The Nine Archetypes of the Knowledge Broker

The most common definition of a knowledge broker, are the individuals that act as links between the different groups and individuals in an organization that would not normally have a relationship with one another and that the core part of that role is the connecting of people. 

The paper, 'Focus on Knowledge Brokering' deepens this definition by going into some, not required but proven successful, personality traits of the knowledge broker. The authors state that:

"Knowledge brokers should be individuals with high credibility who are seen as impartial and trustworthy... They need extensive experience in the area of interest, research credibility and policy level experience, authority and presence, skills in negotiation, communication, networking and relationship building and the ability to know when to ‘make a pitch’."

To me, this is saying that a knowledge broker requires the same skills as a business development professional, including the ability to sell her own services or the knowledge of others. In this same vein, they go on to state that:

"knowledge brokers are trustworthy subject experts with a high level of credibility. They are not advocates or lobbyists for a cause, neither is their role simple communication of information. Beyond this, the role varies a great deal. Many more people engage in knowledge brokering activities than have the title knowledge broker."

This emphasis on being subject matter experts gives me pause.

Does the role of knowledge broker automatically belong to the knowledge manager in an organization?

If we follow this model, unless coming from a background in architecture or design, a knowledge manager cannot fulfill the role of a knowledge broker because they would not posses the requisite subject matter expertise. For instance, a practice leader can have a periphery role as a knowledge broker because of their connections to both the people and the practice. A librarian or marketing professional in the KM role, while being well connected at the firm, might not possess the practice area expertise to complete this model.

This paper begins a thread that I found throughout the rest, that of the knowledge broker as researcher. As an example, take the following:

"Knowledge brokers can focus their work at network, project, program or issues level. The knowledge brokering role can also include research synthesis, providing research summaries in ordinary language, convening seminars and meetings, maintaining links and networks, maintaining a repository and databases and locating policy relevant research."

This sparked my interest and I found that the role of knowledge broker is heavily employed, or at least heavily reported on, in government or policy related organizations that engage in research on many different levels. I think this thread is relevant, or should be relevant, to other industries. 

'Focus on knowledge brokering', while not the best paper I found on the subject, is the most coherent. They offer some insight into how the role of the knowledge broker was engendered in the below quote. Essentially, the knowledge broker evolved to fill a gap that conventional knowledge management, which at the time was focused on capture and codification of knowledge objects. In the author's own words:

"Knowledge management. The concept of knowledge brokering developed in the field of knowledge management. During the 1990s thought in knowledge management moved from an emphasis on codification (storage of documents in databases) to looking at how knowledge can be shared, developed and stimulated through interpersonal approaches. In this context, the theorist Etienne Wenger developed the concept of communities of practice; networks of individuals with an interest in a subject area who share and develop ideas. A knowledge broker makes a link between two communities of practice, bringing new ideas in from the outside."

They then go on to cite Etienne Wenger, and his more theoretical description of the role, which he describes as having a significant degree of complexity, for Etienne, the role of the knowledge broker:

"requires translation, coordination and alignment between perspectives. It requires enough legitimacy to influence the development of a practice, mobilise attention, and address conflicting interests. It requires the ability to link practices by facilitating transactions between them, and to cause learnings by introducing into a practice elements of another. Toward this end, brokering provides a participative connection - not because reification is involved, but because what brokers press into service to connect practice is their experience of multi-membership and the possibilities for negotiation inherent in their participation."

I describe this paper as the most coherent because they offer a number of different cases where knowledge brokerage has employed and break them down into eight models of knowledge brokerage. This is the first bit that I referenced in the introductory paragraph, the part of the literature review that opened my eyes into how knowledge brokerage can be formalized, tracked, and implemented consistently in a large project-based, research-heavy organization.

The eight primary models of knowledge brokerage include:

Producer Push

User Pull

Linkage and Exchange

Consulting

Research Synthesis

Knowledge Network

Rapid Response Units or Demand Brokering

and the Knowledge Exchange Team.

A synopsis of the longer descriptions in the paper for each model follows.

Producer Push:

"developed... in 2003 [and used by the Canadian Population Health Initiative, the Producer Push Model] gives an organising framework for developing a knowledge transfer strategy. He provides five questions which should be answered by the strategy:

? What should be transferred to decision makers (the message)?

? To whom should research knowledge be transferred (the target audience)?

? By whom should research knowledge be transferred (the messenger)?

