Beat Rechsteiner, Eva Kyndt, Miriam Compagnoni, Andrea Wullschleger, Katharina Maag Merki
{"title":"Bridging gaps: a systematic literature review of brokerage in educational change","authors":"Beat Rechsteiner, Eva Kyndt, Miriam Compagnoni, Andrea Wullschleger, Katharina Maag Merki","doi":"10.1007/s10833-023-09493-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Bridging gaps between educational stakeholders at the classroom, school, and system levels is essential to achieve sustainable change in primary and secondary education. However, transferring knowledge or building capacity within this network of loosely coupled stakeholders is demanding. The brokerage concept holds promise for studying these complex patterns of interaction, as it refers to how specific actors ( brokers ) link loosely coupled or disconnected individuals ( brokering ). However, different research traditions, in terms of theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches, and various stakeholders examined in their role as bridge builders make understanding the role of brokers, brokering, and brokerage in changing educational practice challenging. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the current literature on these concepts in educational change research. In a systematic literature review based on 42 studies, we analyzed each study’s theoretical assumptions, methodological approach, scope in terms of stakeholders involved, and empirical findings. First, the literature review revealed that research on educational change refers to four different theoretical frameworks when focusing on brokers, brokering, or brokerage. Second, our results indicate that predominantly qualitative approaches have been applied. Third, using content network graphs, we identified teachers and principals as among the most frequently analyzed brokers. Fourth, four relevant aspects of the empirical findings are presented: brokers’ personal characteristics, conditions that enable brokering, successful brokering strategies, and outcomes of brokerage. Finally, we outline a future research agenda based on the empirical evidence base and shortcomings.","PeriodicalId":47376,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Change","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Change","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-023-09493-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract Bridging gaps between educational stakeholders at the classroom, school, and system levels is essential to achieve sustainable change in primary and secondary education. However, transferring knowledge or building capacity within this network of loosely coupled stakeholders is demanding. The brokerage concept holds promise for studying these complex patterns of interaction, as it refers to how specific actors ( brokers ) link loosely coupled or disconnected individuals ( brokering ). However, different research traditions, in terms of theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches, and various stakeholders examined in their role as bridge builders make understanding the role of brokers, brokering, and brokerage in changing educational practice challenging. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the current literature on these concepts in educational change research. In a systematic literature review based on 42 studies, we analyzed each study’s theoretical assumptions, methodological approach, scope in terms of stakeholders involved, and empirical findings. First, the literature review revealed that research on educational change refers to four different theoretical frameworks when focusing on brokers, brokering, or brokerage. Second, our results indicate that predominantly qualitative approaches have been applied. Third, using content network graphs, we identified teachers and principals as among the most frequently analyzed brokers. Fourth, four relevant aspects of the empirical findings are presented: brokers’ personal characteristics, conditions that enable brokering, successful brokering strategies, and outcomes of brokerage. Finally, we outline a future research agenda based on the empirical evidence base and shortcomings.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Educational Change is an international, professionally refereed, state-of-the-art scholarly journal, reflecting the most important ideas and evidence of educational change. The journal brings together some of the most influential thinkers and writers as well as emerging scholars on educational change. It deals with issues like educational innovation, reform and restructuring, school improvement and effectiveness, culture-building, inspection, school-review, and change management. It examines why some people resist change and what their resistance means. It looks at how men and women, older teachers and younger teachers, students, parents and others experience change differently. It looks at the positive aspects of change but does not hesitate to raise uncomfortable questions about many aspects of educational change either. It looks critically and controversially at the social, economic, cultural and political forces that are driving educational change. The Journal of Educational Change welcomes and supports contributions from a range of disciplines, including history, psychology, political science, sociology, anthropology, philosophy and administrative and organizational theory, and from a broad spectrum of methodologies including quantitative and qualitative approaches, documentary study, action research and conceptual development. School leaders, system administrators, teacher leaders, consultants, facilitators, educational researchers, staff developers and change agents of all kinds will find this journal an indispensable resource for guiding them to both classic and cutting-edge understandings of educational change. No other journal provides such comprehensive coverage of the field of educational change.