The importance of sharing knowledge research, practice and policy in education is well recognized. Still, a notable gap among these areas in the field of education has been observed (Rycroft-Smith 2022, Levin 2013). Researchers and decision makers addressing this situation, are faced with a complex problem that spans from agreeing on a mutual understanding of knowledge and its application, to navigating the boundaries between diverse domains, and includes the identification, implementation, and evaluation of effective transfer methods (Levin 2013, McMahon, Legget & Carroll 2022). Intermediaries such as individuals, teams, organizations and initiatives have been identified as crucial in facilitating knowledge transfer by connecting researchers, practitioners and decision makers (Malin & Brown 2020, MacKillop, Quarmby & Downe 2020). Digital platforms can also act as intermediaries by creating a centralized space where different communities are brought together. Their basic function in the transfer process is to provide access to knowledge, structuring knowledge and interlinking it (Bernhard-Skala, Sonnenmoser & Tombeil 2023). Furthermore, they have the potential to offer new communication channels and complementary mediated types of transmission, enabling alternate access to knowledge (Bernhard-Skala, Sonnenmoser & Tombeil 2023). Their function in the transfer process is at the same time limited to the features they provide for their users thus setting boundaries to the production, dissemination and use of knowledge (Hartong & Decupere 2023).In our research, we tap into the intermediary role of a specific set of digital platforms in Europe in the context of knowledge transfer. We focus on infrastructures that disseminate information on education that is open and freely accessible to all. We consider this openness a prerequisite for their role as intermediaries - in contrast for example to digital learning platforms which are typically available only to a selected group of users, thereby establishing an initial barrier to knowledge transfer. Our investigation concentrates on ducation servers which we define as state-initiated platforms with a national scope. They were established to collect, produce, organize and distribute educationally relevant information, making it available to a broad public (Kühnlenz et al. 2012, Ramsayer & Lorenz 2001/02). Over time they have expanded their services to include specific portals, e.g. for learning materials, for training or for specific educational formats as well as incorporating new communication formats and channels, enhancing their intermediary capabilities. The German Education server is an example of such an approach. It primarily curates web resources in the field of education and instructional materials created by different agents. Educational research is presented in terms of interviews, podcasts and blog entries as well as curated lists of links including research publications. All of these information objects are open and freely accessible to scholars, educational professionals, educators, students, and the general public. Thus, the portal primarily forges connections between different communities via the presentation of information objects. In its function as a referatory and repository, the portal is a boundary object in itself. Boundary objects enable individuals from diverse backgrounds to utilize or draw from the collective resource pool for their own purposes thus connecting different communities (Monod-Ansaldi, Vincent & Aldon, Wenger 1998, Star & Griesemer 1998). By analyzing education servers and other information portals that act as intermediaries, we seek to understand how the European information landscape adapts to the growing demand for knowledge transfer. Our investigation will shed light on the practices of digital platforms that connect educational communities in Europe, underlining the potential and the limitations of these platforms as promoters of knowledge transfer in education.

Our study is rooted in online content analysis. Following this approach, websites are treated as documents but structural specifications such as vastness, links, multimedia content, and elements for user interaction are taken into consideration in the analysis (Herring 2009). We limit our data collection to the education servers in Switzerland, Germany, and France since we estimated their contribution to be significant for deriving concepts and patterns for knowledge transfer in European information systems on education due to their tradition. After having established the core portal for each country (Germany: www.bildungsserver.de, France: www.reseau-canope.fr, and Switzerland: https://www.zebis.ch) we added their connected (sub-)portals to the list of data. In the case of Switzerland, we had to search the internet for governmental information systems since there exists no longer a centralized education server. In reference to the principles of theoretical sampling (Glaser & Strauss 1967), we expected to add more portals to the data collection until saturation for our concepts was achieved, however the over 30 portals connected to the education servers were sufficient. We developed a preliminary model of analytical categories based on information transfer frameworks. We therefore drew on the 17 activities of knowledge mobilization that Rycoff-Smith (2022) identified from research literature in a narrative literature synthesis of knowledge brokering, Cooper’s functions of knowledge brokering (2014), and Wards’ framework for knowledge mobilisers (2017). We were challenged by the setup of analytical units. Analysing the entire content of the portals was not possible due to their vastness. The German Education Server for example refers to roughly 65,000 resources. We focused on larger analytical units instead. First, we analysed the homepage, then the main subpages, and thirdly we conducted an exemplary thematic search on all portals and analysed the first page of results. We validated this data with specific searches for the knowledge transfer categories that did not yield any results when analysing the websites. After analysing the first data set, some additional categories emerged inductively and were included in the model. For example, the preliminary model did not account for aspects of open access. Two coders then examined the collected data using a code manual to ensure consistency. We limit the interpretation of our findings to emerging functions of knowledge transfer in the educational information portals as well as to differences between the various subportals and countries.

