The 'dark side' of knowledge brokeringCitation formats

Standard

The 'dark side' of knowledge brokering. / Kislov, Roman; Wilson, Paul; Boaden, Ruth.

In: Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, Vol. 22, No. 2, 01.04.2017, p. 107-112.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Kislov, R, Wilson, P & Boaden, R 2017, 'The 'dark side' of knowledge brokering', Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 107-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819616653981

APA

Vancouver

Kislov R, Wilson P, Boaden R. The 'dark side' of knowledge brokering. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2017 Apr 1;22(2):107-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819616653981

Author

Kislov, Roman ; Wilson, Paul ; Boaden, Ruth. / The 'dark side' of knowledge brokering. In: Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2017 ; Vol. 22, No. 2. pp. 107-112.

Bibtex

@article{fba42fe500134b3db3c818801cd63183,
title = "The 'dark side' of knowledge brokering",
abstract = "Deploying knowledge brokers to bridge the {\textquoteleft}gap{\textquoteright} between researchers and practitioners continues to be seen as an unquestionable enabler of evidence-based practice and is often endorsed uncritically. We explore the {\textquoteleft}dark side{\textquoteright} of knowledge brokering, reflecting on its inherent challenges which we categorise as: (1) tensions between different aspects of brokering; (2) tensions between different types and sources of knowledge; and (3) tensions resulting from the {\textquoteleft}in-between{\textquoteright} position of brokers. As a result of these tensions, individual brokers may struggle to maintain their fragile and ambiguous intermediary position, and some of the knowledge may be lost in the {\textquoteleft}in-between world{\textquoteright}, whereby research evidence is transferred to research users without being mobilised in their day-to-day practice. To be effective, brokering requires an amalgamation of several types of knowledge and a multidimensional skill set that needs to be sustained over time. If we want to maximise the impact of research on policy and practice, we should move from deploying individual {\textquoteleft}brokers{\textquoteright} to embracing the collective process of {\textquoteleft}brokering{\textquoteright} supported at the organisational and policy levels.",
keywords = "knowledge brokering, knowledge brokers, knowledge mobilisation",
author = "Roman Kislov and Paul Wilson and Ruth Boaden",
year = "2017",
month = apr,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1355819616653981",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "107--112",
journal = "Journal of Health Services Research and Policy",
issn = "1355-8196",
publisher = "Sage Publications Ltd",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The 'dark side' of knowledge brokering

AU - Kislov, Roman

AU - Wilson, Paul

AU - Boaden, Ruth

PY - 2017/4/1

Y1 - 2017/4/1

N2 - Deploying knowledge brokers to bridge the ‘gap’ between researchers and practitioners continues to be seen as an unquestionable enabler of evidence-based practice and is often endorsed uncritically. We explore the ‘dark side’ of knowledge brokering, reflecting on its inherent challenges which we categorise as: (1) tensions between different aspects of brokering; (2) tensions between different types and sources of knowledge; and (3) tensions resulting from the ‘in-between’ position of brokers. As a result of these tensions, individual brokers may struggle to maintain their fragile and ambiguous intermediary position, and some of the knowledge may be lost in the ‘in-between world’, whereby research evidence is transferred to research users without being mobilised in their day-to-day practice. To be effective, brokering requires an amalgamation of several types of knowledge and a multidimensional skill set that needs to be sustained over time. If we want to maximise the impact of research on policy and practice, we should move from deploying individual ‘brokers’ to embracing the collective process of ‘brokering’ supported at the organisational and policy levels.

AB - Deploying knowledge brokers to bridge the ‘gap’ between researchers and practitioners continues to be seen as an unquestionable enabler of evidence-based practice and is often endorsed uncritically. We explore the ‘dark side’ of knowledge brokering, reflecting on its inherent challenges which we categorise as: (1) tensions between different aspects of brokering; (2) tensions between different types and sources of knowledge; and (3) tensions resulting from the ‘in-between’ position of brokers. As a result of these tensions, individual brokers may struggle to maintain their fragile and ambiguous intermediary position, and some of the knowledge may be lost in the ‘in-between world’, whereby research evidence is transferred to research users without being mobilised in their day-to-day practice. To be effective, brokering requires an amalgamation of several types of knowledge and a multidimensional skill set that needs to be sustained over time. If we want to maximise the impact of research on policy and practice, we should move from deploying individual ‘brokers’ to embracing the collective process of ‘brokering’ supported at the organisational and policy levels.

KW - knowledge brokering

KW - knowledge brokers

KW - knowledge mobilisation

U2 - 10.1177/1355819616653981

DO - 10.1177/1355819616653981

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 107

EP - 112

JO - Journal of Health Services Research and Policy

JF - Journal of Health Services Research and Policy

SN - 1355-8196

IS - 2

ER -