Networks for Knowledge Mobilization: A Framework to Understand Support-Seeking Behaviors of Knowledge Brokers

Background: Knowledge brokers are increasingly influential in education. They cultivate relationships between research, policy, and practice; make knowledge accessible and usable; and support evidence-informed change in education. Still, their support-seeking behaviors within their relational ecosystems are not well studied and understood. Purpose: The purpose of this exploratory study is to expand upon existing research by: (1) developing profiles of knowledge brokers based on their support-seeking behaviors within their relational ecosystems, and (2) understanding the tensions knowledge brokers navigate while building and maintaining their relational ecosystems for support. Research Design: This mixed-methods study draws on data from 12 equity-focused, evidence-based knowledge broker organizations in the United States. For this paper, we draw on data from egocentric network surveys and interviews, which we first qualitatively coded for forms of support, underlying strategic priorities, and tensions. Next, we transformed the data, quantifying the qualitative findings. Finally, we used hierarchical clustering to determine different knowledge broker profiles of support-seeking behaviors. Findings: Participating knowledge brokers differed in their support-seeking behaviors, suggesting that not all knowledge brokers had the same support needs or access. We identified seven profiles based on different degrees in (1) infrastructure/financial support, (2) strategic advisory, (3) capacity building, (4) knowledge mobilization support, and (5) networking support. Additionally, we identified key tensions faced by knowledge brokers, including (1) the desire to collaborate toward shared goals while navigating competitive pressures, (2) the drive for autonomy contrasted with interdependence with partners, and (3) the multidimensional challenges of balancing observability, scope, and time horizons in their work. These tensions shaped knowledge brokers’ relational ecosystems, with whom they partnered and how, and ultimately their support-seeking behaviors. Conclusion: This exploratory study expands upon the existing typologies and frameworks. Instead of focusing on brokers’ knowledge mobilization efforts with their audiences (e.g., knowledge mobilization processes) or fixed attributes (e.g., organizational type), this paper explores their support-seeking behaviors. Findings also have practical significance by providing knowledge brokers with a guiding framework of the forms of support they could focus on when leveraging their relational ecosystems for collaboration, exchange, and support.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education
Published
2026-09-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681261489004
Primary Topic
Educational Assessment and Improvement
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Networks for Knowledge Mobilization: A Framework to Understand Support-Seeking Behaviors of Knowledge Brokers

Marie Lockton, Martin Rehm, Alan J. Daly, Anita Caduff
Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education
Educational Assessment and Improvement
article

Networks for Knowledge Mobilization: A Framework to Understand Support-Seeking Behaviors of Knowledge Brokers

Marie Lockton, Martin Rehm, Alan J. Daly, Anita Caduff
article en

Abstract

Background: Knowledge brokers are increasingly influential in education. They cultivate relationships between research, policy, and practice; make knowledge accessible and usable; and support evidence-informed change in education. Still, their support-seeking behaviors within their relational ecosystems are not well studied and understood. Purpose: The purpose of this exploratory study is to expand upon existing research by: (1) developing profiles of knowledge brokers based on their support-seeking behaviors within their relational ecosystems, and (2) understanding the tensions knowledge brokers navigate while building and maintaining their relational ecosystems for support. Research Design: This mixed-methods study draws on data from 12 equity-focused, evidence-based knowledge broker organizations in the United States. For this paper, we draw on data from egocentric network surveys and interviews, which we first qualitatively coded for forms of support, underlying strategic priorities, and tensions. Next, we transformed the data, quantifying the qualitative findings. Finally, we used hierarchical clustering to determine different knowledge broker profiles of support-seeking behaviors. Findings: Participating knowledge brokers differed in their support-seeking behaviors, suggesting that not all knowledge brokers had the same support needs or access. We identified seven profiles based on different degrees in (1) infrastructure/financial support, (2) strategic advisory, (3) capacity building, (4) knowledge mobilization support, and (5) networking support. Additionally, we identified key tensions faced by knowledge brokers, including (1) the desire to collaborate toward shared goals while navigating competitive pressures, (2) the drive for autonomy contrasted with interdependence with partners, and (3) the multidimensional challenges of balancing observability, scope, and time horizons in their work. These tensions shaped knowledge brokers’ relational ecosystems, with whom they partnered and how, and ultimately their support-seeking behaviors. Conclusion: This exploratory study expands upon the existing typologies and frameworks. Instead of focusing on brokers’ knowledge mobilization efforts with their audiences (e.g., knowledge mobilization processes) or fixed attributes (e.g., organizational type), this paper explores their support-seeking behaviors. Findings also have practical significance by providing knowledge brokers with a guiding framework of the forms of support they could focus on when leveraging their relational ecosystems for collaboration, exchange, and support.

Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education
University of Southern Denmark (DK), University of Michigan (US), University of California San Diego (US)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Educational Assessment and Improvement
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.