In the field of education, there are a diversity of international organisations functioning as policy actors (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). On a global level, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has become one of the most influent agents of transnational education governance (Grek, 2009). Due to the de-nationalization of educational policy (Sundberg & Wahlström, 2012), organisations such as OECD has had an increasingly greater impact on the day-to-day policy and practice in Europe, as well as on a national level (Grek, 2020). Since the emphasis on evidence in education have increased (Levinsson & Prøtz, 2017) various of initiatives have been taken in order to support the use of research in policy and practice. OECD’s (2022) project “Strengthening the Impact of Education Research”can be considered as one such example.  Acting at the boundary of various policy actors’ interests, values and perceptions, OECD are conceptualized as a boundary organisation (Grek, 2020), facilitating cooperation and communication between research and policy (Parker & Crona, 2012).

Drawing on Guston (2001), the boundary organisation is a way of illustrating and understanding organisations mediating role to reduce tensions between research and policy (Guston 1999; 2001). The boundary organisation obtains its stability from ‘being accountable and responsive to opposing, external authorities’ (Guston, 2001, p. 402) and could be understood as a series of “delegations of authority from principals to agents within or between organizations” (Ibid. p. 401).  While cooperation is an important adaptive strategy, when boundary organizations incorporate representatives of external groups into their decision-making structures, it is always carried out by projecting authority ‘by appealing to either face in a strategic fashion’ (Guston, 2001, p. 405). Since various stakeholders place diverse, and sometimes conflicting demands on the boundary organization, Parker and Crona (2012) highlight the importance of ‘boundary management’ as an adaptive, navigating, and negotiating continuous process to handle these dynamic tensions over time. What distinguish boundary organisations from other types of organisations is their capacity to reduce these tensions by meeting three criteria; first the use and creation of boundary objects and standardised packages, second the participation from both side of the boundary where they serve a mediating role, third the existent of activities where both politicians and researchers have shared partnership (Guston 2001, p.400-401).

Even if OECD, by others, is conceptualised as a boundary organisation OECD use the term broker agency when describing organisations mediating between heterogeneous groups of researchers, policy makers and educators. One such organisation, among many, that OECD call a broker agency is the Swedish Institute for Educational Research (SIER). SIER was established by the Swedish government in 2015, with the mandate to synthesise research that can provide knowledge support for professionals at various organisational levels. This task includes cooperation between research and professionals where SIER serve a mediating role. The term broker agency was coined by OECD in 2007 and since then the term is disputed, due to its origin within the field of business and finance (OECD, 2022). Brokering is defined by OCED as “initiatives aimed at bridging the divide between policy makers and researchers as well as assessing the quality of evidence available” (2007).

The terms boundary organisation and broker agency have different origin and are built on diverse logic and different expectations on knowledge management. This paper aims to deepen the understanding of the diverse logic and perceptions on knowledge management built in respective term; boundary organisation and broker agency, and the possible merit and shortcomings of either definition for describing the cooperation at SIER acting in-between politic, research and practice in the educational sector.

To deepen the understanding of the differences of logic and perceptions on knowledge management in-between politics, research and practice in the educational sector, a concept analysis of the terms, boundary organisation and broker agency, were made. The collected material was then coded according to a grounded theory framework (Charmaz 2014). After coding the material, a close reading of the literature was done by focusing on the codes in relation to arguments on what grounds the definitions of the organisations were either a boundary organisation or a broker agency. The in-depth analysis with the appurtenant codes of the two terms were then juxtaposed. The contrasts were then compared with the management at SIER.

Preliminary results indicate that both terms; broker agency and boundary organisations have limitations in relation to SIER and their ways of handle tension between groups of heterogenous actors. The term broker agency has for instance an inbuilt perception, as it is described in the literature, as if there is a division between politic, science and practice, a borderland rather than a boundary. The divide of politic, science and practice may be an inadequate way to define SIER as a broker agency due to the embodied aspect of both politic and science in various stakeholders at SIER. Except that the literature portrays a broker agency with a traditional view of dissemination of research, as a linear rational process which compared with SIER is an incorrect description, due to the ongoing negotiation between researchers and practitioners were SIER act as a mediator. When it comes to the term boundary organisations it aligns more with the ongoing process at SIER but the third criteria; the existent of activities where both politicians and researchers have shared partnership should also cover shared partnership between researcher and practitioners. However, into what extend the shared partnership should be done to be defined as a shared partnership is still open for discussion. This implies that the use of boundary organisation could be a more appropriate term for SIER instead of broker agency.

Charmaz K (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks Flyvbjerg, B., 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Guston, D.H. (1999). Stabilising Boundary between US Politics and Science. The Rôle of the Office of Technology Transfer as a Boundary Organization. Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science, technology, & human values, 26(4), 399-408. Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of education policy, 24(1), 23-37. Grek, S. (2020). Facing “a tipping point”? The role of the OECD as a boundary organisation in governing education in Sweden. Education Inquiry, 11(3), 175-195. Levinsson, M., & Prøitz, T. S. (2017). The (Non-)Use of Configurative Reviews in Education, Education Inquiry, 8(3), 209-231, DOI: 10.1080/20004508.2017.1297004 OECD (2022). Who cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice?: Strengthening Research Engagement, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/d7ff793d-en. Parker, J., & Crona, B. (2012). On being all things to all people: Boundary organizations and the contemporary research university. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 262-289. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2009). Globalizing education policy. Routledge. Sundberg, D., & Wahlström, N. (2012). Standards-based curricula in a denationalised conception of education: The case of Sweden. European Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 342-356.