? How should research knowledge be transferred (the knowledge transfer process and supporting communications infrastructure)?

? With what effect should research knowledge be transferred

the knowledge broker [is located] as a possible messenger under ‘by whom’, stressing the importance of credibility and trust. He aligned the concept of knowledge brokering to the use of opinion leaders and experts, who have been trained in academic detailing"

User Pull:

"used in Scotland, at the Scottish Executive for Social Research [between 2003 and 2005, the] unique ‘user pull’ model of knowledge brokering is based on using ‘brokercrats’ to maintain networks of researchers in order to gather research to inform policy... The model centred on the development of networks and communities of practice. The team discussed evidence requirements and key dates with directors, policy makers and administrators to enable the team to facilitate timely support, and created communities of practice to link with [the institution's] objectives..."

Linkage and Exchange:

"Knowledge brokering is a key element in the Linkage and Exchange model, developed by Jonathan Lomas of the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF). The model is based on evidence that “Bringing decision makers who can use the results of a piece of research into its formulation and conduct is the best predictor for seeing the findings applied”, and that the one on one encounter is the most efficient way to transfer research findings to decision makers... a linkage and exchange... framework... defines the role of bringing people together as its key feature."

Consulting Model:

"The Sax Institute in Australia... is a coalition of New South Wales research groups which develops and maintains partnerships with a range of health policy and service delivery organisations to identify research priorities and support health policy decision making. The Sax Institute model of research transfer is also based on the Linkage and Exchange model and includes the hosting of forums for researchers and policy makers"

Synthesis Model:

"a group... [acting] as a broker by synthesising the results of six studies and [complementing] them with a systematic review of the area and an analysis of the major concerns of user groups and the policy context. They then convened a collaborative event during which researchers and user groups could interact and come to evidence based, context informed recommendations for action. The focus was on the interactive process rather than on research transfer."

Knowledge Network:

"a knowledge brokering model, based on linkage and exchange, with a network model to develop a network of researchers, policy makers and practitioners with a knowledge broker as ‘animateur’ of the network... They bring together all parties in communities of practice using a number of on-line technologies... for the purpose of discussing hot topics and facilitating the use of research..."

The crucial role of the knowledge brokers in the network is then made explicit:

"Knowledge Exchange Networks based on the transfer of knowledge through electronic web based technologies have limited impact without the involvement of people and organisations performing the role of facilitator and/or broker. Paradoxically, the greater the opportunity for the transfer of knowledge through the Internet, the greater is the need for skilled facilitators, trusted advisers and what has been termed ‘honest brokers’, who can bridge the cultures and interests of academic and industrial researchers and who can ensure create a high level of engagement and commitment between parties to an exchange."

The case study then goes on to offer the scope of the knowledge broker's role in the Knowledge Network Model, they:

"1) are responsible for increasing coordination across the network and keeping tabs on the big picture

2) can be project based, sitting on the reference group to oversee a particular research project and work with researchers and end users to match research and needs

3) can be program based, coordinating programs such as Education and Training or Technologies... with brokering being part of their linking role

4) can be issues based, coordinating responses in the educational and research programs

5) [maintain] a repository of all reports and papers

6) provide ‘Joint Problem Solving Workshops’ for industry partners and researchers

7) [design and deliver] training programs to update professional staff

8) work with research teams to develop knowledge exchange plans

9) help with internal communication across projects, programs and sites."

Demand Brokering:

"[an approach] which integrates efforts through large scale knowledge translation platforms which include push, pull and exchange approaches. Importantly, this fourth model includes a rapid response unit that provides written summaries of the evidence, or telephone consultations about the best research... it is necessary to move away from the traditional, reactive approach of ‘knowledge brokering’ to a more pro-active approach better described as ‘demand brokering’

[this model includes] a website containing summarised information from a wide range of sources and provides a rapid response question and answer service for policy makers. After receiving a request... a team of specialists [are mobilized] who search for existing evidence in the area and use it to develop a synthesis report."

and finally, the Knowledge Exchange Team:

"drawn heavily from knowledge management [the knowledge exchange] model of knowledge brokering, which they define as “the human force behind knowledge exchange, transfer, adoption, and in some cases priority setting and generation... The aim of the Knowledge Exchange team is to provide “readily available evidence to support decision making... Activities include: knowledge synthesis, maintenance of data sets, document management, dissemination, holding workshops, seminars and conferences, communicating knowledge to policy makers, identifying knowledge gaps, forming collaborative partnerships to generate, disseminate or collate knowledge and to embed knowledge management practices within existing procedures. This is a very different model from those given above. It seems to have more in common with a knowledge management, clearinghouse or even a library role, and building interpersonal relationship to facilitate the movement of evidence into policy does not appear to be part of the role."

