Knowledge brokers in education: How intermediary organizations are bridging the gap between research, policy and practice internationally

Abstract

Interest in how to better connect research to policy and practice is gaining momentum globally. Also gaining widespread agreement is the view that intermediary organizations have an important role to play in facilitating multi-stakeholder partnerships between researchers, practitioners and policymakers in order to increase the mobilization of research and its impact in public service sectors. Knowledge mobilization (KMb) includes efforts to strengthen linkages between research, practice and policy in public service sectors. This special issue explores a range of intermediary organizations, networks and initiatives in order to showcase how research-practice-policy gaps are being addressed in different contexts.

Use of extra-legal sources in amicus curiae briefs submitted in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

“…In this changing context, policy actors must present their positions simultaneously in a number of venues to maximize the possibility of their ideas influencing enacted policy. The ways in which policy-interested actors can engage in the public and political arenas has been the subject of study and analysis for many years (e.g., Cooper & Shewchuk, 2015;Rodway, 2015;Roesch, Golding, Hans, & Repucci, 1991;Sabatier & Weible, 2014;Scott, Jabbar, LaLonde, DeBray, & Lubienski, 2015); however, the ways in which these same actors can influence policy via the legal arena deserves additional attention. Specifically, there are a number of important stages in the legal process where interested parties may seek to influence policy development.…”

The Education Agency as Research Intermediary

“…Given what we know about the current state of research use, the importance of the research intermediary cannot be understated. Sometimes called research brokers or knowledge mobilizers, research intermediaries are individuals or organizations that help practitioners understand and use research to inform and shape decisions (Cooper & Shewchuk, 2015). Policy makers have relied on research intermediary organizations for several years, and many organizations, such as the comprehensive assistance centers provided by the U.S. Department of Education, are filling this role for state agencies (Goertz et al, 2016).…”

Education privatization in the United States: Increasing saturation and segregation

“…Globally, research has shown that educational privatization in multiple forms has spread internationally in recent decades (Adamson, Åstrand, & Darling-Hammond, 2016;Chakrabarti & Peterson, 2009;Verger, Fontdevila, & Zancajo, 2016). This diffusion involves a variety of processes and actors, including: (a) governments that often "borrow" policies from other countries (Steiner-Khamsi, 2006;Whitty & Edwards, 1998), (b) "intermediary organizations" such as think tanks that work across contexts to frame and promote policy ideas (Scott & Jabbar, 2014;Verger, 2012); (c) epistemic research communities connected with these intermediary organizations that produce and recycle favorable studies to change perceptions around reform ideas (Cooper & Shewchuk, 2015;Vasquez Heilig, Brewer, & Adamson, 2019a); and (d) reform entrepreneurs and philanthropists that often facilitate these processes (Lubienski & Au, 2016;Russakoff, 2015). These global actors and interconnections have facilitated the policy borrowing and uptake of education privatization, harkening back at least to University of Chicago Professor Milton Friedman advising Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in the late 1970s to institute a national voucher program (Castro-Hidalgo and Gomez-Alvarez, 2016).…”