Las funciones consultiva y contenciosa de la CoIDH

The previous two sections examined definitions and conceptualisations about knowledge brokering processes. The purpose of this section is to examine the role of practitioners who broker knowledge.

2.5.1 Defining a knowledge broker’s role

Hislop (2013) offers a dual conceptualisation of knowledge workers which provides a useful starting point for understanding a knowledge broker’s role. The first conceptualises the knowledge worker as “….someone whose work is primarily intellectual, creative, and non- routine in nature, and which involves both the utilisation and creation of abstract/theoretical knowledge” (Hislop, 2013, p. 71). That is, knowledge work is the domain of a practitioner whose assumed or expressed job role is essentially cognitive. The second perspective views all work as involving knowledge and knowledge workers as “….anyone whose work involves the use of a reasonable amount of tacit and contextual and/or abstract/conceptual knowledge” (Hislop, 2013, p. 73). Adopting Hislop’s (2013) dualistic analysis, a knowledge broker can be categorised respectively as a knowledge worker with niche or incidental responsibility for facilitating knowledge sharing in organisations. Franssila, (2013) argues that even if all knowledge workers broker knowledge as a routine part of their work, dedicated knowledge workers are required to facilitate knowledge sharing.

Table 2.2: Contrasting strategic knowledge brokering orientations

Conduit Disunion/Tertius gaudens Union/Tertius iungens Nexus work/contingent knowledge brokering

Borrows from both tertius orientations contingent upon the situation, choices and decisions made at the time

Principles  Neutrality  Non-committal  Disunion  Division  Union  Unity

Beneficiaries  Mutual  The broker  The collective

The broker’s role  Ability to broker in dense networks  Acts as an intermediary  Strategic advantage through ties with two or more parties

 Generates/maintains competition between parties

 Moderates information and knowledge flows

 Knowledge superiority of the broker

 Uses knowledge superiority for the collective

 Facilitates interactions and knowledge flows

 Facilitates cooperation and coordination

 Collective knowledge ownership and power

Characteristic brokering actions

 Structural holes are not a pre-requisite  Transfer of solutions between parties  Limited management of inter-party relations  Direct, indirect or no contact between parties

 Information may be filtered, moderated or manipulated  Exploitation of knowledge and information gaps  Movement of moderated knowledge and information between parties across structural holes

 Strategic manipulation or active separation of unconnected parties

 Builds individual social capital  Synthesis of knowledge and information  Collective advantage created by closing knowledge gaps  Joins disconnected parties and new connections between existing stakeholders

 Builds communal social capital

Contributory authors

 Marsden (1982)

 Gould and Fernandez (1989)

 Burt (1992)

 Obstfeld, Borgatti & Davis (2014)

 Burt (1992, 2004)

 Hargadon & Sutton (1997)

 Baker and Obstfeld (1999)

 Hargadon (2002)

 Obstfeld (2005)

 Fleming, Mingo and Chen (2007)

 Shi, Markoczy & Dess (2009)

 Lingo & O’Mahony (2010)

 Vernet (2012)

 Obstfeld, Borgatti & Davis (2014)

 Kent, Sommerfeldt and Saffer (2016)

 Quintane and Carnabuci (2016)

 Baker and Obstfeld (1999)

 Obstfeld (2005)

 Fleming, Mingo and Chen (2007)

 Shi, Markoczy & Dess (2009)

 Lingo & O’Mahony (2010)

 Vernet (2012)

 Obstfeld, Borgatti & Davis (2014)

 Kent, Sommerfeldt and Saffer (2016)

 Quintane and Carnabuci (2016)

Hargadon (1998, p. 214) defines knowledge brokers as individuals or organisations “….that profit by transferring ideas from where they are known to where they represent innovative new possibilities”. Aalbers, Dolfsma and Koppius (2004, p. 10) describe knowledge brokers as practitioners who bridge “knowledge-islands” and nurture dialogues to link “….two or more employees and make transfer of knowledge possible”. Knowledge brokers are a significant link in knowledge sharing processes in organisations as “….the process of spreading knowledge is believed to stimulate innovation” (Ward, House and Hamer, 2009b, p. 269). Long, Cunningham and Braithwaite (2013) argue that knowledge brokers are key catalysts in knowledge sharing and their absence affects the viability and functioning of networks. Knowledge brokers reduce the “knowledge distance” (Markus, 2001, p. 88) between the knowledge producer and re-user by preparing knowledge for its re-application, a perspective that is criticised for treating knowledge as an intact and transposable commodity.

Meyer (2010) defines knowledge brokers as link agents, knowledge managers and capacity builders who bridge knowledge producers and users. Meyer (2010, p. 118) argues that in facilitating knowledge sharing processes, knowledge brokers contribute towards the generation of “….a new kind of knowledge: brokered knowledge” creating a pathway “…towards a new world” (Schlierf and Meyer, 2013, p. 437). However, knowledge brokers are not just passive transmitters or translators of knowledge as they also contribute to knowledge co-creation. The material nature of knowledge changes through the knowledge broker’s interventions, reinforcing the notion of knowledge as a subjective, socially constructed phenomenon (Meyer, 2010; Schlierf and Meyer, 2013).

