Defining brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a systematic review

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2020-07-21 DOI:10.31234/osf.io/psd9u
J. Neal, Z. Neal, Brian Brutzman
{"title":"Defining brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a systematic review","authors":"J. Neal, Z. Neal, Brian Brutzman","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/psd9u","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Background: A growing literature focuses on the roles of brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners (BIBS) in addressing the challenges of transferring research evidence between the research and practice or policy communities.Aims and objectives: In this systematic review, we examined two research questions: (1) where, how, and when are different BIBS terms (broker, intermediary, and boundary spanner) used? and (2) which BIBS terms get defined, and when these terms are defined, who are BIBS and what do they do?Methods: We conducted literature searches designed to capture articles on BIBS and the transfer of research evidence. We extracted information about eligible articles’ characteristics, use of BIBS terms, and definitions of BIBS terms.Findings: The search revealed an initial pool of 667 results, of which 277 articles were included after screening. Although we coded 430 separate uses of BIBS terms, only 37.2% of these uses provided explicit definitions. The terms, ‘broker’ and ‘brokerage’, were commonly applied in the health sector to describe a person engaged in multiple functions. The term, ‘intermediary’, was commonly applied in the education sector to describe an organisation engaged in dissemination. Finally, the terms ‘boundary spanner’ and ‘boundary spanning’ were commonly applied in the environment sector to describe people or organisations that engage in relationship building.Discussion and conclusions: Results demonstrated that when BIBS were defined, there were important (albeit implicit) distinctions between terms. Based on these results, we identify archetypal definitions for brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners and offer recommendations for future research.Key messagesOnly 37.2% of coded uses of BIBS in articles included explicit definitions.Brokers were commonly defined in health as people engaged in multiple functions.Intermediaries were commonly defined in education as research-disseminating organisations.Boundary spanners were commonly defined in environment as relationship-building entities.\n","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/psd9u","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: 17

Abstract

Background: A growing literature focuses on the roles of brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners (BIBS) in addressing the challenges of transferring research evidence between the research and practice or policy communities.Aims and objectives: In this systematic review, we examined two research questions: (1) where, how, and when are different BIBS terms (broker, intermediary, and boundary spanner) used? and (2) which BIBS terms get defined, and when these terms are defined, who are BIBS and what do they do?Methods: We conducted literature searches designed to capture articles on BIBS and the transfer of research evidence. We extracted information about eligible articles’ characteristics, use of BIBS terms, and definitions of BIBS terms.Findings: The search revealed an initial pool of 667 results, of which 277 articles were included after screening. Although we coded 430 separate uses of BIBS terms, only 37.2% of these uses provided explicit definitions. The terms, ‘broker’ and ‘brokerage’, were commonly applied in the health sector to describe a person engaged in multiple functions. The term, ‘intermediary’, was commonly applied in the education sector to describe an organisation engaged in dissemination. Finally, the terms ‘boundary spanner’ and ‘boundary spanning’ were commonly applied in the environment sector to describe people or organisations that engage in relationship building.Discussion and conclusions: Results demonstrated that when BIBS were defined, there were important (albeit implicit) distinctions between terms. Based on these results, we identify archetypal definitions for brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners and offer recommendations for future research.Key messagesOnly 37.2% of coded uses of BIBS in articles included explicit definitions.Brokers were commonly defined in health as people engaged in multiple functions.Intermediaries were commonly defined in education as research-disseminating organisations.Boundary spanners were commonly defined in environment as relationship-building entities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
定义经纪人、中介机构和边界管理者:系统综述
背景:越来越多的文献关注经纪人、中介机构和边界管理者(BIBS)在解决研究与实践或政策社区之间转移研究证据的挑战方面的作用。目的和目的:在这篇系统综述中,我们考察了两个研究问题:(1)在哪里、如何以及何时使用不同的BIBS术语(经纪人、中介和边界扳手)?以及(2)哪些BIBS术语被定义,当这些术语被定义时,谁是BIBS,他们做什么?方法:我们进行文献检索,旨在获取关于BIBS和研究证据转移的文章。我们提取了有关符合条件的文章的特征、BIBS术语的使用以及BIBS术语定义的信息。结果:搜索显示了667个初步结果,其中277篇文章在筛选后被纳入。尽管我们编码了430个BIBS术语的单独使用,但这些使用中只有37.2%提供了明确的定义。“经纪人”和“经纪”这两个术语在卫生部门通常用于描述从事多种职能的人。“中介”一词通常用于教育部门,用来描述从事传播的组织。最后,“边界扳手”和“边界跨越”这两个术语通常应用于环境部门,用来描述参与建立关系的人或组织。讨论和结论:结果表明,当BIBS被定义时,术语之间存在重要的(尽管是隐含的)区别。基于这些结果,我们确定了经纪人、中介机构和边界扳手的原型定义,并为未来的研究提供了建议。关键信息在文章中,只有37.2%的BIBS编码使用包含明确的定义。经纪人在健康领域通常被定义为从事多种职能的人。教育界通常将中介机构定义为研究传播组织。边界扳手在环境中通常被定义为建立关系的实体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 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
期刊最新文献
Breaking the Overton Window: on the need for adversarial co-production Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review Experiences and perceptions of evidence use among senior health service decision makers in Ireland: a qualitative study The critical factors in producing high quality and policy-relevant research: insights from international behavioural science units Understanding brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a multi-sectoral review of strategies, skills, and outcomes
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1