理解知识中介及其变革潜力:一个布尔迪厄学派的观点

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Sarah Chew, N. Armstrong, G. Martin
{"title":"理解知识中介及其变革潜力:一个布尔迪厄学派的观点","authors":"Sarah Chew, N. Armstrong, G. Martin","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16149632470114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Knowledge brokering is promoted as a means of enabling exchange between fields and closer collaboration across institutional boundaries. Yet examples of its success in fostering collaboration and reconfiguring boundaries remain few.Aims and objectives: We consider the introduction of a dedicated knowledge-brokering role in a partnership across healthcare research and practice, with a view to examining the interaction between knowledge brokers’ location and attributes and the characteristics of the fields across which they work.Methods: We use qualitative data from a four-year ethnographic study, including observations, interviews, focus groups, reflective diaries and other documentary sources. Our analysis draws on Pierre Bourdieu’s conceptual framework.Findings: In efforts to transform the boundaries between related but disjointed fields, a feature posited as advantageous – knowledge brokers’ liminality – may in practice work to their disadvantage. An unequal partnership between two fields, where the capitals (the resources, relationships, markers of prestige and forms of knowledge) valued in one are privileged over the other, left knowledge brokers without a prior affiliation to either field adrift between the two.Discussion and conclusions: Lacking legitimacy to act across fields and bridge the gap between them, knowledge brokers are likely to seek to develop their skills on one side of the boundary, focusing on more limited and conservative activities, rather than advance the value of a distinctive array of capitals in mediating between fields. We identify implications for the construction and deployment of knowledge-brokering interventions towards collaborative objectives.Key messagesKnowledge brokers are vaunted as a means of translating knowledge and removing barriers between fields;Their position ‘in between’ fields is important, but their influence in those fields may be limited;Lacking the resources and relationships to work across fields, they may align with only one;Both the structure of fields and the prior knowledge and habitus of brokers will influence knowledge brokerage’s success.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding knowledge brokerage and its transformative potential: a Bourdieusian perspective\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Chew, N. Armstrong, G. Martin\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/174426421X16149632470114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Knowledge brokering is promoted as a means of enabling exchange between fields and closer collaboration across institutional boundaries. Yet examples of its success in fostering collaboration and reconfiguring boundaries remain few.Aims and objectives: We consider the introduction of a dedicated knowledge-brokering role in a partnership across healthcare research and practice, with a view to examining the interaction between knowledge brokers’ location and attributes and the characteristics of the fields across which they work.Methods: We use qualitative data from a four-year ethnographic study, including observations, interviews, focus groups, reflective diaries and other documentary sources. Our analysis draws on Pierre Bourdieu’s conceptual framework.Findings: In efforts to transform the boundaries between related but disjointed fields, a feature posited as advantageous – knowledge brokers’ liminality – may in practice work to their disadvantage. An unequal partnership between two fields, where the capitals (the resources, relationships, markers of prestige and forms of knowledge) valued in one are privileged over the other, left knowledge brokers without a prior affiliation to either field adrift between the two.Discussion and conclusions: Lacking legitimacy to act across fields and bridge the gap between them, knowledge brokers are likely to seek to develop their skills on one side of the boundary, focusing on more limited and conservative activities, rather than advance the value of a distinctive array of capitals in mediating between fields. We identify implications for the construction and deployment of knowledge-brokering interventions towards collaborative objectives.Key messagesKnowledge brokers are vaunted as a means of translating knowledge and removing barriers between fields;Their position ‘in between’ fields is important, but their influence in those fields may be limited;Lacking the resources and relationships to work across fields, they may align with only one;Both the structure of fields and the prior knowledge and habitus of brokers will influence knowledge brokerage’s success.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16149632470114\",\"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":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16149632470114","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: 0

摘要

背景:知识中介作为一种促进领域之间交流和跨机构边界更密切合作的手段而得到推广。然而,它在促进合作和重新配置边界方面取得成功的例子仍然很少。目的和目标:我们考虑在医疗保健研究和实践的伙伴关系中引入专门的知识经纪人角色,以检查知识经纪人的位置和属性与他们工作的领域的特征之间的相互作用。方法:我们使用了一项为期四年的民族志研究的定性数据,包括观察、访谈、焦点小组、反思日记和其他文献来源。我们的分析借鉴了皮埃尔·布迪厄的概念框架。研究发现:在努力改变相关但不相关的领域之间的边界时,一个被认为是有利的特征——知识经纪人的局限性——实际上可能对他们不利。两个领域之间的不平等伙伴关系,其中一个领域的资本(资源、关系、声望标志和知识形式)比另一个领域更有优先权,使得没有事先隶属关系的知识经纪人在两个领域之间漂流。讨论和结论:由于缺乏跨领域行动和弥合领域之间差距的合法性,知识经纪人可能会寻求在边界的一侧发展他们的技能,专注于更有限和保守的活动,而不是通过在领域之间进行调解来提升一系列独特资本的价值。我们确定了对协作目标的知识中介干预措施的构建和部署的影响。关键信息知识经纪人被认为是翻译知识和消除领域之间障碍的一种手段;他们在领域之间的地位很重要,但他们在这些领域的影响力可能有限;缺乏跨领域工作的资源和关系,他们可能只与一个领域合作;领域的结构和经纪人的先验知识和习惯都会影响知识经纪人的成功。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding knowledge brokerage and its transformative potential: a Bourdieusian perspective
Background: Knowledge brokering is promoted as a means of enabling exchange between fields and closer collaboration across institutional boundaries. Yet examples of its success in fostering collaboration and reconfiguring boundaries remain few.Aims and objectives: We consider the introduction of a dedicated knowledge-brokering role in a partnership across healthcare research and practice, with a view to examining the interaction between knowledge brokers’ location and attributes and the characteristics of the fields across which they work.Methods: We use qualitative data from a four-year ethnographic study, including observations, interviews, focus groups, reflective diaries and other documentary sources. Our analysis draws on Pierre Bourdieu’s conceptual framework.Findings: In efforts to transform the boundaries between related but disjointed fields, a feature posited as advantageous – knowledge brokers’ liminality – may in practice work to their disadvantage. An unequal partnership between two fields, where the capitals (the resources, relationships, markers of prestige and forms of knowledge) valued in one are privileged over the other, left knowledge brokers without a prior affiliation to either field adrift between the two.Discussion and conclusions: Lacking legitimacy to act across fields and bridge the gap between them, knowledge brokers are likely to seek to develop their skills on one side of the boundary, focusing on more limited and conservative activities, rather than advance the value of a distinctive array of capitals in mediating between fields. We identify implications for the construction and deployment of knowledge-brokering interventions towards collaborative objectives.Key messagesKnowledge brokers are vaunted as a means of translating knowledge and removing barriers between fields;Their position ‘in between’ fields is important, but their influence in those fields may be limited;Lacking the resources and relationships to work across fields, they may align with only one;Both the structure of fields and the prior knowledge and habitus of brokers will influence knowledge brokerage’s success.
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