View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Bridging Gaps: A Systematic Literature Review of Brokerage in Educational Change

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Bridging Gaps: A Systematic Literature Review of Brokerage in Educational Change
Language: English
Authors: Beat Rechsteiner (ORCID 0000-0003-2555-431X), Eva Kyndt (ORCID 0000-0002-6755-4409), Miriam Compagnoni (ORCID 0000-0002-7850-129X), Andrea Wullschleger (ORCID 0000-0003-4390-3835), Katharina Maag Merki (ORCID 0000-0002-0215-1684)
Source: Journal of Educational Change. 2024 25(2):305-339.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 35
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Descriptors: Facilitators (Individuals), Educational Change, Capacity Building, Stakeholders, Networks, Educational Research
DOI: 10.1007/s10833-023-09493-7
ISSN: 1389-2843
1573-1812
Abstract: Bridging gaps between educational stakeholders at the classroom, school, and system levels is essential to achieve sustainable change in primary and secondary education. However, transferring knowledge or building capacity within this network of loosely coupled stakeholders is demanding. The "brokerage" concept holds promise for studying these complex patterns of interaction, as it refers to how specific actors (brokers) link loosely coupled or disconnected individuals (brokering). However, different research traditions, in terms of theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches, and various stakeholders examined in their role as bridge builders make understanding the role of brokers, brokering, and brokerage in changing educational practice challenging. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the current literature on these concepts in educational change research. In a systematic literature review based on 42 studies, we analyzed each study's theoretical assumptions, methodological approach, scope in terms of stakeholders involved, and empirical findings. First, the literature review revealed that research on educational change refers to four different theoretical frameworks when focusing on brokers, brokering, or brokerage. Second, our results indicate that predominantly qualitative approaches have been applied. Third, using content network graphs, we identified teachers and principals as among the most frequently analyzed brokers. Fourth, four relevant aspects of the empirical findings are presented: brokers' personal characteristics, conditions that enable brokering, successful brokering strategies, and outcomes of brokerage. Finally, we outline a future research agenda based on the empirical evidence base and shortcomings.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1426090
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFclGoe3_84LIJ9aX4jQdOSAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCB0LpE0c39LUcCm4QIBEICBmgj1FhfohDMB6-20hqis1h_SwNliyjgubGt9-XPTkwWNVKvbF1ykTl1KLYMQsjCbsi4KQTtxbiu4jkNoQmj6ANdOsTbX0sv7boNs4VtrdgrJtCx6-cJbW38txqoKHPq_9ry_C0N9gZLpvh0psf63Nj5ItkJilEiDAjM9YLN5pYe1GYd9bS_8s6ekUnWYWHxJWdoeRvgTmelI7wE=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0177463760;9m301jun.24;2024May28.06:36;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0177463760-1">Bridging gaps: a systematic literature review of brokerage in educational change </title> <p>Bridging gaps between educational stakeholders at the classroom, school, and system levels is essential to achieve sustainable change in primary and secondary education. However, transferring knowledge or building capacity within this network of loosely coupled stakeholders is demanding. The brokerage concept holds promise for studying these complex patterns of interaction, as it refers to how specific actors (brokers) link loosely coupled or disconnected individuals (brokering). However, different research traditions, in terms of theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches, and various stakeholders examined in their role as bridge builders make understanding the role of brokers, brokering, and brokerage in changing educational practice challenging. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the current literature on these concepts in educational change research. In a systematic literature review based on 42 studies, we analyzed each study's theoretical assumptions, methodological approach, scope in terms of stakeholders involved, and empirical findings. First, the literature review revealed that research on educational change refers to four different theoretical frameworks when focusing on brokers, brokering, or brokerage. Second, our results indicate that predominantly qualitative approaches have been applied. Third, using content network graphs, we identified teachers and principals as among the most frequently analyzed brokers. Fourth, four relevant aspects of the empirical findings are presented: brokers' personal characteristics, conditions that enable brokering, successful brokering strategies, and outcomes of brokerage. Finally, we outline a future research agenda based on the empirical evidence base and shortcomings.</p> <p>Keywords: Brokerage; Broker; Brokering; Educational change; Knowledge mobilization; Capacity building</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Almost 50 years ago, Weick ([<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref1">116</reflink>]) coined the notion that educational organizations are loosely coupled systems. Recent research has shown that this still holds true (Meredith et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref2">78</reflink>]; Shen et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref3">100</reflink>]). Thus, when trying to improve educational practice, various professional stakeholders (i.e., teachers, principals, and policymakers) pursue interests that are only sometimes aligned. These loose coupling mechanisms may lead to gaps emerging—not only between different stakeholders on the class, school, and system level but also between other actors more at the periphery of the school system, such as researchers or professional intermediaries. Bridging these gaps is not trivial, making changing educational practices in schools demanding.</p> <p>However, change is vital for schools, as conditions and requirements for schools are constantly changing. Nevertheless, sustainable improvements at the core of educational practice are more the exception than the rule (Hargreaves et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref4">37</reflink>]; Mitchell & Sackney, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref5">81</reflink>]; Tyack & Tobin, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref6">112</reflink>]). Thus, scaling up these exceptions of high-quality school improvement to a broader educational landscape, be it on a class, school, or system level, seems often equivalent to squaring the circle (Elmore, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref7">27</reflink>]; Fullan, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref8">32</reflink>]). Bryson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref9">7</reflink>]) indicated that complex public issues could only be resolved when stakeholders with different backgrounds, knowledge, and agendas know how to and are willing to collaborate. Hence, to provide learning environments that adapt to the needs of all students, it is essential to know how emerging gaps between various stakeholders can be bridged so that collaboration and professional development is enhanced (Kyndt et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref10">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to social network theorists (i.e., Burt, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref11">8</reflink>]; Gould & Fernandez, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref12">35</reflink>]), the concept of <emph>brokerage</emph> offers a theoretical and analytical lens to understand better how gaps can be successfully bridged to improve practice on an individual and collective level. From a social network perspective, brokerage can be defined as the dynamic interplay of actors when controlling and organizing the flow and content of information (Borgatti & Foster, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]). Outside the school context, the concept has been studied extensively and investigated systematically within various research areas, such as in public health (Lomas, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref14">65</reflink>]; Long et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref15">66</reflink>]), management research (Kwon et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref16">60</reflink>]), and sociology (Stovel & Shaw, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref17">107</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, brokerage may also play a crucial role in the loosely coupled educational context, specifically in research on educational change. When we searched for studies explicitly applying brokerage as a theoretical lens in research on educational change, we soon realized that the field is challenged by conceptual confusion. In the following, we outline three aspects of how this confusion manifests and what consequences this may have on research in the domain of educational change:</p> <p>First, no single brokerage concept exists but rather multiple frameworks (also referring to brokers and brokering) that originated in different research traditions are common. Thus, there might be different understandings about brokerage.</p> <p>Second, the studies employed various methodological approaches when identifying and analyzing brokerage. As a result, there are not only multiple conceptualizations, but also different operationalizations of how brokerage is assessed.</p> <p>Third, deducing key findings and insights for educational change from the available empirical research seems challenging. A lack of conceptual clarity makes it immensely difficult to establish common ground on what we already know about brokerage regarding educational change. Thus, although there are attempts to transfer the concept to the school context, it remains unclear whether they have developed more in isolation rather than linked to each other. This lack of common ground (conceptually and methodologically) may have hampered researchers from using the concept more prominently in research about educational change.</p> <p>Hence, this study aims to systematically review the current literature on the concept of brokerage in research on educational change by clarifying theoretical assumptions and methodological approaches, systematically mapping the stakeholders analyzed as brokers, and listing the essential findings. Finally, based on the shortcomings of those insights, a future research agenda is outlined.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-3">Conceptualizing brokers, brokering, and brokerage</hd> <p>From an etymological standpoint, the expression broker originates in the middle English word <emph>brokour</emph>, akin to the Spanish <emph>alboroque</emph>, which stands for a ceremonial gift at the conclusion of a deal (American Heritage Dictionary, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>]). Historically, a broker makes profits by negotiating goods or ideas and coordinating contacts between communities otherwise disconnected. Three terms are closely related to this conception and are often used either synonymously or as overlapping terminologies: broker, brokering, and brokerage. In this paper, we refer to <emph>brokers</emph> as individuals or groups acting as intermediaries, <emph>brokering</emph> to activities these actors apply when working the interface (Meyer, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref19">79</reflink>]), and <emph>brokerage</emph> as the dynamic and complex set of actors (brokers) and activities (brokering) involved in negotiation processes between distinct social worlds (Stovel & Shaw, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref20">107</reflink>]). In the following, we refer to the term <emph>brokerage</emph> when both brokers and brokering or the relation between the two are addressed.</p> <p>There is a long tradition of conceptualizing and analyzing brokerage in social networks based on social capital theories (i.e., Burt, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref21">8</reflink>]; Marsden, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref22">76</reflink>]). Social capital theories with an explicit focus on <emph>bridging capital</emph> (Putnam, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref23">90</reflink>]) provide a theoretical lens to explore how social relationships impact the flow of information (Crossley et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref24">19</reflink>]). Based on the assumption that social capital is not equally distributed among individuals, a brokerage position within social networks impacts an individual's leverage to control the flow of information and access otherwise disconnected individuals in a broader, more diverse network (Marsden, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref25">76</reflink>]). In addition, a critical assumption is that social capital is not only determined by formal roles and organizational structures but also (and foremost) by informal ties between actors (Burt, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref26">9</reflink>]). Following these assumptions, social network analysis techniques are most frequently used to locate stakeholders in brokerage positions, examine to what degree formal and informal network structures correspond, and study different patterns of behavior due to inequalities in social capital (Crossley et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref27">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, systematic reviews on the brokerage concept outside the school context have indicated that, depending on the field of application, research traditions beyond social capital theories and social network analysis have conceptualized and examined brokerage (i.e., Kwon et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref28">60</reflink>]; Long et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref29">66</reflink>]). For example, in research on knowledge mobilization, researchers have applied the brokerage concept to better understand why individuals and organizations differ in how they can effectively combine know-hows, know-whys, and know-whos (Meyer, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref30">79</reflink>]; Ward et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref31">115</reflink>]). These different research traditions are also associated with different methodological approaches. For example, unlike social capital theories, research on knowledge mobilization relies primarily on qualitative methods (i.e., Kwon et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref32">60</reflink>]; Lomas, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref33">65</reflink>]; Ward et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref34">115</reflink>]).</p> <p>Consequently, the question arises as to which theoretical framework is applied when brokerage is examined in research on educational change. A domain-specific overview of all applied frameworks and the associated various methodological approaches can contribute to clarifying the conceptual confusion and allow us to understand better the complex dynamics and constraints in the interaction patterns of different stakeholders involved in brokering—for example, in terms of the ebb and flow of information in a school's social network (Borgatti & Foster, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]). However, in the next section, we want to further elaborate on the importance of studying brokers, brokering, and brokerage to understand better how emerging gaps may be bridged to change educational practice.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-4">Bridging gaps for educational change</hd> <p>There are several reasons why brokers might be in critical positions when it comes to solving problems and implementing innovative ideas not only in private companies (i.e., Burt, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref36">9</reflink>]; Obstfeld, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref37">87</reflink>]) but also in public organizations (i.e., Lomas, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref38">65</reflink>]; Ward et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref39">115</reflink>]) such as schools.</p> <p>By mobilizing knowledge across emerging gaps, brokers have immediate access to non-redundant information and innovative ideas. Thus, brokers may disrupt the tendency of reproduction as they introduce new perspectives on daily practices across gaps emerging between different communities and organizations (Burt, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref40">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Accordingly, research has found that brokers filter, distort, or hoard resources, which may provide benefit in the form of control or power to the broker but may simultaneously inhibit overall individual and organizational performance (i.e., Burt, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref41">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref42">9</reflink>]; McGrath & Krackhardt, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref43">77</reflink>]). Thus, on the dark side, brokers can also misuse their privileged position for their interests (i.e., Krackhardt, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref44">57</reflink>]). Moreover, being in a sandwich position between different groups can, in the long run, be very burdensome and associated with feelings of isolation since not belonging to one group or the other (i.e., Carboni & Gilman, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref45">10</reflink>]; Mollenhorst et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref46">82</reflink>]). Hence, too much weight on their shoulders may also inhibit sustainable improvements.</p> <p>Furthermore, schools are complex organizations making communication and knowledge transfer among staff members an intricate and challenging endeavor (Tortoriello et al., [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref47">111</reflink>]). Thus, the gaps that need to be bridged can also occur within organizations (for instance, horizontally between subgroups or vertically between leaders and subordinates), where over time and due to different reasons, communities may distance themselves from each other, leading to a potentially widening gap. The brokerage concept may help to illuminate the complex interaction patterns within schools when changing educational practice.</p> <p>Eventually, regarding changing educational practice, researchers have pointed out that fundamental conceptions of learning and teaching remain relatively static (Bryk et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref48">6</reflink>]; Tyack & Tobin, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref49">112</reflink>]). Nevertheless, there are good examples—in terms of high-quality teaching, effective school improvement programs, or valuable research evidence—of how and in what direction educational practice should be changed (i.e., Kyriakides et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref50">62</reflink>]). Unfortunately, these examples too often remain isolated islands unattached to the broader educational landscape (Elmore, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref51">27</reflink>]; Hubers, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref52">49</reflink>]). Therefore, it is often not a problem of the supply of good examples but of deficiencies in how this knowledge is transferred or adapted to the school's context (Elmore, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref53">27</reflink>]; Malouf & Taymans, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref54">75</reflink>]). That is where the brokers may come in.