Skip to main content

Broken Bridges: The Role of Brokers in Connecting Educational Leaders Around Research Evidence

Abstract

Few studies have examined the brokering role that some educators play in providing access to research evidence. Our study uses social network analysis to examine the type of brokering roles that exist, as well as identify who plays these roles, and to understand how research evidence moves through formal and informal relationships. Our results show that Area Superintendents are an important source of research evidence, serving key brokering roles between disconnected actors. Individuals in these formal leadership positions bridge research evidence between actors. Findings speak to the important role that brokers play in diffusing research evidence in school systems, highlight a disconnect between formal district structures and the informal interactions between leaders, and indicate that additional attention is needed by policymakers to retain key leaders.

All of the authors contributed equally to this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-78755-4_6
  • Chapter length: 25 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-78755-4
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2667105.

  • Asen, R., Gurke, D., Conners, P., Solomon, R., & Gumm, E. (2013). Research evidence and school board deliberations: Lessons from three Wisconsin school districts. Educational Policy, 27(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904811429291.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Asen, R., Gurke, D., Solomon, R., Conners, P., & Gumm, E. (2011). The research says”: Definitions and uses of a key policy term in federal law and local school board deliberations. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47(4), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2011.11821747.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P. (2002). NetDraw: Graph visualization software. Analytic Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S., Everett, M., & Freeman, L. (2002). UCINET for windows: Software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2018). Analyzing social networks (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S., & Foster, P. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29, 991–1013. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00087-4.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441–470. https://doi.org/10.5465/256588.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C., & Zhang, D. (2016). Is engaging in evidence-informed practice in education rational? What accounts for discrepancies in teachers’ attitudes towards evidence use and actual instances of evidence use in schools? British Educational Research Journal, 42(5), 780–801. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3239.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1997). A note on social capital and network content. Social Networks, 19(4), 355–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8733(97)00003-8.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1982). Toward a structural theory of action. Academic Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A., & Levin, B. (2013). Research use by leaders in Canadian school districts. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 8(7). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1016293.

  • Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 203–235. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708321829.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chrispeels, J. (2004). Learning to lead together: The promise and challenge of sharing leadership. SAGE Publications Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R., Borgatti, S., & Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166121.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R., & Parker, A. (2004). Charged up: Creating energy in organizations. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 23(4), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/npr.20021.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dagenais, C., Pinard, R., St-Pierre, M., Briand-, M., Cantave, A. K., & Péladeau, N. (2016). Using concept mapping to identify conditions that foster knowledge translation from the perspective of school practitioners. Research Evaluation, 25(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv026.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, A. J. (Ed.). (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. S. (2010). A bridge between worlds: Understanding network structure to understand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change, 11(2), 111–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9102-5.

  • Daly, A. J., Finnigan, K. S., & Liou, Y. (2017). The social cost of leadership churn: The case of an urban school district. In E. Quintero, Teaching in Context (pp. 131-146). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, A. J., Finnigan, K. S., Jordan, S., Moolenaar, N. M., & Che, J. (2014). Misalignment and perverse incentives: Examining the politics of district leaders as brokers in the use of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 145–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813513149.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2009). School system strategies for supporting data use. In T. J. Kowalski & T. J. Lasley (Eds.), Handbook of data-based decision making in education, 191–206. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley-Ripple, E. N. (2012). Research use in school district central office decision making: A case study. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(6), 786–806. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143212456912.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Finnigan, K. S., & Daly, A. J. (2010). Learning at a system level: Ties between principals of low performing schools and central office leaders. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 179–195). Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnigan, K. S., & Daly, A. J. (2012). Mind the gap: Organizational learning and improvement in an underperforming urban system. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 41–71. https://doi.org/10.1086/667700.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Finnigan, K. S., & Daly, A. J. (2014). Research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04690-7.

  • Finnigan, K. S., & Daly, A. J. (2017). The trust gap: Understanding the effects of constant leadership churn in school districts. American Educator, Summer 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnigan, K. S., Daly, A. J., & Che, J. (2013). Systemwide reform in districts under pressure: The role of social networks in defining, acquiring, and diffusing research evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 476–497. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311325668.

  • Finnigan, K. S., Luengo-Aravena, D., & Garrison, K. (2018). Social network analysis methods in educational policy research. In C. Lochmiller (Ed.), Complementary research methods for educational leadership and policy studies (pp. 231–252). Palgrave-Macmillan.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, C., Herman, J., Elgie, S., & Childs, R. A. (2018). How school leaders search for and use evidence. Educational Research, 60(4), 390–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2018.1533791.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choices in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 85–112. https://doi.org/10.5465/256729.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hite, J. M., Williams, E. J., & Baugh, S. C. (2005). Multiple networks of public school administrators: An analysis of network content and structure. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(2), 91–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360312042000329086.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Honig, M. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 357–383. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737028004357.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, M., Wiley, K. E., Penuel, W. R., & Farrell, C. C. (2018). Brokering research in science education policy implementation: The case of a professional association. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 14(3), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426418X15299595170910.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, J., & Fernandez, J. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89–126. https://doi.org/10.2307/270949.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., Penuel, W. R., Ellefson, N., & Porter, S. (2011). Focus, fiddle, and friends: Experiences that transform knowledge for the implementation of innovations. Sociology of Education, 84(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040711401812.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.5465/256771.

  • Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (2008). Interpersonal networks in organizations: Cognition, personality, dynamics, and culture (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753749.

  • Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lysenko, L. V., Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., & Dagenais, C. (2016). Research use in education: An online survey of school practitioners. Brock Education Journal, 25(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v25i1.431.

  • Lysenko, L. V., Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Dagenais, C., & Janosz, M. (2014). Educational research in educational practice: Predictors of use. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne De L’éducation, 37(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/canajeducrevucan.37.2.06.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, J. W., Neal, Z. P., Kornbluh, M., Mills, K. J., & Lawlor, J. A. (2015). Brokering the research-practice gap: A typology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 56(3–4), 422–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-015-9745-8.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, Z., Neal, J. W., Mills, K., & Lawlor, J. (2018). Making or buying evidence: Using transaction cost economics to understand decision making in public school districts. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 14(4), 707–724. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426416X14778277473701.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the Tertius Iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 100–130. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.100.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Parise, L. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2010). Teacher learning and instructional change: How formal and on-the-job learning opportunities predict change in elementary school teachers’ practice. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1086/648981.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Briggs, D. C., Davidson, K. L., Herlihy, C., Sherer, D., Hill, H. C., Farrell, C., & Allen, A. R. (2017). How school and district leaders access, perceive, and use research. AERA Open, 3(2), 233285841770537. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417705370.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Riel, M. R., Krause, A., & Frank, K. A. (2009). Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 124–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 116–145. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393988.

  • StataCorp. (2019). Stata statistical software: Release 16. StataCorp LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stovel, K., & Shaw, L. (2012). Brokerage. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150054.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141–179. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1802_01.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement. Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Learning First Alliance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2010). The gap between educational research and practice: Views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902919257.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1998). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, B., & Berkowitz, S. D. (1998). Social structures: A network approach. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kara S. Finnigan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Finnigan, K.S., Daly, A.J., Caduff, A., Leal, C.C. (2021). Broken Bridges: The Role of Brokers in Connecting Educational Leaders Around Research Evidence. In: Weber, M.S., Yanovitzky, I. (eds) Networks, Knowledge Brokers, and the Public Policymaking Process. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78755-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78755-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78754-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78755-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)