The Missing Link? Intermediaries, Mediators, and Knowledge Brokers in Education

• In Event: To Promote Research Is Not Enough: Research Capacity, Knowledge Mobilization, and Learning for Educational Change

Abstract

Purpose and Perspective:

This study analyzes efforts made by 44 knowledge mobilization intermediaries (third party, research brokering organizations) that operate between research producing contexts and research user contexts, to increase research use and its impact in education in Canada. There is currently no map of intermediary work in knowledge mobilization in education in Canada, or elsewhere for that matter (Cooper & Levin, 2010). Studying KMIs is important due to: 1) their rising number (Honig, 2004; Rich, 2004); 2) the significant roles they play interpreting, packaging and disseminating research for policymakers and practitioners (Levin, 2008; Nutley et al., 2007; Sin, 2008); and 3) the underexplored role of KMIs, despite the growing recognition of their importance to research use processes and centrality to KM (Davies & Nutley, 2008; Tseng et al., 2007).


Research Questions:

What is the nature and impact of the work of Canadian intermediaries in knowledge mobilization in education?

1. What types of intermediaries exist in education in Canada?
2. What are the organizational features of these organizations?
3. What knowledge mobilization activities (products, events and networks) are intermediaries involved in and what dissemination mechanisms do they use?
4. How do intermediaries measure and evaluate the impact of their work?

Methods and Data:

This study collects data according to the four dimensions in the conceptual framework (insert Figure 1) – type of organization; organizational features; KM processes; impact - drawing on a number of reviews of factors that influence KM in organizations across sectors (Belkhodja et al., 2007; Landry et al., 2001; Lavis et al., 2002, 2003; Mitton et al., 2007; Nutley et al., 2007). Data collection included two data sources: (1) An evaluative metric that analyzes organizational KM activities in terms of KM strategies (products, events and networks) and KM indicators as they relate to strategies (different types, ease of use, accessibility, focus of audience and so on) and (2) Organizational profiles of KMIs constructed based on the variables in the conceptual framework. Cross-case analysis of 44 KMIs across Canada was conducted.


Results and Significance:

We have used the evaluative metric to analyze KM strategies on 100 organizational websites across sectors, so we have scores from a wide range of organizations as a baseline for comparison. Most organizations have fairly low scores in relation to KM efforts (insert Figure 2). Intermediaries and faculties of education are most heavily engaged in knowledge mobilization efforts. School districts and ministries of education have lower scores for KM efforts. Intermediaries tend to score highest on the metric with 20 out of the 25 top organizations being KMIs; hence, are most heavily involved in KM activities. This paper provides evidence of KM strategies being utilized by KMIs, including products, events, and networks.

Author

• Amanda Cooper, Queen's University