</p> <p>In the following, we elaborate on how various stakeholders involved in changing educational practice may act as brokers building bridges, for better or worse, in the complex web actors on the class, school, and system level.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-5">Actors on the class and school level</hd> <p>First, having the most direct impact on student learning, teachers are crucial when it comes to changing educational practice. For instance, teachers may experiment with new materials or innovative ideas and subsequently implement what has proven to work in their local context (Mitchell & Sackney, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref55">81</reflink>]). Teachers change their practice the most effectively, not in isolation but collaboratively (Horn et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref56">48</reflink>]; Sinnema et al., [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref57">101</reflink>])—for instance, in professional learning communities (Louis et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref58">68</reflink>]; Mitchell & Sackney, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref59">81</reflink>]). Thus, teachers constantly build bridges with other actors within and outside their school—i.e., colleagues, principals, social workers, or special needs teachers. These relations may be productive or conflictual.</p> <p>Second, school principals, as actors on the school level, have a more indirect impact on student learning (Creemers & Kyriakides, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref60">18</reflink>]), as they may foster or hinder an environment in which teachers have the resources and support to develop educational practice further (Leithwood et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref61">64</reflink>]). Thus, principals may function as intermediaries—within and outside their school. In this way, they may exchange ideas on improving organizational structures and teachers' pedagogical repertoires (Kolleck, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref62">56</reflink>]). Moreover, Louis and Dentler ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref63">67</reflink>]) have pointed out that the diffusion of knowledge in schools is most significant when an indirect strategy is applied. Hence, applying a brokerage lens might help to analyze the who, what, and how of these indirect paths that knowledge 'travels' when actors on the class and school level are about to change their educational practice.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-6">Actors on the system level</hd> <p>Apart from this inner circle of actors, on a system level there are policymakers, district leaders, superintendents, curriculum coordinators, or administrators working within and organizing the broader political landscape of an educational system. In the following, we refer to this group as central office staff. These actors may set directions, support actors on the class and school levels, and coordinate collaborative action between schools or other school systems (DuFour, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref64">25</reflink>]; Honig, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref65">42</reflink>]). In this way, they shape the focus and leeway of principals and teachers in their professional development. Furthermore, according to Honig and Hatch ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref66">43</reflink>]), collaboration between schools and school districts depends on the stakeholders' skills in crafting coherence about what conditions are necessary, what processes are effective, and what outcomes are desirable when changing educational practice. Thus, analyzing brokerage between the school and system level might lead to a better understanding of what factors foster or hinder stakeholders from aligning perspectives regarding changing educational practice.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-7">External experts</hd> <p>Last, there are actors involved in educational change who are more peripheral to the educational systems, such as researchers, professional intermediaries, or teacher educators. Seeking to change educational practice through more evidence-based reform (Slavin, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref67">102</reflink>]), external experts, such as researchers or science communicators, have gained influence on improving educational practice (Ball & Junemann, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>]; Lubienski et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref69">69</reflink>]; Malin et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref70">73</reflink>]). For instance, Honig and Ikemoto ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref71">44</reflink>]) indicated that external experts may act as adaptive assistants in system-wide improvement efforts when the needs of district and school-level stakeholders must be met. However, particularly in the case of professional intermediaries, these new connections may lead to a substantial shift in the actor constellation. Thus, Lubienski et al. ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref72">69</reflink>]) pointed out that professional intermediaries operate in new, poorly analyzed ways, making research–practice-partnerships and policy networks more fluid. The brokerage concept may help to examine further whether these new emerging power structures within educational systems solve or even exacerbate pending issues regarding educational change.</p> <p>By systematically reviewing the literature on brokers, brokering, and brokerage in educational change, we can examine the extent to which the stakeholders outlined above act as bridge builders when educational practice develops. Moreover, other stakeholders acting as brokers (sometimes hidden or unexpected) may be identified that have not yet been in our focus. Eventually, providing an overview of the empirical evidence base for each stakeholder makes it possible to not only better understand social interaction patterns and dynamics within and between schools and other stakeholders involved in changing educational practices but also to outline a future research agenda outlining where to go next.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-8">Present study</hd> <p>Systematizing the knowledge base and conceptualization of brokerage, brokers, and brokering strategies in educational change literature is essential to establish a common ground and bring the brokerage concept more prominently into the discussion. In addition, it might set the stage for further developing the research on building bridges among loosely connected actors involved in educational change.</p> <p>This study addresses the following questions using the selected studies on brokerage, brokering, and brokers in educational change:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> RQ1: What theoretical frameworks did the studies adopt?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ2: What methodological approaches were used?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ3: What stakeholders involved in brokering activity were analyzed?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ4: What evidence on improving educational practice did they find?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0177463760-9">Methods</hd> <p>A systematic literature review (Xiao & Watson, [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref73">122</reflink>]) was conducted in four consecutive phases: First, scientific literature was searched in several databases. Second, relevant articles were selected based on criteria for inclusion starting from these search results. Third, the articles were critically appraised in order to exclude studies of low quality. Finally, the studies were analyzed using a mixed-method synthesis approach (Heyvaert et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref74">41</reflink>], p. 659), combining qualitative content and network analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-10">Literature search</hd> <p>In the first phase, the relevant literature on brokerage in research about educational change was searched. As brokerage is an interdisciplinary concept, different relevant databases within EBSCO were consulted: ERIC for research in education, EconLit for research in economics, PsycARTICLES and PsycINFO for research in (organizational) psychology, and SocINDEX for research in sociology. In addition, we looked for relevant literature in other interdisciplinary databases such as Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Social Science Citation Index)—also covering scientific publications from the health sector where the brokerage concept has been widely discussed already. The search terms for brokerage and educational change were introduced in the first and second steps (see Fig. 1). We applied the search term broker* to cover all three search terms: broker, brokering, and brokerage. As educational change is an umbrella concept with different facets, such as professional development or school improvement through the implementation of innovations and reforms, we used a variety of keywords related to change: improvement, innovation, development, implementation, and reform.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Flow chart of search strategy for literature review. Only unique articles not in EBSCO results. Final literature search was conducted in March 2023</p> <p>This search resulted in about 20,000–30,000 articles in each database for broker* (see step 1 in Fig. 1) and a range of 112,785 (Scopus) to 457,204 (EBSCO) articles for educational change in primary and secondary school (see step 2 in Fig. 1). In the third step, the different search terms were combined (see step 3 in Fig. 1). Combining the search terms resulted in 384 articles across all databases. Our selection was limited to English-language publications only. Apart from that, we applied no further criteria for automatic elimination.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-11">Criteria-based literature selection</hd> <p>The second phase was conducted in multiple steps: First, we selected articles by screening the title and abstract—highlighting relevant keywords related to our inclusion criteria, and removing duplicates (see step 4 in Fig. 1). After this step, 61 articles remained. Second, we read the full texts of these remaining articles to determine their primary research focuses (see step 5 in Fig. 1). Third, four raters were involved in testing the reliability of the selection criteria. For this, 10 out of the remaining 61 articles from the pre-selection were randomly picked, and four questions based on the selection criteria listed above were applied:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Is there a clear focus on changing educational practice?</item> <p></p> <item> Are brokers, brokerage, or brokering mentioned as a central issue in the publication?</item> <p></p> <item> Does the brokering activity occur between professional members or associates of the educational system (not with pupils or parents)?</item> <p></p> <item> Was the research conducted in the context of primary or secondary education?</item> </ulist> <p>Each rater answered the four questions with 'true' or 'false.' An article was included if all of the four statements were found to be true. The interrater reliability of the different selection criteria was measured using Krippendorff's alpha (Krippendorff, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref75">58</reflink>]). An alpha value of 0.71 among the raters revealed that the set of criteria was reliable to apply these selection criteria to all of the other remaining 51 articles that initially resulted in the literature search. Eventually, based on reading the full texts, 34 articles were identified where the scope and emphasis of the studies matched the selection criteria. Third, backward and forward iterations in the analysis of the citations of the retrieved articles resulted in the inclusion of 8 additional studies, leading to a total of 42 selected articles.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-12">Critical appraisal</hd> <p>In the third phase, the quality of the 42 articles included in the final selection was assessed using the critical appraisal tool CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref76">89</reflink>]) as adopted by Kyndt et al. ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref77">61</reflink>]). The main criteria were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref78">1</reflink>) "a well-focused research question," (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref79">2</reflink>) "an appropriate research design" in terms of matching methodological approach to the research questions, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref80">3</reflink>) "a well-described and appropriate sampling strategy, data collection, and analysis method," and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref81">4</reflink>) "a clear description of the research findings" (see Kyndt et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref82">61</reflink>], p. 1119). No low-quality studies were identified in our selection, and we included all 42 studies in the analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-13">Analysis of literature</hd> <p>In the last phase, to analyze data from these 42 articles, we applied a mixed method strategy in three successive steps to answer our research questions: In the first step, study characteristics were inventoried (e.g., language, region). In the second step, using a content analysis approach (Miles & Huberman, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref83">80</reflink>]), data were extracted on the following subtopics: the theoretical assumptions on which brokerage, brokers, or brokering were based (RQ1), the methodological approach applied (RQ2), the stakeholders involved (RQ3), and the empirical findings on brokerage (RQ4). Finally, regarding the studies' methodological approaches, we analyzed both study design (such as data collection and analysis) and how brokers, brokering, and brokerage was identified or measured.</p> <p>In a third step, we conducted content network analyses to process the various stakeholders involved in brokering activities (RQ3) and to map the current empirical evidence base (RQ4). This new approach to systematic reviews allowed us to present complex information in lucid graphs, which facilitates the interpretation of interrelations between stakeholders, approaches, and perspectives. <emph>Content networks</emph> have been defined as networks in which nodes represent content and ties indicate the co-occurrence of that content (Rice & Danowski, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref84">93</reflink>]). For our analyses, we used both directed and undirected ties: Directed ties in a content network graph indicate in which direction the connection between two nodes runs. Undirected ties indicate associations between different aspects. In both cases, the weight of the ties represents the number of connections between two specific nodes. For content networks based on directed ties, the size of the nodes depends on the out-degree centrality, a network measure (Freeman, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref85">31</reflink>]) based on out-going ties. The size of nodes in the content networks with undirected ties was computed based on degree-centrality. The higher the degree-centrality, the larger a node and the more it is connected to other nodes in the network. All the network graphs were made using the <emph>igraph</emph> package Version 1.3.5 (Csardi & Nepusz, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref86">20</reflink>]) in R (RStudio Team, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref87">95</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-14">Results</hd> <p>In the following, we first present the general characteristics of the studies selected and then address the research questions on theoretical frameworks (RQ1), methodological approaches (RQ2), and which stakeholders have been analyzed (RQ3). In the final section, we present the current research base of empirical evidence on brokerage in educational change (RQ4). Table 1 provides detailed insights into the findings for each selected study separately.