Recommendations from the Literature

This section presents the major themes discussed in the current literature related to communication of research for poverty reduction. Since the literature frequently distinguishes between communication of research findings to different audiences (mainly focusing on either research-policy linkages or research-practice linkages), this section is divided into three sub-sections: communication to policy-makers, to researchers, and to end users (which in this case refers to the poor, including organisations working with them).

Communication of research to policy-makers

Research into the nature of research-policy linkages is frequently associated with Weiss' work on the 'enlightenment function' of research (Weiss, 1977). This term refers to the process whereby research findings and new concepts 'percolate' and gradually filter through policy networks, thus influencing policy in an indirect way. Weiss relies on a distinction between research which aims to have a direct, instrumental change (sometimes achieved, though this is rare) and research which has an effect through indirect, conceptual change (frequently achieved, though difficult to track or measure precisely because of its indirect nature).

Over the past few years, research-policy linkages have become a new and growing field of research - cf new research programmes at IDRC (Neilson, 2001), IFPRI (Ryan, 1999; 2002), GDN (Court and Young, 2003; GDN, n.d.), LSRC (Nutley el al., 2003), ODI (Sutton, 1999; Maxwell, 2000; Crewe and Young, 2002), and RURU, part of the 'Evidence Network' (Nutley et al., 2002; Walter et al., 2003a; 2003b). In both research and policy circles there is growing concern with the existence (or not) of 'evidence-based policy' (Scott, 2003). The various reflections, assertions and exhortations on how to improve communication of research to policy-makers, as expressed in the literature to date, can broadly be summed up under four headings:

1. Strengthen researchers' communication skills;
   
2. Aim for close collaboration between researchers and policy-makers;
   
3. Construct an appropriate platform from which to communicate;
   
4. Strengthen the institutional capacity of policy departments to take up research.

Strengthen researchers' communication skills
This is the advice given by those donor-funded materials that do not examine communication at the level of programmes or systems but remain at project or micro-management level, providing checklists for individual researchers to work against (Porter and Prysor-Jones, 1997; Saywell and Cotton, 1999). It is also the advice most frequently given by the research institutes and think-tanks now working on the research-policy agenda. On the whole, the new research programmes have chosen to focus on the micro-level of individual cases or even individual researchers, providing advice to researchers in the form of possibly endless variations over a common theme: 'Get the target group right' (Mortimore and Tiffen, 2003); 'Get the timing right' (Linquist, 1988); 'Get the format right' (GDN, n.d.; Omamo, 2003; Ryan, 1999; Walter et al., 2003b); 'Get the people and connections right' (Gladwell, 2000); or 'Get all of the above right' (Crewe and Young, 2002; Ryan, 2002; Walter et al., 2003a).

Given that research into research-policy linkages is a relatively new subject area, this broad consensus has been formed on the basis of only a few years' work and may change. For the time being it is simply worth noting that Weiss' original distinction between instrumental and conceptual change has mostly been lost, as ideas about how to strengthen researchers' capacity almost invariably assume that researchers wish to have an instrumental and direct policy impact - rather than a more gradual (and far less detectable) conceptual impact. The chaotic nature of the policy process (Sutton, 1999) and the resulting uncertainty and contingency of research impact (Stone et al., 2001) is acknowledged in virtually all the literature reviewed, but seems to be difficult to take into account for that section of the literature which offers advice on how to strengthen researchers' capacity.

Aim for close collaboration between researchers and policy-makers
There is also broad consensus in the literature that close and ongoing collaboration between researchers and policy-makers improves the communication of research. This is expressed in different ways, usually emphasising the importance of using networks that comprise or reach both researchers and policy-makers (Crewe and Young, 2002; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999; Smith, 1997), or drawing on case studies where this strategy has proved successful (Clift, 2001; Court and Young, 2003; Mortimore and Tiffen, 2003; Ryan, 1999).

In the reviewed literature, close collaboration between researchers and policy-makers is broadly viewed as instrumental in enhancing research impact, and is therefore applauded. There is little discussion in the literature about whether this strategy of close collaboration might be compromising in so far as it turns into a strategy of - as one DFID adviser has termed it - 'snuggling up to policy-makers' and thus sacrificing independent criticism (Paul Spray, 'The Role of Research', 14th May 2003, www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/Meetings/Meeting_3.html).

