Recent advances in conceptualizing structures of influence in education policymaking have emphasized the role of nongovernmental actors working in networks to promote their agendas. These useful insights have allowed researchers to consider the evolution from "government" to "governance" in education policymaking, broadening the analytical scope for scholars to understand patterns of power and influence. The scholarly quest to map these actors and networks often neglects the political contexts in which these networks operate. The authors of this article write that they have found from their multiyear (2011-2014), cross-case study of research use in education policymaking that analysis of the political policy landscape is critical for developing a useful theoretical understanding of how these networks are formed, structured, and operate, and how evidence on educational policies is produced, promoted and utilized within and across networks. This article extends the authors' work on intermediary organizations (IOs) operating in advocacy networks, particularly in advocating around "incentivist" policies-that is, policies such as charter schools or merit pay for teachers that seek to capitalize on incentives to increase the effectiveness of individuals and organizations. The authors explain that IOs can take a number of forms, including think tanks, foundations, media outfits (including new media such as bloggers), and other advocacy organizations (Figure 1 shows their conception of the scope of definition of IOs). The key feature that unites these disparate organizational types is their common role in the space between research producers and users, where they often serve the function of brokering transactions around research evidence to be used (or not) in advocating for particular policy changes.