</p> <p>Table 1 Theoretical frameworks, research topics, methodology, and empirical evidence of the selected studies</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Author(s)</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Year</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Theoretical framework</p></th><th align="left" colspan="5"><p>Methodology</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Stakeholders</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Empirical evidence</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Study design</p></th><th align="left"><p>Data collection</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sample size</p></th><th align="left"><p>Ack. of time</p></th><th align="left"><p>Measurement</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Rechsteiner et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr91">2022a</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Learn</p></td><td align="left"><p>Quant</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Large</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Rechsteiner et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr92">2022b</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Capital</p></td><td align="left"><p>Quant</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Large</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>Betw</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Van den Boom-Muil. et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr113">2022</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mixed</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Large</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>Betw</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Fahy & Kenny</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr28">2022</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Learn</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 7</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Jusinski</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2021</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Learn</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Hashim</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr39">2020</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Capital</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mixed</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>Betw., Formal</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Chang</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2020</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 4, 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>3, 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Farley-Ripple & Grajeda</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2020</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mixed</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cooper et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2020</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>concept</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Brown</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2020</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Quant</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Large</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Davidson & Penuel</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2020</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Learn</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Hopkins et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Quant</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>Formal</p></td><td align="left"><p>3, 4, 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Neal et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr84">2019</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Quant</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Large</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>Formal</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 3, 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cooper</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2019</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Learn</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Van Gasse et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr114">2019</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Morel & Coburn</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr83">2019</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mixed</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>Betw., ERGM</p></td><td align="left"><p>3, 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Hopkins et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2018</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Quant</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>Betw</p></td><td align="left"><p>3, 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Zuckerman et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr123">2018</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Capital</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Hubers et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2018</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mixed</p></td><td align="left"><p>3, 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Longitudinal</p></td><td align="left"><p>Formal</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>LeChasseur et al.</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2017</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Wilkie</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr119">2019</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Malin & Paralkar</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr74">2017</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Nordholm</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr86">2016</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Learn</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Willegems et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr120">2016</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>4, 6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Durand et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2015</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Dist. Leader</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mixed</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ng-A-Fook et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr85">2015</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mixed</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 6</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Sharples & Sheard</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr99">2015</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Large</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 6</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Daly et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2014a</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Capital</p></td><td align="left"><p>Quant</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Large</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>Betw</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Daly et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">2014b</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Capital</p></td><td align="left"><p>Quant</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Large</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>Betw</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Jabbar et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2014</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>3, 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Hopkins et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr45">2013</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Capital</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mixed</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Large</p></td><td align="left"><p>Longitudinal</p></td><td align="left"><p>Betw</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Slavit & Roth McDuffie</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr103">2013</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Dist. Leader</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>4, 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cooper</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2012</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mixed</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Spillane & Kim</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr105">2012</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Capital</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mixed</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Large</p></td><td align="left"><p>Longitudinal</p></td><td align="left"><p>Betw</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Wong</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr121">2012</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Learn</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 6</p></td><td align="left"><p>3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Kisiel</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr54">2010</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Learn</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 7</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Park & Datnow</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr88">2009</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Dist. Leader</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 4, 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Kubiak</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2009</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Learn</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 4, 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3, 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Supovitz</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr109">2008</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>KMb</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>3, 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Swinnerton</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr110">2007</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Dist. Leader</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Carmichael et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2006</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Capital</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sect</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 3, 4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Corbin et al</p></td><td align="left"><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2003</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>Soc. Learn</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qual</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time-lagged</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>2, 3</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Theoretical frameworks</emph>: KMb = knowledge mobilization frameworks, Dist. Leader = distributed leadership, Soc. Capital = social capital theories, Soc. Learn = social learning theory; <emph>Stakeholders</emph>: 1 = teachers, 2 = principals, 3 = central office staff, 4 = professional intermediaries, 5 = researchers, 6 = teacher educators, 7 = Others; <emph>Study design</emph>: Qual = qualitative research, Quant = quantitative research, Mixed = mixed methods, Concept = conceptual paper; <emph>Data collection</emph>: 1 = interview; 2 = survey, 3 = social network data, 4 = observation, 5 = documents, 6 = logfiles; <emph>Sample size</emph>: Small = N < 20, Medium = 21 < N < 120, Large = N > 120; <emph>Ack. of time</emph> (acknowledgment of time): Cross-sect. (cross-sectional), Time-lagged, or Longitudinal data; <emph>Measurement</emph>: Betw. = betweenness-centrality, Formal = brokerage typology based on the formal approach by Gould and Fernandez ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref88">35</reflink>]), ERGM = exponential random graph models; <emph>Empirical evidence:</emph> 1 = personal characteristics; 2 = conditions; 3 = strategy use; 4 = outcomes</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-15">General characteristics of the selected studies</hd> <p>A closer look at the studies' characteristics revealed two initial findings (see Table 2): First, most studies were conducted in North America (<emph>n</emph> = 26), followed by Europe with 13 studies. Only a few studies (<emph>n</emph> = 3) were conducted elsewhere. Second, the earliest publication only went back to 2003, indicating that the discussion on brokerage in educational change is relatively new. Earlier publications addressed the brokerage concept in the domain of educational science, but they did not examine educational change; they dealt with teachers as brokers between scholarly knowledge and their pupils (i.e., Sabatino, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref89">97</reflink>]; White, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref90">118</reflink>]) or with <emph>cultural brokerage</emph> to link school and families with different ethnical backgrounds (i.e., Gentemann & Whitehead, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref91">33</reflink>]; Stairs, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref92">106</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 2 Descriptive information on the selected studies</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Criterion</p></th><th align="left"><p>Category</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p>Region</p></td><td align="left"><p>North America (i.e., United States, Canada)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>26</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Europe (i.e., United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Asia (i.e., China)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Australia</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Others</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Year of publication</p></td><td align="left"><p>After 2015</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>24</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2010–2015</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Before 2010 [oldest publication published in 2003]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Type of document</p></td><td align="left"><p>Peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>35</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Book chapter</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Dissertation</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Other</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0177463760-16">Theoretical frameworks (RQ1)</hd> <p>Although there is a generality of what brokers are and what brokerage is about, the meaning of brokerage has always depended on theoretical frameworks chosen by researchers and thus differs among studies (Corbin et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref93">17</reflink>]). Table 3 lists these frameworks next to each other to indicate similarities and differences in theory base, conceptualization, significant components such as conditions, processes, and outcomes, and related theoretical frameworks regarding educational change literature. Our analysis of the studies identified four theoretical anchors: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>) brokerage and brokers in social capital theories, such as the structural holes theory (Burt, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref95">9</reflink>]), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref96">2</reflink>) brokering and brokers in knowledge mobilization frameworks originating in bridging the research-practice gap (i.e., Lomas, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref97">65</reflink>]; Ward et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref98">115</reflink>]), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref99">3</reflink>) brokering in Wenger's ([<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref100">117</reflink>]) social theory of learning on "communities of practice," and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref101">4</reflink>) brokers in distributed leadership theories in education (i.e., Spillane, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref102">104</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 3 Overview of brokerage theories and their characteristics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Name of theoretical framework</p></th><th align="left"><p>Social capital theories</p></th><th align="left"><p>Knowledge mobilization frameworks</p></th><th align="left"><p>Social learning theories—communities of practice</p></th><th align="left"><p>Distributed leadership theory</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Relevant publications</p></td><td align="left"><p>Burt (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">1992</xref>), Gould and Fernandez (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">1989</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Lomas (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr65">2007</xref>), Meyer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr79">2010</xref>), Ward et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr115">2009</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Wenger (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr117">1999</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Spillane (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr104">2005</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Typology</p></td><td align="left"><p>Brokerage, Broker</p></td><td align="left"><p>Brokering, Broker</p></td><td align="left"><p>Brokering</p></td><td align="left"><p>Brokers</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Theory base</p></td><td align="left"><p>Social network theories to explore formal and informal network structures and their impact on the flow of information</p></td><td align="left"><p>Frameworks to analyze research-practice partnerships</p></td><td align="left"><p>Socio-constructivist theory to analyze collective and organizational learning processes</p></td><td align="left"><p>School leadership theory in which responsibilities to organize and further develop school is shared among colleagues</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Conceptualization broker, brokerage, or brokering</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Broker</italic> as an actor connecting otherwise disconnected actors in a social network</p><p><italic>Brokerage</italic> as a form of social capital (power, control, etc.)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Knowledge <italic>brokers</italic> as individuals applying knowledge <italic>brokering</italic> strategies to transfer knowledge from research to practice</p></td><td align="left"><p>Negotiation of boundary objects through <italic>brokering</italic> strategies between different communities of practice</p></td><td align="left"><p>Organizational structures such as middle leaders or teacher leaders acting as <italic>brokers</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Major components</p><p> Conditions</p><p> Processes</p><p> Outcomes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Structural holes in a social network</p><p>Controlling the flow of information by filtering, distorting, and hoarding resources</p><p>Having access to non-redundant information, agents of change</p></td><td align="left"><p>Knowledge is treated as an action rather than a commodity</p><p>Knowledge management, linking agency, and capacity building</p><p>Effective knowledge transfer and implementation</p></td><td align="left"><p>Brokers as conversant in the discourse of more than one community</p><p>Building bridges, translating, coordinating, and aligning perspectives</p><p>Create overlap, shared space to negotiate boundary objects</p></td><td align="left"><p>Formal or informal leadership roles</p><p>Connecting different sub-teams in a school as a multiplicator or facilitator</p><p>Foster knowledge sharing and capacity building processes among colleagues</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Related theoretical frameworks in literature about educational change</p></td><td align="left"><p>Social capital in teachers' professional interactions (Penuel et al., 2009)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Research-practice partnerships (Coburn, & Penuel, 2016; Farley-Ripple, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2019</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Professional learning communities (Louis et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr68">1996</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Middle leadership (Harris et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2019</xref>); teacher leadership (Robinson <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr94">2008</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Example in selected studies</p></td><td align="left"><p>Daly et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2014a</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">b</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Malin and Paralkar (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr74">2017</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Kisiel (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr54">2010</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Park et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr88">2009</xref>)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0177463760-17">(A) Social capital frameworks</hd> <p>The first theoretical framework we looked for was theories related to social capital. Indeed, we found studies related to assumptions about social capital (<emph>n</emph> = 8). One prominent social capital theory on brokerage is the structural holes theory (Burt, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref103">8</reflink>]), which has been applied in several studies. Burt states that a structural hole occurs when two actors are not directly connected. A broker connects otherwise disconnected actors and bridges such a structural hole—i.e., district leaders in the study by Daily, Finnigan, Jordan, et al. (2014), who are supposed to act as brokers to support weak schools. In that perspective, social capital is a function of brokerage across structural holes. In addition, there was a second highly influential social capital theory applied in the selected studies: the theory of the strength of weak ties (Granovetter, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref104">36</reflink>]). Although not explicitly about brokerage, the theory's basic assumption is that having weak connections to individuals outside the closer social network gives actors access to non-redundant information and consequently an information advantage over others in their network who are more embedded in a network of strong ties.