Abstract
To examine some of the ways platforms facilitate knowledge brokerage within the field of education, this chapter establishes the concept of platformed knowledge brokerage and critically compares four case examples: EdArXiv, Marginal Syllabus, Teachers Pay Teachers, and What Works Clearinghouse. Analytic questions focus on who is involved in the brokerage process, the nature of the knowledge objects exchanged, the ways platforms organize knowledge, and the functions available to platform users in the brokerage process. The chapter discusses the implications these platforms have for the movement and transformation of knowledge through networks in education, highlighting questions concerning whose voices are amplified by online platforms, how, and to whom. It concludes by setting the stage for future research in this area.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We use the term ‘knowledge object’ to include both traditional document types (e.g., journal articles, book chapters, reports) as well as other genres of information objects, including complex/compound objects such as document collections and aggregations (e.g., websites).
- 2.
Some scholars (e.g., van Dijck et al., 2018) focus on online platforms in education—such as MOOCs (massive open online courses)—that (re)shape or (re)mediate classroom curriculum and instruction. Because this chapter centers on knowledge brokerage platforms specifically, other kinds of platforms in education fall outside our scope.
- 3.
The platforms we examine sometimes also engage or embed other platforms’ functionalities, such as by embedding YouTube videos or buttons for sharing via Twitter. This platform interdependency is not a unique property of education brokerage platforms; van Dijck et al. (2018) note that platforms often participate in an interconnected “global platform ecosystem” (p. 4).
- 4.
Much of Marginal Syllabus’s content is made available through a partner website, Educator Innovator (https://educatorinnovator.org/programs/marginal-syllabus/), linked to by the main Marginal Syllabus website (https://marginalsyllab.us/). Our analysis thus includes the brokered knowledge objects and platform functionalities available through/on Educator Innovator.
- 5.
The platforms we consider are the focus of a large and growing literature. It is not within the scope of this chapter to fully engage these complex conversations underway in this literature; our discussion section draws on brokerage- and platform-relevant insights from existing scholarship.
- 6.
TPT also seems to include individuals without teaching experience in its leadership team (see Teachers Pay Teachers, n.d.-b). Given the large size of the site, the brokerage process may also be influenced by other members of the leadership team who may have less direct experience in educational practice than the Content VP.
- 7.
The TPT website lists the following as some of the primary materials featured in its marketplace: “activities,” “lesson plans,” “task cards,” “printables,” “interactive notebooks,” “original books and poems,” “classroom decor and organizational materials,” “worksheets,” “teacher planning calendars,” “educational audio or musical resources,” “instructional videos for teachers or students,” and “products that aid in the creation of resources, including fonts, clip art, and other graphics.” (Teachers Pay Teachers, n.d.-c).
- 8.
Without direct mention of the price distribution of the objects, TPT allows users to filter object prices using categories ranging from “free” to “$10 and up.”
- 9.
Marginal Syllabus findings for Table 9 are drawn from the Educator Innovator site.
- 10.
Bibliographic information can vary depending on the platform and the kind of knowledge object being brokered. For instance, for some of WWC’s reports, the platform publicizes not “authors” per se, but instead the committee or contractor (e.g., Mathematica Policy Research) that prepared the knowledge object.
- 11.
In addition to its primary repository for intervention reports and practice guides, the WWC website maintains separate databases for its reviews of individual studies and for the data from those reviews, which users can extract into spreadsheets; these databases support the filtration in several additional ways, including by study design and quality ratings (see Hammond et al., 2020).
- 12.
Metadata decorations for the brokered knowledge hosted by WWC and by Marginal Syllabus are managed by the platforms (e.g., platform moderators/managers) themselves, rather than by contributors.
- 13.
EdArXiv links to Open Science Framework profiles for knowledge object authors, who can post contact information and other personal/professional links. WWC maintains a free text searchable, metadata filterable database of information concerning its certified reviewers, including contact information in some cases.
References
Bogost, I., & Montfort, N. (2009). Platform studies: Frequently questioned answers. In Proceedings of the digital arts and culture conference. University of California. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/01r0k9br.
Burt, R. S. (2001). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In R. S. Lin, K. S. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 31–55). Routledge.
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787.
