The Sax Institute, PO Box K617, Haymarket NSW 1240, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia.
School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building (A27), Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Dec 12;16(1):120. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0389-7.
Knowledge brokers are increasingly used by policy agencies, yet little is known about how they engage with policy-makers and facilitate discussions with them about their research needs. This study examines knowledge brokers' behaviour in one-off interactions with policy-makers commissioning rapid reviews. It describes how knowledge brokers engage with policy-makers, build trust and gain agreement about the review's parameters.
We observed and transcribed 15 structured knowledge brokering sessions and used line-by-line analysis to derive, test and refine a coding schedule. The final coding schedule was applied to all transcripts. We assigned 35 codes to three tasks identified in the data, namely eliciting information, exploring the policy context and negotiating the content of reviews.
The knowledge brokers we observed were skilled facilitators who built trust by their open stance, neutrality, and knowledge of research and policy contexts. Trust engendered an interplay of expertise in which review questions and scope were clarified and contextual factors evaluated. Negotiation about the content of the review focused on understanding how it would contribute to the policy process, comparing options and assessing feasibility. Key functions of knowledge brokers included eliciting and clarifying information, linking the review questions to the context and purpose, moving fluidly between policy and research perspectives, and weighing up review options against policy objectives. Four knowledge brokering roles were identified, namely diagnostic, facilitative, deliberative and interpretative.
This study identified ways in which knowledge brokers established rapport with policy-makers who commissioned reviews, enabled disclosure of essential information and explored contextual factors that affected the review's purpose and intended use. Knowledge brokers were competent in the discourse and conventions of both policy and research and were skilled in negotiating complex policy and political environments, assisting policy-makers to evaluate options and craft a review proposal that was targeted, responsive and feasible. Mutuality, respect and an interplay of expertise were integral to the knowledge brokering process. Future research might usefully examine whether other rapid review programmes using knowledge brokers have similar results as well as the transferability of the four knowledge brokering roles to other contexts and settings.
政策机构越来越多地使用知识经纪人，但对于他们如何与决策者接触并促进与决策者就其研究需求进行讨论知之甚少。本研究考察了知识经纪人在与委托快速审查的决策者进行一次性互动时的行为。它描述了知识经纪人如何与决策者接触，建立信任，并就审查的参数达成一致。
我们观察并转录了 15 次结构化的知识经纪人会议，并使用逐行分析得出、测试和完善了一个编码计划。最终的编码计划应用于所有转录本。我们将 35 个代码分配给三个任务，即引出信息、探索政策背景和协商审查内容。
我们观察到的知识经纪人是熟练的促进者，他们通过开放的立场、中立性以及对研究和政策背景的了解建立信任。信任产生了专家之间的相互作用，在这种相互作用中，审查问题和范围得到了澄清，并且评估了背景因素。关于审查内容的谈判侧重于了解它如何为政策过程做出贡献，比较选项并评估可行性。知识经纪人的主要职能包括引出和澄清信息、将审查问题与背景和目的联系起来、在政策和研究观点之间灵活转换，以及权衡审查选项与政策目标。确定了四种知识经纪人角色，即诊断性、促进性、审议性和解释性。
本研究确定了知识经纪人与委托审查的决策者建立融洽关系、使决策者能够披露必要信息并探讨影响审查目的和预期用途的背景因素的方式。知识经纪人精通政策和研究的话语和惯例，并且在协商复杂的政策和政治环境方面具有很强的能力，帮助决策者评估选项并制定有针对性、响应迅速且可行的审查建议。相互尊重和专家之间的相互作用是知识经纪人过程的重要组成部分。未来的研究可能会有用地考察其他使用知识经纪人的快速审查计划是否具有类似的结果，以及这四个知识经纪人角色是否可以转移到其他背景和环境中。