Defining the history and different methods of implementation of knowledge brokerage activities is a necessary step to really furthering knowledge management. To quote Peter Drucker, who coined the term 'knowledge economy':

"Success in the knowledge economy comes to those who know themselves - their strengths, their values, and how they best perform." 

As knowledge brokers, this is an exercise in knowing ourselves, right? It is an exercise in exploring what are the equivalent of Jungian archetypes for our roles in the knowledge economy.

One of the last takeaways for me from 'Focus on Knowledge Brokers' was triggered by the following:

"the credibility of the knowledge broker is constantly under review by users though such tactics as assessing whether the questions they ask reflect a superior knowledge of the topic or whether recommendations are reasonable. If a knowledge broker loses credibility their evidence based recommendations are less likely to be implemented."

The above statement reinforces the idea that spending time defending the credibility of the role knowledge broker is justified. The quote continues, stating that:

"There is a great deal of ‘credibility work’ to be put into establishing and maintaining credibility and this is a big part of a knowledge broker’s role."

A great deal of the literature surrounding knowledge brokers intersects with indigenous knowledge systems, or IKS. I have experience and passion for this subject, so I pulled on a few threads. This is where I found some avenues that should be explored by us as they include a different perspective of what knowledge is and how a knowledge broker works in an indigenous context.

The paper, 'Knowledge Translation and Indigenous Knowledge', cites the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which we saw in the above paper's review. The CIHR seems to be a beacon on the shore and one of the most prominent users of the knowledge brokerage element. The authors assert that authority of research and the credibility of the knowledge broker aren't the entirety of the equation. As in the indigenous model we will explore below, success in knowledge brokerage requires community relevance. Communities are defined for our purposes as both communities of practice, organizational communities, and social communities within a firm.

This paper defines the work of the knowledge broker in a significantly different way and uses the term 'knowledge translation' to describe the ninth archetype of knowledge brokerage, the Knowledge Translator.

For context, I offer the below quote where the authors call out the differences between Western Knowledge Systems and Indigenous Knowledge Systems:

"In both Indigenous and Scientific knowledge systems, information is organized to condense both experience and beliefs into "knowledge". In Western knowledge systems this process involves the organization of individual data into abstract theoretical systems, composed of multiple components, each of which requires a "specialist" to be fully understood... In Indigenous knowledge systems, generation of knowledge starts with "stories" as the base units of knowledge; proceeds to "knowledge," an integration of the values and processes described in the stories; and culminates in "wisdom," an experiential distillation of knowledge. This process can be viewed as cyclical, as "wisdom" keepers in turn generate new "stories" as a way of disseminating what they know... local forms of knowledge dissemination were in interwoven with social, political and kinship structures to reinforce individual and collective wellbeing and to ensure the protection and sustainability of the physical environment."

What is the key difference between Western knowledge brokerage and indigenous knowledge brokerage, and what can we learn from it?

The Western system has a focus on data collection, application of the data to theoretical constructs, and then a synthesis by a subject matter expert is shared - largely with other specialists. While knowledge exchange is happening, this model of knowledge brokerage also reinforces socio-political structures within an organization that might, in turn, reinforce information silos. The indigenous system of knowledge brokerage begins with stories from experts not necessarily recognized as such by a governing body (like an organization) but by the community.

Stories, instead of data, are the base unit of knowledge and the currency of the indigenous knowledge broker.

Stories become knowledge after they are told and their rich complex interwoven information is ingested whole by other community members. Wisdom is the currency of the elder, who correlates with the subject-matter expert. Wisdom is a critical mass of knowledge units in the form of stories, embodied in one individual, a 'wisdom keeper'. The key difference is the base unit of knowledge, data in the Western system, stories in an indigenous context.

What does a shift between data and stories as the base unit of knowledge do to our approach to knowledge management?

The two-page "Knowledge brokering for indigenous land management" helps clarify some of the activities that a knowledge broker either as a liaison between an organization dominated by the Western Knowledge System model or within an indigenous context, actually plies their trade. The authors of the fact sheet state that:

"Effective knowledge brokering can help overcome barriers. Knowledge brokering is about the way we turn knowledge into action and it consists of five broad areas: problem identification, context analysis, knowledge development and selection, knowledge exchange work, and knowledge use."

