Networks for Knowledge Mobilization: A Framework to Understand Support-Seeking Behaviors of Knowledge Brokers
Anita Caduff, Alan J. Daly, Marie Lockton, Martin RehmBackground:
Knowledge brokers are increasingly influential in education. They cultivate relationships between research, policy, and practice; make knowledge accessible and usable; and support evidence-informed change in education. Still, their support-seeking behaviors within their relational ecosystems are not well studied and understood.
Purpose:
The purpose of this exploratory study is to expand upon existing research by: (1) developing profiles of knowledge brokers based on their support-seeking behaviors within their relational ecosystems, and (2) understanding the tensions knowledge brokers navigate while building and maintaining their relational ecosystems for support.
Research Design:
This mixed-methods study draws on data from 12 equity-focused, evidence-based knowledge broker organizations in the United States. For this paper, we draw on data from egocentric network surveys and interviews, which we first qualitatively coded for forms of support, underlying strategic priorities, and tensions. Next, we transformed the data, quantifying the qualitative findings. Finally, we used hierarchical clustering to determine different knowledge broker profiles of support-seeking behaviors.
Findings:
Participating knowledge brokers differed in their support-seeking behaviors, suggesting that not all knowledge brokers had the same support needs or access. We identified seven profiles based on different degrees in (1) infrastructure/financial support, (2) strategic advisory, (3) capacity building, (4) knowledge mobilization support, and (5) networking support. Additionally, we identified key tensions faced by knowledge brokers, including (1) the desire to collaborate toward shared goals while navigating competitive pressures, (2) the drive for autonomy contrasted with interdependence with partners, and (3) the multidimensional challenges of balancing observability, scope, and time horizons in their work. These tensions shaped knowledge brokers’ relational ecosystems, with whom they partnered and how, and ultimately their support-seeking behaviors.
Conclusion:
This exploratory study expands upon the existing typologies and frameworks. Instead of focusing on brokers’ knowledge mobilization efforts with their audiences (e.g., knowledge mobilization processes) or fixed attributes (e.g., organizational type), this paper explores their support-seeking behaviors. Findings also have practical significance by providing knowledge brokers with a guiding framework of the forms of support they could focus on when leveraging their relational ecosystems for collaboration, exchange, and support.