Are we asking the school research leads/champions to do mission impossible? Over
the last two years I have had the privilege of meeting colleagues from around
the world, be it England, Scotland, Sweden, Australia and the USA, who are
attempting to embed the systematic use of evidence within their schools. However, the more I both talk to school
research champions and read about knowledge brokering, the more am I inclined
to the view that we may be asking the individual school research champion to do
the impossible. If not the impossible,
maybe we are asking the school research lead to have a range of skills which
are highly unlikely to be found in a single individual. Instead, maybe we should be thinking in terms
of ‘teams of champions’ who together have a diverse range of knowledge, skills
and experience, and who are able to deal with all aspects of the role of a
school research champion/knowledge broker.
So over the rest of this post, I will draw heavily upon the work of (Kislov et al., 2016) who explored the challenges faced by knowledge brokers within a
health care setting, to help us understand the ‘impossibility’ of the school
research champion’s job. In doing so, we
will:
- Describe what we mean by a knowledge broker
- Explain the different aspects of the role of the knowledge broker
- Examine the tensions between different aspects of knowledge brokering
- Consider the tensions between different types and sources of knowledge
- Look at the the tensions resulting from the ‘in-between’ position of brokers
- Note the unintended consequences of knowledge brokering
What do we mean by the term ‘knowledge
broker’?
(Kislov et al., 2016) describe knowledge brokers as:
… individuals that bridge a gap in the
social structure and help knowledge flow across that gap by enabling
translation, co-ordination and alignment between different perspectives and
facilitating transaction between previously separate practices. (p107)
Different aspects of the role of the
knowledge broker
(Kislov et al., 2016) state that knowledge brokering is a multi-dimensional process which
includes three separate tasks.
Information management involves identifying
analysing, packaging and spreading research evidence and other forms of
codified knowledge, such as data from quality improvement projects, in order to
inform policy and practice decisions of research users.
Linkage and exchange enables the
interaction co-ordination and exchanges of ideas between different professional
groups such as policy makers, researchers, managers, doctors and other
clinicians (and in the case of education CEOs of MATs, headteachers, teachers
and teaching assistants)
Capacity building implies using knowledge
to develop capacity in the health care (education) system to utilize research evidence and,
ultimately enact positive changes by improving services (schools) and patient
(pupil) outcomes. (p108) Amended by the author .
Table 1 (Kislov et al., 2016) p108 attempts to capture aspects of knowledge brokering role and
the skills required for their realisation.
Information
management
|
Linkage and
exchange
|
Capacity
building
|
|
Generic skills
|
· Understanding the cultures of both the research and
decision-making environments
· Ability to establish credibility
· Ability to assess the context of implementation
· Communication skills
· Problem-solving skills
· Project management skills
|
||
Specific skills
|
· Searching and retrieving evidence
· Appraising evidence
· Synthesizing evidence
· IT skills
· Tailoring resources to local needs
|
· Mediation skills
· Negotiation skills
· Networking skills
· Interpersonal skills
· Stakeholder management and influencing skills
|
· Teaching skills
· Mentoring skills
· Facilitation skills
· Change management skills
· Improvement skills
|
Examining the tensions between different
aspects of knowledge brokering
As (Kislov et al., 2016) note in an ideal world the different elements of knowledge
brokering would complement one another.
However, both linkage and capacity building, which are both difficult to
measure, may get less attention that information management. Kislov et al argue that within a capacity
building role knowledge brokers may switch from ‘facilitating’ – helping others
to mobilise evidence – to doing – when they implement change on their own. So in the case of the school research
lead/champion – they may find it much easier to conduct an inquiry into some aspect
of the school, rather than bringing about changes in teachers’ capacity to use
different sources of knowledge and evidence.
Indeed, with capacity building there may be a tension between activities
which create the impression of building capacity – say journal clubs, seminars
and visiting speakers – and activities which build genuine capacity to increase
teacher use of research.
