Qualitative data offer advantages to evaluators, including rich information about stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences. However, qualitative data analysis is labor-intensive and slow, conflicting with evaluators’ needs to provide punctual feedback to their clients. In this method note, we contribute to the literature on rapid evaluation and assessment methods by proposing procedures that evaluators can use to expedite the coding and analysis of qualitative data and comparing these procedures to other possible methods. Specifically, we outline procedures for the rapid identification of themes from audio recordings, which allow evaluators to code and analyze qualitative data without time-consuming transcription. We illustrate the use and assess the reliability of these procedures using qualitative semi-structured interview data from 18 public school administrators on how they locate information about and decide to use instructional, health, and social skills programming in their districts. Finally, we end with advantages and trade-offs of these procedures as well as recommendations for how to apply them.

Background: A growing literature focuses on the roles of brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners (BIBS) in addressing the challenges of transferring research evidence between the research and practice or policy communities. Aims and objectives: In this systematic review, we examined two research questions: (1) where, how, and when are different BIBS terms (broker, intermediary, and boundary spanner) used? and (2) which BIBS terms get defined, and when these terms are defined, who are BIBS and what do they do? Methods: We conducted literature searches designed to capture articles on BIBS and the transfer of research evidence. We extracted information about eligible articles’ characteristics, use of BIBS terms, and definitions of BIBS terms. Findings: The search revealed an initial pool of 667 results, of which 277 articles were included after screening. Although we coded 430 separate uses of BIBS terms, only 37.2% of these uses provided explicit definitions. The terms, ‘broker’ and ‘brokerage’, were commonly applied in the health sector to describe a person engaged in multiple functions. The term, ‘intermediary’, was commonly applied in the education sector to describe an organisation engaged in dissemination. Finally, the terms ‘boundary spanner’ and ‘boundary spanning’ were commonly applied in the environment sector to describe people or organisations that engage in relationship building. Discussion and conclusions: Results demonstrated that when BIBS were defined, there were important (albeit implicit) distinctions between terms. Based on these results, we identify archetypal definitions for brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners and offer recommendations for future research. Key messages Only 37.2% of coded uses of BIBS in articles included explicit definitions. Brokers were commonly defined in health as people engaged in multiple functions. Intermediaries were commonly defined in education as research-disseminating organisations. Boundary spanners were commonly defined in environment as relationship-building entities.