Networks Knowledge Brokers and The Public Policymaking Process 1St Ed 2021 Edition Full Chapter

Networks, Knowledge Brokers, and the
Public Policymaking Process 1st ed.

2021 Edition
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/networks-knowledge-brokers-and-the-public-policyma
king-process-1st-ed-2021-edition/
Networks, Knowledge Brokers,
and the Public Policymaking Process
Edited by Matthew S. Weber · Itzhak Yanovitzky
Networks, Knowledge Brokers, and the Public
Policymaking Process
“This edited collection provides a major contribution our understanding of the

use of research evidence in policy making. Weber and Yanovitzky have curated
a fascinating set of accounts of social network analysis as a tool for exploring
knowledge brokerage and policymaking. The collection helps us to move forward
both in terms of research methods for this important emerging area of scholar-
ship and also in terms of our analysis of knowledge brokerage within complex
systems. I shall be keeping a copy on my shelf and look forward to sharing it
with my students and colleagues in years to come.”
—Annette Boaz, Professor of Health and Social Care Policy, London School of
Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
“Relationships shape what we know and how we share information, and

conversely what knowledge and individuals are isolated and excluded from
social systems. Knowledge brokers, Networks, and the Policy Process brings
together a collection of essays and empirical studies that add much-needed ideas
to our understanding of how brokers of knowledge, individual and organiza-
tional networks, and the policy process interact. The range of theoretical and
analytic approaches examined will help us better navigate evidence use in power
structures, nested structures, and politics varied policy areas. This book is a must
read for those who have not yet discovered the critical role knowledge brokers
and networks play in the many facets of policymaking.”
—Kimberly DuMont, Vice President, AIR Equity Initiative, American Institutes
for Research (AIR)
“Researchers have for some time considered how knowledge is utilized in poli-
cymaking, but less is known about the oil that lubricates the transfer of infor-
mation in the policymaking machinery. In this illuminating volume, Weber and
Yanovitzky assemble leading thinkers to consider the role of knowledge brokers
in facilitating movements of information through policy networks around various
but related topics—education, immigration, nutrition, healthcare, and the timely
issue of misinformation. These outstanding scholars provide us with methodolog-
ical breakthroughs that shed light on types of knowledge brokering, transactions,
preferences, and behaviors of network actors in think tanks, the media, research
and policymaking. Networks, Knowledge Brokers, and the Public Policymaking
Process advances the field not only on the structural issues of networks and
knowledge brokering on different issues, but even on the nature of knowledge
on these issues.”
—Christopher Lubienski, Professor of Education Policy, Indiana University
“Using social network analysis, this book demystifies how research makes it way
into public policy and shines a bright light on the knowledge brokers who
make it happen. Network analyses enable us to see the complex web of rela-
tionships between researchers, policymakers, advocates, think tanks, journalists,
and the public that shapes how research is applied in policy. Spanning health
and education policy, the chapter authors describe different types of knowledge
brokers, ways to identify them in the policy ecosystem, and how to understand
their roles in spreading research ideas in policy circles. They also provide keen
insights into strategies for building more robust networks that connect research
and policy. This is the authoritative text on how to apply network analysis to
improving the use of research evidence in policy.”
—Vivian Tseng, Senior Vice President, Program William T. Grant Foundation
www.wtgrantfoundation.org
Matthew S. Weber · Itzhak Yanovitzky
Editors
Networks, Knowledge
Brokers,
and the Public
Policymaking Process
Editors
Matthew S. Weber Itzhak Yanovitzky
School of Communication School of Communication
and Information and Information
Rutgers, The State University of New Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey Jersey
New Brunswick, NJ, USA New Brunswick, NJ, USA
ISBN 978-3-030-78754-7 ISBN 978-3-030-78755-4 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78755-4
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: gettyimages/Viaframe
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword: Multimodal,
Multidimensional, and Multilevel
Social Network Systems
Knowledge Brokers, Networks, and the Policy Process is a collection of

largely empirical studies that examines how institutional brokers utilize
network strategies to help people in their social systems learn about,
obtain, and benefit from receiving resources that are potentially available
under public policy. The articles vary widely in terms of the social systems
and policy domains they study. And, they vary considerably in terms of the
theories they test and the analytic techniques they employ. An interesting
first chapter written by the editors sets the context and expectations for
the volume and a final chapter, written by the same authors, summarizes
the findings, offers helpful critiques, and uses this platform to articulate an
agenda for future work. The chapters are well written by highly competent
scholars in related but different fields and provide an excellent representa-
tion of scholarship in this complex and diverse area. If you are interested in
aspects of knowledge brokerage, networks, and the policy process or how
these three phenomena interact, you will find this an excellent volume on
the current state of this genre of research. In what follows I review several
network developments that expand our collective ability to examine more
complex and intricate networks and network properties. In my view, this
is one important way in which this corpus of research can take the next
big step forward.
Historically, social scientists have studied human attributes, like educa-
tion, gender, race, and socioeconomic status, to explain how humans
behave. An important departure from this tradition occurred in the
v
vi FOREWORD: MULTIMODAL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL, AND …
middle of the twentieth century when scholars began to focus on rela-

tionships, the network of connections that people build, maintain, and
dissolve with others in their social worlds. Over the years scholars have
championed one approach or the other. But, it is not difficult to see that
both approaches have merit and can contribute to our understanding of
human behavior. In fact, it is easy to make the case that both approaches
should be used, and where possible, used together. Over the last two
decades scholarship has shifted in this direction, using network models
that incorporate human attributes or, alternatively, models that study
human attributes in the context of social networks. Importantly, most of
the chapters in this book focus on both networks and human attributes.
This is a departure from prior traditions and norms as early network
scholars studied networks that were restricted to three major network
properties. These properties are centered on nodes, relationships (links),
and levels. The nodes of a network are the objects that are linked together
to create the network. Almost exclusively, early scholars studied unimodal
networks that represented only one kind of node, like the networks among
students or links that tied together administrators. Current research has
moved toward multimodal networks, those that contain multiple kinds of
objects like people and data bases or brokers and knowledge objects.
Similarly, early studies were limited to studying single relations such as
friendship, collaboration, or teamwork relations. These were called unire-
lational networks. Of course, we know that most complex systems contain
multiple kinds of relations that exist among the nodes at the same time.
Today, studies are being conducted on several relations simultaneously as
multidimensional (or multirelational) networks, such as office, social, and
professional relations.
In the early days of network research scholars were also only able
to study networks that occurred on one level at a time, called unilevel
networks. However, we know that many networks operate on multiple
levels in the empirical world such as educational systems. In this social
system students are nested within classes, classes are nested within schools,
schools are nested within districts, and districts are nested within statewide
educational systems. These are called multilevel networks. Today we have
the ability to capture and analyze the influence of nesting in real world
networks, which improves our ability to explore and understand the
complexity of multilevel nested networks.
When taken together, these developments mean that we are no longer
limited to studying single object type networks, with only one relation, at
FOREWORD: MULTIMODAL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL, AND … vii
only one level. Rather, we can now theorize, operationalize, and analyze
brokers, networks, and the policy process with multiple types of nodes, say
people and knowledge objects, multiple types of relations, say brokering
relation links and knowledge transfer links, and at multiple levels, like
classrooms, schools, and school districts.
Almost all of the studies in this book focus on large scale social issues,
what De la Haye et al. call “a whole-of-system” approach. This approach
attempts to capture as much of the working apparatus of the entire system
as possible. Needless to say, this is a daunting task. Although the details
differ from study to study, most of them report trying to capture how
different sets of people are tied together with resources of one form or
another. One set constitutes the brokers who are affiliated with the soci-
etal institutions. The other set is the people who are being served by
these institutions, whether education, health, or some other social service.
There is a set of links within the people who are identified as brokers
and another set of links within the people who are being served, such as
students and/or parents. And there is a set of ties between brokers and
recipients. This latter set of links provides the mechanism for transferring
the resources from the educational or medical or employment institutions
to those who are in need of them. The resources take many different
forms including knowledge artifacts, financial assistance, social support,
etc. Brokers are key people in helping to transfer these resources, and
different strategic practices that make things work as smoothly as possible
abound.
What does this idealization of the research reported in these chapters
show? First, a case can be made that the networks are multimodal, that
is, there are more than one type of objects. For example, some people are
brokers and some are recipients. But these are not the only possible types
of objects. For example, Lawlor et al identify the components of their
research as contributor, knowledge objects, and recipients. In this repre-
sentation, knowledge can be considered another type of network node
and formally analyzed as part of the overall network giving researchers an
opportunity to see how different knowledge objects are tied to brokers
and recipients and influence the outcome of brokering processes. Simi-
larly, Flannigan et al. discuss how brokers facilitate access to research
knowledge for educational leaders. Clearly, brokers are one type of node in
the network and educational leaders are another nodal type. But research
knowledge can also be treated as a nodal type and linked to both brokers
and educational leaders to provide the network that ties these all together.
viii FOREWORD: MULTIMODAL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL, AND …
Second, although most of the studies are unirelational in that they

examine only one relation in the networks, there are clearly multiple rela-
tions that are both possible and likely. For example, it would be informa-
tive to create relationship linkages showing the different types of resources
transferred from the institutions to recipients.
Third, it is clear that there is at least some level of nesting in the
networks studied here, so the real social system is constituted as a multi-
level rather than a unilevel network. Although none of the studies incor-
porated this feature, it is now possible to analyze multilevel network
data to capture the influence of different levels on the operation of the
network, and this would be a good analytical strategy for future research.
A major part of this book focuses on brokers and their efforts to broker
knowledge in the context of policy processes. As is the case in the majority
of brokerage studies, the papers in this collection by and large assume that
brokerage is a positive thing for the people being brokered, what we might
identify as a positivity bias. In many cases, including several of the research
projects reported in these chapters, that is a reasonable assumption. But,
it is important to remember that not all brokers and not all brokerage
engagements are beneficial to the people being brokered. Ron Burt’s
view of brokers such as those in his studies of bank managers, largely
views brokers as exploiters who use the structural holes between others in
the network as their opportunity to gain power and material benefit by
keeping the holes open and the others disconnected. Another example is
the case of the “Cupid Broker,” where a broker deliberately links to two
or more others in the network not for the benefit of the others but for
the benefit of the broker. These cautionary tales point to the importance
of assessing who benefits from the brokering, the broker, or the brokered.
Of course, brokering need not be a one-sided affair. There may be situ-
ations in which brokering that benefits the broker only is a good thing.
And there are brokering circumstances in which keeping others discon-
nected is a good outcome as in those attempting to keep warring parties
separate or preventing the flow of contagious viruses between disparate
individuals. And there is no reason not to consider the possibility that
both broker and brokered may benefit from brokering activities.
A good example of a study that uses all of these multiple features
is an article published by Woody Powell and colleagues in the Amer-
ican Journal of Sociology in 2005. It focused on the emergence, evolu-
tion, and entrenchment of the biotechnology industry from late 1980
to 2003. Needless to say, this is an extraordinarily large and complex
FOREWORD: MULTIMODAL, MULTIDIMENSIONAL, AND … ix
social system. They studied the networks among five different nodal types:
(1) University biology departments and biotechnology centers, (2) Dedi-
cated Biotechnology Firms (Startups) (3) Venture Capital Firms, (4) Phar-
maceutical Companies, and (5) Governmental Regulatory Agencies. The
four multiple linkages they studied among these five types of nodes were
(1) Research and Development, (2) Finance, (3) Commercialization, and
(4) Licensing (largely by government agencies). They also examined data
over time between the late 1980s and 2003. By studying five different
nodal types and four different relations together they were able to provide
a much more complex and integrated analysis and understanding of how
the biotechnology industry was launched, transformed, and embedded
into society than studying this process as separate nodal networks, based
on separate sets of relations and separate network levels.
The study of communication and other social networks has grown
exponentially during the twenty-first century. Brokerage roles and knowl-
edge brokering processes have become important objects of significant
empirical investigation to the role of public policy, as this book amply
demonstrates. And policy processes have never been more important in
societies around the world than they are during the present era. Knowledge
Brokers, Networks, and the Policy Process could not have been published
at a better time. And, as described above there is considerable room for
future scholarship to grow in this area by theorizing, operationalizing, and
analyzing multimodal, multidimensional, and multilevel network models
of these important aspects of policy processes.
Peter Monge
Emeritus Professor of Communication,
Annenberg School of Communication
Emeritus Professor of Management and Organization
Marshall School of Business
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Acknowledgements
The editors would like to thank the authors for the enthusiasm, time and
energy that went into the chapters in this edited volume. We are partic-
ularly grateful for the inspiring conversation that took place at the work-
shop held at University of Minnesota in September 2019, which helped
spark the development of this book. In the process of editing this book
we were fortunate to be part of a network of forty one authors, each of
whom brought a unique perspective to this work and helped to make this
volume complete. Special thanks are due to the University of Minnesota
for hosting the workshop and supporting the development of this edited
volume. In particular, we acknowledge the support of Dr. Elisia Cohen.
In addition to providing additional resources to support the workshop,
Dr. Cohen was an active participant in the conversations and helped to
push the boundaries of this work. We are also grateful to Dr. Jennifer
Watling Neal and Dr. Zachary Neal, both of whom helped with the plan-
ning and organization of the workshop, and also contributed to the early
conceptualization of this book. Most importantly, we acknowledge the
generous support of the William T. Grant Foundation, including Dr.
Adam Gamoran, Dr. Vivian Tseng, Dr. Kim DuMont and Dr. Lauren
Supplee. The William T. Grant Foundation has encouraged this research
and the development of this book since it began during a coffee chat at a
conference in 2018.
xi
Contents
Knowledge Brokers, Networks, and the Policymaking