Construct an appropriate platform, based on broad engagement
The two strategies discussed above (strengthen researchers' capacity, and promote close collaboration between researchers and policy-makers) are probably the two most frequently voiced approaches to improving communication of research in development. If we broaden the scope a little, to include not only communication of research but also communication of information in a more general sense, the literature on advocacy and user engagement provides clear advice on how to communicate to policy-makers: Promote broad engagement and participation on an issue; disseminate and collect information from this participatory base; and use the broad public engagement as a platform from which to approach policy-makers. The scale may vary from global (Chapman and Fisher, 1999; Edwards and Gaventa, 2001) to local campaigns (Fraser and Estrada, 2002; Jenkins and Goetz, 1999; Patel, 2001). Jenkins and Goetz (1999) and Patel (2001) both report cases from India in which information about policies - concerning expenditure data and pavement dwellers respectively - were made public, thereby enabling citizens to challenge policy-makers and hold them more accountable in their decision-making. Both campaigns depend on a platform of broad engagement in order to be able to gain the attention of policy-makers. The same process is evident on a far smaller scale in the example of a community radio, where open access to on-air complaints from members of the community can serve to pressure local authorities (Fraser and Estrada, 2002).

Edwards (1994) raises the point that development NGOs should be particularly well placed to communicate with policy-makers on the basis of their platform as an information intermediary, drawing on grassroots participation and information from their field offices in order to present policy analysis and options to policy-makers. The role of information intermediaries is an interesting point but not widely discussed in the literature reviewed; this point is associated with the growing interest in networks.

Strengthen institutional policy capacity for uptake
The final broad theme is the least discussed in the literature reviewed - and is also the only theme to recommend changes in the way policy-makers operate. Gupta (1999) argues that research uptake into science policy is hindered by impermeable institutions, inaccessible policy circles, and a bureaucratic tendency to resort to standardised solutions across all contexts. Scott (2003), also in the field of science, quotes a review of science and technology activity across the UK government to highlight the institutional weaknesses that hinder research uptake: 'we were not convinced that any department was really staffed, organised, or sufficiently aware to make the best possible use of science and technology'. In other words, research uptake is partly a function of institutional processes in policy departments that would enable policy-makers to access and respond to relevant research.

Communication of research to researchers

While there is a fairly substantial amount of literature on communication to policy-makers, there is little to be found on communication of research to (other) researchers. This may of course be due to the fact that researchers already know how to communicate with other researchers (journal articles, books, peer reviews, university seminars, conferences, academic associations, email lists, personal contacts, etc.) and therefore feel no need to write about how this happens. The more interesting questions, perhaps, concern how to strengthen communication between Northern-based and Southern-based researchers; how to promote the access and engagement of Southern-based researchers to Northern or international research circles; and how to increase the responsiveness of development researchers to demand-led research topics. A recent evaluation of id21, the development research gateway, reported that the interviewees expressed discontent with the fact that much development research from developed countries was of limited relevance and value to the lives of most people in developing countries (Coe et al., 2002).

Strengthen Southern research capacity
In line with many of the bilateral donor agencies, ISNAR (2000) points out that a first step is to strengthen national research capacity and research systems in the South (cf also the work of CAB International's Information for Development on this, www.cabi.org). Comparing the 'communication of research' debate to the older 'transfer of technology' debate, the ISNAR report argues that there is little point in simply transferring Northern-produced research - or technology - to Southern researchers without creating conditions in which Southern-based actors have the capacity to assess and adapt the research in the most appropriate way.

Support research networks
On the issue of bridging the North-South gap, the reviewed literature tends to see different types of research networks as one (potential) solution - especially electronic networks (Song, 1999; Vyas, 2002) and regional research networks (Sida, 2001; Söderbaum, 2001). The use of networks is important in several respects in relation to communication, and they are discussed further in Box 2.

Continue with dissemination of development research
In addition, gateways or dissemination sites for development research offers another way - albeit in a more passive manner than networks - to communicate with researchers. Id21 is clearly reaching academic researchers even though this group may not be their primary target group (Coe et al., 2002), indicating that the id21 format is well-suited to communicate with researchers (www.id21.org, cf also the dissemination formats of INSAP at www.inasp.org.uk and PANOS at www.panos.org.uk).