And isn't that what we are trying? To turn knowledge into action? I find these types of perspectives, where there are two communities or models of thought that have evolved separately, are unique in their evolution, but are forced to interact for mutual benefit, to be helpful in defining (and redefining) my role as a knowledge manager. My training and socialization is vastly different from that of architects, designers, and engineers that I work with. The feeling of being, to some degree, outside the dominant community is always there. This aligns with discussions and theories on workplace ethnology and the concept of participant observer that is popular in anthropological literature.

The last paper I will report on this week waltzes around that concept and speaks to, as the author phrases it in the paper's abstract:

"the invisibility and interstitiality of knowledge brokers"

In 'The Rise of the Knowledge Broker', the role is defined as such:

"knowledge brokers can be understood as persons or organizations that facilitate the creation, sharing, and use of knowledge. Their task is to establish and maintain links between researchers and their audience via the appropriate translation of research findings. Able to link know-how, know-why, and know-who, the knowledge broker thus works in the public domain as much as in the private domain"

Knowledge brokers have a public role outside of the organization. The author goes on to cite the Canadian Health Service, as we have seen above, and offers some alternate definitions of what a knowledge broker can be, for example, it is stated that:

"Even the work of interdisciplinary academic journals could be seen as a form of knowledge brokering across disciplines"

My key take-away from this paper is in the below quote:

"brokering involves a range of different practices: the identification and localization of knowledge, the redistribution and dissemination of knowledge, and the rescaling and transformation of this knowledge. Brokering knowledge thus means far more than simply moving knowledge—it also means transforming knowledge."

It is a deeper activity than just connecting people with other experts, but also includes the collection of information resources and the synthesizing of these resources so that they can be communicated quickly to a wider internal audience or to a non-specialist public audience. The Knowledge Broker is as much a networker as she is a writer and researcher.

Returning to the 'invisibility' of the knowledge broker, which if you think about it is really an alternate reality than those described in our previous eight or nine models of the activity where the broker needs to be at the center of a well connected network that intersects with disparate parts of an organization, the author offers some interesting questions:

"How do knowledge brokers talk about, experience, and gain capital from their “double peripherality,” that is, from the fact that they are partially connected to the two worlds they bridge? And what is the cost of being marginal to multiple worlds especially since these marginalities might be viewed with suspicion?"

and moving from interstitiality to invisibility, the paper offers:

"Another layer to the question of the knowledge broker’s position is the question of visibility/invisibility... Despite the emergence of spaces that specialize in the translation of knowledge between different worlds, knowledge brokering still tends to be unrecognized and unplanned"

It is said that a common activity of the knowledge broker is to try to move from an invisible role to a more visible, and thus, valued one in an institution. This activity is rarely fruitful for as the authors also state:

"if [knowledge brokers] are judged strictly by the rules of one world or the other they will always come up short."

I'll say again, that this concept of the knowledge broker as living in an in-between space really resonates with me. I'm a big fan of the idea that the most valuable knowledge is transferred in non-formal, casual, in-between spaces in the workspace and in relationships between coworkers. The knowledge broker as the phantom that exists in these shadow realms and only emerges when her presence is required 'in the real' is a really attractive metaphor for me. It does, of course, frustrate the ability of, say, a knowledge manager, to collect and report on metrics pulled from knowledge brokerage, but as is stated earlier in this article, the true currency of the knowledge economy is not data, it is stories. 

In closing, I imagine myself, in my role as a knowledge manager, as a type of Knowledge Ghost Buster, in a khaki jumpsuit, poking around the basement stacks of the New York library with my KM meter, trying to locate and measure paraknowledge activity, with the knowledge broker acting as a spooky medium at my side, pointing in a different direction entirely...

References

Jackson-Bowers E, Kalucy l and McIntyre E (2006) Focus on Knowledge Brokering. Primary Health Care Research and Information Service. (4) pp 1-16.

Meyer M (2010) The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication (32, 1) pp 118-127

Northern Australia Environmental Resources Hub (2016) Knowledge brokering for indigenous land management: Start-up factsheet. pp 1-2

Smylie J, Martin C M, Kaplan-Myrth N, Steele L, Tait C and Hogg W (2003) Knowledge translation and indigenous knowledge. Circumpolar Health. pp 1-5