A Longitudinal Investigation of Knowledge Brokering As a Mechanism - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

A Longitudinal Investigation of Knowledge Brokering As a Mechanism for Integrating Research Evidence into Health Policymaking

Itzhak Yanovitzky, Matthew Weber, Nicole Gesualdo & Teis Kristensen Rutgers University

Knowledge Brokers

• A knowledge broker is an intermediary (an organization or a

person), that aims to develop relationships and networks with, among, and between producers and users of knowledge.

Knowledge Brokering

• In the public policy domain, knowledge

brokering is a dynamic activity that regulates the flow and exchange of policy- relevant information (i.e., about the problem, alternative solutions, and political climate) to and from policy actors who are not directly connected.

• Through their information behavior (e.g.,

sharing, withholding, filtering , and interpreting information), influence (reputation, authority), and carrying capacity, knowledge brokers dynamically regulate the scope, nature, and speed in which policy-relevant information travels within the policy system.

Information Flow

Study Methodology

• Qualitative and quantitative content analysis of all Congressional

documents concerning public policies to decrease childhood

• besity from 2000-2014 (N ≈ 1,578 documents).
• All excerpts containing explicit reference to evidence were coded

for source, type, and context of evidence use, interpretation of evidence, and the purpose for which it was used (conceptual, instrumental, political, tactical, and symbolic).

• Network analysis (two-mode and one-mode) of suppliers and users
• f research evidence was created based on the actors referenced in

each document and was used for tracking the flow of research evidence among actors over time.

Study Methodology

Use of Evidence Patterns

Evidence in Bills (n = 1360) Evidence in Hearings (n = 2103) Type of Evidence Statistical facts 87% 57% Research study findings 10% 16% Expert opinion

• 10%

Source of Evidence None referenced 63% 50% CDC/NIH 22% 10% Anecdotal evidence

• 7.5%

Academic research 1.4% 3.5%

Use of Evidence Patterns

Evidence in Bills (n = 1360) Evidence in Hearings (n = 2103) Use of Evidence Conceptual 94% 71% Instrumental 3.5% 12% Political 2% 13% Interpretation Objective status of problem 74% 48% Cause of problem 17% 16% Possible solution to problem 8% 17% Preferred policy response 0.5% 6.5%

Policy Windows

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113

Childhood Obesity-Related Legislative Actions, 106-113 Congress Bills Hearings

President: Obama House: Democrat Senate: Democrat President: Bush House: Republican Senate: Republican

Bill Sponsor Network Overview

2008 Bill Sponsor Network

2010 Bill Sponsor Network

2012 Bill Sponsor Network

Key Metrics by Period

2008 2010 2012 Kind (4.81) Grijalva (41.1) Johnson (14.2) Baldwin (1) Fudge (35.5) Kucinich (14.2) Bishop (1) Payne (32.2) Baca (1.9) Bordallo (1) Polis (27.3) Carnahan (1.9) Brown (1) Andrews (26.5) Clarke (1.9)

Top five actors in each year, based on Burt’s measure of network efficiency; this measure indicates the actors that are positioned structurally to most effectively broker knowledge exchange with others.

Example of Analysis by Party Affiliation

Evidence Acquisition

10 20 30 40 50 60 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 Sources of Evidence Used in Congressional Hearings, 107-113 Congress

Generic CDC/NIH/IOM Foundations/Think Tanks Experts Academic

Evidence Interpretation

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 Interpretation of Evidence Use in Congressional Hearings, 107-113 Congress

Objective Status Causes Solutions

Evidence Use

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 Purpose of Evidence Use in Congressional Hearings, 107-113 Congress

Conceptual Instrumental Political

Conclusion

• Opportunities for knowledge brokering in the macro-level policy

context are not fixed or limited to particular actors; rather they emerge dynamically in the course of the policymaking process as a function of the interplay between individual actors’ agency (e.g., policy champions) and characteristics of the political environment in which they operate.

• Knowledge brokers can be most effective when they have the capacity,

motivation, and political opportunities to broker use of evidence.

• It is important to recognize that the scope, nature, and use of the

evidence engaged by policymakers is different at different stages of the policymaking process and that a better understanding of the factors that influence differential use is crucial for informing decisions about the content, format, and timing of research evidence dissemination efforts.