Increasing the influence of one’s research on policy

Dwan, Kathryn; McInnes, Peter

doi:10.1071/ah12158

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ‘diagnostic role’ enacted by the knowledge brokers in this study goes beyond having a generic familiarity with policy processes and environments [25]. Discourse about the need to be conscious of the policy context to achieve a shared understanding about an agency’s needs [19, 23, 24] also falls short of capturing the kind of nuanced information that reviewers require [3, 43]; in any given context, some factors will be more salient to the policy process than others [44]. The brokers’ task is to work with the agency to refine the review questions and scope so that they take into account parallel policy activity and constraints in such a way that the review captures precisely what is needed [34].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deconstructing knowledge brokering for commissioned rapid reviews: an observational study

Moore

Redman

Butow

et al. 2018

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundKnowledge brokers are increasingly used by policy agencies, yet little is known about how they engage with policy-makers and facilitate discussions with them about their research needs. This study examines knowledge brokers’ behaviour in one-off interactions with policy-makers commissioning rapid reviews. It describes how knowledge brokers engage with policy-makers, build trust and gain agreement about the review’s parameters.MethodsWe observed and transcribed 15 structured knowledge brokering sessions and used line-by-line analysis to derive, test and refine a coding schedule. The final coding schedule was applied to all transcripts. We assigned 35 codes to three tasks identified in the data, namely eliciting information, exploring the policy context and negotiating the content of reviews.ResultsThe knowledge brokers we observed were skilled facilitators who built trust by their open stance, neutrality, and knowledge of research and policy contexts. Trust engendered an interplay of expertise in which review questions and scope were clarified and contextual factors evaluated. Negotiation about the content of the review focused on understanding how it would contribute to the policy process, comparing options and assessing feasibility. Key functions of knowledge brokers included eliciting and clarifying information, linking the review questions to the context and purpose, moving fluidly between policy and research perspectives, and weighing up review options against policy objectives. Four knowledge brokering roles were identified, namely diagnostic, facilitative, deliberative and interpretative.ConclusionsThis study identified ways in which knowledge brokers established rapport with policy-makers who commissioned reviews, enabled disclosure of essential information and explored contextual factors that affected the review’s purpose and intended use. Knowledge brokers were competent in the discourse and conventions of both policy and research and were skilled in negotiating complex policy and political environments, assisting policy-makers to evaluate options and craft a review proposal that was targeted, responsive and feasible. Mutuality, respect and an interplay of expertise were integral to the knowledge brokering process. Future research might usefully examine whether other rapid review programmes using knowledge brokers have similar results as well as the transferability of the four knowledge brokering roles to other contexts and settings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0389-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deconstructing knowledge brokering for commissioned rapid reviews: an observational study

Moore

Redman

Butow

et al. 2018

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In establishing the KM team, members acted as 'knowledge brokers' to "facilitate, mediate and negotiate" (Lomas, 2007) the creation of "productive relationships" (Dwan and McInnes, 2013) between researchers and commissioners. Several other concepts were also useful including: a) the socialization of knowledge whereby knowledge flows in social networks (Brown and Duguid, 2000) b) communities of practice (CoP) when "groups of people who share a common set of problems or passion about a topic deepen their knowledge and expertise by interacting on an ongoing basis" (Wenger et al, 2002) c) co-production or 'engaged scholarship' which is a participative form of research that involves others as authentic partners in the research process (Van de Ven, 2007) d) change management principles such as starting small and working with the most fertile areas McClenahan, 2001, Evans andHaines, 2000).…”

Section: Theoretical Conceptualisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Wye

Cramer

Carey

et al. 2019

Evidence &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…The underlying premise is that knowledge will be shared, usually between those from different communities, which will lead to behavioural change. These changes may come through "productive relationships" (Dwan and McInnes, 2013); or employing tangible 'boundary objects' (Kimble et al, 2010), such as evidence briefs to feed in research knowledge (Campbell et al, 2011). 1 These notions underpin the development and work of the collective brokering team reported here.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Wye

Cramer

Beckett

et al. 2020

Evidence &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. Methods 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. Results 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’. Conclusion 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. key messages An embedded two-way collective team makes brokering easier. It provides a safe space for brokers to be vulnerable, share learning and navigate problems. Team-brokering models collaborative behaviour and creates a critical mass. But many brokering challenges still exist.

show abstract

Increasing the influence of one’s research on policy

Cited by 10 publications

References 20 publications

Deconstructing knowledge brokering for commissioned rapid reviews: an observational study

Deconstructing knowledge brokering for commissioned rapid reviews: an observational study

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About