Process 1
Matthew S. Weber and Itzhak Yanovitzky
Disseminating Evidence to Policymakers: Accounting
for Audience Heterogeneity 27
Jonathan Purtle
“Being Important” or “Knowing the Important”: Who Is
Best Placed to Influence Policy? 49
Kathryn Oliver
Integrating Connectionist and Structuralist Social
Network Approaches to Understand Education Policy
Networks: The Case of the Common Core State Standards
and State-Provided Curricular Resources 71
Emily M. Hodge, Susanna L. Benko, and Serena J. Salloum
Measuring Issue Preferences, Idea Brokerage,
and Research-Use in Policy Networks: A Case Study
of the Policy Innovators in Education Network 101
Joseph J. Ferrare, Sarah Galey-Horn, Lorien Jasny,
and Laura Carter-Stone
xiii
xiv CONTENTS
Broken Bridges: The Role of Brokers in Connecting

Educational Leaders Around Research Evidence 129
Kara S. Finnigan, Alan J. Daly, Anita Caduff,
and Christina C. Leal
An Ego-Network Approach to Understanding Educator
and School Ties to Research: From Basic Statistics
to Profiles of Capacity 155
Elizabeth N. Farley-Ripple and Ji-Young Yun
Mixing Network Analysis and Qualitative Approaches
in Educational Practices 183
Mariah Kornbluh
A Multi-Level Framework for Understanding Knowledge
Sharing in Transnational Immigrant Networks 205
Rosalyn Negrón, Linda Sprague-Martínez, Eduardo Siqueira,
and Cristina Brinkerhoff
Promoting Healthy Eating: A Whole-of-System Approach
Leveraging Social Network Brokers 239
Kayla de la Haye, Sydney Miller, and Thomas W. Valente
Brokerage-Centrality Conjugates for Multi-Level
Organizational Field Networks: Toward a Blockchain
Implementation to Enhance Coordination of Healthcare
Delivery 265
Kayo Fujimoto, Camden J. Hallmark, Rebecca L. Mauldin,
Jacky Kuo, Connor Smith, Natascha Del Vecchio,
Lisa M. Kuhns, John A. Schneider, and Peng Wang
Platformed Knowledge Brokerage in Education: Power
and Possibilities 315
Jennifer A. Lawlor, J. W. Hammond, Carl Lagoze,
Minh Huynh, and Pamela Moss
Network Approaches to Misinformation Evaluation
and Correction 351
Katherine Ognyanova
CONTENTS xv
Closing the Theory–Research Gap in Knowledge

Brokerage: Remaining Challenges and Emerging
Opportunities 375
Itzhak Yanovitzky and Matthew S. Weber
Index 393
List of Contributors
Susanna L. Benko Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA

Cristina Brinkerhoff School of Social Work, Boston University, Boston,
MA, USA
Anita Caduff University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
Laura Carter-Stone Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
Alan J. Daly University of California At San Diego, San Diego, CA,
USA
Kayla de la Haye Department of Population and Public Health
Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Elizabeth N. Farley-Ripple University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
Joseph J. Ferrare University of Washington Bothell, Bothell, WA, USA
Kara S. Finnigan University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
Kayo Fujimoto The University of Texas Health Science Center at
Houston, Houston, TX, USA
Sarah Galey-Horn University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Camden J. Hallmark The University of Texas Health Science Center at
Houston, Houston, TX, USA
xvii
xviii LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
J. W. Hammond School of Education, University of Michigan, Ann

Arbor, MI, USA
Emily M. Hodge Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA
Minh Huynh School of Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI, USA
Lorien Jasny University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Mariah Kornbluh Department of Psychology, University of South
Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA
Lisa M. Kuhns The University of Texas Health Science Center at
Houston, Houston, TX, USA;
Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL,
USA
Jacky Kuo The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston,
Houston, TX, USA
Carl Lagoze School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI, USA
Jennifer A. Lawlor School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI, USA
Christina C. Leal University of California At San Diego, San Diego,
CA, USA
Rebecca L. Mauldin The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington,
TX, USA
Sydney Miller Department of Population and Public Health Sciences,
Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
CA, USA
Pamela Moss School of Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI, USA
Rosalyn Negrón Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Boston,
MA, USA
Katherine Ognyanova Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS xix
Kathryn Oliver Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene

and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Jonathan Purtle Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University,
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Serena J. Salloum Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA
John A. Schneider The University of Texas Health Science Center at
Houston, Houston, TX, USA;
University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
Eduardo Siqueira School for the Environment, University of
Massachusetts, Boston, MA, USA
Connor Smith Houston, TX, USA
Linda Sprague-Martínez School of Social Work, Boston University,
Boston, MA, USA
Thomas W. Valente Department of Population and Public Health
Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, CA, USA
Natascha Del Vecchio University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
Peng Wang The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston,
Houston, TX, USA;
Centre for Transformative Innovation, Swinburne University of Tech-
nology, Melbourne, Australia
Matthew S. Weber Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Itzhak Yanovitzky Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA;
Department of Communication, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ,
USA
Ji-Young Yun Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
List of Figures
Disseminating Evidence to Policymakers: Accounting for

Audience Heterogeneity
Fig. 1 Trustworthy sources of research, stratified by ideology 33
Fig. 2 City policymakers’ perceptions of factors that have very
strong effects on health disparities, stratified by ideology 37

and State-Provided Curricular Resources
Fig. 1 Sociogram of ELA Resource Providers (Note Circles
represent SEAs. White circles represent SEAs that adopted
CCSS; black circles represent SEAs that did not adopt CCSS.
Gray squares represent intermediary organizations. Node size
denotes level of influence. Line thickness denotes strength
of tie, and arrows indicate directionality) 79
xxi
xxii LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 2 Sociogram of sponsoring organizations to messages

about elements of close reading (Note White circles indicate
resources’ sponsoring organizations. Black squares indicate
specific instructional messages about close reading. Tie
strength notes the number of times a particular organization
sponsored a resource in the sample expressing a message
about close reading. The node size of close reading messages
[black squares] indicates the number of resources expressing
that message [larger nodes indicate that more resources
expressed a particular message about how teachers should
enact close reading]) 85
Fig. 3 Sociogram of resources to messages about elements
of close reading (Note White circles indicate individual
resources with messages about close reading. Black squares
indicate specific instructional messages about close reading.
Tie strength indicates resources that were duplicated
in the sample [e.g., 12 of the 31 resources with messages
about close reading were the Publisher’s Criteria]. The node
size of close reading messages [black squares] indicates
the number of resources expressing that message was present
[larger nodes indicate that more resources expressed
a particular message about how teachers should enact close
reading]) 86
Measuring Issue Preferences, Idea Brokerage, and

Research-Use in Policy Networks: A Case Study of the
Policy Innovators in Education Network
Fig. 1 Affiliation network of PIE members and their policy
preferences (member node labels suppressed) 110
Fig. 2 First two dimensions of correspondence analysis plot
of research use behaviors by policy topics (emphasis on policy
topics) 119
Fig. 3 First two dimensions of correspondence analysis plot
of research use behaviors by policy topics (emphasis
on research use behaviors) 120

Educational Leaders Around Research Evidence
Fig. 1 Brokerage roles 134
LIST OF FIGURES xxiii
Fig. 2 Social network maps of the leadership district for research

evidence, data use, and expertise in Years 1 and 3 142
Fig. 3 Formal roles bridged by area superintendents as liaisons
for research evidence 145
Fig. 4 Area superintendents as research evidence liaisons
for principals 146

and School Ties to Research: From Basic Statistics to
Profiles of Capacity
Fig. 1 Overview of survey of evidence in education 160
Fig. 2 Example item from network portion of SEE-S 161
Fig. 3 Distribution of reported resources 166
Fig. 4 Four profile MLPA solution for level 1 (educators) 170
Fig. 5 Two-profile MLPA solution for level 2 (schools) 172

Sharing in Transnational Immigrant Networks
Fig. 1 Distribution of agreement about “American traits”
in a transnational network based on cultural consensus
analysis 227
Fig. 2 The distribution of anxiety and cultural consonance in one
ego-net 230
Promoting Healthy Eating: A Whole-of-System Approach

Leveraging Social Network Brokers
Fig. 1 Key brokerage points to implement change in community
food systems 242
Fig. 2 From Fig. 1 of McGlashan et al. (2018), “Diagrams
of the Shape Up Somerville (SUS) and Romp & Chomp
(R&C) steering committee networks,” representing
the discussion relationships during the community-based
childhood obesity prevention interventions (Key: Blue
= respondents from the steering committee, White =
non-respondent consenting steering committee members,
Gray = non-consenting steering committee members,
and Red = other nominated contacts external to the steering
committee) 254
xxiv LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 3 From Fig. 1 of McGlashan et al. (2019), “Conceptualization

of a steering committee social network overlaid on the causal
loop diagram to create a multilevel structure” (Key: The
blue nodes and network represent the steering committee
collaboration network, with black ties representing members’
actions on risk factors labeled in the causal loop diagram) 255

Delivery
Fig. 1 A typology of social mechanisms to conceptualize
organizational brokerage behavior (Note Modification
of Fig. 1.1 [Hedström & Swedberg, 1998, p. 11] and Fig. 1
[Hedström & Ylikoski, 2010, p. 23]) 273
Fig. 2 Multi-level collaboration network in PrEP care delivery
system 278
Fig. 3 Multi-level collaboration network with nodal size
as indicating within-level degree 291
Fig. 4 Multi-level collaboration network with nodal size
as indicating bridging degree 291
Fig. 5 Hybrid P2P network architecture for PrEP care delivery
system 304

and Possibilities
Fig. 1 Circles represent the traditional three-actor triadic brokerage
relationship; the square represents a platform to which all
actors may have a relationship, creating a two-mode network 322
Network Approaches to Misinformation Evaluation and

Correction
Fig. 1 The role of social networks at each stage of our interaction
with misinformation 356
Fig. 2 Political and correction condition in the social correction
experiment 364
Fig. 3 Perceived accuracy by correction type 365
Fig. 4 Perceived accuracy by message type 366
List of Tables
Disseminating Evidence to Policymakers: Accounting for

Audience Heterogeneity
Table 1 Primary sources that policymakers turn to for behavioral
health research to inform policy decisions 30
Table 2 Important attributes of behavioral health research 35
“Being Important” or “Knowing the Important”: Who Is

Best Placed to Influence Policy?
Table 1 Characteristics of network sample 56
Table 2 Characteristics of authorities 57
Table 3 Power Hubs 59
Table 4 Influence Hubs 59

and State-Provided Curricular Resources
Table 1 SEAs and organizations most commonly named as sponsors
of CCSS resources 77
Table 2 Resource category, type, and emphasis for all resources 81
Table 3 MRQAP regression model 90
xxv
xxvi LIST OF TABLES
Measuring Issue Preferences, Idea Brokerage, and

Research-Use in Policy Networks: A Case Study of the
Policy Innovators in Education Network
Table 1 Distribution of types of evidence cited in PIE members’
publicly available policy briefs/reports 112
Table 2 Results of ERGM analysis of PIE network members’ policy
preferences 114
Table 3 PIE members participating in the most 4-cycle brokerage
chains 116

Educational Leaders Around Research Evidence
Table 1 Whole network measures for the research evidence, data
use, and expertise networks in Years 1 and 3 140
Table 2 Average brokerage role measures for each leadership role
group for years 1 and 3 143
Table 3 Number of percentage of brokerage roles among area
superintendents 144

and School Ties to Research: From Basic Statistics to
Profiles of Capacity
Table 1 Multi-level categorization of resources for accessing
research-based information 165
Table 2 ENA size, composition, and heterogeneity statistics 167
Table 3 Most frequently nominated resources 168
Table 4 Distribution of profiles across schools 171

