The invisible work of knowledge brokers

Much of what knowledge brokers do is ‘invisible work’: a new study explores aims, roles, and intended outcomes and impacts. What are the implications for practice? Chris Cvitanovic and Paul Cairney say the time is right for establishing a Knowledge Brokering Community of Practice.

Moving research evidence into policy and practice requires collaboration and trust between researchers and policy partners, and knowledge brokerage is an increasingly-used approach to improving knowledge exchange. However, the meaning of ‘knowledge broker’ remains elusive, and there is still much to know about their practices and impacts. Our recent study addressed that gap by systematically mapping academic and grey-literature research on knowledge brokers working at the interface of environmental science and policy.

We found high diversity of knowledge broker practices and identities, influenced by the nature and rationale of their roles, budgets, and work contexts. We also find that much of what knowledge brokers do is ‘invisible work’: critically important for building capacity for knowledge exchange, yet not easily observable or measurable.

What is the 'invisible work’ of knowledge brokers?

Knowledge brokers have been conceptualized narrowly as individuals who form relationships between researchers and policymakers to facilitate knowledge exchange. However, we found that this definition does not fully capture the diversity of roles and activities that knowledge brokers perform (and many are often overlooked). These are summarised in the figure below and include, among other things, facilitating interaction among researchers and decision-makers, aligning research with needs, developing engagement products, building capacity and skills, and contributing to research.

What do knowledge brokers aim to achieve?

Our review sought to understand the range of outcomes and impacts that knowledge brokers hoped to achieve. This included, but is not limited to:

• Increasing the usability of knowledge. Aligning research with knowledge needs to increase the salience of research outcomes. Enhancing the legitimacy and credibility of research. Improving the timeliness of knowledge exchange. Building the capacity of decision-makers to use the generated knowledge.

• Improving knowledge exchange. Facilitating the process of sharing knowledge and supporting its use in decision-making.

• Inclusivity and diversity. Ensuring broad representation of diverse stakeholders and their knowledge systems and values across all aspects of knowledge production, exchange, and use. Knowledge brokers seek to integrate different ways, making the knowledge exchange process more inclusive and diverse. This involves connecting different knowledge systems with research and policy, and promoting justice and pluralism in knowledge generation and use.

• Building and strengthening social networks. Working to build trust among stakeholders and unite diverse groups towards a common goal, even in the face of previous conflicts.

What are the implications for practice?

Despite the increasing recognition of knowledge brokers, there are gaps in understanding their diverse roles and practices. Our findings suggest several important implications for practice.

• Recognition of the value of 'invisible' work. Much of this work is behind the scenes and not readily seen or appreciated. This includes the nuances and time associated with building trusted relationships with diverse academic and non-academic partners to enable knowledge exchange and use. Such work, and explicitly the long time frames required, must be explicitly recognized, valued, and appreciated.

• Clear role definitions. There is still limited clarity about the scope of a knowledge broker's role, and over-expectation can limit their effectiveness. Knowledge brokers are often tasked with activities beyond their remit, such as writing academic publications, which limits time towards more important (yet often intangible) activities. It is critical that the appointment of knowledge brokers is accompanied by clear duty statements focused on knowledge exchange activities. These roles must also be flexible to adapt to evolving contexts. This ensures that the full range of visible and invisible work undertaken by knowledge brokers is recognized and rewarded.

• Institutional support. Research institutions play a key role in employing knowledge brokers. Establishing extension offices, knowledge exchange centers, and science-society transfer offices can enhance their impact. Further, clear roles, strategies, responsibilities and evaluation measures are needed to maximize effectiveness.

• Team-based approach. Given the diverse skills required for effective knowledge brokering, a single individual may not be able to fulfill all tasks effectively. Teams of knowledge brokers with complementary skills may be a more sustainable approach, for example, those embodied by the notion of a knowledge brokering organisation. This allows for a group of individuals with diverse and complementary skill sets to be recruited to work together, enhancing the overall effectiveness of knowledge brokering efforts. This approach also has implications for the evaluation of knowledge brokers, as it may require different metrics to assess the contributions of team members.

• Evaluating knowledge brokers. Our results show that the evaluation of knowledge brokers remains a critical challenge to their implementation. Organizations employing knowledge brokers can gather more robust and appropriate indicators of success by drawing on and adapting societal impacts or research impacts evaluation models. Common recommendations for effective evaluation include using a formative approach that captures activities and short-term outcomes, ensuring criteria are grounded in the context of the project/work, in combination with long-term measures.

Time for a Knowledge Brokering Community of Practice (KBCoP)?

The work of knowledge brokers is vital for effective knowledge exchange in science and policy. By highlighting their often 'invisible' activities, we hope to bring greater recognition and understanding to their contributions and encourage further research into their practices. To this end, we suggest the establishment of a Knowledge Brokering Community of Practice (KBCoP). Nurturing a community of practice across different scientific communities and geographic regions has the potential to create greater visibility for knowledge brokers and their contributions to knowledge exchange processes, outcomes, and impacts at the interface of science and policy. Such communities of practice would enable knowledge brokers to exchange insights on processes, outcomes, and impacts, and address barriers to effective knowledge brokering. By joining forces, knowledge brokers can turn existing barriers into enablers, enhancing their effectiveness at all levels.

We’d love to hear from you if you’re interested in forming or supporting a KBCoP for science and policy, or have other reflections on this piece.