Network Brokerage: An Integrative Review and Future Research Agenda

Abstract

Network brokerage research has grown rapidly in recent decades, spanning the boundaries of multiple social science disciplines as well as diverse research areas within management. Accordingly, we take stock of the literature on network brokerage and provide guidance on ways to move this burgeoning research area forward. We provide a comprehensive review of this literature, including crucial dimensions of the concept itself in terms of brokerage structure and behavior, a set of key categories of factors surrounding the brokerage concept (antecedents, outcomes, and moderators), and an overview of brokerage dynamics over time. We use these dimensions and categories to depict network brokerage’s theoretical and empirical underpinnings as well as evaluate prior research efforts. In so doing, we offer a means to summarize and synthesize this large, interdisciplinary literature, identify important research gaps, and offer promising directions for future research.

Expanding organisational knowledge online: the role of bridging members in knowledge expansion in online groups

“…With this study, we contribute to an emerging research stream addressing brokerage as a process (Obstfeld et al, 2014;Soda et al, 2018), or brokering (Halevy et al, 2019;Kwon et al, 2020). Specifically, we argue that 'structural brokers' are ideally positioned to increase knowledge flows between groups; and that 'processual brokerage,' i.e., how these bridging members leverage affordances of digital technologies in an effort to expand knowledge, is a necessary activity to realise this increase.…”

“…We argue that bridging members are, by structurally connecting groups and enabling knowledge flows between groups, simultaneously structural and processual brokers. The distinction between structural and processual brokerage is a recent advancement of the brokerage literature (Halevy et al, 2019;Kwon et al, 2020;Obstfeld et al, 2014;Soda et al, 2018). Here, scholars argue that prior work on brokers in networks has paid insufficient attention to the actual processes that brokers engage in, also known as brokering (Halevy et al, 2019).…”

“…This has important implications for brokering. Because bridging members occupy important structural positions in the network of groups, they are better aware of their options to act (Kwon et al, 2020), so they can intend to broker or span additional boundaries for the overall benefit of the group. In the case of a digital environment such as an ESN, we argue that a tertius iungens strategic orientation of the bridging member enables knowledge sharing (Obstfeld et al, 2014;Quintane & Carnabuci, 2016) by spanning boundaries that either connect new groups, or strengthen existing connections between groups.…”

“…This form of collaboration can help to determine the usefulness of new knowledge. Thus, knowledge expansion is explained by the structural position of bridging members, and how they utilise this position in terms their brokering behaviour (Halevy et al, 2019;Kwon et al, 2020;Obstfeld et al, 2014). This form of brokering increases the knowledge flows between, and through the influx of new knowledge also within, groups.…”

“…Bridging members' behaviour, in turn, influences interactions within and between the bridged groups and as such influences knowledge expansion within these groups. Consequently, we extend an emerging research stream addressing brokerage and brokering (Halevy et al, 2019;Kwon et al, 2020). Here, scholars distinguish between the structural argument -brokerage -that is focused on the position of knowledge brokers in the overall online network; and the processual argument -brokering -, where the actual process of knowledge sharing that contributes to knowledge expansion is central (Obstfeld et al, 2014;Soda et al, 2018).…”