As the European labour market is characterized by a large outflow of older employees, the ability to retain knowledge of employees close to retirement potentially becomes a key feature of successful schools (Bender & Fish, 2000). Whereas older teachers are described by some as ''dead wood'', workers who have little potential and a low level of performance (Baugh & Sullivan, 2008; Ference, Stoner, & Warren, 1977; Stam, 2009), others argue that the explicit and implicit knowledge of the workers close to retirement is largely underestimated (Nonaka, Kohlbacher, & Holden, 2006; Vaiman, 2008).  The concept of ‘knowledge brokerage’ focuses on promoting the integration of available knowledge into policy and practice-related decisions (Dobbins et al., 2009). It refers to moving knowledge from one place or group of people to another (Vanhoof & Mahieu, 2011). This study deliberately looks at knowledge brokering from an intergenerational teacher perspective. Currently, most intergenerational knowledge brokerage (IKB) activities in schools are not systematically planned (Vanhoof & Mahieu, 2013). Moreover, the current scientific knowledge base fails to present conceptual and empirical work on how organizations can capitalise on the knowledge of team members close to retirement (Ropes, 2011). Fundamental research and theory building on intergenerational knowledge brokerage (IKB) are urgently needed (Konstantinos, 2008).

Intergenerational knowledge brokerage  (IKB) facilitates the sharing of knowledge between knowledge demands and knowledge supply over generations. We build on the work of Arif et al. (2009), Wamundila (2008) and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) to propose a comprehensive model to describe different kinds of IKB. Consequently, the following processes are crucial: socialization, externalization, combination and internalization. These concepts are the core of IKB as they are central to the social (reciprocal) intergenerational conversion of implicit to explicit knowledge (and vice versa) (see figure 1). Additionally, the question of whether these IKB activities are performed intentionally and/or incidentally will be addressed (van de Wiel, Van den Bossche, Janssen, & Jossberger, 2011). The effectiveness of IKB processes still needs conceptual and empirical consideration (Ropes, 2011). To distinguish different (positive and negative) types of use of brokered knowledge we initially discern an instrumental, a conceptual, and a symbolic utilization (Rossi & Freeman, 1993; Verhaeghe, Vanhoof, Valcke, & Van Petegem, 2010; Visscher & Coe, 2003).

Besides describing the processes and results of IKB the current study also aims at explaining differences in IKB. To understand which IKB processes are employed it is crucial to understand that IKB is context and knowledge specific; there is no one-size-fits-all set of activities. To fully capture this variation in knowledge brokerage over generations, we build in different types of knowledge into the conceptual framework (Billet, 2001; Eraut, 2000). Explicit knowledge requires another IKB approach than implicit knowledge (Arif et al., 2009; Dankbaar, Oprins, & Andriessen, 2002; Eraut, 2000). In addition to the differences in types of knowledge, we distinguish between three sets of influencing (supporting and constraining) factors: individual teacher characteristics, team characteristics, and school characteristics.

Given the above stated conceptual and empirical considerations, and considering the lack of theory on IKB the following set of research questions (RQ) is set forward:

• (RQ1 - Explorative) Which processes, results and influencing factors are involved in intergenerational knowledge brokerage (IKB) in school teams?
• (RQ2 - Theoretical) How can existing analytical frameworks be complemented and integrated into an conceptual framework to study IKB?
• (RQ3 - Empirical) Which similarities and differences can be found in (the results of) existing IKB processes?
•  (RQ4 - Empirical) What is the impact of individual, team and school characteristics on the process and results of IKB in school teams?

- Arif, M., Egbu, C., Alom, O., & Khalfan, M. M. A. (2009). Measuring knowledge retention: a case study of a construction consultancy in the UAE. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 16(1), 92-108. - Nonaka, I., Kohlbacher, F., & Holden, N. (2006). Aging and Innovation: Recreating and Refining High-quality Tacit Knowledge through Phronetic Leadership, 2006 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (AOM). Atlanta. - Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). De kenniscreërende onderneming. Hoe Japanse bedrijven innovatieprocessen in gang zetten (T. H. J. Tromp, Trans.). Lannoo: Scriptum management. - van de Wiel, M., Van den Bossche, P., Janssen, S., & Jossberger, H. (2011). Exploring deliberate practice in medicine: How do internists learn at work? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16(1), 81-95. - Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Woltjer, G., & Kirschner, P. (2010). Team Learning: Building Shared Mental Models. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 39(3), 283-301. - Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & et al. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490. - Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2013). Transfer of Training: adding insight through social network analysis. Educational Research Review, 8(1), 37-47. - Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M., & Jansen, N. (2010). Transfer of Training: The role of feedback in supportive networks. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(2), 81-94. - Vanhoof, J., & Mahieu, P. (2011). Local knowledge brokerage for data driven policy and practice in education. In Local evidence-based policy and practice in education: a survey on data brokerage and networking in four medium sized European cities (pp. 65-96). Antwerpen: Stad Antwerpen. - Vanhoof, J. & Mahieu, P. (2013). Local Knowledge Brokerage for Data Driven Policy and Practice in Education. Policy futures in Education, 11 (2), p 185-199. - Vanhoof, J., Van Petegem, P., & De Maeyer, S. (2009). Attitudes towards school self-evaluation. Studies in educational evaluation, 35(1), 21-28. - Vanhoof, J., Van Petegem, P., Verhoeven, J. C., & Buvens, I. (2009). Linking the policymaking capacities of schools and the quality of school self-evaluations. Education management administration and leadership, 37(5), 667-686. - Verhaeghe, G., Vanhoof, J., Valcke, M., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). Using school performance feedback: Perceptions of primary school principals. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(2), 167-199.