Considering the tensions between different
types and sources of knowledge
(Kislov et al., 2016) cite the work of (Gabbay and May, 2004) who argues that doctors rather than relying on clinical guidelines
in their decision-making, use ‘mindlines’ – collectively
constructed, internaliszed, tacit guidelines, which are are mainly informed by
their own clinical experience, as well as by informal interactions with with
peers, patients, local opinion leaders and pharmaceutical representatives
(p108).
So in the context of the school research
champion, it will not be enough for them to be ‘research literate,’ they will
also need to have good pedagogical knowledge to understand how the research
impacts on the work of teachers. They
will also have to have excellent managerial skills, as they will need to link
different people within the school, be it teaching assistants, teachers, heads
of department and members of senior leadership teams. The school research champion will also have
to be aware of the context and have ‘situational’ knowledge and be able to
identify the ‘school as it is’ rather than the ‘school they would want.’ In other words, the school research champion
will need to be aware of the willingness to participate in knowledge management
and the priorities of the school, which may at this time lend itself to a
significant use of research evidence.
(Kislov et al., 2016) go onto note that the requirement to weigh up different sources of
evidence poses a number of practical questions.
- How does the school research champion take into account both the written evidence – eg the EEF Teaching and Learning Toolkit – and the tacit knowledge of teachers?
- What skills are most important for the school research champion?
- Do school research champions have a vested interest in working with external partners on say – EEF trials – which may not have the same priority for classroom teachers
The tensions resulting from the
‘in-between’ position of brokers
(Kislov et al., 2016) note that the in-between intermediary position of the knowledge
brokers enable them to bridge gaps between previously separated communities of
practice, be it researchers and teachers.
School research champions may also sit between the school senior
leadership team and teachers, and may be seen as someone who has a ‘foot in
both camps’.
Nevertheless, as (Kislov et al., 2016) note this ‘in-betweenness’ across creates a number of tensions,
which have important implication for school research champions.
- There is a risk that school research champions being seen as being more interested in research and theory rather than the practical needs of school teachers
- There is a risk that school research champions are seen as neither part of the senior leadership team or the mainstream teaching staff.
- There is a risk that that knowledge mobilisation and brokering within schools has a low priority, with insufficient resources being made available to support the brokering process. This may lead to a focus on low effort/low impact activities, which get perceived to make little difference to the either the school or more importantly, pupil outcomes.
(Kislov et al., 2016) note that are a number of unintended consequences of allocating the
role of school research champion to particular individual.
- How the role of school research champion is performed is contingent upon the school research champions knowledge, skills, experiences, preferences and values.
- It may be difficult to recruit individuals with the right skills set, especially research literacy.
- School research champions may seen the role as a ‘stepping stone’ to senior leadership
- Sustainability may also be weakened if ‘knowledge’ is seen narrowly as research evidence – as this compromise the credibility of ‘research use’ if practitioner expertise is largely ignored.
(Kislov et al., 2016) go onto state:
All these factors can lead to a situation
where the brokered evidence is made available (transferred or translated) to
knowledge recipients without being taken up (mobilised or implemented) in
practice. In other words, knowledge brokers
may be at risk of failing to broker knowledge, with the latter being lost in
the ‘in-between’ world. p110
To conclude
As (Kislov et al., 2016) note - is it reasonable to expect anyone individual to have all the
skills necessary to be a successful school research champion, cope with the
different types of knowledge, build connections both within and outside of the
school, and at the same time maintain their credibility with diverse audiences –
be it researchers, senior leadership or teaching colleagues. Even if such colleagues do exist, are there
enough of them to go round England’s 20,000 plus schools, probably not. So in my next post, I will look at how we can
address this issue by using a team-based approach to knowledge brokering within
schools.
References
GABBAY, J.
& MAY, A. L. 2004. Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed
“mindlines?” Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. BMJ, 329, 1013.
KISLOV, R., WILSON, P. & BOADEN, R. 2016. The
‘dark side’of knowledge brokering. Journal
of Health Services Research & Policy, 1355819616653981.