Collective knowledge brokering: the model and impact of an embedded team

Abstract

IntroductionThe Bristol Knowledge Mobilisation (KM) Team was an unusual collective brokering model, consisting of a multi-professional team of four managers and three academics embedded in both local healthcare policymaking (aka commissioning) and academic primary care. They aimed to encourage ‘research-informed commissioning’ and ‘commissioning-informed research’. This paper covers context, structure, processes, advantages, challenges and impact.<br /> Methods<br />Data sources from brokers included personal logs, reflective essays, exit interviews and a team workshop. These were analysed inductively using constant comparison. To obtain critical distance, three external evaluations were conducted, using interviews, observations and documentation.<br /> Results<br />Stable, solvent organisations; senior involvement with good inter-professional relationships; secure funding; and networks of engaged allies in host organisations supported the brokers. Essential elements were two-way embedding, ‘buddying up’, team leadership, brokers’ interpersonal skills, and two-year, part-time contracts. By working collectively, the brokers fostered cross-community interactions and modelled collaborative behaviour, drawing on each other’s ‘insider’ knowledge, networks and experience. Challenges included too many taskmasters, unrealistic expectations and work overload. However, team-brokering provided a safe space to be vulnerable, share learning, and build confidence. As host organisations benefitted most from embedded brokers, both communities noted changes in attitude, knowledge, skills and confidence. The team were more successful in fostering ‘commissioning-informed research’ with co-produced research grants than ‘research-informed commissioning’.<br /> Conclusion<br />Although still difficult, the collective support and comradery of an embedded, two-way, multi-professional team made encouraging interactions, and therefore brokering, easier. A team approach modelled collaborative behaviour and created a critical mass to affect cultural change.<br />key messages<br />An embedded two-way collective team makes brokering easier.<br />It provides a safe space for brokers to be vulnerable, share learning and navigate problems.<br />Team-brokering models collaborative behaviour and creates a critical mass.<br />But many brokering challenges still exist.

Embedding researchers into organisations: a study of the features of embedded research initiatives

“…These observations reflect the nature of many of the early published examples of embedded research initiatives, which tend to comprise a lone researcher working outside their usual setting. While we found similar examples, we also identified more recent examples that comprised teams of embedded researchers (Crowe et al, 2017;Wye et al, 2019). Our workshop participants suggested that multidisciplinary embedded research teams, as well as having the potential to address the emotional and practical challenges facing individual embedded researchers, could make an important contribution to addressing the complex issues that face healthcare organisations.…”

“…Once she was sitting in on this group, [initially] she couldn't figure out what she was going to do that was going to be helpful for them. (Embedded research manager, Battleford) Our data showed that there was a tendency for those leading initiatives to be overambitious about the activities that researchers should carry out, leading to 'role strain' and contributing to boundary management difficulties (Wye et al, 2019). Our interviewees and workshop participants suggested that focusing on the purpose of activities was an important way of combatting this.…”

“…Much of the literature highlights the importance of agreeing and communicating the intention, structure and processes of embedded research initiatives early and clearly (Vindrola-Padros et al, 2018;Wye et al, 2019). Such calls arise from the frustrating experiences of embedded researchers, who often find themselves needing to manage competing demands and expectations and respond to the differing needs, priorities and values of different stakeholders.…”

Critical factors that affect the functioning of a research and evaluation capacity building partnership: A causal loop diagram

“…networking events) to achieve this. As identified in previous research, knowledge sharing was based on trusting relationships [ 64 , 65 ], and provided SiREN with a valuable understanding of the system which it used to inform the development of its activities (e.g. research project topics, types of training offered).…”

Using knowledge brokering to produce community-generated evidence

“…In their recent analysis of team brokering, Wye et al (2020) note that we need more comprehensive explanations for how knowledge brokers construct positive interactions and mediate across different institutions and levels of authority. It has been suggested that evaluations could be based on constructing a preliminary theory (Ward, 2017), also recommended in case-study method, which emphasises the importance of creating a preliminary logic model to measure progress (Yin, 2003) .…”