Knowledge brokers or relationship brokers? The role of an embedded knowledge mobilisation team

Abstract

Aim: Policymaking decisions are often uninformed by research and research is rarely influenced by policymakers. To bridge this ‘know-do’ gap, a boundary-spanning knowledge mobilisation (KM) team was created by embedding researchers-in-residence and local policymakers into each other’s organisations. Through increasing the two-way flow of knowledge via social contact, KM team members fostered collaborations and the sharing of ‘mindlines’, aiming to generate more relevant research bids and research-informed decision-making. This paper describes the activities of the KM team, types of knowledge and how that knowledge was exchanged to influence mindlines. Discussion: KM team activities were classified into: relational, dissemination, transferable skills, evaluation, research and awareness raising. Knowledge available included: profession-specific (for example, research methods, healthcare landscape), insider (for example, relational, organisation and experiential) and KM theory and practice. KM team members brokered relationships through conversations interweaving different types of knowledge, particularly organisational and relational. Academics were interested in policymakers’ knowledge of healthcare policy and the commissioning landscape. More than research results, policymakers valued researchers’ methodological knowledge. Both groups appreciated each other as ‘critical friends’. Conclusion: To increase research impact, ‘expertise into practice’ could be leveraged, specifically researchers’ critical thinking and research methodology skills. As policymakers’ expertise into practice also bridges the know-do gap, future impact models could focus less on evidence into practice and more on fostering this mutual flow of expertise. Embedded knowledge brokers from the two communities working in teams can influence the mindlines of both. These ambassadors can create improvements in ‘inter-cultural competence’ to draw academia and policymaking closer.

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

“…Complexity and network theories propose that success depends on "agents" working across and between highly complex, multi-level multiple systems and clusters in an "interdependent, contingent, relationship-centric way" (Kitson et al, 2018). Both communities need credible brokers with the requisite skills to create discourse between them, and embedded brokers are more likely to be able to do this and to bring about cultural change, as they gain the necessary tacit and experiential knowledge to influence their colleagues (Wye et al, 2017).…”

“…As host organisations tended to reap the rewards of an embedded broker, two-way placements benefited both communities, thereby securing their ongoing engagement. Moreover by working as a team, the brokers modelled respectful, collaborative behaviour and created a critical mass to raise awareness, increase negotiating power and change organisational culture (Wye et al, 2017). This team approach perhaps particularly resonated within commissioning as healthcare professionals are used to team working and sharing knowledge collectively (Currie and White, 2012).…”

“…Knowledge brokers work in many contexts including health, social care, education and international development in diverse countries such as Australia , Holland (Langeveld et al, 2016) and Burkina Faso (Dagenais et al, 2015). Usually, they act as linkage agents, knowledge managers and capacitybuilders (Bornbaum et al, 2015), although sometimes they might be facilitators, evaluators (Glegg and Hoens, 2016) or 'critical friends' (Wye et al, 2017).…”

Re-Framing the Knowledge to Action Challenge Through NIHR Knowledge Mobilisation Research Fellows Comment on "CIHR Health System Impact Fellows: Reflections on ‘Driving Change’ Within the Health System"

“…CLAHRCs were a distributed regional service and academic partnerships funded to increase applied health research and the use of research in practice. Evidence from evaluations of CLAHRCs 14,[16][17][18][19] have demonstrated the pivotal role that embedded researcher type roles played in developing the partnerships themselves, as well as in coproducing research and knowledge mobilisation through inhabiting the worlds of service and academia. However, there were features of CLAHRCs that were more facilitative of individuals operating in these embedded roles.…”

“…Given the aim of the HSI fellowship is to bridge the knowledge practice gap, it is assumed that the ability to work across boundaries through developing and maintaining partnerships with different people and communities would be particularly critical to success. Bridging or spanning boundaries episodically (for example for specific tasks), as well as blurring them through a more continuous approach to being embedded in day-to-day activities 9 and being critical friends 14 requires considerable effort and work. As Cassidy et al 7 suggest, this will require the HSI fellows to ‘attune to the relationship components embedded within the programme.’ The need to attend to relationships is also evident in the ongoing research into embedded researchers of Ward and colleagues ( ) which identifies one of the features of embedded research initiatives as ‘Relational Role.’ In their conceptualisation, Relational Role includes the independence of the embedded researcher and their approach to providing input.…”