by Samar Zuberi
 |
| 'Come and have a BCG vaccine' poster |
So what exactly is research uptake?
Individuals and organisations conducting research in the
social sciences are increasingly being called upon to ensure that there is
uptake of their work. I recently spent a week with 150 professionals
from across the globe discussing
the concept of research uptake. I came away with the realisation that there
is no accepted definition of the term and in fact disagreement over whether it
should be used at all, however there is consensus amongst many that the idea
behind research uptake is the right one - researchers should leave their ivory
towers and demonstrate how their work positively affects society.
In fact it is funders of research that have promoted the
idea of research uptake (and DFID specifically have popularised the term) as
they want to ensure the research they support will affect positive change. The notion of research uptake has evolved from
research communications – previously communicating the potential benefits of
one’s research was sufficient, however now one is required to demonstrate this
benefit in a concrete manner. As a
result, where research programmes and studies had budgets for research
communications there are now budgets for research uptake. Research communication
involves distinct events around dissemination such as holding a seminar or
writing a policy brief, research uptake is a process which works to link
research to policy, practice and people. This process involves a range of
actors and various activities which tend to be quite context dependent, however
there is a strong focus on engagement and understanding of research, and
evidence-based decision making.
So what does this mean for social science researchers?
Much of the work of organisations like the Collective is concerned with conducting primary research on issues which affect the poor and
marginalised. A significant portion of
this is commissioned by those working on social and economic programming in the
country, whether they are state policy makers or donors working in the
development sector. These organisations also engage in academic research in
an effort to contribute to the on-going dialogue in the region and globally on
the social sciences. For more on this read Ayesha Khan's article 'The Relevance of Research: Social Science as Local/GlobalResistance'.
Central to the motivation of undertaking both of these types
of research is the notion of uptake. Many researchers, such as those at the
Collective, engage in policy-related work with the intention of generating an
evidence-base which will help others better make policy decisions. Alternately,
when the Collective’s researchers works on
purely academic issues related to social science they do so with the hope that
this work will help inform debate amongst others who work on similar issues. Both policy and academic research, therefore,
are conducted with at least a vague hope that there will be uptake in some
forum or other.
So what is the tension between researchers and research
uptake about?
This might lead one to believe that there should be synergy
then between the aims of researchers and research uptake. This has not quite
been the case. As a researcher who has spent approximately 50% of her time over
the past two years thinking about and engaging with the idea of research
uptake, I have found there to be mixed views and often resistance to the idea.
This resistance in fact represents an inherent tension between researchers and
research uptake.
While researchers at the Collective intend for their
research to aid in policy-making decisions or hope that their research
will help inform debate, some see actively pushing for these outcomes as the
role of those involved in advocacy and not that of an independent researcher.
In fact there is a sense that thinking about the end-user of your research or
worrying about the impact of your research can potentially threaten its
neutrality. However to produce research that is of relevance in the social and
economic policy arena doesn’t one need to engage with actors in this space to
understand the issues and landscape? It is here that research uptake moves
beyond communications, and engagement with relevant stakeholders throughout the
research process becomes important. This engagement then has the potential to
improve understanding and result in action based on evidence.
However within the sphere of academic research not all
research studies attempt to answer policy relevant questions, and not all
research has the potential to improve practice or people’s lives. To push
researchers in this direction has the potential to stunt conceptual and
theoretical thinking. There is a sense
amongst some researchers that the emphasis on research uptake may prevent
funders from supporting and promoting certain types of research, which can
potentially be detrimental.
So what does this mean for research uptake?
Research uptake is a valuable process which can help ensure
the usefulness of one’s research. It can also provide a set of tools that can
aid research in informing debate and that can build the capacity of actors to
use evidence. However when used to demonstrate and attribute the positive
effect of one’s research it can be at best dubious, as we know policy, practice
and people are never solely driven by evidence.