Communication of research to end users

Most of the literature on communication to end users within development (defined here as the poor and organisations working with the poor) is concerned with communication within the setting of a development project, where it is necessary for organisation staff - or other intermediaries - to be effective information brokers, i.e. able to communicate project information, project values and project aims to the community in question. Some of the literature also emphasises the importance of facilitating communication within the community, and back from the community to organisation staff, in order to enhance participation and empowerment. In these cases research is necessarily defined in a broad way, frequently including conclusions drawn from local experiences, action research, or reflection on the local situation as part of project design and implementation.

Incorporate communication activities into project design
The most down-to-earth advice on communication to end users takes the form of checklists of appropriate communication channels that can be used in different situation (Burke, 1999; Walter et al., 2003b); reminders specifically about the need to take gender differences in ways of accessing information into account (Zaman and Underwood, 2003; Otsyina and Rosenberg, 1999); more general reminders that it is important that new information is adapted to the local context and communicated in a comprehensible way, by a trusted source (NCDDR, 1996); or discussion of the possibilities created by ICTs - even in rural areas - and how they can complement existing communication systems (Chapman and Slaymaker, 2002; see also a special issue of the Journal of International Development, edited by Heeks, 2002, available at www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/issuetoc?ID=89014429).

Encourage user engagement
The literature reviewed also emphasises user engagement and the importance of responsive communication. User engagement can promote a more effective research process and quicker uptake of research into practice - especially if user engagement leads to awareness of the existing information-use environment, builds on existing communication systems, and creates trust through two-way communication (Lloyd-Laney, 2003a; 2003b; and Aungst et al., 2003, on user engagement in the US health research field).

The principle of user engagement is sometimes - though rarely - also extended to refer to a communication process that is almost wholly controlled by the end users. The Rockefeller Foundation's Communication for Social Change (CFSC) initiative was established in order to promote participatory communication in development, through strengthening local community decision-making processes and communal action. CFSC defines communication as 'the act of people coming together to decide who they are, what they want, and how they will obtain what they want' (Figueroa et al., 2002). The model of effective communication is no longer one of persuasion and transmission of development information, but instead one of local dialogue and participatory processes of 'figuring out the solution' (Dagron, 2001).

The literature reviewed seldom refers to the potential problems of user engagement or participatory communication. Kasongo (1998) presents a typical viewpoint when he briefly discusses a few anticipated limitations to community engagement (e.g. Can everybody really express their opinions freely within a community? Can community hostilities be overcome? Who will benefit and who will lose out?), but concludes that these concerns are either merely theoretical or readily solved. Recent critiques of participation are largely not taken into account. In a similar vein, critiques of the notion of harmonious communities are also largely overlooked. In the communication literature, local communication systems are frequently assumed to be smoothly functioning and beneficial to all involved. But Conley and Udry (2001) give pause for thought when they report that research in one region of Ghana found that information flows between farmers within the same village are far more restricted than normally assumed, and the notion that learning about new farming techniques happens through the village information network seems more myth than reality.

Create an enabling environment
Most of the literature on communication to end users focuses on the level of community or inter-personal activity, project design, and local implementation. However, a smaller section of the literature highlights the fact that local and project-level processes are often influenced by the wider environment, macro-level policies, the distribution of resources, and political will. Lipsky (1980), in his study of 'street level bureaucrats' (teachers, judges, social workers, etc.) in a Western context, found that they usually did not implement public policies in the ideal way intended by the policy-makers. However, this was not due to poor communication; the reason that the street level bureaucrats did not implement policies 'correctly' was not ignorance on their part, but continuous pressure resulting from limited resources, forced negotiation to meet high targets, and stressful relations with too many clients - factors which are largely determined by macro-level policies and resource distribution. Similarly, Chapman et al. (2003) argue that the full potential of local rural radios - as a communication channel to farmers - cannot be realised without national-level communication and media strategies, incorporation into budgetary planning processes such as PRSPs, public policies to streamline licensing and subsidies, and government or donor-funded analyses of for example the dispersal of minority languages. In short, both Lipsky (1980) and Chapman et al. (2003) emphasise the importance of an enabling environment in order to improve the chances that end users will be able to act on the information communicated to them.

Back to Communications Review index