Sharing in Transnational Immigrant Networks
Table 1 Sample demographic characteristics 217
Table 2 Brazilian immigrant health and the composition of their
Ego-networks (n = 30) 218
Table 3 Dominican immigrant health and the composition of their
Ego-networks (n = 28) 220
Table 4 Comparison of main findings for Brazilian and Dominican
Ego-networks 224
LIST OF TABLES xxvii

Delivery
Table 1 Typology of brokerage-centrality conjugates:
(Non-PrEP/PrEP) providers as brokers 280
Table 2 ERGM specification for multi-level networks 288
Table 3 RGM results 293

and Possibilities
Table 1 Brokerage types, Gould and Fernandez (1989) 318
Table 2 Overview of platform cases 324
Table 3 Users and brokerage types 328
Table 4 Summary of knowledge objects 330
Table 5 Summary of knowledge organization 334
Table 6 Functions for engaging with objects and other users 339
Knowledge Brokers, Networks,
and the Policymaking Process
Matthew S. Weber and Itzhak Yanovitzky
The public policy process is a complicated labyrinth of competing actors,

interests, and agendas. Policymaking occurs in an ecosystem where poli-
cymakers, advocates, think tanks, the public, journalists, and researchers
engage and interact in order to craft new policies. From this perspec-
tive, interest in knowledge brokerage as a mechanism for impacting the
policymaking processes has grown in recent years. Knowledge brokers
are key intermediaries who facilitate the exchange of knowledge between
individuals or organizations who do not already have direct relation-
ships or established mechanisms for connecting with one another (Lomas,
2000; Ward et al., 2009). In theory, knowledge brokers are positioned
to connect actors, including policymakers and practitioners, and can be
particularly influential in the context of acquiring, interpreting, and using
evidence to support arguments for or against adopting proposed policies
or recommended practices.
M. S. Weber (B) · I. Yanovitzky

Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
I. Yanovitzky
e-mail: [email protected]
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2021
M. S. Weber and I. Yanovitzky (eds.), Networks, Knowledge Brokers,
and the Public Policymaking Process,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78755-4_1
2 M. S. WEBER AND I. YANOVITZKY
This book is about knowledge brokerage and its potential to impact

public policymaking and practice through the lens of social network anal-
ysis. In the following chapters, we balance a number of different episte-
mological perspectives, research domains, and methodological approaches
in order to present a holistic perspective of knowledge brokerage. As a
focal point, we advocate for a networks perspective in part because of
the power of network analysis to unpack both the structural aspects of
knowledge and information exchange, as well as the ability of network
analysis to capture the social context and social interactions that impact
those interactions (Oliver & Faul, 2018). Throughout, we make the case
that a networks perspective provides a critical avenue for investigating the
conditions and actions that can promote more frequent and informed use
of research in policy and practice settings.
Knowledge Brokerage
and Use of Research Evidence
Knowledge brokers occupy a critical role in bringing research evidence
into a policymaking ecosystem. Research evidence (i.e., empirical findings
derived from systematic research methods and analyses) has significant
potential to improve both public policy and professional practice. It is
rarely the only, or even the most important, form of knowledge consid-
ered in these settings, yet it is frequently present and routinely invoked
when decisions are made and actions are justified. As such, persistent
gaps between what research shows to be effective and the actual poli-
cies and practices that are adopted and implemented may be due to how
research is used in decision-making processes rather than whether research
evidence is used at all. The fundamental challenge of improving the use
of research evidence (URE) in policy and practice extends beyond the
effective translation and transfer of scientific knowledge to promoting an
informed URE and facilitating its infusion into decision-making routines.
A central conundrum for many policy and practice fields, including the
ones represented in this edited volume, is how this may be accomplished.
Our point of departure is the growing interest across academic disci-
plines in creating robust mechanisms for improving knowledge brokerage
and URE in policy and practice. Historically, research on this topic was
motivated by the “two communities” metaphor or the notion that scien-
tists and policymakers (but also practitioners) occupy separate communi-
ties, with distinct languages, values, and reward system, with little or no
KNOWLEDGE BROKERS, NETWORKS, AND THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 3
meaningful opportunities to interact with one another (Bogenschneider

& Corbett, 2010). Accordingly, considerable investments were made in
making relevant research evidence more accessible to policymakers and
practitioners as well as in programs and interventions designed to facilitate
direct interactions between scientists and policymakers or practitioners.
Some of these approaches, such as research-practice partnerships, show
significant promise, as current thinking has evolved to recognize that,
at least in the policy domain, URE unfolds within a complex web of
relationships, settings, and contexts (Tseng, 2012). These complex webs,
referred to as policy ecosystems, comprise a space within which actors
both inside and outside of government (e.g., policymakers, bureaucrats,
advocates and interest groups, think tanks, scientists, journalists, and ordi-
nary citizens) interact in complex and dynamic ways to craft and enact
public policies. Consequently, URE in policymaking looks nothing like
the orderly, systematic, and calculated process that is often envisioned
and/or prescribed in research. One important implication of this is that
leveraging existing pathways and mechanisms through which research
routinely makes its way into policy decision-making processes may not
always lead to an increase in the likelihood that research is utilized.
To more fully appreciate the importance of knowledge brokers to
promoting evidence-based policymaking, consider the following example
taken from a study that examined URE in the context of the formula-
tion of federal policies to address the epidemic of childhood obesity in
the United States (see Yanovitzky & Weber, 2020).. Rates of childhood
obesity had already reached an alarming level when the U.S. Surgeon
General issued the now famous “Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease
Overweight and Obesity” in 2000. In the wake of the Surgeon General’s
call to action, and following the subsequent push for remedies by a broad
coalition of policy actors and interest groups, the period from 2000 to
2014 saw intense legislative efforts in the U.S. Congress which produced
policy solutions to the problem, including reforming school nutrition and
physical activity guidelines, regulating consumption of sugary snacks and
drinks, and mitigating the harmful effects of advertising and marketing of
food directly to children (Brescoll et al., 2008).
A document analysis of Congressional legislative activity during this
period revealed 224 congressional bills, 190 committee hearings and
reports, and 372 records of floor debates focused on the issue of
childhood obesity-related policies (Yanovitzky & Weber, 2020). These
document texts were coded to extract information about the scope, type,
and timing of research evidence use in the formulation of these policies,

including all sources and suppliers of research evidence. Network analysis
was employed next to map and analyze nodes (actors) and ties (relation-
ships) that were highly instrumental in introducing and facilitating URE
in this context.
For instance, on March 26, 2009, Representative Joe Baca (D-CA)
chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Over-
sight Nutrition, and Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture in the
House of Representatives. In his prepared opening remarks, and in an
effort to quantify the scope and magnitude of the obesity problem,
Baca noted, “The problem of obesity plagues all Americans, and I state
all Americans, either directly or indirectly. Statistics indicate more than
half of our population is considered obese. That, in and of itself—is a
shocking number.” The statistic included a reference in the prepared and
filed remarks, and cited a study published in Health Affairs (Thorpe
et al., 2004). To date, this particular study, which details the relation-
ship between obesity-related illnesses and rising medical costs, has been
cited more than 500 times.
Baca repeated the same statistics twice in his opening remarks, and
three other Congressional representatives who were present went on to
reference the same statistic and citation in subsequent hearings that year.
Thorpe, who had written the original study, had testified before the U.S.
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Hearing in
2008, citing the same piece of research (Prevention and Public Health: The
Key to Transforming our Sickcare System, 2008). William Dietz, Director,
Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity National Center
for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, also testified to
the Subcommittees on Health, and Oversight and Investigations of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce in the United States House of
Representatives in December of 2009, again reiterating the same statistic
(Innovative Childhood Obesity Practices, 2009). However, a network anal-
ysis of legislators connected to this particular piece of research evidence
flagged Baca as a knowledge broker, with a critical role regarding drawing
other legislators’ attention to this particular statistical fact and ensuring
its reuse by leveraging his leadership position and connections to other
legislators who are active in this policy space.
This specific example illustrates one path by which knowledge brokers
are able to routinely influence URE in the policymaking process. Knowl-
edge brokerage is often described as the iterative process of translating,
synthesizing, disseminating, and exchanging research evidence to inform

the decisions and actions of practitioners and policymakers (Lomas, 2000;
Ward et al., 2009). Knowledge brokers therefore play several crucial
knowledge translation and transfer roles, including knowledge manage-
ment (providing users with research-based insights tailored to their
unique settings and needs), liaison (facilitating direct contacts and collab-
oration between producers and users of research), and building users’
capacity to access, evaluate, and implement research-based knowledge
(Bornbaum et al., 2015). Beyond knowledge transfer, knowledge brokers
also have an important role in building relationships and mobilizing for
actions that can improve the likelihood that relevant and credible research
evidence is considered and discussed in the course of decision-making
processes (Yanovitzky & Weber, 2019). Knowledge brokers can help
to promote mutual understanding between diverse stakeholders and key
decision-makers (Lomas, 2000), and help users navigate barriers to effec-
tive URE (Neal et al., 2015). To do this, knowledge brokers must acquire
a diverse set of skills and competencies related to evidence gathering, crit-
ical assessment of evidence, and mediation (Meyer, 2010; Ward et al.,
2009).
In addition, a complementary view on knowledge brokerage empha-
sizes the central network position that knowledge brokers occupy
regarding the flow and exchange of information within a network of
actors. This conception of knowledge brokerage has a rich history in
social network theory (Burt, 2001). Through this lens, brokers are viewed
as organizations or individuals who bridge structural holes, defined as
a gap between two actors with complementary resources or informa-
tion. Knowledge brokers “use their in-between vantage points to spot
old ideas that can be used in new places, new ways and new combi-
nations” (Hargadon & Sutton, 2000). A more recent conception of
knowledge brokerage in this tradition recognizes the value of decoupling
a brokerage position from brokering activity (Obstfeld et al., 2014). That
is, knowledge brokerage can occur in a wide variety of structural contexts,
including closed, dense networks, and that opportunities to broker knowl-
edge are not entirely contingent on structural holes; brokers can (and
do) broker knowledge between actors who are already connected (Gould
& Fernandez, 1989). Further, opportunities to broker knowledge do
not automatically imply motivation to broker knowledge. Even when a
given structural pattern provides opportunity for some kind of brokerage,
the intent and intensity of brokering will vary as a function of brokers’
goals and intentions. Thus, knowledge brokerage is more complex than

simply considering an actor’s network position. Knowledge brokers may
occupy specific network positions, but brokerage roles are actually fluid
and change over time as a function of actions taken by brokers and
other actors in the network (Fritsch & Kauffeld-Monz, 2008; Gould &
Fernandez, 1989; Obstfeld et al., 2014).
Knowledge Brokerage
in Policy and Practice Settings
In recent decades, scholars across diverse academic disciplines and fields
of practice have turned an eye to knowledge brokerage. Serious efforts
to theorize and study knowledge brokerage have emerged in sociology,
political science, education, public health, criminal justice, and commu-
nication and information sciences, to name a few. A major thrust of this
work involves situating knowledge brokerage in the context of dynamic
processes, relationships, and routines. In general, policy-focused scholar-
ship seeks to position knowledge brokerage relative to the policy process
(agenda-setting, policy formulation, policy implementation, and policy
evaluation) and critical points of entry into the process (e.g., policy
windows, see Kingdon, 1993). This work stretches across multiple levels
of policymaking (local, state, national, and international) and considers a
multitude of diverse actors (both inside and outside of government) who
are active in the policy ecosystem and their complex relationships in an
effort to identify and leverage knowledge brokers.
Extending from this body of work, practice-oriented knowledge
brokerage scholarship is research that focuses on a primary concern
of successfully building knowledge brokers’ capacity, crafting explicit
brokerage roles, and infusing knowledge brokerage into existing systems
and decision-making routines, particularly those that touch on problems
of practice. Practice-oriented work is geared toward the development and
testing of knowledge brokering interventions. As a consequence, knowl-
edge brokerage research in the policy domain tends to be relationship-
focused whereas practice-oriented knowledge brokerage research places
greater emphasis on the role and functions of knowledge brokers.
The complexity of knowledge brokerage as a subject of research is
particularly apparent in fields where policy and practice are intertwined.
The three we chose to feature here—health, education, and commu-
nication—are at the forefront of knowledge brokerage scholarship and
application, although equally influential work is being done in other fields

(e.g., criminal justice, environmental sciences, etc.). Further, we concur
with recent calls for a greater cross-disciplinary synergy to clarify the
roles, functions, and activities, as well as the processes and mechanisms
that can support effective knowledge brokerage (Hering, 2016; Robins
et al., 2012). We are further convinced that social network analysis is well
equipped to support this effort by providing robust tools for mapping,
understanding, and subsequently improving the flow of research evidence
into policy, and for understanding and interrogating the broader context
of research evidence use.
Knowledge Brokers in Health and Medicine