Center for Open Science. (2019a, August 19). Center for Open Science and EdArXiv launch branded preprint service for education research. Retrieved from https://www.cos.io/about/news/center-open-science-and-edarxiv-launch-branded-preprint-service-educational-research.
Center for Open Science. (2019b, August 22). Terms of use. Retrieved from https://github.com/CenterForOpenScience/cos.io/blob/master/TERMS_OF_USE.md.
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.
DeBray, E., Scott, J., Lubienski, C., & Jabbar, H. (2014). Intermediary organizations in charter school policy coalitions: Evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy, 28(2), 175–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813514132.
EdArXiv. (n.d.-a). EdArXiV: A preprint server for the education research community. Retrieved May 25, 2020, from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vz0zkYoCc9TsbeBUU3rL5x_QYhqnZvfP/view.
EdArXiv. (n.d.-b). EdArXiv: Preprint archive search. https://edarxiv.org/discover?page=64.
Edwards, D., & Gelms, B. (2018). The Rhetorics of platforms: Definitions, approaches, futures. Present Tense, 6(3), 1–10. http://www.presenttensejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Edwards_Gelms_Intro.pdf.
Edwards, P. N., Mayernik, M. S., Batcheller, A. L., Bowker, G. C., & Borgman, C. L. (2011). Science friction: Data, metadata, and collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 41(5), 667–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711413314.
Engestrom, J. (2005, April 13). Why some social network services work and others don’t—Or: The case for object-centered sociality. Zengestrom. https://www.zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/why-some-social-network-services-work-and-others-dont-or-the-case-for-object-centered-sociality.html.
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301. (2015). https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf.
Flynn, A. J., Friedman, C. P., Boisvert, P., Landis-Lewis, Z., & Lagoze, C. (2018). The knowledge object reference ontology (KORO): A formalism to support management and sharing of computable biomedical knowledge for learning health systems. Learning Health Systems, 2(2), article e10054. https://doi.org/10.1002/lrh2.10054.
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms.’ New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738.
Gough, D., Tripney, J., Kenny, C., & Buk-Berge, E. (2011). Evidence informed policymaking in education in Europe: EIPEE final project report. Institute of Education, University College London. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1472680/1/Gough%20et%20al.%20(2011).pdf.
Gould, R. V., & Fernandez, R. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89–126. https://doi.org/10.2307/270949.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469.
Hammond, J. W., Moss, P. A., Huynh, M. Q., & Lagoze, C. (2020). Research synthesis infrastructures: Shaping knowledge in education. Review of Research in Education, 44, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20907350.
Hocutt, D. (2018). Algorithms as information brokers: Visualizing rhetorical agency in platform activities. Present Tense, 6(3), 1–9. https://www.presenttensejournal.org/volume-6/algorithms-as-information-brokers-visualizing-rhetorical-agency-in-platform-activities/.
Honig, M. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026001065.
Kalir, J. H. (2018). Equity-oriented design in open education. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(5), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijilt-06-2018-0070.
Kalir, J. H. (2020). Social annotation enabling collaboration for open learning. Distance Education, 41(2), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1757413.
Kornbluh, M. (2021). Mixing network analysis and qualitative approaches in educational practices. In M. S. Weber & I. Yanovitzky (Eds.), Networks, knowledge brokers, and the public policymaking process (pp.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Lomas, J. (2007). The in-between world of knowledge brokering. British Medical Journal, 334(7585), 129–132. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39038.593380.AE.
Malin, J. R., Brown, C., & St. Trubceac, A. (2018). Going for broke: A multiple-case study of brokerage in education. AERA Open, 4(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418769297.
Malin, J. R., Brown, C., & St. Trubceac, A. (2020). Educational brokerage and knowledge mobilization in the United States: Who, what, why, how? In J. R. Malin & C. Brown (Eds.), The role of knowledge brokers in education: Connecting the dots between research and practice (pp. 13–26). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429462436-2.
Malin, J. R., & Paralkar, V. K. (2017). Educational knowledge brokerage and mobilization: The Marshall Memo case. International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 12(7), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2017v12n7a790.
Marginal Syllabus. (n.d.-a). About. https://marginalsyllab.us/about/.