Developments in knowledge brokering research in the field of health services reveal a number of trends. Lomas (2007) describes knowledge brokers as individuals who fill the knowledge gap between health research and its application in practice by clinical and other professionals. Similarly, Dobbins et al (2009) describe knowledge brokers as bridging the gap between those who produce health related knowledge and those who apply it. Ward, House and Hamer (2009a) argue for the deployment of knowledge brokers to bridge the gap between knowledge creators and users to help improve patient care. The works of Dobbins

developing a better understanding about the knowledge broker’s role but also highlight how knowledge generation and diffusion are viewed as one-directional rather than co-creative processes.

2.5.2 The knowledge broker’s positionality

Knowledge brokers are expected to “….manage carefully the coexistence of membership and non-membership, yielding enough distance to bring a different perspective, but also enough legitimacy to be listened to” (Wenger, 1998a, p. 110). Knowledge brokers must resist “….being pulled in to become full members and being rejected as intruders. Indeed, their contributions lie precisely in being neither in nor out” (Wenger, 1998a, p. 110). Like Wenger (1998a), other contributors also argue that knowledge brokers should sit remotely on the periphery or even outside the groups and domains where knowledge sharing is brokered (Burt, 1992; Wenger, 1998a; Hargadon, 2002; Aalbers, Dolfsma and Koppius, 2004; Haas, 2015). Meyer (2010) queries this stance wondering whether the knowledge broker acts as a bridge between adjoining communities of practice, sits on the periphery or resides in an in-between space. Gherardi and Nicolini (2002, p. 422) question the inadequacies of limiting the analysis to how brokers make connections or where they reside rather than how brokering accommodates a “plurality of discourses” in a “constellation of interconnected practices”. Furthermore, the emphasis in existing analysis about the knowledge broker’s peripherality fails to acknowledge the role of internal knowledge brokers (Cillo, 2005) and internal knowledge brokering processes where “….participants in any collective practice share understandings about what they are doing and what this means in real time, and knowledge is co-constructed” (Currie and White, 2012, p. 1335).

2.5.3 Role expectations and attributes of knowledge brokers

Literature about the skills and aptitudes of knowledge brokers falls into two categories: roles (what knowledge brokers do) and key attributes (the skills, knowledge and expertise of knowledge brokers). An illustration of the first (what knowledge brokers do) is Gould and Fernandez’s (1989) typology, which identifies five distinct broker roles summarised in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Typology of broker roles (Gould and Fernandez, 1989)

Gatekeeper Broker has the discretion to grant access to knowledge to an external party or for distribution within their own group

Representative An individual is delegated to be the broker to communicate information and exchange knowledge with external parties

Coordinator A group member acts as the coordinator in a brokering relationship that is internal to the group

Cosmopolitan or itinerant

A broker mediates between group members but belongs to a different group

Liaison A broker acts as an intermediary across groups but is not a member of any of them

Another example is found in the CHSRF’s report (2003). Here, the knowledge broker is described as an individual who brings people together to exchange information, helps groups to understand different group needs, advocates for healthcare research, monitors and evaluates practices, synthesises and summarises knowledge to aid decision-making and guides research initiatives and developments. In an analytic report of the first discussion (September – October, 2010) of an online platform for international development intermediaries, the Knowledge Brokers’ Forum (www.knowledgebrokersforum.org), Fisher (2010, p. 3) describes knowledge brokering roles as a “….nested set of roles, one encompassing the other like a set of Russian dolls. Each role is associated with purposes and functions that are increasingly engaged in change processes….” (Figure 2.2). Fisher (2010) acknowledges that the boundaries between each role can be blurred and the role definitions in Figure 2.2 are contestable. Chaskin (2001) extends the analysis about the role expectations of knowledge brokers to include infrastructure organisations that are established to strengthen local communities and build partnerships. Chaskin (2001) identifies three roles played by such bodies: matchmaking to bring organisations together, a clearinghouse to facilitate knowledge and information sharing, and an advocacy and representation function for local communities.

On the skills and attributes of knowledge brokers, the CHSRF (2003) lists a number of qualities. These include an ability to bring people together, use research to aid decision- making, assess and use evidence, marketing and communications skills and identifying management and policy issues for further research. From their comparative study in the higher education sector, Phipps and Morton (2013) identify several ideal type qualities that knowledge brokers should possess: nimbleness, fleet footedness, enthusiasm, creativity, communicative, enabling, courageous, tactful, committed and negotiation skills. The next

section discusses the gaps identified in the knowledge brokering literature, before concluding the chapter.

Figure 2.2: Knowledge brokering roles as Russian dolls (Fisher, 2010, p. 3).