Knowledge brokerage research is well established in the domains of health
and medicine. In these domains, research tends to be practice-oriented
and knowledge brokers are often defined explicitly as information profes-
sionals with strong relation-building skills who work to promote engage-
ment in evidence-informed decision-making (Robeson et al., 2008). The
job of the knowledge broker is to become an expert within a given
domain, facilitate relationships, and educate others with regards to the
importance of particular sets of research (Dobbins et al., 2004, 2009;
Straus et al., 2013; Ungar et al., 2015).
In health domains, knowledge brokers are well established as actors
who translate research into practice in order to advance evidence-based
decision-making (Innvaer et al., 2002; Jordan et al., 2009). Within hospi-
tals and other healthcare organizations, knowledge brokerage is often
formalized in job roles. Many health institutions have formalized the role
of knowledge brokers as a way of facilitating the translation of research
evidence into practice. The American Association for the Advancement
of Science defines knowledge broker as an emerging profession, and it is
even possible to search for knowledge broker jobs on popular job boards
such as LinkedIn.
Formal brokerage roles are particularly important in medical practice,
where it is well established that patient health is directly impacted by the
effectiveness of implemented policies (Lavis et al., 2003b). Thus, research
implementation scholars focus on knowledge brokers as both individ-
uals (Zook, 2004) and groups or organizations (Hargadon, 1998, 2002;
Lavis et al., 2003a). Examples of organizations that serve as knowledge
brokers would include advocacy groups and nonprofits that work with
partners to bring research into practice settings. Testing the effective-

ness of knowledge brokers in practice, Forsetlund and Bjorndal (2002)
trained knowledge brokers working in Norwegian healthcare to inter-
vene in medical training by purposefully informing colleagues about new
research relevant to care protocols. Their work helped to demonstrate the
potential of knowledge brokers to impact and improve health outcomes.
Extant research on knowledge brokerage in the context of health policy
shows that individuals in knowledge brokerage roles are able to effec-
tively translate research into practice, but are also tasked with enabling
socialization to aide in collaborative processes in healthcare practice
(Bate & Robert, 2002; Jansson et al., 2010). The healthcare sector has
often been characterized by silos of information and tribes or cliques of
practitioners. Therefore, knowledge brokers’ contributions often extend
beyond research translation to breaking down barriers and facilitating the
exchange of information. This means that individuals in knowledge broker
roles must overcome personal differences, cultural differences, and other
types of conflicts that typically occur in interpersonal relationships (Long
et al., 2012, 2013).
Part of the process of knowledge brokerage thus involves socializa-
tion and building personal connections in order to facilitate knowledge
exchange (Long et al., 2012). The emphasis on socialization echoes earlier
research on brokerage, which focuses on the importance of a knowledge
broker’s capacity for establishing relationships and forging connection
with a diverse network of peers (Burt, 2005). Knowledge brokers are
responsible for establishing relationships with users, and for insuring that
those relationships are trusting and positive in order to facilitate research
implementation (Gravois Lee & Garvin, 2003; Roy et al., 2003). In turn,
this means that knowledge brokers must be aware of the challenges facing
end users, and the environmental conditions that may impact end users’
day-to-day work environment.
Knowledge brokers are expected to be experts in multiple domains and
to have a well-reasoned strategy for forming connections and enabling
knowledge transfer (Lyons et al., 2006). Further, research shows that in
order to be effective, knowledge brokers must take strategic action to
enhance their ability to be successful in their brokerage activity (Chambers
et al., 2010; Conklin et al., 2007). Dobbins et al. (2009) accordingly note
that the knowledge broker position is challenging due to the multiple
demands that are placed on the position beyond the basic function of
research translation.
Focusing on this challenge, Dobbins et al. (2005, 2009) conducted

a series of studies in which she worked with colleagues to implement
an intervention in three public health units in Canada. The intervention
focused on training individuals to work as knowledge brokers with the
goal of improving evidence-informed decision-making. Findings from the
study varied, but researchers noted that the communities of interaction
between practitioners became more tightly knit when the practice-based
purpose-trained knowledge brokers intervened (Yousefi-Nooraie et al.,
2014, 2015).
In sum, in health policy and medical practice knowledge brokers
are tasked with responsibility for establishing relationships and creating
conditions that are favorable to research engagement and implementa-
tion. The theme of translating research into practice is common across
domains. The role of knowledge broker is not as well established in other
areas of research, meaning that fields such as education and communica-
tion focus more on the practice of brokering knowledge and less on the
specific job function of a knowledge broker.
Knowledge Brokers in Education

Similar to research in health, knowledge brokers in education occupy a
critical role translating research into practice. Unlike health, where there
is a recognized need for knowledge brokers as professionals, knowledge
brokerage in education is primarily seen as a mechanism for closing the
research-practice gap (e.g., Flaspohler et al., 2012; Tseng, 2012). Under-
scoring the significance of knowledge brokerage in this context, a recent
study found that nearly two thirds of educators surveyed could not find a
path to engage with research through their existing social networks (Neal
et al., 2019).
When research is utilized in education policy at the district or school
level, it tends to be utilized in a superficial way and knowledge brokerage
is seen as one tool for promoting a more meaningful and engaged URE
in educational practice (Finnigan et al., 2013). Establishing a mechanism
of knowledge brokering that is integrated with educators’ professional
routines and practices is seen as having a significant potential to improve
URE in decision-making processes that take place within school systems
(Brown & Zhang, 2017).
Access to research evidence is central to improving outcomes within
school districts. In turn, research shows a disconnect exists between
district offices and school principals, and suggests that knowledge brokers
could help to bridge that gap and improve the URE within districts (Daly,
Finnigan, Jordan, et al., 2014). Formally, school principals and superin-
tendents often dictate how research evidence is utilized in schools, for
instance by repackaging data into manageable packets of information that
align with established expectations within a given district (Coburn et al.,
2009). This alignment with established expectations limits the ability of
educators to implement research evidence in a way that deviates from
expected norms.
Knowledge brokers serve a critical role in facilitating collabora-
tions among key actors within an education system, including educa-
tors, researchers, and policymakers (Coburn et al., 2013). Common
brokerage activities include working to establish research alliances or
research-practice partnerships that more formally connect educators and
researchers. At a more focused level, educator-targeted strategies such
as data coaching have also been used by knowledge brokers to build
educators’ capacity to collect and use evidence in practice (Huguet et al.,
2014).
There is a well documented tendency of educators working at the
classroom level to seek knowledge via outside channels (Daly, Finnigan,
Moolenaar, et al., 2014). This means that rather than seeking knowledge
or research evidence from traditional channels within a school or district,
educators often engage informal networks of peers or peer organizations
to this end. Within schools, these informal structures and relationships
that enable the flow and exchange of evidence are often overlooked
despite their clear importance in informing URE in practice (Farley-
Ripple & Buttram, 2014). This finding is echoed in further studies that
show the conception of evidence use in research does not fit comfort-
ably with actual practice in schools (Farley-Ripple & Cho, 2014; Finnigan
et al., 2013), leading to the use of more informal channels. When an
educator has a connection with someone who is in a structural position
that enables them to facilitate research exchange, there is a significant
increase in the likelihood that an educator will be able to engage with a
researcher (Neal et al., 2019); that structural position does not necessarily
equate to a formal position within the education system.
A broad body of scholarship points to a need for improved knowledge
brokerage activity within education. There is also evidence that success
in knowledge brokering activities can be beneficial for educators. For
example, research shows that when members of a school’s staff seek infor-
mation about school programs and practices and are successful, the path
of knowledge transfer aligns with what is traditionally known as knowl-
edge brokerage (Neal et al., 2015). In other words, the notion of a key
actor translating research between otherwise disconnected parties holds
weight in the education sector, but an investment of time and resources
is needed to make that process more prevalent. The concept of knowledge
brokering is critical to future gains in education policy, although the prac-
tice of the knowledge brokerage role in policymaking clearly differs from
what has been seen in health and medicine.
Knowledge Brokers in Communication

In recent years, research on knowledge brokerage has shifted to focus on
the communicative role of brokers in effectively communicating scientific
research findings to external audiences. Communication research on this
topic shifts the focus of inquiry from the structure of the network to
the nature of the knowledge brokerage activity, as well as the context of
knowledge brokerage. This means that the role of a knowledge broker
is increasingly complex, and ought to be defined both in terms of
what brokers do as well as the broker’s structural position (Ward et al.,
2009). From a communication perspective, knowledge brokers can thus
be viewed as occupying a continuum of roles, ranging from passive to
active forms of brokerage.
Much of the extant work on communication and knowledge brokerage
has focused on science communication and media. To that end, scholars
in science communication, have looked at how individuals help advance
scientific research by strategically facilitating the exchange of knowledge
(Meyer, 2010), noting that the strategy and role evolves based on the
political context and the research evidence. In related work focused on
understanding the connection between journalists and research evidence,
scholars demonstrated that journalists have the capacity to serve as knowl-
edge brokers based on the context of their job role (Nisbet & Fahy,
2015). That work, conducted in the context of climate change research,
showed how journalists navigate between political biases and audience
demands to communicate complex research evidence in digestible compo-
nents.
Indeed, knowledge brokers who work to communicate the meaning
of research, translating scientific knowledge into practice, do not simply
broker an interaction between two actors. Rather, knowledge brokers add

meaning and engage with both the senders and receivers of communi-
cated knowledge (Meyer, 2010). While the broker may add meaning, the
way in which that meaning is conveyed also matters. The context and
agency of a knowledge broker is central to the role, as is the way in which
knowledge is communicated. Returning to the media, professionals such
as journalists walk a fine line in translating available research evidence
into language that is accessible to public audiences and policymakers. The
translation of research evidence into practice matters, and the framing of
the issue has a significant impact on how audiences come to understand
key issues (Nisbet, 2009).
In recent work looking at the complexity of knowledge brokers,
scholars theorized that the role of knowledge brokerage is more nuanced
than a binary of either being a knowledge broker or not. Rather,
Yanovitzky and Weber (2019) illustrate that knowledge brokers create
awareness of knowledge, help to make knowledge accessible, create
engagement with knowledge, link disconnected parties, and mobilize
knowledge into action. Each of these steps of knowledge brokerage
involves an effect on the flow of knowledge between parties, as well as
an effect on outcomes including policy actions. Moreover, this approach
places the nature of the communication at the center of the knowledge
brokerage process.
Knowledge Brokerage
and Social Network Analysis
The intersection of social network analysis and knowledge brokerage in
policymaking is an emerging area of interest to many fields of prac-
tice and there is good reason to believe that the study of knowledge
brokerage would benefit from opportunities to interface with research
conducted across disciplinary boundaries. For example, in recent years,
massive public investments in translational health research resulted in this
field making significant strides regarding the design, implementation, and
evaluation of systems and strategies for facilitating evidence-based policy-
making (Kuo et al., 2015). In addition, new valuable insights concerning
the flow and exchange of knowledge and research evidence through
networks of individuals, groups, and organizations has emerged from
research conducted within the fields of communication and information
(Sullivan et al., 2013), social work (Palinkas et al., 2011), and education
(Daly, Finnigan, Jordan, et al., 2014), and psychology (Neal et al., 2015).
Across domains, from health to education to policy to communica-
tion, there is a common focus on the role of the knowledge broker
in connecting actors and facilitating the use of knowledge. Recent
work in education and health emphasizes the complex nature of knowl-
edge brokerage, and complementary to this communication scholarship
emphasizes both the context and content of brokerage activity. Research
on knowledge brokerage consistently points to the importance of under-
standing both the structure and nature of brokerage activity. Social
network analysis provides a lens for delving deeper into myriad nuances
of networks that bring together policy advocates and practitioners in
their day-to-day efforts to broker evidence into policymaking processes.
Further, this approach provides a common thread for understanding the
challenges of policymaking and knowledge brokerage across domains.
Scholars studying policymaking and associated practice-based activity
recognize that social network analysis is a key method and theoretical
approach for examining and improving policymaking processes (Rhodes,
2008). A network perspective on knowledge brokerage is advantageous
because it bridges disciplinary divides and places the emphasis on the
activity of knowledge brokerage as opposed to the specific role (Neal
et al., 2015). There is an increasing awareness that knowledge brokering
is performed by media and organizations, as well as by individuals such as
policymakers—and social network analysis provides a common approach
to understanding these different levels of brokerage.
Social network analysis provides a means to mapping and analyzing the
flow of knowledge brokerage and research evidence (Contandriopoulos
et al., 2010; Lavis et al., 2003b). Recent work has sought to advance this
approach, focusing on descriptive analyses of the factors that influence
the movement of research evidence through networks of policy actors
(Shearer et al., 2014). Further, as the methodological underpinnings of
social network analysis have advanced, there have been numerous calls
for the application of new methods in network analysis to the study of
policymaking processes (Lubell et al., 2012; Robins et al., 2012).
While the type, scope, and nature of the evidence engaged by policy-
makers and practitioners vary across fields, the process by which evidence
is acquired, interpreted, and brokered, and the key challenges experi-
enced, are likely similar (Best & Holmes, 2010). When focusing on social
network analysis, a common thread exists in the study of knowledge
brokerage and brokering in networks that can be applied across domains,

