Antecedentes y evolución del Sistema Interamericano de Protección de los

This section examines three contrasting orientations to knowledge brokering and their underpinning values and principles: conduit, tertius gaudens and tertius iungens (Obstfeld, Borgatti and Davis, 2014).

2.4.1 Conduit knowledge brokering

As with Marsden (1982) and Gould and Fernandez (1989), Obstfeld, Borgatti and Davis (2014) describe conduit brokering as a relatively neutral act of brokering information between two or more parties. The knowledge broker does not seek to alter the relationship between two or more parties, the information content nor derive direct benefit. This is exemplified by the second stage of Hargadon’s (2002) five-stage knowledge brokering process (see section 2.3.2). “Bridging” (Hargadon, 2002, p. 49) involves the movement of information and resources between individuals and organisations, leaving the recipient to decide how to moderate, adapt and absorb the information in their context without being influenced by the broker. The notion of conduit brokering aligns also with Spiro, Acton and Butts’ (2013, p. 131) “transfer brokerage” involving information transfer between disconnected parties. This contrasts with two other brokering categories which involve greater intervention. “Matchmaking brokerage” involves the broker as the tie-maker between parties while in “coordination brokerage” the broker resolves information and resource needs without interested parties having direct contact with each other (Spiro, Acton and Butts, 2013, p. 131).

2.4.2 Disunion or tertius gaudens knowledge brokering (Figure 2.1)

Structural holes function as buffers “….like an insulator in an electric circuit” (Burt, 1992, p. 18) enabling third parties (individuals, organisations or consortia) to bridge these holes and create entrepreneurial advantage. In bridging structural holes, knowledge brokers create an advantage for themselves through the acquisition of new or different information and knowledge (Burt, 1992, 2004). Burt’s (1992, p. 30) conceptualisation of brokering is founded on Simmel’s (1902a, 1902b, 1950) sociological concept of tertius gaudens about how third parties change the dynamics of dyadic relationships. A third party changes the relationship between two parties by either mediating as a non-partisan, taking advantage of existing rivalries or deliberately creating conflict between the two (Simmel, 1902a, 1902b, 1950; Burt, 1992; Ahuja, 2000; Shi, Markoczy and Dess, 2009; Faist, 2014; Obstfeld, Borgatti and Davis, 2014; Quintane and Carnabuci, 2016). In a further analysis, Burt (2004) identifies four levels of brokerage, which enable brokers to create advantage when they bridge structural holes. The first involves making a group or an organisation aware of the issues, needs and challenges of other organisations within their network. The second one involves transferring

knowledge and learning. Thirdly, the broker raises awareness about what other organisations think and finally, the broker synthesises and combines ideas across different groups and organisations to aid interpretation and absorption of innovative ideas.

Figure 2.1: Behavioural characteristics of union, disunion and switching orientations.

2.4.3 Union or tertius iungens knowledge brokering (Figure 2.1)

Obstfeld (2005) questions Burt’s (1992, 2004) adaptation of Simmel’s (1902a, 1902b, 1950)

tertius gaudens concept suggesting that this represents only one dimension of brokering.

Building on Simmel’s (1902a, 1902b, 1950) contrasting concept of non-partisanship, Obstfeld (2005, p. 102) proposes a uniting (union) tertius iungens alternative. Tertius

iungens or union brokering is “….a strategic, behavioural orientation toward connecting

people in one’s social network by either introducing disconnected individuals or facilitating new coordination between connected individuals”. Union strategies represent more unifying behaviours such as strengthening existing ties, supportive coordination, nurturing interdependence and working towards a common purpose (Obstfeld, 2005; Obstfeld, Borgatti and Davis, 2014).

2.4.4 Tertius gaudens, tertius iungens or both? (Figure 2.1)

Lingo and O’Mahony (2010) question the bipolar analysis that arises from Burt (1992, 2004) and Obstfeld’s (2005) respective contributions on disunion and union knowledge brokering

orientations. Conceptions about brokering “….vacillate between two conceptions that vary in their understandings of the benefits of brokering….brokers who bridge structural holes tend to have better ideas and individually benefit from them” and the other one “….focuses on the benefits that accrues to the collective from connections among parties” (Lingo and O’Mahony, 2010, p. 47). Lingo and O’Mahony (2010) conclude that both union and disunion orientations can derive benefits for the collective not just for the broker. Knowledge brokers face ambivalence (Wenger, 1998a) in performing their roles and borrow from both tertius traditions to synthesise and integrate knowledge from multiple parties, a process described as “nexus work” (Lingo and O’Mahony, 2010, p. 47).

Similarly, in their study of middle management brokers, Shi, Markoczy and Dess (2009, p. 1474) conclude that the two tertius orientations are complementary not contradictory and constitute a “double-edged sword”. Vernet (2012) describes the same phenomenon as switching behaviour between the two tertius orientations with brokers bringing participants together or keeping them apart contingent upon the situation. The idea of contingency brokering can be illustrated further by a recent study. Quintane and Carnabuci (2016) found that the behaviours of brokers were different from those of practitioners who were bedded in organisations. Brokers tended to undertake brokering activities more often than embedded participants. Brokers deployed disunion orientations when they were not embedded in organisations but adopted union orientations in situations where they had established relationships (Quintane and Carnabuci, 2016).

2.4.5 Overview of the orientations

Analysis of the three knowledge brokering orientations reveals that the commentary tends to revolve around four aspects: principles, the beneficiaries, the broker’s role and characteristic brokering actions. Drawing on extant literature, Table 2.2 summarises the main features of the three knowledge brokering orientations using the four aspects as sub- headings and listing the key contributory authors. The analysis is extended in the next section through an examination of the role of knowledge brokers.