Our analysis shows that education servers shape a vast information landscape in education. Although Germany, France and Switzerland still have national education servers in a narrow sense, defined as portals disseminating information on many different aspects of education, their offers go far beyond and fulfil a wide set of transfer functions. Besides offering information, they provide learning material, trainings and workshops, or develop specific tools for users. The portals are mainly open access focussing on referencing and storing resources that are accessible to everyone without login or payment. Their main function is to provide selected good quality content, created by a variety of stakeholders, thus generating a pool of diverse knowledge types. A main focus is placed on practice and instructional knowledge. Research in education is also presented, mostly transformed into syntheses or podcasts. Knowledge transfer functionalities with a social component such as facilitating the discussion of knowledge or building capacity for collaboration take place in the form of trainings online and present. They are often incorporated into infrastructural projects such as subportals and special features. The issue with the project status is that its longevity and sustainability is not guaranteed. Portal-based solutions for that type of transfer, such as moderated discussion forums or collaborative work environments, have been developped by the Swiss portal but may also be taken on by other education servers. We intend to transfer the data we have collected to a database, a web dossier or similar formats on the German Education Server, thus transforming our research, since we too want to facilitate knowledge transfer with our study by presenting best practice examples across countries and by pointing different educational communities to portals for transfer in their respective countries.

Bernhard-Skala, C., Sonnenmoser, A., & Tombeil, A.-S. (2024). Digitale Plattformen als Enabler für hybriden Wissenstransfer: Das Entwicklungsprojekt Connect & Collect als Beispiel aus der Arbeitsforschung. In J. Schuster (Hrsg.), J. Hugo, N. Bremm, N. Kolleck, & E. Zala-Mezö (Hrsg.), Wissensproduktion, Wissensmobilisierung und Wissenstransfer: Chancen und Grenzen der Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Praxis (S. 176). Verlag Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:28302 Cooper, A. (2014). Knowledge mobilisation in education across Canada: a cross-case analysis of 44 research brokering organisations. Evidence & Policy, 10(1), 29-59. Retrieved Jan 25, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1332/174426413X662806 Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Sociology Press. Hartong, S., & Decuypere, M. (2023). Platformed professional(itie)s and the ongoing digital transformation of education. Tertium Comparationis, 29(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.31244/tc.2023.01.01 Herring, S.C. (2009). Web Content Analysis: Expanding the Paradigm. In J. Hunsinger, L. Klastrup, & M. Allen (Eds.), International Handbook of Internet Research (pp. 233-249). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9789-8_14 Kühnlenz, A., Martini, R., Ophoven, B., & Bambey, D. (2012). Der Deutsche Bildungsserver – Internet-Ressourcen für Bildungspraxis, Bildungsverwaltung und Bildungsforschung. Erziehungswissenschaft, 23(44), 23-31. URN: urn:nbn:de:0111-opus-54199. DOI: 10.25656/01:5419 Levin, B. (2013). To know is not enough: research knowledge and its use. Review of Education, 1(1), 2–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3001 ] MacMahon, S., Leggett, J., & Carroll, A. (2022). Partnering to learn: A collaborative approach to research translation for educators and researchers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 16(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12317 Malin, J. R., Brown, C., & Șt. Trubceac, A. (2020). Educational brokerage and knowledge mobilization in the United States: Who, what, why, how? In J. R. Malin & C. Brown (Eds.), The role of knowledge brokers in education: Connecting the dots between research and practice (pp. 13-26). Routledge. Monod-Ansaldi, R., Vincent, C., & Aldon, G. (2019). Objets frontières et brokering dans les négociations en recherche orientée par la conception. Educationdidactique, 13(2), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.4000/educationdidactique.4074 Ramseyer, L., & Romagna, M. (2000/2002). www.educa.ch: Der Schweizerische Bildungsserver. Bündner Schulblatt, 6-7. Rycroft‐Smith, L. (2022). Knowledge brokering to bridge the research‐practice gap in education: Where are we now? Review of Education, 10(1), Artikel e3341. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3341 Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, “Translations” and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. http://www.jstor.org/stable/285080 Ward, V. (2017). Why, whose, what and how? A framework for knowledge mobilisers. Evidence and Policy, 13(3), 477-497. Retrieved Jan 25, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1332/174426416X14634763278725 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932