Indicators for measuring the contributions of individual knowledge brokers

Maag, Simon; Alexander, Timothy J.; Kaše, Robert; Hoffmann, Sabine

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.002

Cited by 37 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to identify indicators to evaluate KT infrastructure and capacity-building activities specific to organisational knowledge brokers in a health policy-making context. Maag et al [43] and Tudisca et al [38] have both published indicator lists, the former to assess the contributions of individual knowledge brokers and the latter to assess the use of evidence in policy-making. Our study is distinguished from these other indicator studies as we collected indicators to assess organisational knowledge brokers in their work to build capacity and KT infrastructure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Tudisca et al [38] have developed 11 indicators to assess evidence use in policy-making using a Delphi study; however, the study does not include indicators to assess KT activities. Maag et al [43] have collected and assessed indicators for measuring the contributions of knowledge brokers but the study is not specific to health policy and focuses on individual knowledge brokers; consequently, it lacks indicators to assess the development of KT infrastructure at the country level, which is a main aim of the organisational knowledge brokers currently active in the global health policy arena. The aim of this study was to identify, synthesise and assess indicators that have been used to evaluate KT infrastructure and capacity-building activities, in order to support organisational knowledge brokers and their stakeholders in evaluation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review

Scarlett

Forsberg

Biermann

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Knowledge translation (KT) is currently endorsed by global health policy actors as a means to improve outcomes by institutionalising evidence-informed policy-making. Organisational knowledge brokers, comprised of researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholders, are increasingly being used to undertake and promote KT at all levels of health policy-making, though few resources exist to guide the evaluation of these efforts. Using a scoping review methodology, we identified, synthesised and assessed indicators that have been used to evaluate KT infrastructure and capacity-building activities in a health policy context in order to inform the evaluation of organisational knowledge brokers. Methods: A scoping review methodology was used. This included the search of Medline, Global Health and the WHO Library databases for studies regarding the evaluation of KT infrastructure and capacity-building activities between health research and policy, published in English from 2005 to 2016. Data on study characteristics, outputs and outcomes measured, related indicators, mode of verification, duration and/or frequency of collection, indicator methods, KT model, and targeted capacity level were extracted and charted for analysis. Results: A total of 1073 unique articles were obtained and 176 articles were qualified to be screened in full-text; 32 articles were included in the analysis. Of a total 213 indicators extracted, we identified 174 (174/213; 81.7%) indicators to evaluate the KT infrastructure and capacity-building that have been developed using methods beyond expert opinion. Four validated instruments were identified. The 174 indicators are presented in 8 domains based on an adaptation of the domains of the Lavis et al. framework of linking research to actiongeneral climate, production of research, push efforts, pull efforts, exchange efforts, integrated efforts, evaluation and capacitybuilding. Conclusion: This review presents a total of 174 method-based indicators to evaluate KT infrastructure and capacitybuilding. The presented indicators can be used or adapted globally by organisational knowledge brokers and other stakeholders in their monitoring and evaluation work.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review

Scarlett

Forsberg

Biermann

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With respect to the evaluation of KB activities, Maag et al [23] have argued that having access to practical methodologies to assess the quality of the knowledge brokering is an important concern for some KBs, but that among any such existing frameworks, most tend to be programmatic rather than individual. 'Developmental evaluation', for example, aims to balance the critical nature of evaluation with the creative thinking that drives development such that an assessment of impact can combine the rigour of evaluation with the changeoriented and relational roles of organisational coaching [24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A mixed methods examination of knowledge brokers and their use of theoretical frameworks and evaluative practices

Newman

DeForge

Eerd

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Knowledge brokering is a knowledge translation approach that includes making connections between researchers and decision-makers to facilitate the latter's use of evidence in health promotion and the provision of healthcare. Despite knowledge brokering being well-established in Canada, many knowledge gaps exist, including understanding what theoretical frameworks have been developed and which evaluative practices knowledge brokers (KBs) use. Methods: This study used a mixed methods design to examine how KBs in Canada (1) use frameworks, models and theories in their practice and (2) how they evaluate knowledge brokering interventions. We gathered interview and survey data from KB practitioners to better understand their perspectives on effective practices. Our analysis focused on understanding the theoretical frameworks used by KBs. Results: This study demonstrates that KBs in Canada tend not to rely on theories or models that are specific to knowledge brokering. Rather, study participants/respondents draw on (sometimes multiple) theories and models that are fundamental to the broader field of knowledge translationin particular, the Knowledge to Action model and the Promoting Action Research in Health Sciences framework. In evaluating the impact of their own knowledge brokering practice, participants/respondents use a wide variety of mechanisms. Evaluation was often seen as less important than supporting knowledge users and/or paying clients in accessing and utilising evidence. Conclusions: Knowledge brokering as a form of knowledge translation continues to expand, but the impact on its targeted knowledge users has yet to be clearly established. The quality of engagement between KBs and their clients might increasethe knowledge brokering can be more impactfulif KBs made efforts to describe, understand and evaluate their activities using theories or models specific to KB.

show abstract

“…; Maag et al. ) or independent of research and management institutions (i.e., boundary organizations) (Guston ; Crona & Parker ). Arguably, the most poorly understood model is embedding scientists within management agencies (Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1) (Fazey et al 2013;Cvitanovic et al 2015). They include coproduction of knowledge by scientists and decision makers (Van Kerkhoff & Lebel 2015;Nel et al 2016), with either intermediaries between knowledge producers and end users within research institutions (i.e., knowledge brokers) (Chapman et al 2017;Maag et al 2018) or independent of research and management institutions (i.e., boundary organizations) (Guston 2001;Crona & Parker 2012). Arguably, the most poorly understood model is embedding scientists within management agencies ( Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The case for embedding researchers in conservation agencies

Roux

Cook

Carruthers

et al. 2019

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although protected areas represent a pivotal response to escalating anthropogenic threats, they face many pressures, inside and outside their boundaries. Amid these challenges, effective conservation is guided by evidence‐based decision making supported by dynamic processes of learning and knowledge exchange. Although different models promote knowledge exchange, embedding research scientists within conservation agencies is best suited to supporting evidence‐based conservation. Based on available literature and our experiences on several continents, we considered the benefits, challenges, and opportunities associated with embedding research scientists within conservation agencies and the research required to better understand the effectiveness of the embedding model for evidence‐based conservation. Embedded researchers provide long‐term commitment to building social capital among academic and nonacademic stakeholders; act as skilled gatekeepers who increase 2‐way flow of knowledge between scientists and managers; attract, coordinate, and support management‐relevant external research projects; drive the design and maintenance of long‐term monitoring; and align their research with information needs. Notwithstanding the many benefits, research capacity of conservation agencies is declining worldwide. A significant challenge is that the values, structures, functions, and effectiveness of the embedding model of knowledge exchange remain poorly evaluated and documented. Also, embedded researchers have to balance their desire for creativity and flexibility with the standardization and quality control required by their public sector agencies; may be perceived as not credible because they are not truly independent of their agency; and have to couple scientific productivity with skills for transdisciplinary research, social facilitation, and stakeholder engagement. Systematic research on embedding and other models of knowledge exchange, across different world contexts, is required to better understand the benefits, costs, and institutional arrangements associated with different models.

show abstract

Indicators for measuring the contributions of individual knowledge brokers

Cited by 37 publications

References 68 publications

Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review

Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review

A mixed methods examination of knowledge brokers and their use of theoretical frameworks and evaluative practices

The case for embedding researchers in conservation agencies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About