-
Title
-
Platformed Knowledge Brokerage in Education: Power and Possibilities [Poster]
-
Abstract/Description
-
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.
-
[Abstract from Chapter Version of this Poster]
-
Date
-
October 7, 2020
-
At conference
-
2020 Michigan Regional Postdoctoral Symposium
-
IRE Approach/Concept
-
Knowledge Brokerage
-
Platform Studies
-
Featured case/project
-
Teachers Pay Teachers
-
What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)
-
Marginal Syllabus
-
EdArXiv
-
Open access/full-text available
-
en
No
-
Grant number
-
Spencer Foundation Grant #201900070
-
Citation
-
Lawlor, J. A., Hammond, J. W., Lagoze, C., Huynh, M., & Moss, P. (2020, October 7). Platformed Knowledge Brokerage in Education: Power and Possibilities. 2020 Michigan Regional Postdoctoral Symposium. Lansing, MI. [Virtual Conference]
-
content
-
Platformed Knowledge Brokerage in
Education: Power & Possibilities
The problem
• Accessing relevant knowledge is a
common issue for stakeholders in
education, as policies press for the
use of research evidence in
educational decision-making.
• Ed stakeholders often rely on brokers
to facilitate access to knowledge.
• Knowledge brokerage has not been
fully explored as part of larger
sociotechnical systems.
Purpose
We focus this poster on establishing the
concept of platformed knowledge
brokerage in education and exploring
several demonstrative cases to
understand its power and possibilities
within education.
Demonstrative Cases
Edarxiv.org (EA): archives open access
education research
Marginalsyllab.us (MS): facilitates
”conversations with educators about issues
of equity in teaching, learning & education.”
Teacherspayteachers.com (TPT): open
marketplace where teachers “share, sell, &
buy original educational resources”
Ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc (WWC): “reviews
existing research on different programs,
products, practices, and policies in
education”
Jennifer A. Lawlor, PhD
J.W. Hammond, PhD
Carl Lagoze, PhD
Minh Huynh, PhD
Pamela Moss, PhD
Platformed Knowledge Brokerage
Introducing platforms into the brokerage process creates a bipartite network, while
maintaining the triadic relationship present in a traditional network brokerage
structure.
2020 Regional Postdoc Symposium
Whose voices are amplified?
Researchers’ voices were centered
across the cases as contributors for all
platforms except Teachers Pay Teachers.
In two cases, contributors could directly
submit their objects (TPT & EdArXiv),
with brokers constraining what
knowledge gets shared in other cases.
To Whom?
Social and structural constraints focus
audiences for the case platforms.
Knowledge brokerage platforms are: Online entities that surrogate and support
the work of knowledge brokers, configuring what kinds of knowledge can be
brokered, to whom, and how.
Selected Findings
Contributions: EA, MS, and WWC all include researchers as their
contributors. MS and TPT include contributions from educators. EA
and MS allow for direct contributions, while platform representatives
select contributions for MS and WWC.
Metadata: EA and TPT allow contributors to decorate objects with
metadata. EA, MS, and TPT allow recipients to decorate objects. MS
and WWC allow brokers to decorate objects.
Searching: All platforms allow some free text searching and all but MS
allow for searching by tags. MS additionally provides drop-down
menus for searching. EA and TPT allow for sorting search results. TPT
also allows sellers to ‘promote’ their knowledge objects.
Accessibility: To contribute resources, EA and TPT require a sign-in. To
evaluate resources, EA requires a sign-in. To annotate or comment, MS
requires a sign-in. TPT is the only case that requires sign-in to access
items and is the only case that includes knowledge objects behind a
paywall.
Social constraints involve regulating
who is enfranchised to frame objects
with metadata, limiting searchability.
Structural constraints involve the use of
sign-ins and paywalls that limit access
as well as sharing options to continue
the brokerage process elsewhere.
Conclusions & future directions
Platforms engage the knowledge
brokerage process distinctly from
traditional triadic brokerage raising
unique sociotechnical issues.
Platform users may benefit from a
critical focus on how and by whom the
objects they access have been curated.
Full literature review, results, and
discussion forthcoming as a chapter in:
Networks, Knowledge Brokers, and the
Public Policymaking Process
Additional references & information:
https://rb.gy/i2eini
Spencer Foundation
Comments
No comment yet! Be the first to add one!