giving researchers a common language for understanding, comparing, and
improving the use of research evidence.
Simultaneously, recent thinking on knowledge brokering and URE in
policymaking processes recognizes that a linear decision-making approach
to understanding the ways in which policymakers engage with research
and other forms of knowledge may fail to fully account for the complex
and fluid nature of URE in these settings (Gough & Boaz, 2017). Present
work consistently shows that the use of evidence in knowledge brokering
processes remains limited (Coburn & Turner, 2012; Farley-Ripple, 2012;
Honig & Coburn, 2007), and while some work has focused on the ways
in which policymakers engage with knowledge and research, the flow of
evidence into policymaking remains understudied. Thus, as noted, there
is also a need to examine the flow of research and knowledge through
networks of knowledge brokers in order to understand the process by
which research and knowledge move from knowledge to action (Neal
et al., 2015; Yanovitzky & Weber, 2019).
Explicit Network Measurement

of Brokerage Activity
In the domain of social network analysis, there is a long tradition of
studying brokerage, but it is only recently that this work has been brought
into the domains of education, health, and communication to explic-
itly examine processes of knowledge brokerage. Network scholars have
for decades considered the role of key actors in bridging gaps that exist
between distinct groups. Brokerage analysis, for instance, focuses on using
network metrics to look at the different roles that an individual might
occupy—from bridge to consultant to gatekeeper. Other measures have
been developed to capture influencers, or to measure the degree to which
an individual engages with others. But the pure networks measure of
brokerage explicitly captures the degree to which an individual serves as
the shortest connection between two otherwise disconnected groups.
Early work at the intersection of social network analysis and policy
research shows clear connections between core social network concepts
and strategic acts of knowledge brokerage (Fritsch & Kauffeld-Monz,
2008; Scott & Hofmeyer, 2007; Waring et al., 2013). There are
well established measures within social network analysis that provide a
starting point for examining knowledge brokerage activities. Consider,
for instance, basic descriptive network measures, concepts such as struc-

tural holes, and higher order concepts such as exponential random graph
modeling.
Traditional network measures. At a fundamental level, basic network
measures of centrality, degree centrality, and density help to define the
characteristics of the network. In addition, these core measures help to
explain the potential for brokerage activity to occur (Zack, 2000). Even
at a descriptive level, network measures of structure are thus useful in
assessing both the role of individual actors and the nature of the overall
network.
Structural holes. Moving beyond basic network measures, structural
holes are characteristics of the network that derive their value-potential
through the separation of non-redundant sources of information (Burt,
1992). Actors in brokerage roles bridge these holes, deriving power
through control of access to alternative opinions in the network, early
access to new opinions and methods of practice, and the ability to move
ideas between groups (Burt, 2005). The greater the proliferation of struc-
tural holes within networks, the greater the ability of organizational actors
is to negotiate the transfer of information and benefit from the control
over information movement (Burt, 1992). Structural holes and brokerage
opportunities can be precisely measured in order to understand brokerage
activity that either has occurred or is likely to occur in a network.
Exponential random graph modeling. Advances over the past decade
in the field through exponential random graph modeling and associ-
ated approach have further advanced the modeling of brokerage as a
complex phenomenon (e.g., Robins et al., 2012). Graph models provide a
mechanism for understanding the probabilistic likelihood that brokerage
activity will occur in a given network configuration. In sum, there are
well established methods within network analysis that provide a baseline
for studying knowledge brokerage.
Social Network Analysis, Knowledge

Brokerage, and Research Evidence
The chapters included in this volume establish clear processes for
implementing network typologies, network terminology, and knowledge
brokerage in policymaking. In addition, they permit the comparison,
assessment, and delineation of social network approaches to knowl-
edge brokerage in a variety of contexts, and provide a suite of useful
social network analysis tools for collecting, mapping, and analyzing

knowledge brokerage. Finally, the chapters that follow alert scholars to
important research design and measurement considerations for guiding
rigorous, theory-informed evaluations of knowledge brokerage from a
social network analysis approach.
Following this introduction, Purtle’s chapter (Chapter “Disseminating
Evidence to Policymakers: Accounting for Audience Heterogeneity ”)
aims to situate knowledge brokerage in the context of broader efforts to
disseminate research evidence to policymakers. There are already a variety
of strategies and approaches that are routinely used for dissemination,
some of which are more effective than others, and this chapter high-
lights the tailoring of strategies to match audience heterogeneity as key
for effective dissemination efforts. Oliver (Chapter ““Being Important”
or “Knowing the Important”: Who is Best Placed to Influence Policy?”)
next connects knowledge brokerage to this larger effort by introducing
a hub-authority model of knowledge brokerage that is specific to policy
and sensitive to the role that power plays in knowledge brokerage. By
calling specific attention to the role of power Oliver helps to expand our
understanding of the link between knowledge brokering and URE in the
policymaking context.
Following these opening chapters, the discussion moves to consider the
application and context of knowledge brokering activity. Focusing broadly
on education policy, Hodge, Benko, and Salloum (Chapter “Integrating
Connectionist and Structuralist Social Network Approaches to Under-
stand Education Policy Networks: The Case of the Common Core State
Standards and State-Provided Curricular Resources”) examine knowledge
brokerage in the context of implementing common core policies and
demonstrate the utility of document analysis when paired with social
network analysis. Continuing the theme of policy formation and policy
networks, Farrare and colleagues (Chapter “Measuring Issue Preferences,
Idea Brokerage, and Research-Use in Policy Networks: A Case Study
of the Policy Innovators in Education Network”) home in on URE in
education policymaking networks, and introduce the reader to two-mode
network analysis. Their chapter examines an important case study of policy
advocates engaged in contemporary education reform. Continuing the
discussion of knowledge brokerage in the context of education reform,
Finnegan and colleagues (Chapter “Broken Bridges: The Role of Brokers
in Connecting Educational Leaders around Research Evidence”) focus
on the specific types of brokerage roles occupied by different actors,
including a discussion of the role of educational leaders as influential

knowledge brokers.
Moving to consider knowledge brokerage in the context of education
practice, Farley-Ripple and Yun (Chapter “An Ego-Network Approach
to Understanding Educator and School Ties to Research: From Basic
Statistics to Profiles of Capacity”) explores school-based decision-making
networks using ego-network analysis to detect knowledge brokerage of
research. Their work uses large-scale surveys to examine ego-networks
of research evidence engagement. Next, Kornbluh (Chapter “Mixing
Network Analysis and Qualitative Approaches in Educational Practices”)
examines the dissemination of evidence-based practices among students
engaged in youth-led participatory action research. The chapter also
advances methodology, presenting an approach for integrating social
network analysis and qualitative research in order to more completely
understand brokerage processes in the context of research-practice
partnerships. Negron and colleagues (Chapter “A Multi-Level Frame-
work for Understanding Knowledge Sharing in Transnational Immigrant
Networks”) subsequently broaden the lens on network analysis of knowl-
edge brokerage through a rich and in-depth ethnographic examination
of policymaking and healthcare networks in immigrant communities.
Their work draws on a network perspective, but introduces the reader
to qualitative approaches to network analysis.
Shifting to knowledge brokerage in health and medicine contexts, de
la Haye and colleagues (Chapter “Promoting healthy eating: A whole-of
system approach leveraging social network brokers”) unpack efforts to
promote healthy eating through a whole network analysis and systems
approach to understanding policymaking efforts. Focusing on medical
interventions, Fujimoto and colleagues (Chapter “Brokerage-Centrality
Conjugates for Multi-Level Organizational Field Networks: Toward a
Blockchain Implementation to Enhance Coordination of Healthcare
Delivery”) go on to introduce the reader to exponential graph modeling
and uses data from their work on HIV prevention to examine imple-
mentation sciences practices through the lens of social network analysis.
Their work contributes to the emerging field of health systems science
in the domain of population health and social determinants of health
by providing a network paradigm for organizational research. Further,
they introduce the idea of blockchain and envision knowledge brokerage
in power dynamics of the future in the era of digital transformation.
Lawlor and colleagues (Chapter “Platformed Knowledge Brokerage in
Education: Power and Possibilities ”) expand the focus on knowledge

