Knowledge Brokers’ Relational Ecosystems: Diverse and Strong Social Networks that Support Knowledge Mobilization Efforts (Poster 3)

• In Event: Revitalizing Education Through Knowledge Brokerage and Relational Networks

Abstract

Objectives
Knowledge brokers are instrumental in improving education, including increasing equitable opportunities for all students (Ainscow, 2012; Bélanger & Dulude, 2023). To date, research has primarily focused on the relationships between knowledge brokers and their audiences and how the former mobilizes knowledge to the latter (e.g., Authors, 2023; Cooper & Shewchuk, 2015; Malin et al., 2018). However, despite prior research suggesting the important role of social networks (Carolan, 2014; Granovetter, 1973; Lin, 2001), less is known about knowledge brokers’ relational ecosystems, defined as knowledge brokers’ partner networks with organizations and individuals for collaboration, support, and resource exchange. Therefore, this explorative study examines two research questions:
(1) What are the characteristics of knowledge brokers’ relational ecosystems, including their (a) wider partner networks, and (b) core partner networks?
(2) How do knowledge brokers’ networks support and shape their knowledge creation and mobilization work?

Theoretical framework
This work is situated in the literature around social capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Lin, 2001), defined as “resources embedded in social networks accessed and used by actors for actions” (Lin, 2001, p. 25). Social capital theory suggests that actors are situated in networks of relationships and gain access to the resources embedded in these networks (e.g., research evidence, knowledge, materials, and ideas) (Lin, 2001). Social network analysis methods allow us to measure social capital (Scott, 2017).

Methods
This study used egocentric social network analysis to analyze survey and interview data to better understand the relational ecosystems of knowledge brokers. To analyze the survey and interview data, we co-developed one codebook each, with a set of a priori codes based on the theoretical framework and codes that emerged progressively during the analysis. To improve the accuracy and credibility of the findings, we conducted member checks with all participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

Data sources
We purposely selected six equity-focused, evidence-based organizations that intentionally create and mobilize resources to different levels of the education system. This presentation draws on data from egocentric network surveys and interviews.

Results
The evidence suggests that participating knowledge brokers partnered with 15 to 61 heterogeneous individuals and organizations, including researchers, leaders, foundations, and intermediaries. Core relational ecosystems ranged in size between three and 13 partners, whom the knowledge brokers considered most important. These core relational ecosystems were characterized by strong relationships, partly driven by individual team members’ social networks and comprising micro-networks, and were well-connected (i.e., network closure). Beyond being collaborators, partners provided infrastructure and financial resources, served as intermediaries for knowledge mobilization, provided insights into policy contexts and their audiences’ needs, supported knowledge brokers’ capacity building, and connected knowledge brokers to people and organizations. These relationships were not one-directional but often mutually beneficial, with support and influence flowing in both directions, resulting in reciprocated relational ecosystems.

Scholarly significance of the study
The findings offer a better understanding of all the processes, people, and ideas involved in transforming education, including sometimes distant and unseen organizations and individuals in the broader knowledge mobilization ecosystem.

Authors

• Anita Caduff, University of Michigan

• Lydia Romina Bornhaupt, University of Regensburg

• Mimi Lockton, University of California - San Diego

• Martin Rehm, University of Southern Denmark

• Alan J. Daly, University of California - San Diego