Qualities of knowledge brokers: reflections from practice

Phipps, David; Morton, Sarah

doi:10.1332/174426413x667784

Cited by 59 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ward et al (2009) identified communication as a skill of knowledge brokers. In addition to being a trainable skill, Phipps and Morton (2013) have identified communication as a quality of KTPs that is innate to the person's character rather than something that can be trained, insofar as it includes linkage and partnership development.…”

Section: Ktp As An Evolving Professionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge Translation and Strategic Communications: Unpacking Differences and Similarities for Scholarly and Research Communications

Barwick

Phipps

Myers³

et al. 2014

SRC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge translation (KT) involves communication of research evidence. Within research-relevant organizations there is considerable overlap in the roles and activities associated with KT and strategic communications (SC), which calls for greater role clarity. We untangle the differences and similarities between KT and SC, bringing clarity that may benefit organizations employing both types of workers. As KT practitioners (KTPs) take hold in organizations that have long had SC personnel, there is tension but also opportunities for defining roles and exploring synergies. What follows is a description of how we have explored this duality within our networks and an analysis of how SC and KT roles are similar and divergent.L’application des connaissances (AC) suppose la communication des données de la recherche. Dans les organisations qui s’occupent de recherche, les rôles et les activités associés à l’AC et aux communications stratégiques (CS) se recoupent en maints endroits, à tel point qu’une clarification des rôles s’impose. Nous démêlons ici les différences et les ressemblances entre l’AC et les CS, dans une mise a point utile aux organisations qui emploient les deux types de travailleurs. En effet, à mesure que les professionnels de l’AC prennent leurs marques dans des lieux de travail où s’affaire depuis longtemps un personnel voué aux communications, des tensions se créent, mais aussi des occasions de définir les rôles respectifs et de développer une synergie. Voici comment nous avons exploré cette dualité au sein de nos réseaux, ainsi qu’une analyse des ressemblances et des divergences entre les CS et l’AC.

show abstract

Section: Ktp As An Evolving Professionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge Translation and Strategic Communications: Unpacking Differences and Similarities for Scholarly and Research Communications

Barwick

Phipps

Myers³

et al. 2014

SRC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A range of functions has been suggested, including problem definition; research synthesis; facilitating access to research knowledge; developing outputs that are more accessible to users; and developing and brokering networks and other connections. 135,141 Linking and mediator roles have been promoted in many organisational settings and are perceived by health organisations to be an important component of the organisational infrastructure to encourage evidence use. 142 However, one review 21 suggests that the structural position of brokers within organisations may mean that they have most scope to intervene in contexts where there is low polarisation of views (i.e.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study

Davies

Powell

Nutley

2015

Health Services and Delivery Research

107

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe past two decades have seen rich conceptual development and a wide variety of practical initiatives around research use or ‘knowledge mobilisation’, but so far there has been little systematic effort to map, conceptualise and learn from these initiatives, or to investigate the degree to which they are underpinned by contemporary thinking as set out in the literature. This gap is particularly apparent when looking at knowledge mobilisation at the ‘macro’ level, that is the strategies and activities of major research funders, major research producers and key research ‘intermediaries’.Aims and objectivesThe study had three key objectives with associated research questions: to map the knowledge mobilisation landscape in health care (in the UK and internationally) and in social care and education within the UK; to understand the models, theories and frameworks that underpin the approaches to knowledge mobilisation; and to learn from the success or otherwise of the strategies and approaches in use.MethodsThe study was multimethod and multiphased, with considerable interactivity between the different strands. Data were collected through a review of 71 published reviews on knowledge mobilisation; website review of the knowledge mobilisation activities of 186 agencies; in-depth interviews (n = 52) with key individuals in agencies; a web survey (response rate 57%;n = 106); and two stakeholder workshops (at months 6 and 16).FindingsWe identified a wide range of models, theories and frameworks used to describe knowledge mobilisation and created a conceptual map that highlights six domains of thinking and debate in the literature. The interview and survey data showed three broad, overlapping roles undertaken by agencies: developing and sharing research-based products; emphasising brokering; and focusing on implementation. The knowledge mobilisation approaches in use had been shaped by many factors but there was only limited use of the models, theories and frameworks from the literature. Participants saw formal evaluation of knowledge mobilisation activities as important but highly challenging. Rich formative experience was described but formal evaluation was relatively rare. Few agencies involved service users or members of the public in knowledge mobilisation activities. Working inductively from the study data we derived eight key archetypes or ‘bundles of knowledge mobilisation activities’ that could be used by agencies to explore their knowledge mobilisation activities, future strategies and stakeholder perspectives.ConclusionsKnowledge mobilisation could be enhanced by providing support to enable cross-sector and interagency learning, reflection on the conceptual basis of approaches and increased evaluation of knowledge mobilisation activities. Further research is needed to evaluate approaches to assessing research use and impact, on systems approaches to knowledge mobilisation, on sustaining and scaling-up approaches, and on applying a wider range of literatures to knowledge mobilisation. Further research would also be useful on the knowledge mobilisation archetypes and how they can work in complementary ways.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

“…In our experience, knowledge brokers hired into an institutional infrastructure do not share the challenges reported above for project-based knowledge brokers. In York University's Knowledge Mobilization Unit, we are able to offer ongoing employment, training (albeit mostly "on the job" training) and clear role definition as the institutional knowledge brokers are core funded by the university and part of the university research infrastructure (Phipps & Morton, 2013). Nonetheless, there remain few examples of university-based, institutional knowledge brokering as opposed to project-based knowledge brokering.…”

Section: Knowledge-brokering Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

An Institutional Process for Brokering Community-Campus Research Collaborations

Phipps¹,

Johnny²,

Wedlock³

2015

ESJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge mobilization seeks to identify and support authentic research collaborations between community and university so that benefits of the research accrue to both partners. Knowledge brokering is a key knowledge mobilization mechanism that helps community and university partners connect and build relationships in order to share expertise for mutual opportunity. There remains a need to describe in detail the typical knowledge brokering devices and methodologies. This paper presents a detailed description of York University's knowledge brokering service which is based on eight years of knowledge mobilization practice. The process is broken into 5 broad stages: 1) in progress; 2) no match; 3) match and no activity; 4) match and activity; 5) match and project. Stage 5 includes a step to identify the non-academic impacts of the collaborative research project. This process is illustrated using examples from York University's practice in which a match was brokered for 82% of the 342 knowledge mobilization opportunities

show abstract

Qualities of knowledge brokers: reflections from practice

Cited by 59 publications

References 12 publications

Knowledge Translation and Strategic Communications: Unpacking Differences and Similarities for Scholarly and Research Communications

Knowledge Translation and Strategic Communications: Unpacking Differences and Similarities for Scholarly and Research Communications

Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study

An Institutional Process for Brokering Community-Campus Research Collaborations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About