« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 4 NEW DIRECTIONS FOR KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AND KNOWLEDGE BROKERAGE IN SCOTLAND.
- Getting the right mix of people and information together to tackle the right issue at the right time is the essence of brokering
- Brokers put those who need to know things in touch with people with expertise; they connect people across organizational boundaries. They are recognized as resources, and they follow up ideas and information they care about.
- Brokers also act on behalf of Ministers and Policy Administrators by keeping in touch with academics and other evidence providers, so there is a channel for evidence into the organization, even when it hasn't been solicited.
(Canadian Health Services Research Foundation
http://www.chsrf.ca/brokering/pdf/Theory_and_Practice_e.pdf)
The Scottish Executive commitment to evidence-based policy making has driven an increase in demand for knowledge and information across all departments of SE; and created an environment where all policy administrators require advice on gathering and utilising evidence in the policy process. In most areas of SE these needs are met by analytical support provided by ASDs, and the work of SAHPM has highlighted how Health Department, and other areas of the Executive, can improve knowledge management and knowledge transfer through deployment of knowledge brokerage theory and practice.
The work of the SAHPM team has revealed a wide range of possibilities for positive future movement, provided a snapshot of assumptions and behaviours which affect knowledge management, transfer and brokerage. This work has provided a baseline against which to measure future progress, and a sound foundation for future collaboration.
This section of the report provides options for next steps in developing knowledge brokerage in SE as a whole, and will be considered by SE alongside a range of other KT developments, notably the work of the Social Research Knowledge Transfer Working Group.
4.1 Working in the Gap: Deploying Knowledge Brokers
More work is required from the policy, practice and academic communities to: encourage a policy and service delivery focus from the academic community; and to provide a clear articulation of policy relevant output requirements from the policy side. The work of the SAHPM team showed that the key factors in successful knowledge brokerage and collaboration are relationships of trust and confidence with known individuals and experts; and that the dynamic human relationships involved in effective KT and KB are fluid, flexible, complex, and nuanced.
Existing activity in the United Kingdom ( UK) on KM/ KT/ KB work favours metaphors which refer to 'bridging the gap' between the policy community and academic and other evidence provider communities as if permanent structures could be built (academic units are usually suggested). It is also suggested that individuals could be appointed to 'bridge the gap' again usually through the secondment, or increased funding of, academics. Whilst this presents a persuasive academic narrative, in reality, evidence from the organisations referenced in Section 1 and the work of the SAHPM team suggests that specialist knowledge brokers are required to broker the relationship between policy makers (Ministers), policy administrators (civil servants or 'bureaucrats'); public sector practitioners; and evidence providers. To be effective, these knowledge brokers must have an understanding of the real politik of policy development and implementation. As previously discussed, the work of the SAHPM team suggests that academics would not be able to easily acquire, and indeed may not wish to develop, this expertise.
The work of the SAHPM team has shown that a more creative and dynamic approach is required to create the circumstances for effective engagement in the policy development and implementation process and environment. Rather than using the static metaphor of 'bridging the gap' between research, policy and practice worlds, the work of SAHPM suggests that it may be more appropriate to discuss working 'within the gap' between the policy and academic community in order to strengthen the working confidence already established by the SAHPM team and others, and to relieve the stresses and tensions created when academics and civil servants reach out to collaborate across what is-in reality-in many cases a 'great divide' rather than a small gap. Different types of structures, individuals and teams are required for different policy areas and issues. The skill of a knowledge broker in these situations is to work creatively 'within the gap' to assemble and dismantle bridging structures as required, and for 'brokercrats' (knowledge broker bureaucrats) or knowledge management teams (within the civil service) to ensure that the knowledge or information will be utilised once it has crossed the gap.
An important aspect of the SAHPM team's work was to operationalise KT. The transition from theory to practice, and from 'discussion of stereotypes' to 'practical, pragmatic collaboration' was not comfortable for several collaborators. As a result, a key conclusion from the work of the SAHPM team is that it would be helpful to focus on building KT/ KB capacity in the academic community as a long term investment; and in the short to medium term train a new breed of specialist knowledge brokers whose careers were focused on KT; and who would deliver the KT functions which currently are neither rewarded or resourced. The work of the SAHPM team suggested that at present only specialist knowledge brokers would be able to provide the KT/ KB processes and utilitarian products required by the policy community.
The experience of the SAHPM team suggested that taking forward a KM/ KT/ KB agenda will be challenging, with opportunity costs for the academic, policy and practice communities. However, the potential benefits in improved utilisation of evidence to inform policy would appear to outweigh these initial opportunity costs. The work of the SAHPM team has provided an important platform for future movement ensuring that future investment is based on a realistic assessment of the current situation, grounded in experience, rather than on an untested model or theory.
Internal 'Brokercrats' and External Knowledge Brokers
The work of SAHPM suggests it would be helpful to draw a distinction between the particular skills and expertise of government 'system aware' 'brokercrats' ('bureaucrats'/civil servants working within SE as knowledge brokers, primarily social researchers); and a new breed of external knowledge brokers operating as go-betweens who would link the policy, public sector practice, industry, and academic communities. Although policy administrators and academics involved in the SAHPM project identified the need for the academic and policy communities to gain greater understanding of each other's worlds, in reality, there is little reward or motivation for either to participate in cross cultural immersion.
