Blogs

Research evidence is undoubtedly crucial for the formulation, implementation and evaluation of more effective and targeted development policies and programs. For many reasons, however, research evidence does not always inform development policies and programs. Consequently, there are renewed concerns on what should be done to bridge the gap between research, policy and action.

Responding to these concerns, donors and, experts in knowledge generation and brokerage, as well as policy makers from around the world met in London in November 2010 to deliberate on ways of enhancing research uptake in policy and programs.

The meeting noted four important points, namely, the need to: acknowledge that research is just one of many voices that influence policy, balance the supply of and demand for research, improve ability to assess the impact of research, and understand  and support the role of knowledge intermediaries.

Acknowledging that research was just one of the many voices that influence policy, the meeting noted the need for researchers to recognise the wealth of other types of knowledge with which research must collaborate and at times compete.

The discussions underscored the need to appreciate the contribution made by other actors such as the civil society, private sector and mass media. Researchers and research communicators were urged to analyse the policy environment to understand other influential actors with whom to collaborate with in their research communication efforts. Civil society organisations were noted as an important group through which research evidence should be channelled.

AFIDEP’s Director, Dr. Eliya Zulu, observed that given their role in holding governments to account, civil society organisations may play an increasingly important role in research communication in future.

The private sector, especially in countries where it is involved in offering “˜public’ services such as health and education, should also be involved in the generation, dissemination and use of research evidence. Mass media as well as the emerging social media were also noted as channels through which quality research evidence should be channelled.

The point was made also that these groups are not simply recipients of research as has been conventionally assumed; some of them are indeed conducting their own research, pointing to the need for collaborative efforts with these groups even in the research process.

Still on complementing research with other sources of information, an interesting point in the discussions was the challenge that research communicators faced in complementing research evidence with other influential but non-scientific information such as the knowledge of local people.

The point was that research communicators can no longer ignore other sources of information as these are equally influential and should therefore creatively collaborate or complement them in their communication with policymakers.

Dr. Zulu’s presentation argued that besides this challenge, research information itself, especially in developing countries, is very fragmented, making it difficult for it to influence policy.

This challenge is compounded by the weak capacity in these countries to synthesize and translate research into meaningful knowledge that can influence policy. Noting that AFIDEP was established to address this challenge in sub-Saharan Africa, Dr. Zulu said that “AFIDEP’s key mandate is to address this problem by synthesizing, translating and repackaging research into a form that policymakers can easily use”.

He noted that although AFIDEP also builds capacity in knowledge synthesis and translation, there was need for other players to invest in this as the need for such capacity in Africa was enormous.

The meeting noted that even though there was still need to improve the supply of research especially in developing countries, efforts also need to focus on creating demand for research.

Discussions on the triggers that stimulate demand for research highlighted the need to involve research users in research programs from the outset so that they contribute to identifying knowledge gaps that research needs to fill, sustained interactions with policymakers to understand their information needs, and anticipating policymakers’ future knowledge needs.

Dr. Geoff Barnard of the multi-continent Climate and Development Knowledge Network appealed to researchers to “˜get their feet wet’ in the ecology of the “˜knowledge pond’ by improving their ability to work with the media, build relationships with research users, take advantage of the particular skills of knowledge intermediaries, and collaborate with other knowledge producers.

On improving ability to assess the impact of research evidence, the meeting noted the challenge of collecting evidence of impact that is generalizable, particularly where local context plays a large part in achieving impact and where research can only contribute to a wider debate.

Meeting deliberations highlighted the need to strengthen work in two areas: a greater use of case studies, and a sharper focus on theories of change.  Emphasis was put on the need to use the two together as opposed to using either independently as this will not provide enough evidence.

Dr. Gerd Schonwalder of IDRC argued that using both would allow for the broadening of lens by looking across sectors and countries to be better able to develop specific recommendations for using research results in different settings.

Another aspect to the impact of research is the contribution it makes to public debate.  It may not be possible to attribute changes in policy or practice to a particular piece of research, but participants recognised the importance of being “˜in the room’, using organisational resources to build networks and participate in on-going debates.

Meeting participants discussed the need for a conceptual framework for assessing the impact of research communication and uptake work. This discussion built on a framework proposed by Adolph and others (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/SearchResearchDatabase.asp?OutPutId=181483) that identifies seven categories that could form the basis for this, namely, dissemination, capacity development, influence, collaboration, incentives, enabling environment, and research on research uptake.

Participants suggested that the categories were helpful but needed to be measured in terms of the articulated goals of the research. They also suggested that the framework needed to be part of a broader change process made up of multiple approaches and combination of channels.

Discussions on understanding the role of knowledge intermediaries and the impact of their work focused on classifying the specific activities of knowledge brokers and identifying indicators for measuring the impact of the activities.

The roles discussed included: informing, linking, matchmaking, focused collaboration, strategic collaboration, and building sustainable institutions. It was noted that more needed to be done to understand the roles and impact of knowledge brokers so as to clearly show the value they add and justify investing in their activities.

Another point discussed was the need for donors to increase funding for the work done by knowledge brokers.

More information on meeting deliberations can be accessed at: www.researchtoaction.org