Marginal Syllabus. (n.d.-b). Conversations. https://marginalsyllab.us/conversations/.
Meyer, M. (2010). The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication, 32(1), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009359797.
Montfort, N., & Bogost, I. (2009). Racing the beam: The Atari video computer system. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7588.001.0001.
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.
Neal, J. W., Neal, Z. P., Mills, K. J., Lawlor, J. A., & McAlindon, K. (2019). What types of brokerage bridge the research-practice gap? The case of public school educators. Social Networks, 59, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2019.05.006.
Neal, J. W., & Neal, Z. P. (2011). Power as a structural phenomenon. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48(3–4), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9356-3.
Perez, F., & Kalir, R. (2018). Open web annotation as connected conversation in CSCL. In J. H. Kalir (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2018 Connected Learning Summit (pp. 185–195). ETC Press. https://2018.connectedlearningsummit.org/proceedings/.
Pittard, E. A. (2017). Gettin’ a little crafty: Teachers Pay Teachers©, Pinterest© and neo-liberalism in new materialist feminist research. Gender and Education, 29(1), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1197380.
Plantin, J. C., et al. (2018). Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society, 20(1), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816661553.
Prell, C. (2012). Social network analysis: History, theory & methodology. Sage.
Richardson, J. W., Sauers, N. J., Cho, V., & Lingat, J. E. M. (2020). Push and pull on Twitter: How school leaders use Twitter for knowledge brokering. In J. R. Malin & C. Brown (Eds.), The role of knowledge brokers in education: Connecting the dots between research and practice (pp. 13–26). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429462436-3.
Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990–1029. https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603322493212.
Scott, J., & Jabbar, H. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515327
Shelton, C., & Archambault, L. (2018). Discovering how teachers build virtual relationships and develop as professionals through online teacherpreneurship. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 29(4), 579–602. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/178250/.
Slavin, R. E. (2008). What works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational Researcher, 37(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08314117.
Spiro, E. S., Acton, R. M., & Butts, C. T. (2013). Extended structures of mediation: Re-examining brokerage in dynamic networks. Social Networks, 35(1), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.02.001.
St. Pierre, E. A. (2006). Scientifically based research in education: Epistemology and ethics. Adult Education Quarterly, 56(4), 239–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713606289025.
Teachers Pay Teachers. (n.d.-a). About us: Unlocking the power of the world’s educators. https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/About-Us.
Teachers Pay Teachers. (n.d.-b). Meet our leadership team. https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Leadership.
Teachers Pay Teachers. (n.d.-c). TpT content guidelines. https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Help/Seller-Guidelines-27/TpT-Content-Guidelines.
Teachers Pay Teachers. (n.d.-d). What is TpT? https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Help/About-TpT/What-is-TpT.
Valente, T. W. (2012). Network interventions. Science, 337(6090), 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1217330.
van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
Vanhoof, J., & Mahieu, P. (2013). Local knowledge brokerage for data-driven policy and practice in education. Policy Futures in Education, 11(2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2013.11.2.185.
Ward, V., House, A., & Hamer, S. (2009). Knowledge brokering: The missing link in the evidence to action chain? Evidence & Policy, 5(3), 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426409X463811.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
What Works Clearinghouse. (n.d.-a). About: Who we are. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/WhoWeAre.
What Works Clearinghouse. (n.d.-b). Practice guides. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuides.
What Works Clearinghouse. (n.d.-c). Using the WWC to find ESSA tiers of evidence. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/essa, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/FWW.
What Works Clearinghouse. (n.d.-d). About us: What we do. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/WhatWeDo.
What Works Clearinghouse. (n.d.-e). What is the WWC? A trusted source about what works in education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_info_what_061015.pdf.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What Works ClearinghouseTM: Procedures handbook (Version 4.1). https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/WWC-Procedures-Handbook-v4-1-508.pdf.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in the chapter was made possible (in part) by a grant from the Spencer Foundation (under Grant No. 201900070). The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Spencer Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lawlor, J.A., Hammond, J.W., Lagoze, C., Huynh, M., Moss, P. (2021). Platformed Knowledge Brokerage in Education: Power and Possibilities. 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_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78755-4_12
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)