Internal 'Brokercrats'
The work of SAHPM suggests that SE 'system awareness' is the key to KB/ KT success within SE. System awareness is knowledge and experience that has to be learned, acquired and 'experienced as performed'. Understanding gained in this way remains grounded in a field of practical activity (in this case the civil service) and therefore enables the 'brokercrat' to work in a way which is compatible with the practice of policy administrators. System awareness is contingent on relationships of trust and working confidence with individuals in the system, and the ability to operate effectively as a brokercrat takes time to acquire.
Within SE, much of the 'brokercrat' work is currently carried out by social researchers willing to 'push the envelope' of research/policy interaction, and at present, this brokerage work is a layer of 'extra effort' applied over their mainstream work programmes, a position apparent also in other parts of the world. It is possible that knowledge brokerage work may in the future be formally recognised as a part of social researchers' work within SE and to be prioritised above the 'traditional' social research roles within ASDs.
If knowledge broker 'brokercrat' posts were formally recognised within SE, their roles and the focus of effort would have to be delineated and new mechanisms for performance management designed to fit these posts. Under current performance assessment systems much of the knowledge brokers work would be difficult to measure. It is self evident that being a brokercrat is a different kind of job to mainstream civil service roles and the work of the SAHPM team has identified areas of administrative friction that would need to be addressed should SE wish to take forward a KB agenda.
Buy in from policy administrators would also be essential for future KB to be effective and brokercrats who were parachuted in to an area would be unlikely to succeed-the success of much of the SAHPM brokerage activity was built on the SAHPM team being well-known and disinterested brokers, and having long standing relationships of trust and an established working confidence with their collaborators.
The work of SAHPM demonstrated that the work of the knowledge broker is 'not just about social science', and good contacts are required with scientific colleagues (at a departmental and funding council level) to take forward effective KT for policy development. Some of the SAHPM collaborators were reluctant to engage across University faculties, however, SAHPM's work, and that of new ESRCKT centres such as Genomics Research Forum have identified the value of the multi-disciplinary approach which reflects the cross cutting nature of the policy agenda on a number of key issues.
Brokercrats also have a key role to play in identifying 'windows of opportunity' for the contribution of evidence in the policy cycle. Brokercrats are uniquely placed to identify the potential convergence of Ministerial interest, policy administrator engagement, and emerging research agendas, and then to bring people together to create what the Social Research Knowledge Management Working Group referred to as the (not-there-by-chance) X factor (right people, right time, right place) around a successfully, and strategically brokered project.
Finally, it is clear that the evidence 'does not speak for itself' and brokercrats have a lead role to play in vital face to face interactions within the Scottish Executive to ensure that the key findings from research are represented at relevant policy discussions.
External Knowledge Brokers
From the outset the SAHPM project advocated the creation of a new breed of external knowledge brokers operating as go-betweens linking the policy, public sector practice, industry, and academic communities. In contrast to civil service brokercrats, such external go-betweens would have the ability to work without what some may consider to be the constraints of civil service and in contrast to working only for Scottish Ministers, would have the capacity to work for a range of funders and interests.
The role they would be likely to be perform is exemplified by the listing provided in the CHSRF literature review (see http://www.chsrf.ca/brokering/documents_e.php), who suggest that the external knowledge brokers' (in this case working in the area of health services) tasks include:
- bringing researchers and decision makers together to exchange information and work together;
- helping groups communicate and understand each other's needs and abilities;
- sustaining and maintaining exchange of information between researchers and decision makers;
- promoting the use of evidence in planning and delivering healthcare services;
- monitoring and evaluating knowledge brokering practices to identify successes or needed changes;
- transforming management issues into research questions;
- helping decision makers establish their priorities;
- 'navigating' or guiding decision makers through sources of research;
- helping decision makers find or commission synthesized research; and
- creating knowledge networks of researchers and decision makers who have common interests in health services issues.
(The Theory And Practice Of Knowledge Brokerage In Canada's Health System. A Report Based On A CHRSF National Consultation and a Literature Review, December 2003 http://www.chsrf.ca/brokering/pdf/Theory_and_Practice_e.pdf)
SAHPM has demonstrated that there is potential for such individuals to be deployed to serve the interests of SE and a range of public sector interests, including NHSS. Taking such a suggestion forward would involve the identification and training of relevant individuals and a formal programme would have the potential to assist with that process.
4.2 Options for Future Movement
The Office of Chief Researcher is currently taking forward liaison with a range of internal and external stakeholders (notably SHEFC), and considering options for future movement in the field of knowledge transfer and knowledge brokerage.
The work of the SAHPM team has provided a useful pilot on these issues for SE, however, any future movement would be informed by current practice in Analytical Service Divisions; the work of the Social Research Knowledge Transfer Working Group; strategic liaison with SEHFC and Universities Scotland; collaboration with 'knowledge stimulation' bodies including Scottish Council Foundation, David Hume Institute, and Royal Society of Edinburgh; and the experience of a wider field of knowledge transfer activity in Scotland, Europe and further afield.
« Previous | Contents | Next »