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-18">(B) Knowledge mobilization frameworks</hd> <p>In our case, most of the selected studies did not frame their theoretical assumptions based on a social capital theory but instead within a knowledge mobilization theory (<emph>n</emph> = 20). This second theoretical thread is a conglomerate of related frameworks rather than a single grand theory. Knowledge mobilization frameworks have two things in common: First, knowledge is treated as an action rather than a commodity (Sfard, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref105">98</reflink>]), and second, these frameworks have their origin in the health sector, where the challenge of moving knowledge from research into practice has been studied for quite some time (for an overview, see Lomas, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref106">65</reflink>]). One of the most influential conceptual pieces, often cited in the selected articles, is Ward et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref107">115</reflink>]) article, "Knowledge Brokering: The Missing Link in Evidence to Action Chain?" According to Ward et al., the purpose of knowledge brokerage is "to make research and practice more accessible to each other" (Ward et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref108">115</reflink>], p. 2). Thus, successful brokering involves finding anchors in different communities to transfer knowledge by applying activities such as linking agency, information management, and capacity building (Ward et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref109">115</reflink>]). Following this argumentation, Malin and Paralkar ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref110">74</reflink>]) analyzed how influencers broker educational research, news, and ideas to practitioners.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-19">(C) Social learning theory</hd> <p>The social theory of learning <emph>communities of practice</emph> (Wenger, [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref111">117</reflink>]) was the third framework applied in the selected studies (<emph>n</emph> = 10). This socio-constructivist framework focuses on negotiating boundary objects (such as innovative ideas or helpful insights to solve a problem) through brokering strategies between different communities of practice (such as organizations or working groups). At the core of this concept is the idea of a boundary, conceptualized as sociocultural differences between communities of practice. When confronted with these differences, actors see their work, or better their practice, in a new light. Boundary objects play a crucial role in overcoming differences and learning from each other. To this end, brokers may apply strategies such as translating, coordinating, and aligning various perspectives and ideas from one community to another. The ultimate goal of these activities is to build a fabric of social agencies that facilitates lifelong learning. According to Wenger ([<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref112">117</reflink>]), brokers play a crucial role in facilitating connections between and working at the interface of communities of practice. Thus, this framework defines brokers as conversant in the discourse of more than one community (Cooper et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref113">15</reflink>]). Brokers can take advantage of their multi-membership by controlling the transfer of elements of one practice into another (Wenger, [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref114">117</reflink>]). However, being pulled in to become full members and simultaneously being rejected as intruders, brokers must carefully manage the coexistence of membership and non-membership (Wenger, [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref115">117</reflink>]). These tensions can be best summarized as a balancing act, as brokers need to keep enough distance to contribute valuable knowledge by adding a different perspective but also be aware that by distancing from the core of a community, their legitimacy to be listened to attentively declines (Wenger, [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref116">117</reflink>]). An example in our literature selection referring to this theory was a study by Kisiel ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref117">54</reflink>]) on collaboration between a school and a local aquarium; the study analyzed how the communities managed (and struggled) to create a shared space in which both practices could develop their practices successfully.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-20">(D) Distributed leadership</hd> <p>A minority of the selected studies addressed issues of distributed leadership to foster an environment of constant change (<emph>n</emph> = 4). This last theoretical framework (Spillane, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref118">104</reflink>]) applied in the selected studies is a concept that is not directly linked to brokerage. However, the authors of these studies pick up this terminology to offer valuable insights on how various connections of shared leadership practice to brokerage assumptions can be drawn. For instance, it was assumed that middle or teacher leaders might act as brokers, facilitators, or multiplicators, connecting different sub-teams in a school, and are crucial to knowledge-sharing and capacity-building processes (Slavit & Roth McDuffie, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref119">103</reflink>]; Swinnerton, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref120">110</reflink>]).</p> <p>Referring to this approach, Park and Datnow ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref121">88</reflink>]) illustrated that leadership issues cannot be analyzed only at the individual level. Instead, collective aspects must also be considered, e.g., the extent to which team members are involved in decision-making, and how formal and informal organizational structures complement or contradict each other.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-21">Methodological approaches (RQ2)</hd> <p>The selected studies' methodological approaches (Table 4) are outlined below in two consecutive steps: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref122">1</reflink>) based on the study design categorized as a quantitative, qualitative, or in a mixed method approach, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref123">2</reflink>) based on the way that brokers and brokering activities were identified or measured.</p> <p>Table 4 Descriptive Information on the selected studies' theoretical frameworks, research focuses, and applied methodological approaches</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Criterion</p></th><th align="left"><p>Category</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Theoretical background</p></td><td align="left"><p>Social capital theories</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Knowledge mobilization frameworks</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>20</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Social learning theories</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Distributed leadership theory</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Study design</p></td><td align="left"><p>Qualitative</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>23</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Quantitative</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Mixed method</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Conceptual</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Acknowledgment of time</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-sectional</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>22</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Time lagged</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>17</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Longitudinal</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Sample size</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small sample (N < 20)</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>13</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Medium sample (N = 21–120)</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>16</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Large sample (N > 120)</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>11</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Level of brokerage</p></td><td align="left"><p>Within-level (n = 27)</p></td><td align="left"><p>System level</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>School level</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Class level</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Cross-level (n = 15)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Between system & school level</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Between school & class level</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Across all levels</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Stakeholders involved in brokering activity<sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>Teachers</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>32</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Principals</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>31</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Central office staff</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>26</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p><italic>External intermediaries</italic></p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Professional intermediaries</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>20</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Researchers</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Teacher educators</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Others</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups>a</sups>In a single study, multiple stakeholders could have been addressed</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-22">Study design</hd> <p>Most of the selected studies adopted a qualitative study design (<emph>n</emph> = 23) (see Table 4). These studies often applied a case study methodology with small to medium-sized samples, and they relied on interview data and observations. Data analyses were conducted using open coding approaches (Miles & Huberman, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref124">80</reflink>]) or grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref125">108</reflink>]). A growing number of quantitative studies (<emph>n</emph> = 9) used survey and social network data to examine brokerage. Both formal and informal brokerage were analyzed by applying linear regressions, structural equation modeling techniques, and social network analyses in medium to large samples.</p> <p>Moreover, mixed-method studies combined and triangulated qualitative and quantitative data (<emph>n</emph> = 9). Some of these studies included social network analyses—for instance, by starting with social network data to select individuals in brokerage positions to consecutively gain more in-depth information from qualitative data (i.e., Spillane & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref126">105</reflink>]). Last, there was one conceptual paper in the studies selected for this review (Cooper et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref127">15</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-23">Identifying brokers and brokerage</hd> <p>In all qualitative studies, brokers were identified in advance from a normative standpoint: A stakeholder's specific role (such as professional intermediary or teacher educator) was decisive for analyzing their brokering activity. However, whether these stakeholders acted as brokers or if brokering activity used other more informal paths was often neglected. In studies that applied social network analyses, three different measures were used to identify brokers or brokerage:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Betweenness-centrality (<emph>n</emph> = 9), which indicates an actor's centrality based on the shortest paths when information flows from one end to the other within a social network (Freeman, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref128">31</reflink>])</item> <p></p> <item> A more formal approach, proposed by Gould and Fernandez ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref129">35</reflink>]), to analyze potential types of brokerage behavior (coordinator, itinerant, gatekeeper, representative, or liaison manager) related to group affiliation and direction of brokering activities (<emph>n</emph> = 4)</item> <p></p> <item> A more structural approach using exponential random graph modeling (Lusher et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref130">70</reflink>]), where the presence or absence of ties (in this case, brokerage ties bridging structural holes) was statistically modeled and compared to simulated random network structures (<emph>n</emph> = 1)</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0177463760-24">Stakeholders involved in brokering activity (RQ3)</hd> <p>Fifteen studies examined brokerage between different levels (cross-level: such as between the system and the school level), and 27 studies analyzed brokerage within a specific level (within-level: such as within the school level), illustrating the complex architecture of the loosely coupled and multilevel nature of educational systems (Creemers & Kyriakides, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref131">18</reflink>]; Weick, [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref132">116</reflink>]) (see Table 4). Further, our analysis revealed that a diverse spectrum of stakeholders is involved in brokering activities. The actors analyzed the most frequently were practitioners of the school staff (such as teachers and school principals) and central office staff. Other relevant actors in brokering activities are external stakeholders such as professional intermediaries, researchers, and teacher educators. The content network graph in Fig. 2 shows that teachers were the most often analyzed targets of brokering activity. If teachers were analyzed as brokers, their targets would be mostly other teachers or the principal. Principals themselves are well-positioned between the teachers and the central office staff. The work of professional intermediaries was most prevalent in research on the interaction with the central office staff. As researchers interacted with almost all the other stakeholders, it is noteworthy that the studies analyzed them much more often as targets of brokering than as brokers themselves. The most important stakeholders were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> actors on the class and school level (teachers and principals)</item> <p></p> <item> actors on the system level (central office staff)</item> <p></p> <item> external experts (professional intermediaries, researchers, and teacher educators)</item> </ulist> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Content network of the stakeholders involved in brokering activities in the selected studies. Ties indicate in what direction brokering activities were analyzed in the selected studies (N = 42). Nodes represent the different stakeholders involved in brokering activities. Weight of the ties represents the number of studies analyzing a specific gap being bridged (Min = 1; Max = 13). Size of the nodes depends on the out-degree of centrality (based on out-going ties), indicating how often stakeholders were analyzed as brokers</p> <p>However, there were two other actors that were analyzed as stakeholders, the staff of an aquarium (Kisiel, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref133">54</reflink>]) and art brokers as outside experts supporting the implementation of a more collaborative practice among teachers and artists (Fahy & Kenny, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref134">28</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-25">Empirical findings on brokerage in educational change (RQ4)</hd> <p>Analysis of the selected studies in terms of empirical findings revealed a pattern of four relevant subcategories or aspects: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref135">1</reflink>) <emph>personal characteristics</emph> of the brokers, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref136">2</reflink>) <emph>necessary conditions</emph> that enable brokering activity, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref137">3</reflink>) successful <emph>brokering strategies</emph>, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref138">4</reflink>) <emph>outcomes</emph> related to these activities on an individual and collective level. The content network graph (see Fig. 3) shows what evidence base was established for a specific stakeholder regarding these four aspects. All in all, most of the studies reported evidence on questions about what brokering strategies are used. Fewer studies examined necessary conditions to foster brokering activity. The following sections are organized by groups of stakeholders—teachers and principals, central office staff, and external intermediaries. Within each group, empirical evidence is outlined according to the four different aspects.