Kislov Roman, Wilson Paul, Boaden Ruth
1 Research Fellow, Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK.
2 Professor, Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK.
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2017 Apr;22(2):107-112. doi: 10.1177/1355819616653981. Epub 2016 Jul 7.
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 categorize 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 mobilized 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 maximize 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 organizational and policy levels.
部署知识中介以弥合研究人员与从业者之间的“差距”，仍然被视为循证实践的一个毋庸置疑的推动因素，并且常常得到不加批判的认可。我们探讨了知识中介的“阴暗面”，反思其内在挑战，我们将这些挑战归类为：（1）中介不同方面之间的紧张关系；（2）不同类型和来源的知识之间的紧张关系；以及（3）中介的“中间”地位所产生的紧张关系。由于这些紧张关系，个体中介可能难以维持其脆弱且模糊的中间立场，并且一些知识可能会在“中间地带”丢失，即研究证据在未被应用于日常实践的情况下就被传递给了研究使用者。为了有效，中介需要融合多种类型的知识以及一套需要长期维持的多维度技能。如果我们想使研究对政策和实践产生最大影响，我们应该从部署个体“中介”转向接受在组织和政策层面得到支持的“中介”集体过程。
