Beyond the bridge
The field of knowledge brokering is rapidly evolving, moving far past the simple idea of connecting two disparate worlds. As an emerging and hybrid practice, understanding the core theories and concepts behind knowledge brokering is crucial for anyone working in research utilization, policy development, or healthcare.
Often, when people try to depict knowledge brokering, they use metaphors linked to bridges, seeing the knowledge broker as a connector or linkage agency designed to link separate worlds, such as universities/research and the policy world, the public, or the health field. However, the theory suggests the role is far more complex and active.
The term knowledge brokering gained significant traction in the late 1990s and especially from 2000 onwards. While prominent in the health field, it is also widely used in domains like innovation, management, and policy.
Defining the Knowledge Broker Role
The broad applicability of the term means definitions vary widely across domains. Generally, a broker facilitates transactions or connections.
In business, a broker acts as an agent, dealer, or trader. In politics, a broker is a negotiator, mediator, or diplomat. In education, a broker is a proactive facilitator who connects people, resources, and networks to establish conditions that create new value.
Specific definitions highlight the complexity of the role:
• E. Wenger (1998): Brokering involves processes of translation, coordination, and alignment between perspectives. It requires the ability to link practices by facilitating transactions and providing a participative connection.
• J. Lomas (2007): Knowledge brokering involves all activity that links decision-makers with researchers, facilitating their interaction so they can better understand each other’s professional cultures and goals, forge partnerships, and promote the use of research-based evidence in decision making.
Five Key Ideas for Theorizing Knowledge Brokering
Scholars posit that there is likely no single, universally agreed-upon definition, encouraging practitioners to find one that works for their specific context. To deepen our understanding, we present here five key theoretical ideas:
1. Brokers are Emerging and Hybrid
Knowledge broker roles are often described as hybrid, emerging, and ambiguous. Because the practice is relatively new, the identities, networks, and communities surrounding knowledge brokering are still “in the making,” leading to several challenges.
A primary challenge is the variability of interpretations and the “classificatory ambivalence” of the term itself. Knowledge brokers often struggle with invisibility because they operate between different worlds, making it difficult to define, value, and evaluate their roles within traditional structures, such as academia. Despite these struggles, “community making devices” like forums, conferences, and journals are helping to establish a community of practice.
2. Knowledge Brokers as Boundary Objects
The concept of boundary objects, coined by Star and Griesemer in the sociology of science, refers to scientific objects that inhabit several intersecting social worlds and satisfy the informational requirements of each. These objects are “plastic enough to adapt to local needs” yet “robust enough to maintain a common identity across sides”.
Knowledge brokers are seen as boundary subjects who work to establish communication and common identity across multiple social worlds. Furthermore, the term “knowledge brokering” itself functions as a boundary object, allowing different actors to operationalize it for their specific purposes without requiring a single, rigid definition.
3. Intermediaries or Mediators? The Power of the Role
A critical theoretical distinction exists between an intermediary and a mediator.
An intermediary is often seen as a passive agent. They connect worlds that already exist (e.g., universities and policy). The intermediary’s role is tactical: moving knowledge or putting worlds in contact, but the worlds themselves do not need the broker to exist.
In contrast, mediation evokes a different relationship. Mediators are active agents who transform, translate, distort, and modify the meanings of the elements they carry. In this view, the worlds do not pre-exist fully formed; rather, the knowledge broker, through transforming and translating knowledge, helps shape these worlds. This transformative potential means mediators are active in shaping both the world knowledge moves to (like the policy world) and the world it comes from (like research).
4. Moving From Brokering Knowledge to Broker Knowledge
The process of knowledge brokering is not just about moving existing knowledge; it involves transforming knowledge itself. If knowledge is merely treated as a “blackbox,” we miss the essential work done to make it usable.
Broker knowledge is defined as knowledge that has been “made more robust, more accountable, [and] more usable”. This involves summarization (e.g., condensing a 20-page research paper to one or two pages), rephrasing, and reshaping research outputs to make them applicable and accessible to busy practitioners in the health field or policy domain.
5. Brokers Are Not Only “In Between”
While the bridge metaphor emphasizes being “in between,” knowledge brokers perform multiple, diverse roles that go beyond simple linkage.
Scholars suggest thinking of the knowledge broker as a coach. Unlike an intermediary who works for people, a coach works with people—accompanying them and facilitating learning processes. In this sense, the knowledge broker acts as a catalyst, facilitator, linkage agent, and capacity builder.
The most powerful image of the knowledge broker is not a static, existing bridge connecting two established worlds, but a bridge being built. This perspective emphasizes that knowledge brokering is a journey leading towards a new world, a transformative story that helps shape activities and practices. By embracing these theoretical frameworks, practitioners can better define, evaluate, and amplify their essential, active roles in driving research utilization and policy change.
By: Regina Mamidy Yillah