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

Researchers’ views on Communication Revealed

By Laura ffrench-Constant 11/09/2012

A quick survey of researchers in a science department in a top British University uncovered, that four out of six researchers felt communication of their work was merely an obligation of their job.

Whilst all but one had communicated their research to the media, none had been involved with think tanks or community groups, and only one was in contact with an advocacy group. Added to this, half of the researchers admitted their work had policy relevance but only one was in contact with a relevant decision maker.

As one researcher pointed out though, all scientific research has social impact (begging the question why all the researchers did not answer yes to the question on their research having policy relevance). What then, can explain the lack of communication on behalf of the researchers? As one put it rather bluntly, he assumes that his work will be read in the primary literature, which is arguably his job. At the other extreme, another scientist spoke of her frustration with researchers who dodged interviews and of how researchers should take ownership of their work and see to its suitable translation.

The problems are apparent even to the researchers themselves. One researcher admitted to avoiding policy relevance rather sheepishly and another asked why everyone should be entitled to see his work. More subtle insights pointed to factors such as scientists’ innate lack of communication skills. Dislike of talking to the public was excused by shyness, worry that their work would be uncovered as meaningless, and arrogance of researchers assuming their work was correct. Another common excuse given was poor scientific literacy displayed by the general public. This view is opposed by Dan Kahan who argues that scientific illiteracy cannot explain the polarisation of views on climate change.

When asked if researchers could be advocates the answer was a resounding no. The majority pointed to the perceived lessened rigour of research when it was associated with advocacy. Only one thought that researchers could be advocates and even they agreed with the majority in that researchers should only offer evidence and not prescription or opinion. Whilst some acknowledged the need to be explicit when communicating with the public (to avoid ambiguity in interpretation), presenting a clear prescription to policy was unacceptable because of the social and political ramifications. This contradicts research by the ODI which suggests that policy makers prefer proposals that include clear advice.

The REF’s focus on impact also proved a contentious topic of conversation. Half of the researchers thought that impact should not be used as a standard within the REF. The other half accepted impact as a standard but with qualifications. Qualifications included: that there is no differential between good and bad impact, its leads to an obsession with citations as opposed to caring about wider social impact and that impact cannot be compared across different fields. Two researchers alluded to the fact that impact statements were generally made up but the main concern was that impact is essentially indirect and therefore cannot be quantified. These arguments are explored in a report by the ScoPE project entitled Public Culture as Professional Science, which concludes that formalising impact may lead to routine ‘box ticking’ contradicting the very essence of impact. There is also an interesting article on the present obsession with quantity and its effect on academics, by Fischer.

The vehement dislike of impact (and to some extent communication) shown by these researchers can be explained by the fact that all could be described as blue skies scientists. Even the optimistic proponent of impact suggested that blue skies research should not be subjected to impact assessments. The value of blue skies research without its tangible impact is a topic of current debate. An interesting blog argues that it should not be sidelined, even in developing countries, as it generates invaluable scientific discoveries that may turn out to have social uses. As one researcher noted, the impact of blue skies research may take hundreds of years to become apparent.

By Laura Ffrench-Constant

 

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: laura ffrench-constant, learning in context, ref

Laura ffrench-Constant

Laura is Social Media and Outreach Coordinator for Research to Action. Laura manages R2A's social media channels, webinar series and any other project partnerships including conferences. She is also a Senior Associate at CommsConsult. Laura has a degree in Politics and Philosophy from the University of Edinburgh, where she grappled with distilling complex ideas without detracting from the content or context of research.

3 Responses to Researchers’ views on Communication Revealed

  1. Cheryl Brown says:
    13/09/2012 at 11:03 am

    Interesting post, Laura. Was it six researchers interviewed in total?

    I think the important element here is that those interviewed are, as you put it, “blue skies” researchers, rather than researchers whose work is driven by seeking solutions to identified problems. I would hope that the latter type of researcher e.g. one trying to understand the barriers to use of insecticide treated bednets in Malawi, would see communication and relationships with policy-makers as a fundamental part of their work, and would be less reluctant to make policy recommendations.

  2. Laura ffrench-Constant says:
    19/09/2012 at 11:44 am

    Thank you Cheryl. Yes I interviewed six researchers in total.

    I agree that there is an interesting comparison to be drawn between blue skies and applied researchers’ views on communication. The sample size is too small to generalise.

    What is interesting to note though, is the real social impact of blue skies research. The researchers interviewed worked on infectious bacteria, insecticide resistant and many had an ecology focus to their research. Arguably, the fact that only one was in contact with a policy maker or decision maker is a missed opportunity.

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

  • Visual storytelling: The Pudding
  • Study In Germany: 2023 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) Scholarship Programme for Developing Countries
  •  How to develop input, activity, output, outcome and impact indicators 
  • Free webinar: Beyond content delivery: How to make online learning truly participatory
  • UNV Social and Behaviour Change (SBC) Officer, UNICEF: Ethiopia – Deadline 29 March

This Week's Most Read

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

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