Research to Action

The Global Guide to Research Impact

Navigation

  • Home

  • How To ▾

    This list of how to’s provides an essential guide for a number of key communication and engagement activities that will help make your research travel.

    • Building Capacity
    • Policy Briefs
    • Research Impact
    • Theory of Change
    • Uptake Strategy
  • Topics ▾

    • Eye on 2022
    • Impact Practitioners ▸
      • Impact Practitioners
    • Knowing your audience ▸
      • Building a strategy
      • Engaging policy audiences ▸
        • EBPDN
        • Targeting policy actors
        • Targeting practitioners
      • Stakeholder mapping
      • Strategic communication ▸
        • Building a brand
        • Engaging the public
      • Working with the media
    • Making your research accessible ▸
      • Framing challenges
      • Knowledge translation
      • Learning in context
      • Open access
      • Presenting your research
      • Using digital tools ▸
        • Using multi media
        • Using online tools/ICTs
        • Using social media
      • Using intermediaries
    • Monitoring and evaluation ▸
      • Applying M&E methods
      • Evidence into policy
      • Measuring success
    • Uncategorized
  • Dialogue Spaces ▾

    • GDN: Doing Research
    • Manchester Policy Week 2015
    • TTI Exchange 2015
    • Strengthening Institutions to Improve Public Expenditure Accountability (GDN PEM Project)
    • DFID/AusAid Research Communication and Uptake Workshop
    • 3ie Policy Influence and Monitoring (PIM) project
    • Policy Engagement and Communications (PEC) Programme
  • Reading Lists

  • Impact Practitioners

    • Impact Practitioners overview
    • Capacity Building
    • Communication and Engagement
    • Frameworks
    • Indicators
    • Learning
    • Monitoring and Evaluation
    • Policy Impact
    • Strategy
    • Theoretical
    • Utilisation

Social Media

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Vimeo

Featured

Positionality and skills of research actors crucial in research-policy interface

By Andrew Clappison 14/12/2011

In June a really valuable special supplement was published in the open access journal Health Research Policy and Systems. Contributors to this supplement, Sally Theobald and Kate Hawkins blogged about the special issue here on R2A, and I fear both posts did not quite generate the level of discussion they deserved. As such, I thought I would take the opportunity to add another blog as a way of trying draw further attention to what is a really valuable collection of articles.

It’s not often you get a whole journal devoted to research communication, especially not with the single focus on  sexual and reproductive health and HIV/AIDS. Having picked up the supplement again recently, I was drawn to a section within an article relating to the ODI RAPID approach to understanding the research-policy interface (which I blogged about in the post ‘Reality comes first: Planning for policy influence’) written by Joanna Crichton and Sally Theobald struck me as being very interesting.

I won’t explain the ODI RAPID approach here beyond saying it breaks the interface between research and policy into three key elements: Politicalcontext, Links and Evidence. It’s a very useful way of framing how to look at this issue, so if you are not familiar with it, do take a look!

The article in the special supplement by Sally and Joanna, suggests that the RAPID framework missed an overlying principle that really needs to be brought into focus – The positionality and skills of research actors.

What does this mean? Quite simply it’s about the attitudes, goals and skills of researchers in relation to policy engagement; and at the organisational level, the support and characteristics that an organisation lends to policy influence. If attitudes are negative toward research communication (as many are), and if the organisational system is un-supportive (as many are), there is a massive challenge.

One of the solutions outlined to this issue was to place greater emphasis on building mutual support amongst communication specialists and between researchers. This, of course, seems to make sense, but it’s also worth mentioning that for some research-based institutions this is easier said than done. Many have no experience of working with research communicators, do not understand the intricacies of research communication, and when given the opportunity to build their capacity in these areas fall into the trap of thinking about research communication in a narrow sense (i.e. overlooking the need for a systematic approach, and seeing influence as a linear process).

This is a generalisation of course, but one where evidence can be added and one that begs a broader question – How can we ensure that the research community understand what research communication really entails?

