit) distinctions between terms. Based on these results, we identify archetypal definitions for brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners and offer recommendations for future research.<br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>Only 37.2% of coded uses of BIBS in articles included explicit definitions.</li><br /><li>Brokers were commonly defined in health as people engaged in multiple functions.</li><br /><li>Intermediaries were commonly defined in education as research-disseminating organisations.</li><br /><li>Boundary spanners were commonly defined in environment as relationship-building entities.</li></ul>
Background: Brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners (BIBS) bridge research and policy or practice, and can elevate the role of evidence in decision-making. However, there is limited integration of the literature across different sectors to understand the strategies that BIBS use, the skills needed to carry out these strategies, and the expected outcomes of these strategies. Aims and Objectives: In this review, we characterize the strategies, skills, and outcomes of BIBS across the literature in education, environmental, health and other relevant sectors. Methods: We included 185 conceptual and review papers written in English that included descriptions or conceptualizations of BIBS in the context of knowledge transfer or research use in the education, environmental, health, or other relevant sectors (e.g., social services, international development). For each included paper, we extracted and coded information on sector, BIBS strategies, skills, and outcomes. Findings: Our review revealed five strategies used by BIBS that were emphasized in the literature. Specifically, 79.5% of papers mentioned facilitating relationships, 75.7% mentioned disseminating evidence, 56.8% mentioned finding alignment, 48.6% mentioned capacity building, and 37.3% mentioned advising decisions as strategies used by BIBS. Additionally, papers described skills and expected outcomes that were common across these strategies as well as those that were unique to specific strategies. Discussion and Conclusions: We discuss implications of these findings for understanding how BIBS interface with knowledge users and producers as well as directions for future research on BIBS and the professionalization of BIBS roles.
Background: A growing literature focuses on the roles of brokers, intermediaries, and boundary-spanners (BIBS) in addressing the challenges of transferring research evidence to the practice and policy communities. However, it is unclear how BIBS are defined in this work. Aims and Objectives: In this systematic review, we examined the extent to which BIBS were explicitly defined in the literature. When BIBS were defined, we examined how definitions varied across term and sector. Methods: We conducted literature searches designed to capture articles on BIBS and the transfer of research evidence. We extracted information about eligible articles’ characteristics, use of BIBS terms, and definitions of BIBS terms. For all BIBS definitions extracted, we also coded who was counted as BIBS, where BIBS were positioned with respect to researchers and practitioners or policymakers, and what BIBS were described as doing. Findings: The search revealed an initial pool of 667 results, of which, 289 articles were included after screening. Of 449 coded uses of BIBS terms, only 163 (36.3%) included explicit definitions. Definitions of BIBS commonly emphasized their position. Brokers were commonly defined, among other things, as relationship-building people. In contrast, intermediaries were commonly defined, among other things, as research-disseminating organizations. Distinctions in BIBS definitions also emerged across articles dealing with health, education, social services, and the environment. Discussion and Conclusions: The results of this review demonstrate that it is uncommon for researchers to explicitly define BIBS terms. Additionally, when BIBS are defined, there is wide variation by term and sector.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.