Home » Improving the impact of development research through better research communication and uptake

Improving the impact of development research through better research communication and uptake

This is the resource page for the workshop that took place in London on November 29 and 30, 2010 entitled Improving the impact of development research through better research communication and uptake. The communication and uptake of research is a messy business for which there is no clear formula; what is clear is that routes to impact need to be improved. Without a greater focus on getting research into use, that potential for improving lives through research and innovation will not be fully realised. Research funders have a role to play in encouraging maximum impact from the research they fund, particularly as funding gets tighter.  The workshop brought together funders of development research, researchers and practitioners with the aim to:

  • develop a common understanding of the landscape of funding and activities in research communication and uptake
  • identify opportunities for greater coordination and collaboration
  • share innovative thinking on effective ways to get research into use
  • investigate options for a more systematic opportunity to share information and coordinate activities

The documents and resources relating to the workshop can be found below.

Final Workshop Report:

The Final Report from the workshop, including summaries of the written outputs.

By Louise Shaxson

Workshop Blogs:

How Research Feeds into Parliaments Across the World,

By Megan Lloyd-Laney

 

How to Survive and Thrive in the Knowledge Pond,

By Andrew Clappison

Workshop Presentations:

Addressing the needs of legislators in India 

Workshop Videos:

Ananya Raihan (Development Research Network) introduces the Bangladesh Online Research Network a research portal containing 81 research categories.

 

Susanna Thorp talks about the work of WREN Media challenges for the future, and building a network of journalists in the Global South.

 

Ann Waters-Bayer (ETC-Ecoculture) talks about the dangers of placing local knowledge and evidence at two different ends of the spectrum. Local knowledge and evidence not seperate entities.

 

Eliya Zulu from the African Institute for Development Policy (AFIDEP) talks about the challenges of communicating development research.

 

Musawe Sinebare from the National Research Institute describes the challenges to research communication in Papua New Guinea.

 

Celia Reyes from the Philippine Institute for Development Studies refects on the challenges researchers face in communication.

 

Nalaka Gunuwardene from TVE Asia Pacific describes how the media landscape has been changing substantially in recent years in understanding the media and how to engage with it.

 

Key Background Documents:

Other Documents:

 

  • http://www.com.wur.nl/UK/Staff/Klerkx/ Prof. Laurens Klerkx

    Research to Action,

    With great interest I read several items on the website, and reviewed the material from the recently held workshop ‘Improving the impact of development research through better communication and uptake’. I think it is a good thing that more attention is paid to the communication of research results, to enhance impact. However, to achieve innovation use of research knowledge is one factor, as much recent innovation research has shown. Therefore, attention should be paid to enhancing linkages and knowledge flows within broader innovation systems and reducing ‘innovation systems failure’. This connects to the systems model presented in Louise Shaxson’s background paper (at page 8-10) to the workshop.

    Taking this perspective, which apparently is also embraced by DFID, we analysed how this role of ‘systemic intermediary’ is being taken up in several countries, a role which we call ‘innovation brokering’. In our view, this goes beyond knowledge brokering in the sense of communicating research results. I attached a couple of articles that can be interesting as background documents related to the issues discussed at the workshop.

    They can also be interesting for those looking at these issues from a policy formulation perspective at DFID, or those who look at it from a research perspective as they outline some key policy issues. I include:

    - A paper reviewing experience with such ‘innovation brokers’,
    including the example of PROLINNOVA which was featured in the workshop
    (see also http://tinyurl.com/yyfypx4 , and http://tinyurl.com/33qnwbs for a freely accessible working paper that preceded the publication)

    - A paper comparing the concept of innovation brokers with boundary work ( see also http://tinyurl.com/3a7kqxs)

    - A paper reviewing experience with research funding models enhancing ownership of intended users, and hence increasing impact ( see also http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a912178129

    - the case is from The Netherlands, but it connects to broader debates on this type of mechanism)

    - And this book which builds on our 40+ years of experience in extension science, agricultural knowledge and information systems, and innovation systems, and the role of communication herein can also be interesting, see http://www.amazon.com/Communication-Rural-Innovation-Rethinking-Agricultural/dp/063205249X

    I hope this work is of interest to you.

    Laurens Klerkx