IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v50y2023i6p950-960..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Making sense of knowledge-brokering organisations: boundary organisations or policy entrepreneurs?

Author

Listed:
  • Eleanor MacKillop
  • Andrew Connell
  • James Downe
  • Hannah Durrant

Abstract

Knowledge-brokering organisations (KBOs) have multiplied in the evidence–policy landscape worldwide, changing how decision-makers are accessing evidence. Yet, we still know little about their emergence and roles. This research helps to understand KBOs and their place in evidence-based policymaking by highlighting the varied work that they do, the relationships they cultivate with policymakers, the complex knowledge-brokering processes they negotiate, and how they establish their credibility in different ways. We build on boundary organisation theory and the concept of policy entrepreneur (PE) (drawn from the multiple streams analysis) to develop a better understanding of KBOs who play multiple roles. By using the PE concept, we bring a greater focus on the politics of brokering. This duality involves them in seeking to provide ‘objective’ evidence while simultaneously determining what counts as evidence for policy and making recommendations for political decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Eleanor MacKillop & Andrew Connell & James Downe & Hannah Durrant, 2023. "Making sense of knowledge-brokering organisations: boundary organisations or policy entrepreneurs?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(6), pages 950-960.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:6:p:950-960.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scad029
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ward, Vicky & Smith, Simon & House, Allan & Hamer, Susan, 2012. "Exploring knowledge exchange: A useful framework for practice and policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 297-304.
    2. Aurore Haas, 2015. "Crowding at the frontier: boundary spanners, gatekeepers and knowledge brokers," Post-Print hal-02313832, HAL.
    3. Angela T. Bednarek & Ben Shouse & Charlotte G. Hudson & Rebecca Goldburg, 2016. "Science-policy intermediaries from a practitioner’s perspective: The Lenfest Ocean Program experience," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 291-300.
    4. Peter Scholten, 2009. "The coproduction of immigrant integration policy and research in the Netherlands: the case of the Scientific Council for Government Policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(7), pages 561-573, August.
    5. Katharina Schlierf & Morgan Meyer, 2013. "Situating knowledge intermediation: Insights from science shops and knowledge brokers," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 430-441, May.
    6. Perkmann, Markus & Schildt, Henri, 2015. "Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1133-1143.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michele O’Dwyer & Raffaele Filieri & Lisa O’Malley, 2023. "Establishing successful university–industry collaborations: barriers and enablers deconstructed," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 900-931, June.
    2. Zakaria Babutsidze & Graham Bradley & Andreas Chai & Thomas Dietz, 2018. "Public perceptions and responses to climate change in France," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/7vdd604d479, Sciences Po.
    3. Cooley, Savannah & Jenkins, Amber & Schaeffer, Blake & Bormann, Kat J. & Abdallah, Adel & Melton, Forrest & Granger, Stephanie & Graczyk, Indrani, 2022. "Paths to research-driven decision making in the realms of environment and water," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    4. Nyboer, Elizabeth A & Nguyen, Vivian & Young, Nathan & Rytwinski, Trina & Taylor, Jessica J & Lane, John Francis & Bennett, Joseph R & Harron, Nathan & Aitkin, Susan M & Auld, Graeme, 2021. "Supporting actionable science for environmental policy: Advice for funding agencies from decision makers," EcoEvoRxiv 4ye2u, Center for Open Science.
    5. Sintov, Nicole D. & Schuitema, Geertje, 2018. "Odd couple or perfect pair? Tensions and recommendations for social scientist-industry partnerships in energy research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 247-251.
    6. Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2019. "Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Anna Jonsson & Maria Grafström & Mikael Klintman, 2022. "Unboxing knowledge in collaboration between academia and society: A story about conceptions and epistemic uncertainty [De-essentializing the Knowledge Intensive Firm: Reflections on Skeptical Resea," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 583-597.
    8. Taheri, Mozhdeh & van Geenhuizen, Marina, 2016. "Teams' boundary-spanning capacity at university: Performance of technology projects in commercialization," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 31-43.
    9. Mónica Ramos-Mejía & Alejandro Balanzo, 2018. "What It Takes to Lead Sustainability Transitions from the Bottom-Up: Strategic Interactions of Grassroots Ecopreneurs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.
    10. Ogink, Ruben H.A.J. & Goossen, Martin C. & Romme, A. Georges L. & Akkermans, Henk, 2023. "Mechanisms in open innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    11. Aziz Ariwibowo & Adi Afiff & Riani Rachmawati & Ratih Kusumastuti, 2024. "The impact of boundary spanning activities and research orchestration in improving performance of Indonesian state-owned bank branches," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    12. Yuandi Wang & Ruifeng Hu & Weiping Li & Xiongfeng Pan, 2016. "Does teaching benefit from university–industry collaboration? Investigating the role of academic commercialization and engagement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 1037-1055, March.
    13. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M. & Wallin, Martin W., 2021. "How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    14. Evans, Sarah & Scarbrough, Harry, 2014. "Supporting knowledge translation through collaborative translational research initiatives: ‘Bridging’ versus ‘blurring’ boundary-spanning approaches in the UK CLAHRC initiative," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 119-127.
    15. Gold, E. Richard, 2021. "The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    16. Villani, Elisa & Rasmussen, Einar & Grimaldi, Rosa, 2017. "How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 86-102.
    17. Anna Yström & Marine Agogué & Romain Rampa, 2021. "Preparing an Organization for Sustainability Transitions—The Making of Boundary Spanners through Design Training," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-17, July.
    18. Li He & Yang Cheng & Xuejie Su, 2020. "Research on the Sustainability of the Enterprise Business Ecosystem from the Perspective of Boundary: The China Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-16, August.
    19. Zakaria Babutsidze & Graham Bradley & A. B. Chai & Thomas Dietz, 2018. "Public perceptions and responses to climate change in France," Working Papers hal-03404214, HAL.
    20. Marina Van Geenhuizen & Pieter Stek, 2015. "Mapping innovation in the global photovoltaic industry: a bibliometric approach to cluster identification and analysis," ERSA conference papers ersa15p697, European Regional Science Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:6:p:950-960.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.