brokerage to include the role of technological platforms. Their work
expands the definition of knowledge brokers to non-human agents and
analyzes the role of knowledge repositories in facilitating the brokerage of
and dissemination of key information relevant to policymaking processes.
In closing the book, Ognyanova expands the lens of discussion in this
volume to focus on the increasing role of misinformation in information
ecosystems. Ognyanova’s work (Chapter “Network Approaches to Misin-
formation Evaluation and Correction”) discusses mechanisms of social
network analysis as a means of understanding and potentially correcting
for the prominence of misinformation in a given network. Finally,
Yanovitzky and Weber (Chapter “Closing the Theory-Research Gap in
Knowledge Brokerage: Remaining Challenges and Emerging Opportu-
nities”) close the book with a look towards the future of knowledge
brokerage research in the context of URE. The final chapter considers
specific opportunities to advance social network analysis in this domain,
including the development of knowledge brokerage interventions to test
specific mechanisms and effects.
In sum, this edited volume engages with critical issues of social network
analysis and knowledge brokerage in policymaking contexts, focusing on
the ways in which knowledge and research are utilized, as well as how
research informs policy and practice across domains, including commu-
nication, health, and education, although this work is equally relevant
to other fields with central interest in the role of research evidence
in decision-making processes. Collectively, the contributions included in
this volume represent a serious effort to uncover the factors and condi-
tions that enable effective brokering of research into policy and practice
through the systematic and rigorous application of social network anal-
ysis. As such, they advance theory and research on knowledge brokerage
in significant ways, including advancing methodology, and also have
significant potential to inform the development, implementation, and
evaluation of effective knowledge brokerage interventions to facilitate
URE in policy and practice.
References
Bate, S. P., & Robert, G. (2002). Knowledge management and communities of
practice in the private sector: Lessons for modernizing the National Health
Service in England and Wales. Public Administration, 80. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1467-9299.00322.
Best, A., & Holmes, B. (2010). Systems thinking, knowledge and action:
Towards better models and methods. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of
Research, Debate and Practice, 6(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1332/174
426410X502284.
Bogenschneider, K., & Corbett, T. J. (2010). Family policy: Becoming a field of
inquiry and subfield of social policy. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3),
783–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00730.x.
Bornbaum, C. C., Kornas, K., Peirson, L., & Rosella, L. C. (2015,
2015/11/20). Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers
as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: A systematic
review and thematic analysis. Implementation Science, 10(1), 162. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0351-9.
Brescoll, V. L., Kersh, R., & Brownell, K. D. (2008). Assessing the feasibility
and impact of federal childhood obesity policies. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 615(1), 178–194.
Brown, C., & Zhang, D. (2017). How can school leaders establish evidence-
informed schools: An analysis of the effectiveness of potential school policy
levers. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(3), 382–
401.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard
University Press.
Burt, R. S. (2001). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In
N. Lin, K. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research
(pp. 31–56). Routledge.
Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital.
Oxford University Press.
Chambers, L. W., Luesby, D., Brookman, C., Harris, M., & Lusk, E. (2010).
The seniors health research transfer network knowledge network model:
system-wide implementation for health and healthcare of seniors. Healthcare
Management Forum, 23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hcmf.2010.01.001.
Coburn, C. E., Honig, M. I., & Stein, M. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on
districts’ use of evidence. In J. D. Bransford, D. J. Stipek, N. J. Vye, L. M.
Gomez, & D. Lam (Eds.), The role of research in educational improvement
(pp. 67–86). Harvard Education Press.
Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). Practice partnerships: A
strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts.
William T. Grant Foundation.
Coburn, C. E., & Turner, E. O. (2012, Feburary 1). The practice of data use:
An introduction. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 99–111. https://
doi.org/10.1086/663272.
Conklin, J., Stolee, P., Luesby, D., Sharratt, M. T., & Chambers, L. W. (2007).
Enhancing service delivery capacity through knowledge exchange: The Seniors
Health Research Transfer Network. Healthcare Management Forum, 20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0840-4704(10)60087-7.
Contandriopoulos, D., Lemire, M., Denis, J.-L., & Tremblay, É. (2010,
December 1). Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy
arenas: A narrative systematic review of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly,
88(4), 444–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00608.x.
Daly, A. J., Finnigan, K. S., Jordan, S., Moolenaar, N. M., & Che, J. (2014,
March 1). 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.
Daly, A. J., Finnigan, K. S., Moolenaar, N. M., & Che, J. (2014). The critical role
of brokers in the access and use of evidence at the school and district level.
In K. S. Finnigan & A. J. Daly (Eds.), Using research evidence in education:
From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill (pp. 13–31). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04690-7_3.
Dobbins, M., Davies, B., Danseco, E., Edwards, N., & Virani, T. (2005).
Changing nursing practice: Evaluating the usefulness of a best-practice guide-
line implementation toolkit. Nurse Leadership (Tor Ont), 18. https://doi.org/
10.12927/cjnl.2005.17034.
Dobbins, M., DeCorby, K., & Twiddy, T. (2004). A knowledge transfer strategy
for public health decision makers. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs, 1. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2004.t01-1-04009.x.
Dobbins, M., Robeson, P., Ciliska, D., Hanna, S., Cameron, R., O’Mara, L.,
DeCorby, K., & Mercer, S. (2009). A description of a knowledge broker role
implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowl-
edge translation strategies [journal article]. Implementation Science, 4(1), 23.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-23.
Farley-Ripple, E., & Cho, V. (2014). Depth of use: How district decision-makers
did and did not engage with evidence. In A. Bowers, A. Shobo, & B. Barnett
(Eds.), Using data in schools to inform leadership and decision making (pp. 39–
66). Information Age Publishing.
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.
Farley-Ripple, E. N., & Buttram, J. L. (2014). Developing collaborative data
use through professional learning communities: Early lessons from Delaware.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
stueduc.2013.09.006.
Finnigan, K. S., Daly, A. J., & Che, J. (2013). Systemwide reform in districts
under pressure: The role of social networks in defining, acquiring, using, and
diffusing research evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4),
476–497. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311325668.
Flaspohler, P. D., Meehan, C., Maras, M. A., & Keller, K. E. (2012). Ready,
willing, and able: Developing a support system to promote implementa-
tion of school-based prevention programs. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 50(3–4), 428–444.
Forsetlund, L., & Bjorndal, A. (2002). Identifying barriers to the use of research
faced by public health physicians in Norway and developing an intervention
to reduce them. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 7 . https://doi.
org/10.1258/1355819021927629.
Fritsch, M., & Kauffeld-Monz, M. (2008). The impact of network structure on
knowledge transfer: An application of social network analysis in the context
of regional innovation networks. The Annals of Regional Science, 44(1), 21.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-008-0245-8.
Gough, D., & Boaz, A. (2017). Politics and practices of knowledge production
and use. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 13(3),
397–400. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426417X15008911642971.
Gould, R., & Fernandez, R. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach
to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89–126.
https://doi.org/10.2307/270949.
Gravois Lee, R., & Garvin, T. (2003). Moving from information transfer to
information exchange in health and health care. Social Science & Medicine,
56. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00045-x.
Hargadon, A. (1998). Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing contin-
uous innovation. California Management Review, 40. https://doi.org/10.
2307/41165951.
Hargadon, A. (2002). Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation.
Research in Organizational behavior, 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-
3085(02)24003-4.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). Building an innovation factory. Harvard
Business Review, 78(3), 157–157.
Hering, J. G. (2016, March 1). Do we need “more research” or better
implementation through knowledge brokering? Sustainability Science, 11(2),
363–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0314-8.
Honig, M. I., & Coburn, C. (2007, July 1). Evidence-based decision making
in school district central offices: Toward a policy and research agenda.
Educational Policy, 22(4), 578–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/089590480
7307067.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
the camp, however, the messenger saw the barbarians
pointing rifles at him, so that he turned and fled.
“On the afternoon of the 24th, vast columns of smoke were
seen rising to the north-west, and it was ascertained that the
barbarians had entered the Summer Palace, and after
plundering the three main halls, leaving them absolutely bare,
they had set fire to the buildings. Their excuse for this
abominable behaviour is that their troops got out of hand, and
had committed the incendiarism. After this they issued
notices, placarded everywhere, in very bad Chinese, stating
that unless terms of peace had been arranged before mid-day
on the 29th, they would then bombard Peking, in which case
all inhabitants who did not wish to share the fate of the city
had better remove themselves to a safe distance.
“On this day it was reported that The Sacred Chariot had
reached Jehol in safety, but His Majesty had been greatly
alarmed, and had issued a Decree expressing regret for his
failure to commit suicide on the approach of the invaders. The
Emperor is reported to be ill, and it is said that the Princes
Tsai Yüan and Tuan Hua are trying to get themselves
appointed to the Grand Council. Should the Emperor die (lit.
‘when ten thousand years have passed’) the Yi concubine will
be made Empress Dowager, but at present she is reported to
be at variance with the Princes, who are endeavouring to
prejudice the Emperor against her.
“I learnt that all was quiet at the temple where my mother’s
coffin rests. Troops were passing there daily, but, so far, none
had occupied it. On the 29th, my servant-boy, Yung ’Erh,
came to tell me that troops from Tientsin in the pay of the
barbarians had occupied the temple, but on proceeding
thither I found them to be General Sheng’s men. Prince
Seng’s troops were also near at hand, so that, if a
bombardment had taken place, what could have prevented
the destruction of the temple, and what would then have
become of my mother’s remains? I therefore decided to
engage wheelbarrows and handcarts, at six taels apiece, to
take my family to Pao-ting fu, and I arranged with the
undertakers to hire bearers for the coffin.
“At 11 a.m. of the same day the barbarians entered the city
by the Anting gate, occupying its tower and the wall adjoining.
One large cannon and four small ones were placed in position
on the wall, and a five-coloured flag hoisted there. With the
exception of the officials entrusted with the duty of
negotiating, not one remained in the city. Two days ago the
prisoner Parkes, and his companions, were sent back to the
enemy with every mark of courtesy. Scarcely had they
reached their camp when a special Decree, post-haste from
Jehol, ordered Prince Kung to decapitate them all forthwith as
a warning to the bandits who had dared to invade the sacred
precincts of the Palace. As the Yi concubine had urged their
execution from the very first, it would seem as if her influence
were again in the ascendant.
“On the 1st of the 9th Moon, the ‘Chang-yi’ gate was
closed, but I managed to leave the city by the Hsi-pien Men,
where I was nearly crushed to death in the enormous crowd.
Upon my arrival at the temple, I had a nice wadded cover
made to put over the coffin, and then hurried back to the city
to arrange for the cortège leaving next morning. The
President of the Board of Finance, Liang Hai-lou, was hiding
in the temple precincts with his family and chief concubine, all
wearing common clothes and unshaven. This is a good
example of the condition to which the very highest had been
reduced.
“Next morning, on reaching the temple, I found the coffin-
bearers and transport coolies on the spot. But, unfortunately,
in my hurry, I failed to notice that the undertakers had
supplied the frame, on which the coffin is carried, of a size
smaller than had been agreed upon, so that instead of sixteen
bearers there were but eight. We started, however, and the
procession’s appearance of panic-stricken fugitives was most
distressing to contemplate. But what could I do? The first and
only object in my mind was to protect my mother’s coffin. I
have omitted to state that my small servant-boy, Yung ’Erh,
had started to accompany the coffin on foot. But, after they
had started, it occurred to me that the lad could never stand
so long a journey, and that should my mother be aware of it,
she would be extremely anxious about him. Therefore, I
quickly engaged another wheelbarrow for Yung ’Erh, and
bade the coolies hurry after the procession.
“On returning home I felt uneasy about the jolting which my
mother’s coffin must have experienced on the undersized
frame. I went, therefore, to the undertakers and expostulated
with them for having cheated me. After much altercation they
agreed to change the frame, but I was to pay two taels more
for the larger size. I subsequently learned that they failed to
keep their promise, but there was no good to be got by suing
them for breach of faith. They are sordid tricksters. Yung ’Erh
wrote, however, to assure me that the party had reached Pao-
ting fu in safety, and that the coffin had not been jolted in the
least. On removing the wrappings the lacquer was found to be
undamaged.
“The barbarians were now in full possession of the city, and
rumours were rife on all sides. Everyone in Peking—there
were still a good many people—was terrified, and the
Manchus were sending their families from the Tartar to the
southern (Chinese) city to save their women from being
outraged by the barbarian bandits. The condition of the
people was indeed deplorable in the extreme. One of the
Censors had sent a Memorial to Jehol, reproaching the
Emperor for the pass to which he had brought his people, and
for the neglect of ancestral worship caused by his absence.
He blamed His Majesty for listening to evil advisers, and
besought him to return to his capital.
“The minds of the people were becoming more than ever
disturbed, because it was now reported that the negotiations
for peace had so far failed, either because Prince Kung would
not entertain the barbarians’ conditions, or because the latter
were too utterly preposterous.
“On the 6th, a despatch arrived from the British barbarians,
accusing China of having violated all civilised usage in
torturing to death their fellow-countrymen. For this they
demanded an indemnity of 500,000 taels. At the same time
came a despatch from the Russian barbarians, saying that
they had heard that England was demanding this indemnity,
but they (the Russians) were prepared to use their influence
and good offices to persuade the British to abate their claims.
Prince Kung was of opinion that, even if they should be
successful in this proposed mediation, China would only save
some 100,000 taels, and for this she would place herself
under heavy obligations to Russia. So he replied, declining
the offer on the ground that the British claim had already been
accepted by China, and that further discussion of the matter
was therefore impossible. Thereupon the Russians wrote
again, saying that if China had definitely accepted the British
terms there was, of course, nothing more to be said, but they
asked Prince Kung to note that they had induced England to
forgo half of the indemnity of two million taels originally asked,
as a set-off to China for the destruction of the Summer
Palace. On the 9th, Prince Kung forwarded the 500,000 taels
to the British barbarians.
“The whole sixteen articles of the barbarians’ demands
have finally been accepted without modification. The only
thing that our negotiators asked was the immediate
withdrawal of the invading army, and to obtain this they were
prepared to yield everything. Therefore, the barbarians openly
flout China for her lack of men. Woe is me; a pitiful tale, and
one hard to tell! When the Yi concubine heard of Prince
Kung’s complete surrender to the barbarians she reproached
the Emperor for allowing his brother to negotiate, and she
implored him to re-open hostilities. But His Majesty was
dangerously ill, and refused to leave Jehol, so that our
revenge must be postponed for the time being.”
H.I.H. P’u Ju, Cousin of the Present Emperor, Son of the Boxer Prince
Tsai-Ying, and Grandson of Prince Kung.
Bearing in mind the frequent allusions made by the Hanlin diarist

to the Emperor’s indecision of purpose at the time of the advance of
the British and French armies on Peking, it is reasonable to assume
that Yehonala prompted, if she did not write, the following vigorous
Edict, which appeared on the 3rd day of the 8th Moon in the 10th
year of Hsien-Feng (6th September 1860):—
“Swaying the wide world, we are nevertheless animated by

one and the same instinct of benevolence to all. We have
never forbidden England and France to trade with China, and
for long years there has been peace between them and us.
But three years ago the English, for no good cause, invaded
our city of Canton, and carried off our officials into captivity.
We refrained at that time from taking any retaliatory
measures, because we were compelled to recognise that the
obstinacy of the Viceroy Yeh had been in some measure a
cause of the hostilities. Two years ago the barbarian
Commander Elgin came north, and we then commanded the
Viceroy of Chihli, T’an Ting-hsiang, to look into matters
preparatory to negotiations. But the barbarian took advantage
of our unreadiness, attacking the Taku forts and pressing on
to Tientsin. Being anxious to spare our people the horrors of
war, we again refrained from retaliation and ordered Kuei
Liang to discuss terms of peace. Notwithstanding the
outrageous nature of the barbarians’ demands, we
subsequently ordered Kuei Liang to proceed to Shanghai in
connection with the proposed Treaty of Commerce, and even
permitted its ratification as earnest of our good faith.
“In spite of all this the barbarian leader Bruce again
displayed intractability of the most unreasonable kind and
once more appeared off Taku with a squadron of warships in
the 8th Moon. Seng Ko Lin Ch’in thereupon attacked him
fiercely and compelled him to make a hasty retreat. From all
these facts it is clear that China has committed no breach of
faith and that the barbarians have been in the wrong. During
the present year the barbarian leaders Elgin and Gros have
again appeared off our coasts, but China, unwilling to resort
to extreme measures, agreed to their landing and permitted
them to come to Peking for the ratification of the Treaty.
“Who could have believed that all this time these barbarians
have been darkly plotting and that they had brought with them
an army of soldiers and artillery, with which they attacked the
Taku forts from the rear, and, having driven out our forces,
advanced upon Tientsin! Once more we ordered Kuei Liang to
go to Tientsin and endeavour to reason with them, in the hope
that they might not be lost to all sense of propriety, and with
the full intention that their demands, if not utterly
unreasonable, should be conceded. To our utter
astonishment, Elgin and his colleague had the audacity to
demand an indemnity from China; they asked, too, that more
Treaty ports should be opened, and that they should be
allowed to occupy our capital with their army. To such lengths
did their brutality and cunning lead them! But we then
commanded Prince Yi and Mu Yin, the President of the Board
of War, to endeavour to induce in them a more reasonable
spirit and to come to some satisfactory arrangement. But
these treacherous barbarians dared to advance their savage
soldiery towards Tungchow and to announce their intention of
compelling us to receive them in audience.
“Any further forbearance on our part would be a dereliction
of our duty to the Empire, so that we have now commanded
our armies to attack them with all possible energy and we
have directed the local gentry to organise train-bands, and
with them either to join in the attack or to block the barbarians’
advance. Hereby we make offer of the following rewards:—
For the head of a black barbarian, 50 taels, and for the head
of a white barbarian, 100 taels. For the capture of a barbarian
leader, alive or dead, 500 taels, and for the seizure or
destruction of a barbarian vessel, 5,000 taels. The inhabitants
of Tientsin are reputed brave. Let them now come forward
and rid us of these pestilential savages, either by open attack
or by artifice. We are no lovers of war, but all our people must
admit that this has been forced upon us.
“As to the barbarians’ seizure of portions of our territory in
Kuangtung and Fukhien, all our subjects are alike our children
and we will issue large rewards to any of them in the south
who shall present us with the head of a barbarian chief.
“These barbarians live in the remote parts of the earth,
whence they come to China for purposes of trade. Their
outrageous proceedings have, we understand, been
encouraged by abominable traitors among our own subjects.
We now command that all the Treaty ports be closed and all
trade with England and France stopped. Subjects of other
submissive States are not to be molested, and whensoever
the British and French repent them of their evil ways and
return to their allegiance, we shall be pleased to permit them
to trade again, as of old, so that our clemency may be made
manifest. But should they persist in their wicked violation of
every right principle, our armies must mightily smite them, and
pledge themselves solemnly to destroy utterly these evil-
doers. May they repent while yet there is time!”
Three days later Yehonala was present at the morning audience,