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Content network: Aspects of empirical evidence in the selected studies related to the different stakeholders. Undirected ties indicate associations between four aspects of empirical evidence identified in the selected studies (N = 42) related to the different stakeholders. The light gray nodes represent the different stakeholders; dark gray nodes indicate the different aspects of empirical evidence. Weight of the ties represent the number of studies with certain aspects related to a stakeholder (Min = 2; Max = 20). Size of the nodes depends on the degree of centrality and indicates the frequency that the studies analyzed an aspect of empirical evidence and a specific stakeholder involved in educational change</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-26">(A) Teachers and principals</hd> <p>Nearly half of the selected studies reported findings on the <emph>personal characteristics</emph> of brokers (<emph>n</emph> = 17). This evidence could be more consistent: For example, some studies argued that the presence or absence of attributes such as being experienced, trustworthy, open, honest, tolerant, sensitive, and communicative has a profound impact on whether one can act as a broker (Hopkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref139">45</reflink>]; Jusinski, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref140">53</reflink>]; van den Boom-Muilenberg et al., 2022), others pointed out that brokers do not have a specific profile in terms of attributes or working experience (Farley-Ripple & Grajeda, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref141">30</reflink>]). However, most studies agreed that different roles, mainly being in a leading position, impact the likelihood of finding oneself in a brokerage position. For example, some studies indicated that principals often tend to be in a sandwich position between teachers and central office staff and are well-positioned to act as brokers (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref142">22</reflink>]; Park & Datnow, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref143">88</reflink>]). Moreover, principals more often than teachers saw themselves in brokerage positions (Park & Datnow, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref144">88</reflink>]).</p> <p>Some selected studies reported on <emph>necessary conditions</emph> to foster brokerage (<emph>n</emph> = 14). Regarding these conditions, the studies often analyzed the three aspects of legitimacy, credibility, and trust. Some studies examined whether formal leading positions (such as principal) or informal leading positions are better for building bridges within their school teams. Whereas some studies found that informal leaders lack legitimacy to be brokers (Hopkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref145">45</reflink>]; Nordholm, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref146">86</reflink>]), others indicated that by formalizing brokers, credibility among teacher colleagues declines, and the effectiveness of brokering activity might be diminished (Jusinski, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref147">53</reflink>]). Social network analyses (Rechsteiner et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref148">92</reflink>]; Spillane & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref149">105</reflink>]) revealed that formal organizational structures embracing a more shared leadership approach enhanced informal brokering activities by bringing highly credible staff members into a legitimate position to act as brokers. Bringing these two aspects of legitimacy and credibility together is always a matter of trusting each other—whether among colleagues or between principals and staff. Therefore, several studies indicated that a climate of trust is essential (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref150">5</reflink>]; Jusinski, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref151">53</reflink>]; Park & Datnow, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref152">88</reflink>]; Spillane & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref153">105</reflink>]; van den Boom-Muilenberg et al., 2022).</p> <p>As outlined above, <emph>brokering strategy use</emph> can be conceptualized as a multidimensional process consisting of three dimensions: knowledge management, linking agency, and capacity building (Ward et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref154">115</reflink>]). In half of the studies (<emph>n</emph> = 20), we found evidence for these dimensions: First, different activities of knowledge management were analyzed, such as tailoring knowledge in a way that matches colleagues' ability to process new information (Jusinski, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref155">53</reflink>]), crafting coherence about visions and goals of educational change across different groups of actors within and outside of school (Hopkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref156">45</reflink>]; LeChasseur et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref157">63</reflink>]), and introducing new boundary objects to negotiate meaning (Nordholm, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref158">86</reflink>]; Slavit & Roth McDuffie, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref159">103</reflink>]). Second, linking agency was identified, as brokers connect otherwise disconnected actors to facilitate staff interactions (Farley-Ripple & Grajeda, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref160">30</reflink>]; Hopkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref161">45</reflink>]; Park & Datnow, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref162">88</reflink>]). Third, capacity-building activities were revealed, as brokers empower other actors by scaffolding research and data use to further develop educational practice (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref163">5</reflink>]; Park & Datnow, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref164">88</reflink>]; van den Boom-Muilenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref165">113</reflink>]; van Gasse et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref166">114</reflink>]; Wilkie, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref167">119</reflink>]).</p> <p>By applying these strategies, principals in brokerage positions, in particular, can act as gatekeepers, buffering demands from central office staff (for instance, when implementing new policies) by being selective or even resistant to new reforms or innovations (LeChasseur et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref168">63</reflink>]; Zuckerman et al., [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref169">123</reflink>]). Moreover, when participating in school networks, principals in brokerage positions can act simultaneously as representatives of their school by giving access to valuable information about their educational practice to a broader community and as gatekeepers by introducing new promising ideas from outside (Carmichael et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref170">11</reflink>]). Furthermore, successful brokering is about a principal's ability to build trust and thoughtfully allocate resources (such as time and support) (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref171">5</reflink>]; Park & Datnow, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref172">88</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teachers as brokers were described as floaters between different groups within a school (Spillane & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref173">105</reflink>]) and as go-to-experts (Hopkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref174">45</reflink>]). These descriptions indicated two possible directions: On the one hand, by floating from one group to another, they take on an active role by absorbing and sharing new ideas, materials, or perspectives. In this way, people on the periphery of different communities—are not necessarily always visible to others (Jusinski, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref175">53</reflink>]) and follow informal rather than formal organizational structures and roles (Rechsteiner et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref176">91</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref177">92</reflink>]; Spillane & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref178">105</reflink>]; van den Boom-Muilenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref179">113</reflink>])—can act as brokers. On the other hand, a go-to expert is someone people reach out to for advice. Unlike a floater, an expert is more visible to other actors and often has more formal legitimacy (Hopkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref180">45</reflink>]; Nordholm, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref181">86</reflink>]).</p> <p>More than every third selected study reported on different brokering <emph>outcomes</emph> (<emph>n</emph> = 14). Regarding individual outcomes, brokers' networks tend to be larger and more diverse than their colleagues' networks, which gives them better access to non-redundant information (Hopkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref182">45</reflink>]; van den Boom-Muilenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref183">113</reflink>]). On an individual level, being a broker positively impacts motivation, confidence, and experience of autonomy (Hopkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref184">45</reflink>]; Slavit & Roth McDuffie, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref185">103</reflink>]). Additionally, brokers can locate and direct resources more actively to frame and direct their professional development (Slavit & Roth McDuffie, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref186">103</reflink>]). On the dark side, brokers risk overload and burnout more often, as they are vulnerable to exploitation on both sides of the gaps they are bridging (Jusinski, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref187">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>Just a few studies (<emph>n</emph> = 5) reported on outcomes on a collective, organizational level. Evidence shows that the quality of brokering activities varies significantly between schools and their staff (Hubers et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref188">50</reflink>]) without specific reasons. There is also the risk that unstructured and informal brokerage might end up in a communication chain equivalent to the game of telephone, in which information flow is out of control and content may change arbitrarily (Dalyet al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref189">22</reflink>]). Moreover, in terms of acting as a multiplicator for professional development, Nordholm ([<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref190">86</reflink>]) found that only the broker's personal capacity is often enhanced, leaving organizational capacity unaffected. One last problematic aspect mentioned is that often the actors most in need of access to valuable information and support (such as principals in weak schools) are the least likely to be involved in brokering activity (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref191">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref192">23</reflink>]). Eventually, following the argumentation of the strength of weak ties (Granovetter, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref193">36</reflink>]), schools and their staff might profit from brokerage constellations by having access to non-redundant information, which makes them more innovative and gives them an information advantage to anticipate better upcoming changes or challenges (Farley-Ripple & Grajeda, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref194">30</reflink>]; van den Boom-Muilenberg et al., 2022).</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-27">(B) Central office staff</hd> <p>There was little research reporting evidence on the <emph>personal characteristics</emph> of central office staff (<emph>n</emph> = 2). However, central office staff using their potential to bridge gaps were described as system travelers (Swinnerton, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref195">110</reflink>]). By moving up and down flexibly in the complex and multilevel educational system, central office staff acting as brokers will most likely understand different stakeholders' contexts (Davidson & Penuel, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref196">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Five studies pointed out that trust is a <emph>necessary condition</emph> when central office staff reaches out to other stakeholders. New staff members have reported feeling uneasy about acting as brokers, as knowing different stakeholders' contexts and experiences seems essential for establishing mutual trust among other stakeholders (Corbin et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref197">17</reflink>]; Hopkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref198">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Some selected studies (<emph>n</emph> = 9) reported evidence of central office staff involved in the <emph>use of brokering strategies</emph>: knowledge management, linking agency, and capacity building. For instance, knowledge management was identified as connecting and translating work between schools and the central office (Swinnerton, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref199">110</reflink>]) or identifying effective programs and services to support schools' improvement (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref200">22</reflink>]; Supovitz, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref201">109</reflink>]). Linking agency was identified as the central office staff's potential to connect stakeholders both internal and external to the school system (Durand et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref202">26</reflink>]) to create a shared problem space (Davidson & Penuel, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref203">24</reflink>]), where coherence between various actors in educational systems can be crafted (Hopkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref204">46</reflink>]; Swinnerton, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref205">110</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, capacity building was also addressed in supporting schools to improve educational practice (Hashim, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref206">39</reflink>]; Supovitz, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref207">109</reflink>]).</p> <p>Almost every fourth study reported <emph>outcomes</emph> of brokering activities involving central office staff members (<emph>n</emph> = 7). However, there was almost no evidence of any outcomes on an individual level. A few studies indicated that central office staff often leave their potential to be brokers unexploited (Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref208">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref209">23</reflink>]; Hopkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref210">47</reflink>]). By delegating brokering activities to intermediary organizations, district leaders risk losing credibility as educational experts (Supovitz, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref211">109</reflink>]). Thus, Daly et al., ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref212">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref213">23</reflink>]) found a need for coherence between what district leaders are mandated to do to support schools and what they do. On a collective level, proactive and adaptive district leaders anticipate reforms early on and have the potential to buffer other stakeholders from external demands (Durand et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref214">26</reflink>]) and disruptive innovations (Zuckerman et al., [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref215">123</reflink>]). Some studies (<emph>n</emph> = 3) indicated that central office staff, in some cases, did not take advantage of their potential role as gatekeepers (Durand et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref216">26</reflink>]; Hashim, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref217">39</reflink>]), revealing that they were especially reluctant to buffer external demands on practitioners. This situation can be even exacerbated by district leaders acting as liaison brokers, connecting external stakeholders and their demands to practitioners in an unfiltered way (Neal et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref218">84</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-28">(C) External experts</hd> <p>More than every fourth study reported on external intermediaries' characteristics (<emph>n</emph> = 10). It is not trivial to list the <emph>personal characteristics</emph> of external intermediaries, because compared to the stakeholders mentioned above, they tend to be a complex set of actors: i.e., professional intermediaries, researchers, or teacher educators. Even among the professional intermediaries, there are multiple subgroups (such as individuals or organizations, non-profit or profit, non-governmental or governmental institutions) pursuing various functions (such as raising awareness among practitioners for new trends or engaging them in capacity-building processes) that need to be distinguished (Cooper et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref219">15</reflink>]). It was pointed out that it is not entirely clear who they are, on what behalf they act, what they do, and what makes them effective (Cooper, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref220">14</reflink>]). However, there was a growing awareness that they have increasingly influential roles in disseminating research evidence in education (Cooper, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref221">14</reflink>]). Furthermore, some studies addressed potential threats of influential think tanks, clearing houses, or influencers following a (sometimes hidden) political or personal agenda in an attempt to influence practitioners in their decision-making (Jabbar et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref222">51</reflink>]; Malin & Paralkar, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref223">74</reflink>]; Morel & Coburn, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref224">83</reflink>]). Moreover, teacher educators, as a second kind of external experts, were described as brokers that shift their role from co-researcher, co-coach, or co-mentor, to co-learner, depending on the situation and aim of brokerage (Willegems et al., [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref225">120</reflink>]). As teacher educators are actors that often have a background in practice and research, they were reported to be exceptionally well-placed to act as intermediaries (Ng-A-Fook et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref226">85</reflink>]; Sharples & Sheard, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref227">99</reflink>]).