 

Related posts

EBPDN: Refreshing recommended resources - 31/10/2019
Building momentum to advance citizen evidence in policymaking - 03/09/2019
Bringing researchers and knowledge brokers together for greater impact - 29/05/2019

Get 'New Post' e-alerts and follow R2A

> > > > >

Contribute to R2A:
We welcome blogposts, news about jobs, events or funding, and recommendations for great resources about development communications and research uptake.

Topics: evidence to policy, health, health research, hiv, policy and systems, policy influence, policy into practice, policy making processes, research, sally theobald, sexual health, shhep, ukaid

Andrew Clappison

Dr. Andrew Clappison’s professional interests centre on research engagement, the challenges attached to getting research into policy and practice, and the measurement of research influence. Andrew played a leading role in developing and managing Research to Action at the outset of the initiative, and hopes that it will continue to play a pivotal role in enhancing the knowledge of researchers and knowledge sharing professionals in the future.

3 Responses to Positionality and skills of research actors crucial in research-policy interface

  1. Kirsty says:
    22/12/2011 at 5:52 pm

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention Andrew- I will definitely take a look at the special issue. I find the RAPID framework a useful way to think about policy influence but I have often thought that it misses an important element- the capacity of policy makers to access/use/understand research. I think there are many cases when policy is not influenced by research not due to any ‘sinister influences’ but simply because none of the decision makers knew about or understood the research.

    I am interested to see that in this article they also suggest adding an element about capacity, but in this case the capacity of researchers themselves to communicate.

    Perhaps there is a need to add a general capacity element encompassing the knowledge/skills/attitudes of researchers, research intermediaries and policy makers?

  2. Andrew Clappison says:
    23/12/2011 at 9:50 am

    Hi Kirsty,

    This is a good point and a useful extension to the one I was making in this
    blog. I think the RAPID framework is very flexible and both of these points
    could be included within it under “Context”, and perhaps even under
    “External factors” (such as those that shape how ‘policymakers’ make
    decisions) – and something I should have, but did not mention in my post.

    I think what is crucial is that these issues are made more explicit and at a
    minimum named as example questions within any outline of how to apply the framework e.g.
    http://tinyurl.com/ctjv6of.  In doing so those people addressing
    policy influence for the first time are not as likely to leave these issues unrecognised.

Contribute Write a blog post, post a job or event, recommend a resource

Partner with Us Are you an institution looking to increase your impact?

Tweets by @Research2Action

Most Recent Posts

  • Designing research uptake strategy: four areas to consider
  • Join the AEN Podcast Party!
  • Senior Associate – Communications and Engagement: Healthy Brains Global Initiative – Deadline 2nd June
  • Evaluating impact from research
  • Powered by Evidence podcast by GEI

This Week's Most Read

  • What do we mean by ‘impact’?
  • How to write actionable policy recommendations
  • 12ft Ladder: Making research accessible
  • Policymaker, policy maker, or policy-maker?
  • Gap analysis for literature reviews and advancing useful knowledge
  • Outcome Mapping: A Basic Introduction
  • Stakeholder Engagement a Tool to Measure Public Policy
  •  How to develop input, activity, output, outcome and impact indicators 
  • Evaluating impact from research
  • Synthetic literature reviews: An introduction

About Us

Research To Action (R2A) is a learning platform for anyone interested in maximising the impact of research and capturing evidence of impact.

The site publishes practical resources on a range of topics including research uptake, communications, policy influence and monitoring and evaluation. It captures the experiences of practitioners and researchers working on these topics and facilitates conversations between this global community through a range of social media platforms.

R2A is produced by a small editorial team, led by CommsConsult. We welcome suggestions for and contributions to the site.

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Cookies
  • Contribute

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Our contributors

  • Paula Fray
  • Shubha Jayaram
  • Sue Martin
  • Maria Balarin
  • James Harvey
  • Emily Hayter
  • Susan Koshy
  • Ronald Munatsi
  • Ajoy Datta

Browse all authors

Friends and partners

  • AuthorAid
  • Global Development Network (GDN)
  • INASP
  • Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
  • International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)
  • ODI RAPID
  • On Think Tanks
  • Politics & Ideas
  • Research for Development (R4D)
  • Research Impact

Copyright © 2023 Research to Action. All rights reserved. Log in