理解经纪人、中介和边界制定者:对战略、技能和结果的多部门审查

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Jennifer Watling Neal, Stephen Posner, Brian Brutzman
{"title":"理解经纪人、中介和边界制定者:对战略、技能和结果的多部门审查","authors":"Jennifer Watling Neal, Stephen Posner, Brian Brutzman","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16328416007542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners (BIBS) bridge research and policy or practice, and can elevate the role of evidence in decision making. However, there is limited integration of the literature across different sectors to understand the strategies that BIBS use, the skills needed to carry out these strategies, and the expected outcomes of these strategies. Aims and objectives: In this review, we characterise the strategies, skills, and outcomes of BIBS across the literature in education, environmental, health and other relevant sectors. Methods: We included 185 conceptual and review papers written in English that included descriptions or conceptualisations of BIBS in the context of knowledge transfer or research use in the education, environmental, health, or other relevant sectors (for example, social services, international development). For each included paper, we extracted and coded information on sector, BIBS strategies, skills, and outcomes. Findings: Our review revealed five strategies used by BIBS that were emphasised in the literature. Specifically, 79.5% of papers mentioned facilitating relationships, 75.7% mentioned disseminating evidence, 56.8% mentioned finding alignment, 48.6% mentioned capacity building, and 37.3% mentioned advising decisions as strategies used by BIBS. Additionally, papers described skills and expected outcomes that were common across these strategies as well as those that were unique to specific strategies. Discussion and conclusions: We discuss implications of these findings for understanding how BIBS interface with knowledge users and producers as well as directions for future research on BIBS and the professionalisation of BIBS roles.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a multi-sectoral review of strategies, skills, and outcomes\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Watling Neal, Stephen Posner, Brian Brutzman\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/174426421x16328416007542\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners (BIBS) bridge research and policy or practice, and can elevate the role of evidence in decision making. However, there is limited integration of the literature across different sectors to understand the strategies that BIBS use, the skills needed to carry out these strategies, and the expected outcomes of these strategies. Aims and objectives: In this review, we characterise the strategies, skills, and outcomes of BIBS across the literature in education, environmental, health and other relevant sectors. Methods: We included 185 conceptual and review papers written in English that included descriptions or conceptualisations of BIBS in the context of knowledge transfer or research use in the education, environmental, health, or other relevant sectors (for example, social services, international development). For each included paper, we extracted and coded information on sector, BIBS strategies, skills, and outcomes. Findings: Our review revealed five strategies used by BIBS that were emphasised in the literature. Specifically, 79.5% of papers mentioned facilitating relationships, 75.7% mentioned disseminating evidence, 56.8% mentioned finding alignment, 48.6% mentioned capacity building, and 37.3% mentioned advising decisions as strategies used by BIBS. Additionally, papers described skills and expected outcomes that were common across these strategies as well as those that were unique to specific strategies. Discussion and conclusions: We discuss implications of these findings for understanding how BIBS interface with knowledge users and producers as well as directions for future research on BIBS and the professionalisation of BIBS roles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16328416007542\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16328416007542","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

背景:经纪人、中介和边界制定者(BIBS)是研究与政策或实践之间的桥梁,可以提升证据在决策中的作用。然而,在理解BIBS使用的策略、执行这些策略所需的技能以及这些策略的预期结果方面,不同部门的文献整合有限。目的和目标:在本综述中,我们在教育、环境、卫生和其他相关部门的文献中描述了BIBS的策略、技能和结果。方法:我们纳入了185篇英文的概念性和综述性论文,其中包括在教育、环境、卫生或其他相关部门(例如社会服务、国际发展)的知识转移或研究使用背景下对BIBS的描述或概念化。对于每篇纳入的论文,我们提取并编码了有关行业、BIBS策略、技能和结果的信息。研究结果:我们的综述揭示了文献中强调的BIBS使用的五种策略。具体来说,79.5%的论文提到了促进关系,75.7%提到了传播证据,56.8%提到了寻找一致性,48.6%提到了能力建设,37.3%提到了建议决策作为BIBS使用的策略。此外,论文还描述了这些策略中常见的技能和预期结果,以及特定策略所特有的技能和预期结果。讨论和结论:我们讨论了这些发现对理解BIBS如何与知识用户和生产者交互的影响,以及未来BIBS研究和BIBS角色专业化的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a multi-sectoral review of strategies, skills, and outcomes
Background: Brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners (BIBS) bridge research and policy or practice, and can elevate the role of evidence in decision making. However, there is limited integration of the literature across different sectors to understand the strategies that BIBS use, the skills needed to carry out these strategies, and the expected outcomes of these strategies. Aims and objectives: In this review, we characterise the strategies, skills, and outcomes of BIBS across the literature in education, environmental, health and other relevant sectors. Methods: We included 185 conceptual and review papers written in English that included descriptions or conceptualisations of BIBS in the context of knowledge transfer or research use in the education, environmental, health, or other relevant sectors (for example, social services, international development). For each included paper, we extracted and coded information on sector, BIBS strategies, skills, and outcomes. Findings: Our review revealed five strategies used by BIBS that were emphasised in the literature. Specifically, 79.5% of papers mentioned facilitating relationships, 75.7% mentioned disseminating evidence, 56.8% mentioned finding alignment, 48.6% mentioned capacity building, and 37.3% mentioned advising decisions as strategies used by BIBS. Additionally, papers described skills and expected outcomes that were common across these strategies as well as those that were unique to specific strategies. Discussion and conclusions: We discuss implications of these findings for understanding how BIBS interface with knowledge users and producers as well as directions for future research on BIBS and the professionalisation of BIBS roles.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信