</p> <p>A few studies focused on <emph>necessary conditions</emph> for external intermediaries (<emph>n</emph> = 7). It was revealed that one essential condition for external experts in brokerage positions is to consider the bidirectional nature of bridging gaps. For instance, it is not only the researchers or teacher educators who influence practitioners but also the other way around (Ng-A-Fook et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref228">85</reflink>]; Wilkie, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref229">119</reflink>]). Therefore, long-lasting trust-based relationships must be established (Kubiak, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref230">59</reflink>]). Brokerage with external stakeholders was, therefore, often described as an iterative process in which ongoing dialogue is necessary to understand the different contexts, organizational structures, and practitioners' most pressing challenges to avoid possible pitfalls and steer clear of unnecessarily destabilizing well-working routines (Sharples & Sheard, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref231">99</reflink>]). In line with that, some researchers argued that the ability of external experts to create a shared problem space where meaning can be constantly negotiated is decisive for the success of their impact on educational change (Sharples & Sheard, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref232">99</reflink>]; Willegems et al., [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref233">120</reflink>]). However, if they are involved in brokering activities, external experts often take over the active part, not seldom neglecting the reciprocal nature of brokerage (Neal et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref234">84</reflink>]).</p> <p> <emph>Brokering strategies</emph> were reported in nine studies, which described successful brokering as offering a service that matches the interests and skills of the recipients. As practitioners often need more time and skills to process detailed and highly technical research, from the standpoint of educators and central office staff, brokering might result in packaging research evidence in easily digestible portions (Jabbar et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref235">51</reflink>]). Thus, in a best-case scenario, external experts can match research evidence to the demands and skills of their recipients, therefore bridging the research to practice gap, which should result in better educational practice and, eventually, improved student outcomes. Moreover, external experts have the potential to act as network facilitators (Kubiak, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref236">59</reflink>]). In this role, they connect otherwise disconnected actors in the broader network. Finding anchors in different networks to whom issues of immediate professional concerns can be addressed (Hashim, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref237">39</reflink>]; Kubiak, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref238">59</reflink>]) is, therefore, one crucial activity of external experts. This way, practitioners are presented with unfamiliar perspectives on their daily practice. As brokering activities are often associated with a feeling of threat, external experts—with their expertise and in their position—have the potential to scaffold how to deal with uncertainty (Wilkie, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref239">119</reflink>]). To this end, they need to know about the complexity of educational landscapes and their actors, the demand and supply of research evidence, and potential challenges when connecting communities (Kubiak, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref240">59</reflink>]; Wilkie, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref241">119</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several selected studies focused on brokerage <emph>outcomes</emph> when external experts are involved (<emph>n</emph> = 10). However, these studies provided scant evidence of successful brokerage. One reason for this is that when external stakeholders are introduced to practitioners, lines of demarcation between different communities start to shift, which is often associated with critical dynamics (Chang, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref242">12</reflink>]; Willegems et al., [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref243">120</reflink>]), and questions arise about the legitimacy and credibility of new actors involved in brokering activity. Positive outcomes were only reported regarding teacher educators using their potential to be brokers (Cooper, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref244">16</reflink>]; Wong, [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref245">121</reflink>]). Being highly credible as educational experts and having enough legitimacy to act as change agents, teacher educators can change the rationale of teaching (Wong, [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref246">121</reflink>]) and support capacity building of teachers' scientific reasoning (Cooper, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref247">16</reflink>]). Especially in the role of co-mentors, teacher educators seem to be the most effective when changing educational practice (Willegems et al., [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref248">120</reflink>]; Wong, [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref249">121</reflink>]). Moreover, some researchers pointed out that delegating brokering activities—such as implementing a new policy or curriculum reform, or introducing an innovative teaching idea—to professional intermediaries does not come without a price. Educators and central office staff risk losing credibility and their authority as experts regarding issues related to teaching and education (Chang, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref250">12</reflink>]; Jabbar et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref251">51</reflink>]; Supovitz, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref252">109</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-29">Discussion</hd> <p>This study aimed to examine how the brokerage concept has been applied in research on educational change. The results of the analyzed 42 articles indicate that brokerage is a theoretical lens with a high potential for better understanding educational change. Here we discuss the key contributions of this systematic review and then formulate a future research agenda based on the uncovered gaps. Finally, we outline the limitations of this study.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-30">Key contributions of this study</hd> <p>As a <emph>first contribution</emph>, this review shows that brokerage is, by its origin, an interdisciplinary concept. The multitude of theoretical frameworks is a strength of the concept rather than a limitation. Thus, efforts to create a single framework for brokerage in the educational context might not be purposeful, because the educational landscape is complex and multilayered. Therefore, it is not a question of finding a brokerage theory that fits all but of applying a theoretical framework in correspondence with the aim of a study. Up to now, there is a preponderance of studies based on knowledge mobilization frameworks, followed by a large margin by Wenger's social learning theory on "communities of practice." These two frameworks are primarily concerned with challenges associated with transferring knowledge across gaps between groups of actors.</p> <p>Moreover, research on educational leadership has also taken up the brokerage concept. However, only a few studies used social capital and distributed leadership frameworks. They are both primarily concerned with analyzing power distribution and comparing formal to informal organizational structures and roles when collectively developing educational practice. The selected studies vary in the theoretical assumptions concerning brokerage and also in their use of terminology. Although we decisively oppose a single theoretical brokerage framework, consistent use of the terminology is necessary. Following the argumentation of Farley-Ripple ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref253">29</reflink>]), we suggest applying brokerage as the key terminology in future research because it entails both brokers and brokering, emphasizing the relation between the two. Moreover, according to Malin and Brown ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref254">72</reflink>]) using the term brokerage allows researchers to focus on the complex social interaction rather than an individualized phenomenon. Hence, using brokerage as key terminology may prevent future research from placing undue emphasis on individual brokers and their unilateral efforts, and thereby neglecting the multilateral and dynamic nature of the concept. In this regard, the overview in Table 3 provides a solid starting point when applying the brokerage concept in research about educational change.</p> <p>As a <emph>second contribution</emph>, this study demonstrates teachers' crucial role in further developing educational practice. In the studies selected, they were among the most analyzed. This stresses that some teachers, beyond the formal organizational structure, play an essential role in knowledge management, linking agency, and capacity-building processes at their schools. Therefore, emphasizing teachers as agents of change with the most leverage to improve educational practice at the core and addressing their potential to be active stakeholders in brokerage processes is most promising. In this respect, progress has been made in the last two years, with recent research explicitly addressing teachers as brokers (i.e., Rechsteiner et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref255">91</reflink>]; Jusinski, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref256">53</reflink>]; van den Boom-Muilenburg et al., [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref257">113</reflink>]).</p> <p>Moreover, Rechsteiner et al., ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref258">92</reflink>]) examined the associations of different facets of brokerage in the form of teachers' brokerage behavior, their formal entitlement to be a broker, and their structural position as a broker in the school's network. As these facets only corresponded marginally, researchers need to carefully consider how to define and operationalize brokerage in a study. Another study examined teachers influencing policy generation from the bottom by applying a micro-political perspective (Giudici, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref259">34</reflink>]). These often-informal ways and hidden mechanisms of teachers actively generating new policies might be further illuminated by combining the two perspectives of micro-politics in education and brokerage.</p> <p>Our <emph>third contribution</emph> is related to another stakeholder: teacher educators. They are reported to be potentially highly effective bridge-builders in further developing educational practice (for instance, bridging the research–practice gap) because of their background in research and practice. Future studies might further analyze their how they use their advantage in terms of credibility as a knowledgeable resource on educational issues and as having formal legitimacy to introduce new ideas or materials.</p> <p>This study's <emph>fourth and final contribution</emph> is that no matter what stakeholders are involved and what gap is meant to be bridged, finding a balance between credibility and formal legitimacy is pivotal. Several of the studies indicated that the closer actors are to the classroom, the less formal legitimacy they have to act as brokers and the more likely they are to be targets of brokers. Hence, teachers' lack of formal legitimacy is problematic, because the review shows they were among the most critical professional actors when brokering educational change. Formal legitimacy increases with actors further away from the classroom, such as central office staff, but simultaneously, the credibility and trust necessary for successfully mobilizing knowledge and building capacity decrease. Therefore, the potential for central office staff to act as brokers by mobilizing knowledge and working as linking agents or capacity builders is often left unexploited. In addition, external intermediaries play an increasingly dominant role in building bridges between practitioners and other stakeholders. As a result, central office staff risk losing their credibility as educational experts by relying on external intermediaries. In line with this, a recent case study by Malin ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref260">71</reflink>]) found that policymakers risk being sidetracked by professional intermediaries. In this way, new actors may substantially influence educational change.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-31">Future research agenda</hd> <p>Based on this systematic review, we have identified six gaps in the current literature on brokerage and educational change:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Quantitative or mixed-method study designs with larger samples and more longitudinal research are rare. Instead, most studies applied qualitative study designs in small sample-size case studies, which do not allow generalizing the empirical evidence to a broader population.</item> <p></p> <item> More emphasis should be placed on the content and quality of advice and information exchanged by brokers (Hopkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref261">47</reflink>]; Morel & Coburn, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref262">83</reflink>]). For instance, Daly and Finnigan ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref263">21</reflink>]) indicated that the quality of social relations is closely linked to changing educational practice more or less successfully. Therefore, future research might take a closer look at the content and the quality of the knowledge transferred and the brokering activities applied.</item> <p></p> <item> There is a need to differentiate the measures used to locate brokers in social networks. Betweenness-centrality has been the most frequently used measure up to now. This is not surprising, as betweenness-centrality is the most straightforward way to identify individuals in a brokerage position (Freeman, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref264">31</reflink>]). However, this approach has been criticized, as an actor's influence beyond direct ties is rather theoretical and impractical. Gould and Fernandez ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref265">35</reflink>]), for instance, argued that solely being multiple times on long paths from one end of the network to the other does not necessarily indicate "a very important role in purposive social interaction" (p. 95). Instead, keeping track of and using the complex social interaction patterns several steps beyond the people to whom an individual is directly connected seems unreasonable and impractical. Gould and Fernandez therefore suggested focusing exclusively on the direct ties connecting otherwise disconnected actors.</item> <p></p> <item> Brokerage is often analyzed as a rather static, unilateral, and individualized phenomenon. We suggest a shift to brokerage as "a dynamic and complex set of actors, activities, and motivations within which knowledge is exchanged, transformed, and otherwise communicated" (Farley-Ripple, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref266">29</reflink>]). Rather than viewing social network structure as determining whether an actor can act as a broker, network structures affect how a broker acts but do not define the way someone can build bridges between disconnected individuals (Rechsteiner et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref267">92</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> Few studies focus on ways to foster optimal conditions and potential pitfalls that constrain brokering activities. In the studies reviewed here, several researchers raised the question as to how brokers can be supported to be successful change agents (Rechsteiner et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref268">91</reflink>]; Farley-Ripple & Grajeda, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref269">30</reflink>]; Willegems et al., [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref270">120</reflink>]), mentioning no more current idea than the buffer zone for all stakeholders involved in brokering activity proposed by Kubiak ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref271">59</reflink>]) more than a decade ago. Thus, more research is needed that examines the organizational features with the most significant effects on successful knowledge mobilization or capacity building among practitioners.</item> <p></p> <item> On both an individual and a collective level, little attention has been paid to the dark side of brokerage (Hopkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref272">47</reflink>]). On an individual level, research outside education suggests that brokers often suffer from intense pressure, as sustaining bridges can be very demanding (Krackhardt, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref273">57</reflink>]). For instance, there can be tensions when simultaneously exercising multiple aspects of brokerage (Kislov et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref274">55</reflink>]), such as tensions between different aspects of brokering, tensions between different types and sources of knowledge, and tensions between the group of actors. So far, only one study in this review (Rechsteiner et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref275">92</reflink>]) indicated that brokerage and negative affect (work-related stress) are not correlated. On a collective level, previous research indicated that brokers could be significantly (sometimes even too) powerful in controlling the flow of information in a network (i.e., Krackhardt, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref276">57</reflink>]): First, in their function as bottlenecks, brokers can hoard and distort information. Second, brokers are sometimes formally appointed to their positions. Making informal power structures visible and trying to change them is often challenging. Third, if a broker leaves an organization, a network might even collapse. Future research might elaborate on these aspects of the dark side of brokerage in educational change.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0177463760-32">Limitations</hd> <p>With the 42 articles reviewed here, there are, up to now, only a limited number of studies examining brokerage explicitly within the research domain of educational change. Therefore, any generalization of our findings must be considered cautiously. As we included only English-language articles, most studies were conducted within a Western cultural context (91%). However, it is reasonable to assume that there are cultural differences in terms of brokerage, primarily related to the issues of legitimacy and credibility of being in a brokerage position, but also in terms of power structures among the stakeholders involved.</p> <p>Another limitation of this study is that it explicitly focused on brokerage, brokers, and brokering. We argue that this is instrumental in accurately describing the use of the constructs for the first time in the context of educational change. However, we acknowledge that other strands of research address similar issues and use related constructs, such as boundary-crossing or the work of multiplicators (i.e., Jesacher-Roessler, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref277">52</reflink>]; Rycroft-Smith, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref278">96</reflink>]). In this regard, Rycroft-Smith ([<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref279">96</reflink>]) provides an excellent overview of different conceptualizations and metaphors when studying knowledge mobilization (such as knowledge brokering or boundary spanning). To extend her work, we would like to highlight some other well-established concepts with a distinct emphasis on educational change that could benefit from convergence with the brokerage concept:</p> <p>For example, in their work on teacher research, Cochran-Smith and Lytle ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref280">13</reflink>]) indicated that establishing communities for teacher research is essentially about restructuring teachers' social interaction patterns in their school and community contexts. The brokerage concept may aid in studying teachers' relationships in or beyond their schools. A further approach is the "dynamic approach to school improvement" in Kyriakides et al. ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref281">62</reflink>]), where researchers act as brokers, although not yet labeled as such. Teachers as change agents or opinion leaders (Hemsley-Brown & Sharp, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref282">40</reflink>]) are other relevant concepts that might benefit from the brokerage concept. Future research might elaborate further on the overlap, discrepancies, and mutual potential of brokerage with other concepts.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-33">Conclusion</hd> <p>For quite some time, research outside the field of education has indicated the potential of the brokerage concept for studying organizational change processes. This study aimed to spark discussion on this concept in educational change. We believe that the interdisciplinary origins of brokerage outlined in this study are fertile soil for framing the concept theoretically and approaching it methodologically in a context-sensitive way—be it for teachers, principals, central office staff, or any other relevant stakeholders involved in changing educational practice. Finding a balance between these stakeholders' credibility and formal legitimacy when educational practice is to be changed seems to be not only essential but also a highly challenging endeavor. Thus, more research on brokerage in educational change might contribute to our understanding of bridging gaps more successfully, making sustainable improvements at the core of educational practice more and more the rule than the exception.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-34">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>Work on this paper was done within the research project "School Improvement Capacity for Academic Learning," which was supported by Grant #175872 from the Swiss National Science Foundation.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-35">Funding</hd> <p>Open access funding provided by University of Zurich.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-36">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177463760-37">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>We declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0177463760-38">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0177463760-39"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref78" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> References included in the analysis are marked with an asterisk (*).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref18" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Heritage Dictionary. (2020). The American heritage dictionary of the English language. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company. https://ahdictionary.com/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref68" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ball SJ, Junemann C. Networks, new governance and education. 2012: Bristol; Policy Press. 10.1332/policypress/9781847429803.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref13" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Borgatti SP, Foster PC. The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management. 2003; 29; 6: 991-1013. 10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00087-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref150" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Brown CMalin J, Brown C. What is the research brokerage role that can be played by social relationships? Learning from a quantitative study from England. The role of knowledge brokers in education: Connecting the dots between research and practice. 2020: New York; Routledge: 108-122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref48" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bryk AS, Gomez LM, Grunow AHallinan MT. Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. Frontiers in sociology of education. 2011: New York; Springer: 127-162. 10.1007/978-94-007-1576-9_7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref9" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Stone MM. Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review. 2015; 75; 5: 647-663. 10.1111/puar.12432</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref11" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Burt RS. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. 1992: Cambridge; Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674029095</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref26" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Burt RS. Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. 2005: Oxford; Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199249145.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carboni I, Gilman R. Brokers at risk: Gender differences in the effects of structural position on social stress and life satisfaction. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2012; 16: 218-230. 10.1037/a0028753</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carmichael P, Fox A, McCormick R, Procter R, Honour L. Teachers' networks in and out of school. Research Papers in Education. 2006; 21; 2: 217-234. 10.1080/02671520600615729</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chang E. Digital meritocracy: Intermediary organizations and the construction of policy knowledge. Educational Policy. 2020; 34; 5: 760-784. 10.1177/0895904818802116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cochran-Smith M, Lytle SL. Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. 2015: New York; Teachers College Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Cooper, A. (2012). Knowledge mobilization intermediaries in education: A cross-case analysis of 44 Canadian organizations [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto]. TSpace Repository. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/32688</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper A, Rodway J, MacGregor S, Shewchuk S, Searle MMalin J, Brown C. Knowledge brokering: Not a place for novices or new conscripts. The role of knowledge brokers in education: Connecting the dots between research and practice. 2020: New York; Routledge: 90-107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper J. Mathematicians and teachers sharing perspectives on teaching whole number arithmetic: Boundary-crossing in professional development. ZDM Mathematics Education. 2019; 51; 1: 69-80. 10.1007/s11858-018-0995-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corbin B, McNamara O, Williams J. Numeracy coordinators: 'Brokering' change within and between communities of practice?. British Journal of Educational Studies. 2003; 51; 4: 344-368. 10.1046/j.1467-8527.2003.00243.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creemers BPM, Kyriakides L. The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. 2007: New York; Routledge. 10.4324/9780203939185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crossley N, Bellotti E, Edwards G, Everett MG, Koskinen J, Tranmer M. Social network analysis for ego-nets: Social network analysis for actor-centred networks. 2015: Thousand Oaks; Sage. 10.4135/9781473911871</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Csardi G, Nepusz T. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems. 2006; 1695; 5: 1-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daly AJ, Finnigan KS. The ebb and flow of social network ties between district leaders under high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal. 2011; 48; 1: 39-79. 10.3102/0002831210368990</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daly AJ, Finnigan KS, Jordan S, Moolenaar NM, Che J. Misalignment and perverse incentives: Examining the politics of district leaders as brokers in the use of research evidence. Educational Policy. 2014; 28; 2: 145-174. 10.1177/0895904813513149</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daly AJ, Finnigan KS, Moolenaar NM, Che JFinnigan KS, Daly AJ. The critical role of brokers in the access and use of evidence at the school and district level. Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill. 2014: New York; Springer: 13-31. 10.1007/978-3-319-04690-7_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davidson KL, Penuel WRMalin J, Brown C. The role of brokers in sustaining partnership work in education. The role of knowledge brokers in education: Connecting the dots between research and practice. 2020: New York; Routledge: 154-167</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DuFour RB. Central office support for learning communities. School Administrator. 2003; 60; 5: 15-16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durand FT, Lawson HA, Wilcox KC, Schiller KS. The role of district office leaders in the adoption and implementation of the Common Core State Standards in elementary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2015; 52; 1: 1-30. 10.1177/0013161X15615391</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elmore R. Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review. 1996; 66; 1: 1-27. 10.17763/haer.66.1.g73266758j348t33</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fahy E, Kenny A. 'Bridging the gap': The role of an arts broker in supporting partnerships with teachers. Arts Education Policy Review. 2022. 10.1080/10632913.2022.2037483</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Farley-Ripple, E. (2019). What is research brokerage and why does it matter? A report from the Center for Research Use in Education. University of Delaware. https://<ulink href="http://www.research4schools.org/what-is-research-brokerage-and-why-does-it-matter/">www.research4schools.org/what-is-research-brokerage-and-why-does-it-matter/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farley-Ripple E, Grajeda SMalin J, Brown C. Avenues of Influence: An exploration of school-based practitioners as knowledge brokers and mobilizers. The role of knowledge brokers in education: Connecting the dots between research and practice. 2020: New York; Routledge: 65-89</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman LC. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry. 1977. 10.2307/3033543</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fullan M. The elusive nature of whole system improvement in education. Journal of Educational Change. 2016; 17; 4: 539-544. 10.1007/s10833-016-9289-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gentemann KM, Whitehead TL. The cultural broker concept in bicultural education. Journal of Negro Education. 1983; 52; 2: 118-129. 10.2307/2295029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giudici A. Teacher politics bottom-up: Theorising the impact of micro-politics on policy generation. Journal of Education Policy. 2021; 36; 6: 801-821. 10.1080/02680939.2020.1730976</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gould RV, Fernandez RM. Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology. 1989. 10.2307/270949</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Granovetter MS. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology. 1973; 78; 6: 1360-1380. 10.1086/225469</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hargreaves A, Lieberman A, Fullan M, Hopkins D. International handbook of educational change: Part two. 2014: New York; Springer</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, A, Jones, M, Ismail, N, & Nguyen, D. (2019) Middle leaders and middle leadership in schools: Exploring the knowledge base (2003–2017). School Leadership & Management, 39(3–4), 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1578738</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hashim AK. Coaching and districtwide improvement: Exploring the systemic leadership practices of instructional coaches. Teachers College Record. 2020; 122; 10: 1-44. 10.1177/016146812012201005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hemsley-Brown J, Sharp C. The use of research to improve professional practice: A systematic review of the literature. Oxford Review of Education. 2003; 29; 4: 449-471. 10.1080/0305498032000153025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heyvaert M, Maes B, Onghena P. Mixed methods research synthesis: Definition, framework, and potential. Quality & Quantity. 2013; 47; 2: 659-676. 10.1007/s11135-011-9538-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Honig MI. Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2006; 28; 4: 357-383. 10.3102/01623737028004357</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Honig MI, Hatch TC. Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher. 2004; 33; 8: 16-30. 10.3102/0013189X033008016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Honig MI, Ikemoto G. Adaptive assistance for learning improvement efforts: The case of the Institute for Learning. Peabody Journal of Education. 2008; 83: 328-363. 10.1080/01619560802222327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hopkins M, Spillane JP, Jakopovic P, Heaton RM. Infrastructure redesign and instructional reform in mathematics: Formal structure and teacher leadership. Elementary School Journal. 2013; 114; 2: 200-224. 10.1086/671935</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hopkins M, Weddle H, Gluckman M, Gautsch L. Boundary crossing in a professional association: The dynamics of research use among state leaders and researchers in a research-practice partnership. AERA Open. 2019; 5; 4: 1-12. 10.1177/2332858419891964</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hopkins M, Wiley KE, Penuel WR, Farrell CC. Brokering research in science education policy implementation: The case of a professional association. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 2018; 14; 3: 459-476. 10.1332/174426418X15299595170910</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horn I, Garner B, Chen I-C, Frank KA. Seeing Colleagues as Learning Resources: The Influence of Mathematics Teacher Meetings on Advice-Seeking Social Networks. AERA Open. 2020. 10.1177/2332858420914898</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hubers, M. D. (2020). Paving the way for sustainable educational change: Reconceptualizing what it means to make educational changes that last. Teaching and Teacher Education, 93, 103083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103083</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hubers MD, Moolenaar NM, Schildkamp K, Daly AJ, Handelzalts A, Pieters JM. Share and succeed: The development of knowledge sharing and brokerage in data teams' network structures. Research Papers in Education. 2018; 33; 2: 216-238. 10.1080/02671522.2017.1286682</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jabbar H, La Londe PG, Debray E, Scott J, Lubienski C. How policymakers define 'evidence': The politics of research use in New Orleans. Policy Futures in Education. 2014; 12; 8: 1013-1027. 10.2304/pfie.2014.12.8.1013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jesacher-Roessler LAJ. The travel of ideas: The dual structure of mobilized knowledge in the context of professional learning networks. Journal of Professional Capital and Community. 2021; 6; 2: 133-147. 10.1108/JPCC-06-2020-0048</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jusinski MM. Knowledge broker teachers and professional development. Teacher Development. 2021; 25; 2: 178-195. 10.1080/13664530.2021.1879922</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kisiel JF. Exploring a school–aquarium collaboration: An intersection of communities of practice. Science Education. 2010; 94; 1: 95-121. 10.1002/sce.20350</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kislov R, Wilson P, Boaden R. The 'dark side' of knowledge brokering. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2017; 22; 2: 107-112. 10.1177/1355819616653981</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kolleck N. Uncovering influence through social network analysis: The role of schools in education for sustainable development. Journal of Education Policy. 2016; 31; 3: 308-329. 10.1080/02680939.2015.1119315</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krackhardt DBacharach SM, Andrews SB, Knoke D. The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. Networks in and around organizations (Research in sociology of organizations). 1999: Emerald; Bingley: 183-210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krippendorff, K. (2011). Computing Krippendorff's alpha-reliability. https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/43</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kubiak C. Working the interface: Brokerage and learning networks. Educational Management Administration and Leadership. 2009; 37; 2: 239-256. 10.1177/1741143208100300</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kwon SW, Rondi E, Levin DZ, De Massis A, Brass DJ. Network brokerage: An integrative review and future research agenda. Journal of Management. 2020; 46; 6: 1092-1120. 10.1177/0149206320914694</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyndt E, Gijbels D, Grosemans I, Donche V. Teachers' everyday professional development: Mapping informal learning activities, antecedents, and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research. 2016; 86; 4: 1111-1150. 10.3102/0034654315627864</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyriakides L, Charalambous E, Creemers BPM, Antoniou P, Devine D, Papastylianou D, Fahie D. Using the dynamic approach to school improvement to promote quality and equity in education. An European study. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. 2019; 31: 121-149. 10.1007/s11092-018-9289-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LeChasseur K, Donaldson M, Fernandez E, Femc-Bagwell M. Brokering, buffering, and the rationalities of principal work. Journal of Educational Administration. 2017; 56; 3: 262-276. 10.1108/JEA-10-2016-0129</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leithwood K, Harris A, Hopkins D. Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management. 2020; 40; 1: 5-22. 10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lomas J. The in-between world of knowledge brokering. BMJ. 2007; 334; 7585: 129-132. 10.1136/bmj.39038.593380.AE</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Long JC, Cunningham FC, Braithwaite J. Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research. 2013; 13; 1: 1-13. 10.1186/1472-6963-13-158</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Louis KS, Dentler RA. Knowledge use and school improvement. Curriculum Inquiry. 1988; 18; 1: 33-62. 10.1080/03626784.1988.11076025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Louis KS, Marks HM, Kruse S. Teachers' professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal. 1996; 33; 4: 757-798. 