when the Emperor made the following statement:—
“We learn that the barbarians continue to press upon our

capital. Their demands were all complied with, yet they insist
upon presenting to us in person their barbarous documents of
credentials, and demand that Prince Seng shall withdraw his
troops from Chang-Chia wan. Such insolence as this makes
further parley impossible. Prince Seng has gained one great
victory already, and now his forces are holding the enemy in
check at Palich’iao.”
Orders were issued that the landing of troops from the warships
which had appeared off Kinchou should be stoutly resisted.
On the 7th of the Moon His Majesty sacrificed at the Temple of
Confucius, but on the next morning he was afraid to come into the
city from the Summer Palace, although he wished to sacrifice to the
tutelary deities and inform them of his intended departure. Early on
the following day Prince Kung was appointed Plenipotentiary in the
place of Prince Yi (Tsai Yüan) and the Emperor, despite the brave
wording of his Decree, fled from the capital, after making obeisance
to the God of War in a small temple of the Palace grounds. In the
Decree announcing his departure, the flight was described as an
“autumn tour of inspection.”[3]
The Court started in utter confusion, but proceeded only some
eighteen miles on the road northwards from Peking, stopping for the
first night in a small temple. Here a Decree was issued calling upon
all the Manchurian troops to hasten to Jehol for the protection of the
Court. On the evening of the following day a Memorial was received
from Prince Kung, reporting on the latest doings of the barbarians,
but His Majesty ordered him, in reply, to take whatever steps he
might think fit to deal with the situation. It was out of the question,
said the Rescript, for the Emperor to decide on any course of action
at a distance: in other words, the Throne divested itself of further
responsibility.
On the 11th, the Court lay at the Imperial hunting lodge north of
Mi-Yun hsien. The Chinese chronicler records that the Emperor was
too sick to receive the Grand Council, and delegated his duties to
Yehonala, who thereupon issued the following Decree:—
“We are informed that the pestilent barbarians are pressing

upon our capital, and our Ministers have asked us to summon
reinforcements from the provinces. Now the highest form of
military art is to effect sudden surprises, carefully pre-
arranged. The barbarians’ superiority lies in their firearms, but
if we can only bring them to a hand-to-hand engagement they
will be unable to bring their artillery to bear, and thus shall our
victory be assured. The Mongol and Manchu horsemen are
quite useless for this kind of warfare, but the men of Hupei
and Ssŭ-ch’uan are as agile as monkeys and adepts at the
use of cover in secret approaches. Let them but surprise
these bandits once, and their rout is inevitable. Therefore let
Tseng Kuo-fan, the Viceroy of Hukuang, send up at least
three thousand of his best troops to Peking, and let as many
be despatched from Ssŭ-ch’uan. Prince Seng’s troops have
been defeated again and again, and the capital is in great
danger. At such a crisis as this, there must be no delay; it is
our earnest hope that a sufficient force will speedily be
collected, so that we may be rid of this poisonous fever-cloud.
For bravery and good service, there will be great rewards. A
most important Decree.”
At the Court’s halting place at Pa-Ko shih, close to the Great Wall,
a Memorial came in from Prince Seng Ko Lin Ch’in, stating that small
scouting parties of the barbarian troops had been seen in the
neighbourhood of Peking, but that as yet there had been no general
bombardment. A Rescript was issued as follows:—
“Inasmuch as it would appear that the pertinacity of these

barbarians will only increase with opposition, it seems
desirable to come to terms with them as soon as possible.
With reference to the French barbarian Gros’s petition to be
permitted to discuss matters with Prince Kung in person, at
Peking, we command the Prince to receive him. But should
the bandits attempt to approach the city in force, Prince Seng
should take them in the rear and cut off their retreat. If by any
chance, however, Peking should be already taken, let the
Mongol regiments be sent up to the Great Wall for the
protection of our person.”
After a leisurely journey, the Court reached Jehol on the 18th. On

the 20th, the opinion of the advisers of the Emperor seemed to be in
favour of continuing the war at all costs. A Decree was issued,
referring to the fact that the foreign troops had dared to encamp near
the Summer Palace, and forbidding Prince Kung to spare the lives of
any captured barbarians upon any pretext whatsoever. To this Prince
Kung replied stating that the prisoners had already been released
and that the Anting gate had been surrendered to the foreigners.
Prince Kung, in fact, was statesman enough to realise that the only
chance for China lay in submission; he therefore ignored the Imperial
Decrees. Before long the Emperor was persuaded to allow
negotiations to be resumed, and on the 15th of the 9th Moon he
confirmed the Treaty, which had been signed in Peking, in the
following Edict:—
“Prince Kung, duly appointed by us to be Plenipotentiary,

concluded, on the 11th and 12th days of this Moon, Treaties
of Peace with the British and the French. Hereafter amity is to
exist between our nations in perpetuity, and the various
conditions of the Treaty are to be strictly observed by all.”
III
THE TSAI YÜAN CONSPIRACY
It was originally intended that the Emperor Hsien-Feng should

return from Jehol to Peking in the spring of 1861, and a Decree was
issued to that effect. In January, however, his illness had become so
serious that travelling was out of the question, and this Decree was
rescinded.
At Jehol, removed from the direct influence of his brothers, and
enfeebled by sickness, the Emperor had gradually fallen under the
domination of the Prince Yi (Tsai Yüan) with whom were associated,
as Grand Councillors, the Prince Tuan Hua and the Imperial
Clansman Su Shun. These three, recognising that the Emperor’s
end was near and that a Regency would be necessary, determined
on securing the power for themselves. Prince Yi was nominally the
leader of this conspiracy, but its instigator and leading spirit was Su
Shun. Tuan Hua, whose family title was Prince Cheng, was the head
of one of the eight princely Manchu families, descended in the direct
line from Nurhachu’s brother. Su Shun was foster-brother to this
Prince. In his youth he was a conspicuous figure in the capital,
famous for his Mohawk tendencies, a wild blade, addicted to
hawking and riotous living. He had originally been recommended to
the notice of the Emperor by the two Princes and soon won his way
into the dissolute monarch’s confidence and goodwill. From a junior
post in the Board of Revenue, he rose rapidly, becoming eventually
an Assistant Grand Secretary, in which capacity he attained an
unenviable reputation for avarice and cruelty. He had made himself
hated and feared by persuading the Emperor to order the
decapitation of his chief, the Grand Secretary Po Chun,[4] on the
pretext that he had shown favouritism as Chief Examiner for the
Metropolitan Degree,—the real reason being that he had offended
the two Princes by his uncompromising honesty and blunt speech. It
was at this period that he first came into conflict with the young
Yehonala, who, dreading the man’s growing influence with the
Emperor, endeavoured to counteract it, and at the same time to save
the life of the Grand Secretary; she failed in the attempt, and Su
Shun’s position became the stronger for her failure. All those who
opposed him were speedily banished or degraded. The Court was
terrified, especially when it was realised that Yehonala was out of
favour, and Su Shun took care to give them real and frequent cause
for alarm. At his instance, all the Secretaries of the Board of
Revenue were cashiered on a charge of making illicit profits by
cornering the cash market. The charge was possibly well-founded,
since such proceedings are part of a Metropolitan official’s
recognised means of subsistence, but coming from the notoriously
corrupt Su Shun, it was purely vindictive, as was shown by his
subsequent action; for upon this charge he obtained the arrest of
over a hundred notables and rich merchants whom he kept in
custody of no gentle kind until they had ransomed themselves with
enormous sums. Thus was founded the great fortune which enabled
him to conspire with the Princes Yi and Cheng[5] for the supreme
power, and which led him eventually to his ruin. To this day, many of
his millions lie in the Palace vaults, to which they were carried after
his impeachment and death—millions carefully hoarded by Tzŭ Hsi
and buried during the Court’s flight and exile in 1900.
It was chiefly because of the advice of Su Shun that the Emperor
fled his capital at the approach of the Allies, in spite of the urgent
appeals of Yehonala and the Grand Council. By his advice also most
of the high officials and Metropolitan Ministers were prevented from
accompanying the Court, by which means the conspirators were
able to exercise steadily increasing influence over the Emperor, and
to prevent other advice reaching him. It was only the supreme
courage and intelligent grasp of the situation shown by Yehonala,
that frustrated the conspiracy at its most critical moment.
Immediately after the death of the Emperor, and while the plotters
were still undecided as to their final plans, she sent an urgent
message secretly to Prince Kung which brought him with all speed to
Jehol, where, by the help of Jung Lu and other loyal servants, she
put into execution the bold plan which defeated the conspiracy and
placed her at the head of China’s government. On the day when, the
game hopelessly lost, the usurping Regents found themselves in
Yehonala’s hands and heard her order their summary trial by the
Court of the Imperial Clan, Su Shun turned to his colleagues and
bitterly reproached them. “Had you but taken my advice and slain
this woman,” he said, “we should not have been in this plight to-day.”
To return, however, to the beginning of the conspiracy. At the
outset, the object of Prince Yi was to alienate the Emperor from the
influence of his favourite concubine, Yehonala. With this object they
informed him of the intrigue which, by common report, she was
carrying on with the young Officer of the Guards, Jung Lu, then a
handsome athletic man of about twenty-five. The Empress Consort
they regarded as a negligible factor, whose good-natured and
colourless personality took little interest in the politics of the day; but
if their plot was to succeed, Yehonala must either be dismissed from
the Court for good and all, or, at the very least, she must be
temporarily relegated to the “Cold Palace,” as is called the place
where insubordinate or disgraced concubines are isolated. They
knew that, however successful their plans at Jehol, there must
always be danger in the event of the Emperor returning to Peking,
where access to his person is not possible at all times for officials
(even those nearest to the Throne), whereas Yehonala would be in a
position, with the help of her eunuchs, to recover his favour and her
power. Emphasising, therefore, the alleged misconduct of the young
concubine, they quoted the precedent of a certain Empress Consort
of Ch’ien-Lung who, for less grievous disrespect (shown to the
Emperor’s mother), was imprisoned for life. Thus, by inventions and
suggestions, they so worked on the sick man’s mind that he finally
consented to have Yehonala’s infant son, the Heir Apparent,
removed from her care, and authorised the child’s being handed
over to the wife of Prince Yi, who was summoned to the hunting-
lodge Palace for that purpose. At the same time, the conspirators
thought it well to denounce Prince Kung to the Emperor, his brother,
accusing him of treachery, of conniving with the foreigners against
the Throne, and of abusing his powers as Plenipotentiary. Prince Yi
had been for years Prince Kung’s sworn enemy.
The further intentions of the conspirators, instigated by Su Shun,
were to massacre all Europeans in the capital and to put to death, or
at least imprison for life, the Emperor’s brothers. Accordingly they
drafted in advance the Decrees necessary to justify and explain
these measures, intending to publish them immediately after the
Emperor’s death, which was now imminent. But here an unforeseen
obstacle presented itself, the first of many created for them by the
far-seeing intelligence of Yehonala; for they found that she had
somehow managed to possess herself of the special seal, which
inviolable custom requires to be affixed to the first Edict of a new
reign, in proof of validity of succession,—a seal, in the personal
custody of the Emperor, which bears the characters meaning
“lawfully transmitted authority.” Without this seal, any Decrees which
the usurpers might issue would lack something of legal finality and,
according to Chinese ideas, their subsequent cancellation would be
justifiable. But Prince Yi did not feel himself strong enough to risk a
crisis by accusing her or taking overt steps to gain possession of it.
Angry with his favourite concubine by reason of the reports of her
intimacy with Jung Lu, and his sickness ever increasing, the
Emperor lingered on in Jehol all the summer of that year, his duty in
the ancestral sacrifices at Peking being taken by Prince Kung. On
the 4th of the 6th Moon, the day before his thirtieth birthday, he
issued the following Decree in reply to a Memorial by the Court of
Astronomers, which had announced an auspicious conjunction of the
stars for the occasion:—
“Last month the Astronomers announced the appearance of

