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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Gold, E. Richard, 2021. "The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    6. 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.
    7. Jutta Günther & Dirk Meissner, 2017. "Clusters as Innovative Melting Pots?—the Meaning of Cluster Management for Knowledge Diffusion in Clusters," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 8(2), pages 499-512, June.
    8. Florence Gignac & Anne-Sophie Gresle & Valeria Santoro Lamelas & Montserrat Yepes-Baldó & Leonardo de la Torre & Maria-Jesus Pinazo & the InSPIRES Consortium, 2021. "Self-evaluating participatory research projects: A content validation of the InSPIRES online impact evaluation tool [Content Validity and Reliability of Single Items or Questionnaires]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 500-513.
    9. Amalya L. Oliver, 2022. "Holistic ecosystems for enhancing innovative collaborations in university–industry consortia," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1612-1628, October.
    10. Miikka J. Lehtonen & Ainomaija Haarla & Masaaki Kotabe, 0. "Beyond the inflection point: how and why individuals promote inventions in Japan," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 0, pages 1-25.
    11. Yanyan Liu & Ying Cheng & Wei Liu, 2018. "Understanding Gatekeeping Transformation in the Chinese EV Industry: An Exploratory Study of the Focal Firms' Cross-industrial Interactions," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 16(3-B), pages 485-503.
    12. Järvi, Kati & Almpanopoulou, Argyro & Ritala, Paavo, 2018. "Organization of knowledge ecosystems: Prefigurative and partial forms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1523-1537.
    13. Borst, Robert A.J. & Wehrens, Rik & Bal, Roland & Kok, Maarten Olivier, 2022. "From sustainability to sustaining work: What do actors do to sustain knowledge translation platforms?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    14. Cavallo, Angelo & Burgers, Henri & Ghezzi, Antonio & van de Vrande, Vareska, 2022. "The evolving nature of open innovation governance: A study of a digital platform development in collaboration with a big science centre," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    15. Arnott, James C., 2021. "Pens and purse strings: Exploring the opportunities and limits to funding actionable sustainability science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    16. Raphaëlle Barbier & Pascal Le Masson & Sylvain Lenfle & Benoit Weil, 2021. "Building the generativity of data to support the dynamics of multiple ecosystems: the case of Earth-observation data," Post-Print hal-03356310, HAL.
    17. Hannigan, Timothy R. & Briggs, Anthony R. & Valadao, Rodrigo & Seidel, Marc-David L. & Jennings, P. Devereaux, 2022. "A new tool for policymakers: Mapping cultural possibilities in an emerging AI entrepreneurial ecosystem," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(9).
    18. Borst, Robert A.J. & Kok, Maarten Olivier & O’Shea, Alison J. & Pokhrel, Subhash & Jones, Teresa H. & Boaz, Annette, 2019. "Envisioning and shaping translation of knowledge into action: A comparative case-study of stakeholder engagement in the development of a European tobacco control tool," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(10), pages 917-923.
    19. Vadim Grinevich & Franz Huber & Mine Karataş-Özkan & Çağla Yavuz, 2019. "Green entrepreneurship in the sharing economy: utilising multiplicity of institutional logics," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 859-876, April.
    20. Kamilla Kohn Rådberg & Hans Löfsten, 2023. "Developing a knowledge ecosystem for large-scale research infrastructure," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 441-467, February.

    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.