10.2307/1163415</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lubienski C, Scott J, DeBray E. The politics of research production, promotion, and utilization in educational policy. Educational Policy. 2014; 28; 2: 131-144. 10.1177/0895904813515329</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lusher D, Koskinen J, Robins G. Exponential random graph models for social networks: Theory, methods, and applications. 2013: Cambridge; Cambridge University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malin JR. Mediated, evidence-informed practice as impact. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership. 2020; 16; 8: 1-17. 10.22230/ijepl.2020v16n8a955</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malin JR, Brown CMalin J, Brown C. Joining worlds: Knowledge mobilization and evidence-informed practice. The role of knowledge brokers in education: Connecting the dots between research and practice. 2020: New York; Routledge: 1-12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malin JR, Brown C, Trubceac AS. Going for broke: A multiple-case study of brokerage in education. AERA Open. 2018; 4; 2: 1-14. 10.1177/2332858418769297</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malin JR, Paralkar VK. Educational knowledge brokerage and mobilization: The "Marshall Memo" case. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership. 2017; 12; 7: 1-20. 10.22230/ijepl.2017v12n7a790</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malouf DB, Taymans JM. Anatomy of an evidence base. Educational Researcher. 2016; 45; 8: 454-459. 10.3102/0013189X16678417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsden PVLin N, Marsden PV. Brokerage behavior in restricted exchange networks. Social structure and network analysis. 1982: Thousand Oaks; Sage: 341-410. 10.1093/sf/63.3.854</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGrath C, Krackhardt D. Network conditions for organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2003; 39; 3: 324-336. 10.1177/0021886303258267</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meredith C, Van den Noortgate W, Struyve C, Gielen S, Kyndt E. Information seeking in secondary schools: A multilevel network approach. Social Networks. 2017; 50: 35-45. 10.1016/j.socnet.2017.03.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer M. The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication. 2010; 32; 1: 118-127. 10.1177/1075547009359797</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. 19942: Thousand Oaks; Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell C, Sackney L. Profound improvement: Building capacity for a learning community. 2011: New York; Routledge. 10.4324/9780203826027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mollenhorst G, Edling C, Rydgren J. Psychological well-being and brokerage in friendship networks of young Swedes. Social Indicators Research. 2015; 123: 897-917. 10.1007/s11205-014-0766-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morel RP, Coburn C. Access, activation, and influence: How brokers mediate social capital among professional development providers. American Educational Research Journal. 2019; 56; 2: 247-288. 10.3102/0002831218788528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neal JW, Neal ZP, Mills KJ, Lawlor JA, McAlindon K. What types of brokerage bridge the research-practice gap? The case of public school educators. Social Networks. 2019; 59: 41-49. 10.1016/j.socnet.2019.05.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng-A-Fook N, Kane R, Butler J, Glithero L, Forte R. Brokering knowledge mobilization networks: Policy reforms, partnerships, and teacher education. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 2015; 23; 122: 1-30. 10.14507/epaa.v23.2090</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nordholm D. Knowledge transfer in school-to-school collaborations: The position of boundary objects and brokers. Education Inquiry. 2016; 7; 4: 443-458. 10.3402/edui.v7.28013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Obstfeld D. Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2005; 50; 1: 100-130. 10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park V, Datnow A. Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and school connections in data-driven decision-making. School Leadership & Management. 2009; 29; 5: 477-494. 10.1080/13632430903162541</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (2013). Qualitative Studies Checklist. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putnam RDCrothers L, Lockhart C. Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Culture and politics. 2000: London; Palgrave Macmillan: 223-234. 10.1007/978-1-349-62965-7_12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rechsteiner, B, Compagnoni, M, Wullschleger, A, Schäfer, L. M, Rickenbacher, A, & Maag Merki, K. (2022a). Teachers involved in school improvement: Analyzing mediating mechanisms of teachers' boundary-crossing activities between leadership perception and teacher involvement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 116(103774), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103774</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rechsteiner, B, Compagnoni, M, Maag Merki, K, & Wullschleger, A. (2022b). "Title does not dictate behavior"—Associations of Formal, Structural, and Behavioral Brokerage with School Staff Members' Professional Well-Being. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.885616</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rice RE, Danowski JA. Is it really just like a fancy answering machine? Comparing semantic networks of different types of voice mail users. Journal of Business Communication. 1993; 30; 4: 369-397. 10.1177/002194369303000401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, V. M. (2008). Forging the links between distributed leadership and educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810863299</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> RStudio Team. (2020). RStudio: Integrated development for R. R Studio, Inc. https://cran.r-project.org/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rycroft-Smith L. Knowledge brokering to bridge the research-practice gap in education: Where are we now?. Review of Education. 2022; 10; 1: e3341. 10.1002/rev3.3341</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sabatino DA. RX for better secondary programing: A teacher-broker. Academic Therapy. 1982; 17; 3: 289-296. 10.1177/105345128201700305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sfard A. On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher. 1998; 27; 2: 4-13. 10.3102/0013189X027002004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharples J, Sheard M. Developing an evidence-informed support service for schools: Reflections on a UK model. Evidence & Policy. 2015; 11; 4: 577-587. 10.1332/174426415X14222958889404</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shen J, Gao X, Xia J. School as a loosely coupled organization? An empirical examination using national SASS 2003–04 data. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2017; 45; 4: 657-681. 10.1177/1741143216628533</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinnema C, Liou Y-H, Daly A, Cann R, Rodway J. When seekers reap rewards and providers pay a price: The role of relationships and discussion in improving practice in a community of learning. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2021; 107: 103474. 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103474</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slavin RE. How evidence-based reform will transform research and practice in education. Educational Psychologist. 2020; 55; 1: 21-31. 10.1080/00461520.2019.1611432</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slavit D, Roth McDuffie A. Self-directed teacher learning in collaborative contexts. School Science and Mathematics. 2013; 113; 2: 94-105. 10.1111/ssm.12001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spillane JP. Distributed leadership. Educational Forum. 2005; 69; 2: 143-150. 10.1080/00131720508984678</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spillane JP, Kim CM. An exploratory analysis of formal school leaders' positioning in instructional advice and information networks in elementary schools. American Journal of Education. 2012; 119; 1: 73-102. 10.1086/667755</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stairs ABattiste M, Barman J. Roles in native education: Cultural base and cultural brokerage. First Nations education in Canada: The circle unfolds. 1995: Vancouver; UBC Press: 139-155</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stovel K, Shaw L. Brokerage. Annual Review of Sociology. 2012; 38: 139-158. 10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strauss A, Corbin JM. Grounded theory in practice. 1997: Thousand Oaks; SAGE</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Supovitz J. Melding internal and external support for school improvement: How the district role changes when working closely with external instructional support providers. Peabody Journal of Education. 2008; 83; 3: 459-478. 10.1080/01619560802222426</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swinnerton J. Brokers and boundary crossers in an urban school district: Understanding central-office coaches as instructional leaders. Journal of School Leadership. 2007; 17; 2: 195-221. 10.1177/105268460701700203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tortoriello M, Reagans R, McEvily B. Bridging the knowledge gap: The influence of strong ties, network cohesion, and network range on the transfer of knowledge between organizational units. Organization Science. 2012; 23; 4: 1024-1039. 10.1287/orsc.1110.0688</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tyack D, Tobin W. The "grammar" of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change?. American Educational Research Journal. 1994; 31; 3: 453-479. 10.3102/00028312031003453</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van den Boom-Muilenburg S, Poortman C, Daly A, Schildkamp K, de Vries S, Rodway J, van Veen K. Key actors leading knowledge brokerage for sustainable school improvement with PLCs: Who brokers what?. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2022; 110: 103577. 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103577</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Gasse R, Vanhoof J, Van Petegem PGodfrey D, Brown C. Brokerage for data use in schools: Potential, occurcence and facilitators. An ecosystem for research-engaged schools: Reforming education through research. 2019: New York; Routledge: 108-122. 10.4324/9780203701027-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward V, House A, Hamer S. Knowledge brokering: The missing link in the evidence to action chain?. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 2009; 5; 3: 267-279. 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008120</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weick KE. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1976. 10.2307/2391875</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wenger E. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. 1999: Cambridge; Cambridge University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White JJ. The teacher as broker of scholarly knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education. 1987; 38; 4: 19-24. 10.1177/002248718703800404</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilkie KJ. The challenge of changing teaching: Investigating the interplay of external and internal influences during professional learning with secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. 2019; 22; 1: 95-124. 10.1007/s10857-017-9376-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willegems V, Consuegra E, Struyven K, Engels N. How to become a broker: The role of teacher educators in developing collaborative teacher research teams. Educational Research and Evaluation. 2016; 22; 3–4: 173-193. 10.1080/13803611.2016.1247721</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong JLN. How has recent curriculum reform in China influenced school-based teacher learning? An ethnographic study of two subject departments in Shanghai, China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. 2012; 40; 4: 347-361. 10.1080/1359866X.2012.724654</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xiao Y, Watson M. Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2019; 39; 1: 93-112. 10.1177/0739456X17723971</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zuckerman SJ, Wilcox KC, Schiller KS, Durand FT. Absorptive capacity in rural schools: Bending not breaking during disruptive innovation implementation. Journal of Research in Rural Education. 2018; 34; 3: 1-27. 10.18113/p8jrre3403</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Beat Rechsteiner; Eva Kyndt; Miriam Compagnoni; Andrea Wullschleger and Katharina Maag Merki</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref188"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref192"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref196"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref198"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref201"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref202"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref204"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref206"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref218"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref220"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref222"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref224"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref225"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref226"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref227"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref230"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref242"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref244"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref245"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref253"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref254"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref259"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref260"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref263"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref274"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref277"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref278"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref280"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref282"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1426090
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Bridging Gaps: A Systematic Literature Review of Brokerage in Educational Change
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Beat+Rechsteiner%22">Beat Rechsteiner</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2555-431X">0000-0003-2555-431X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Eva+Kyndt%22">Eva Kyndt</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6755-4409">0000-0002-6755-4409</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Miriam+Compagnoni%22">Miriam Compagnoni</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7850-129X">0000-0002-7850-129X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andrea+Wullschleger%22">Andrea Wullschleger</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4390-3835">0000-0003-4390-3835</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Katharina+Maag+Merki%22">Katharina Maag Merki</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0215-1684">0000-0002-0215-1684</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Educational+Change%22"><i>Journal of Educational Change</i></searchLink>. 2024 25(2):305-339.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 35
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Facilitators+%28Individuals%29%22">Facilitators (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Capacity+Building%22">Capacity Building</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stakeholders%22">Stakeholders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Networks%22">Networks</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10833-023-09493-7
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1389-2843<br />1573-1812
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Bridging gaps between educational stakeholders at the classroom, school, and system levels is essential to achieve sustainable change in primary and secondary education. However, transferring knowledge or building capacity within this network of loosely coupled stakeholders is demanding. The "brokerage" concept holds promise for studying these complex patterns of interaction, as it refers to how specific actors (brokers) link loosely coupled or disconnected individuals (brokering). However, different research traditions, in terms of theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches, and various stakeholders examined in their role as bridge builders make understanding the role of brokers, brokering, and brokerage in changing educational practice challenging. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the current literature on these concepts in educational change research. In a systematic literature review based on 42 studies, we analyzed each study's theoretical assumptions, methodological approach, scope in terms of stakeholders involved, and empirical findings. First, the literature review revealed that research on educational change refers to four different theoretical frameworks when focusing on brokers, brokering, or brokerage. Second, our results indicate that predominantly qualitative approaches have been applied. Third, using content network graphs, we identified teachers and principals as among the most frequently analyzed brokers. Fourth, four relevant aspects of the empirical findings are presented: brokers' personal characteristics, conditions that enable brokering, successful brokering strategies, and outcomes of brokerage. Finally, we outline a future research agenda based on the empirical evidence base and shortcomings.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1426090
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1426090
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10833-023-09493-7
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 35
        StartPage: 305
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Facilitators (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Capacity Building
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stakeholders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Networks
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Bridging Gaps: A Systematic Literature Review of Brokerage in Educational Change
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Beat Rechsteiner
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Eva Kyndt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Miriam Compagnoni
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Andrea Wullschleger
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Katharina Maag Merki
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1389-2843
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1812
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 25
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Educational Change
              Type: main
ResultId 1