a comet in the north-west, which intimation we received as a
solemn warning of the impending wrath of Heaven. Now they
memorialise saying that the stars are in favourable
conjunction, which is doubtless a true statement, in no way
inspired by their desire to please us. But since we came to the
Throne, we have steadily refused to pay any attention to
auspicious omens, and this with good reason, in view of the
ever-increasing rebellions in the south and the generally
pitiable condition of our people. May the present auspicious
conjunction of the stars portend the dawning of a happier day,
and may heaven permit a speedy end to the rebellion. In
token of our sincerity, we desire that the Astronomical Court
shall refrain from reporting to the Chronicler’s Office the
present favourable omen for inclusion in the annals of our
reign, so that there may be ascribed to us the merit of a
devout and sober mind.”
On the following morning the Emperor received the

congratulations of his Court in a pavilion of the Palace grounds, but
Yehonala was excluded from this ceremony. This was His Majesty’s
last appearance in public; from this date his illness became rapidly
worse.
On the 7th of the 7th Moon Yehonala contrived to despatch a
secret courier to Prince Kung at Peking, informing him of the critical
condition of his brother and urging him to send with all haste a
detachment of the Banner Corps to which the Yehonala clan
belonged. Events now moved swiftly. On the 16th, the Grand
Councillors and Ministers of the Presence, all adherents of Tsai
Yüan’s faction, entered the Emperor’s bedroom and, after excluding
the Empress Consort and the concubines, persuaded the Emperor to
sign Decrees appointing Tsai Yüan, Tuan Hua and Su Shun to be
Co-Regents upon his decease, with full powers. Yehonala was to be
expressly forbidden from exercising any form of control over the Heir
Apparent. As the necessary seal of State had been taken by
Yehonala and could not be found, these proceedings were irregular.
At dawn on the following day the Emperor died, and forthwith
appeared the usual valedictory Decree, prepared in advance by the
conspirators, whereby Tsai Yüan was appointed to be Chief Regent,
Prince Kung and the Empress Consort being entirely ignored.
In the name of the new Emperor, then a child of five, a Decree was
issued, announcing his succession, but it was observed to violate all
constitutional precedent in that it omitted the proper laudatory
references to the Imperial Consort. On the following day, however,
the Regents, fearing to precipitate matters, rectified the omission in
an Edict which conferred the rank of Empress Dowager both on the
Empress Consort and on Yehonala. The chroniclers aver that the
reason for this step lay in the Regents’ recognition of Yehonala’s
undoubted popularity with the troops (all Manchus) at Jehol, an
argument that weighed more heavily with them than her rights as
mother of the Heir Apparent. They hoped to rid themselves of this
condition of affairs after the Court’s return to Peking, but dared not
risk internal dissensions by having her removed until their positions
had been made secure at the capital. That they intended to remove
her was subsequently proved; it was evident that their position would
never be secure so long as her ambitious and magnetic personality
remained a factor of the situation: but it was necessary, in the first
instance, to ascertain the effect of the Regency at Peking and in the
provinces.
Tsai Yüan’s next move was to publish Decrees, in the names of
the Joint Regents, by virtue of which they assumed charge of the
Heir Apparent and by which the title of “Chien Kuo” (practically
equivalent to Dictator) was conferred on the Chief Regent, a title
heretofore reserved exclusively for brothers or uncles of the
Emperor.
When the news reached Peking, a flood of Memorials burst from
the Censorate and high officials. The child Emperor was implored to
confer the Regency upon the two Empresses, or, as the Chinese text
has it, to “administer the Government with suspended curtain.”[6]
Prince Kung and the Emperor’s other brothers were at this time in
secret correspondence with Yehonala, whom they, like the
Censorate, had already recognised as the master-mind of the
Forbidden City. They urged her to do all in her power to expedite the
departure of the funeral cortège for the capital. To secure this end, it
was necessary to proceed with the greatest caution and diplomacy,
for several of the late Emperor’s wives had been won over to the
side of the usurpers, who could also count on a certain number of
the Manchu bodyguard, their own clansmen. The influence of Su
Shun’s great fortune was also no inconsiderable factor in the
situation. The man was personally unpopular with the people of
Peking, because of his abuse of power and too frequent connection
with speculations in bank-note issues and cash, which cost the
citizens dear, but his vaults were known to be full to over-flowing,
and there is no city in the world where money buys more political
supporters than in Peking. Su Shun’s career has had its counterpart,
in everything except its sanguinary dénouement, in the capital to-
day.
Her Majesty Tzŭ Hsi in the Year 1903.

At the moment the position of the Emperor’s family was
prejudiced, and the aims of the conspirators assisted, by the political
situation. With the capital occupied by foreign troops, and many of
the provinces in the throes of a great rebellion, the people might be
expected to welcome a change of rulers, and the ripe experience of
the usurping Regents in all matters of State was undeniable. But the
virile and untiring energies of Yehonala, ably supported by Jung Lu
and other faithful followers, soon put a new complexion on affairs,
and the situation was further modified in her favour by the success of
her nominee, the Commander-in-Chief, Tseng Kuo-fan, in capturing
the city of An-ch’ing (in Anhui) from the rebels, a victory that was
regarded as of good augury to her cause. Thereafter her courage
and diplomacy enabled her to play off one opponent against another,
gaining time and friends until the conspirators’ chance was gone.
Her own aims and ambitions, which had been voiced by her friends
in the Censorate, were, however, to some extent impeded by the fact
that a House-law of the Dynasty forbids the administration of the
Government by an Empress Dowager, while there were quite recent
precedents for a Regency by a Board, in the cases of the Emperors
Shun-Chih and K’ang-Hsi. In neither of these instances had the
Empress Tai-Tsung had any voice in the Government. The precedent
for Boards of official Regents had, however, come to be recognised
as inauspicious, because the several Regents of K’ang-Hsi’s
minority had either been banished or compelled to commit suicide. It
is probable, too, that Prince Kung, in instigating and supporting the
claims of the Empresses, failed to appreciate Yehonala’s strength of
character, and believed that a women’s Regency would leave the
supreme power in his own hands.
A Manchu, who accompanied the flight to Jehol, describing his
experiences, lays stress upon Yehonala’s unfailing courage and
personal charm of manner, to which was due her popularity with the
Imperial Guards and her eventual triumph. At the most critical period
of the conspiracy she was careful to avoid precipitating a conflict or
arousing the suspicions of the usurpers by openly conferring with
Jung Lu, and she employed as her confidential intermediary the
eunuch An Te-hai (of whom more will be heard later). By means of
this man daily reports were safely despatched to Prince Kung at
Peking, and, in the meanwhile, Yehonala affected an attitude of calm
indifference, treating Prince Yi with a studied deference which lulled
his suspicions.
On the 11th of the 8th Moon, the Board of Regents, after meeting
to discuss the situation, issued a Decree condemning in strong terms
a proposal put forward in a Memorial by the Censor, Tung Yüan-
ch’un, that the two Empresses should be appointed Co-Regents, and
referring to the death-bed Decree of the late Emperor as their own
warrant of authority. At the same time they announced, in the name
of the young Emperor, that the funeral cortège would start on its
journey to the capital on the second day of the next Moon. This was
the step for which Yehonala had been working and waiting. As
Ministers of the Presence, the Regents were perforce obliged to
accompany the coffin throughout the entire journey (some 150 miles)
to the capital, and the great weight of the catafalque, borne by one
hundred and twenty men, would necessarily render the rate of
progress very slow through the stony defiles of the hills. Resting
places would have to be provided at stages of about fifteen miles
along the route to shelter the Imperial remains and the attendant
officials by night, so that the Regents might count on a journey of ten
days at least, and longer in the event of bad weather. To the
Empresses, the slow progress of the cortège was a matter of vital
advantage, inasmuch as they were not to take part in the procession,
and, travelling ahead of it, could reach the capital in five days with
swift chair-bearers. Dynastic custom and Court etiquette prescribe
that upon the departure of the funeral procession, the new Emperor
and the consorts of the deceased sovereign should offer prayers and
libations, and should then press on so as to be ready to perform
similar acts of reverence on meeting the cortège at its destination.
Yehonala thus found herself in a position of great strategic
advantage, being enabled to reach the capital well in advance of her
enemies, and she speedily laid her plans with Prince Kung to give
them a warm reception.
Tsai Yüan and his colleagues were well aware that they were
placed at grave disadvantage in having to remain behind the young
Empress, with every prospect of serious trouble ahead; they,

Networks Knowledge Brokers and The Public Policymaking Process 1St Ed 2021 Edition Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Networks Knowledge Brokers and The Public Policymaking Process 1St Ed 2021 Edition Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Networks, Knowledge Brokers, and the

Public Policymaking Process 1st ed.

“This edited collection provides a major contribution our understanding of the

“Relationships shape what we know and how we share information, and

ISBN 978-3-030-78754-7 ISBN 978-3-030-78755-4 (eBook)

Cover illustration: gettyimages/Viaframe

Knowledge Brokers, Networks, and the Policy Process is a collection of

middle of the twentieth century when scholars began to focus on rela-

Second, although most of the studies are unirelational in that they

Knowledge Brokers, Networks, and the Policymaking

Broken Bridges: The Role of Brokers in Connecting

Closing the Theory–Research Gap in Knowledge

Susanna L. Benko Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA

J. W. Hammond School of Education, University of Michigan, Ann

Kathryn Oliver Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene

Disseminating Evidence to Policymakers: Accounting for

Integrating Connectionist and Structuralist Social

Fig. 2 Sociogram of sponsoring organizations to messages

Measuring Issue Preferences, Idea Brokerage, and

Broken Bridges: The Role of Brokers in Connecting

Fig. 2 Social network maps of the leadership district for research

An Ego-Network Approach to Understanding Educator

A Multi-Level Framework for Understanding Knowledge

Promoting Healthy Eating: A Whole-of-System Approach

Fig. 3 From Fig. 1 of McGlashan et al. (2019), “Conceptualization

Brokerage-Centrality Conjugates for Multi-Level

Platformed Knowledge Brokerage in Education: Power

Network Approaches to Misinformation Evaluation and

Disseminating Evidence to Policymakers: Accounting for

“Being Important” or “Knowing the Important”: Who Is

Integrating Connectionist and Structuralist Social

Measuring Issue Preferences, Idea Brokerage, and

Broken Bridges: The Role of Brokers in Connecting

An Ego-Network Approach to Understanding Educator

A Multi-Level Framework for Understanding Knowledge

Brokerage-Centrality Conjugates for Multi-Level

Platformed Knowledge Brokerage in Education: Power

Matthew S. Weber and Itzhak Yanovitzky

The public policy process is a complicated labyrinth of competing actors,

M. S. Weber (B) · I. Yanovitzky

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

This book is about knowledge brokerage and its potential to impact

meaningful opportunities to interact with one another (Bogenschneider

and timing of research evidence use in the formulation of these policies,

synthesizing, disseminating, and exchanging research evidence to inform

goals and intentions. Thus, knowledge brokerage is more complex than

application, although equally influential work is being done in other fields

Knowledge Brokers in Health and Medicine

partners to bring research into practice settings. Testing the effective-

Focusing on this challenge, Dobbins et al. (2005, 2009) conducted

Knowledge Brokers in Education

Knowledge Brokers in Communication

broker an interaction between two actors. Rather, knowledge brokers add

brokerage and brokering in networks that can be applied across domains,

Explicit Network Measurement

for instance, basic descriptive network measures, concepts such as struc-

Social Network Analysis, Knowledge

social network analysis tools for collecting, mapping, and analyzing

including a discussion of the role of educational leaders as influential

Education: Power and Possibilities ”) expand the focus on knowledge

Bearing in mind the frequent allusions made by the Hanlin diarist

“Swaying the wide world, we are nevertheless animated by

Three days later Yehonala was present at the morning audience,