This 6-page paper reviews the complexities of research-policy dynamics, and advances communication-centred strategies for bringing the research process closer to development challenges "on the ground" and those who are experiencing them. The ultimate goal is to move research closer to the point of decision making - actual change, in the form of policy - through more fruitful, inclusive, and impactful communication of health research.

The premise of the paper is that there is a gap between the intended beneficiaries of research and the people who commission and carry out that research. This gap, in the estimation of author Robin Vincent, is exacerbated by power dynamics, political context, and the preference for "hard" scientific data emerging from formal academic programmes (which is presented at large international meetings). In short, "Southern" or developing country researchers - and those whose lives the research is ultimately intended to enhance - are often excluded or sidelined from the research-policy dynamic...with results that are, according to Vincent, impeding the process.

In light of this recognised gap and these clear shortcomings, there is a broad consensus on the importance of communicating research results effectively and on the need to more effectively link researchers and policy makers in an ongoing dialogue about both research results and research priorities. But what does this really mean? A key point articulated here is that effective communication strategies for health research, aimed at bringing about real changes in people's lives, need to go beyond results dissemination. That is, distillation of research findings, the use of plain and clear language rather than academic style (implying a reduced methodological and theoretical content), a range of formats appropriately tailored to different audiences, and the use of multiple media channels are all crucial. Taking this type of research communication seriously, Vincent urges, involves developing a communication strategy from the start - one that may involve drawing on intermediary organisations such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that can bring a communication perspective and expertise to the process. Vincent cites ID21, the Relay Initiative of the Panos Institute, and Healthlink Worldwide as examples of how this approach to communicating research can work.

However, Vincent stresses that the actual communication of research results is only one part of the effort to better link researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and beneficiaries. That is, throughout the research process and from its very start, researchers are urged to engage in a genuine communication effort and seek to dialogue and interact with all key stakeholders - encouraging their input, negotiating priorities, and engaging with the needs and demands of research practitioners and beneficiaries. To this end, the author calls on commissioners of research to include support for capacity development of researchers to facilitate networking with stakeholders, particularly for Southern researchers. Vincent explains that "it is important to find appropriate ways to promote networking that counter-balances the power of prevailing policy networks. This may imply support for the decentralisation both of research funding and policy initiatives and a need to strengthen work at the research-practice boundary and the tradition of critical enquiry beyond formal academic research programmes."

Ultimately, Vincent concludes, "according greater respect to the learning processes of different development actors on the ground, and supporting and sharpening their critical capacity and ability to control their local environment, may be as important as attending to the interaction of policy makers and researchers, who share a common distance from the everyday concerns of development's 'beneficiaries'." Two text boxes cite examples of programmes that have demonstrated the possibility and promise of the use of local generation of evidence to help set research priorities - the Tanzania Essential Health Intervention Project (TEHIP) and the NGO Community Information for Empowerment
and Transparency (CIET), both of which have grounded research in local priorities and engage local people in the process of critical enquiry in a way carefully conceived so as not to compromise "scientific" validity. Perhaps these examples could be drawn on by those seeking to understand how communication can be used strategically to strengthen research influence on policy, Vincent suggests.

Editor's Notes:

• The Exchange programme - of which the author, Dr. Robin Vincent, was formerly Deputy Director - has been integrated into a new communication, networking and learning unit at Healthlink Worldwide. To learn more about Healthlink Worldwide's work in strengthening capacity in communicating health research, please click here.
• For additional resources on the topic discussed in the paper summarised above, visit the Key List on Communicating Health Research developed by Source International Information Support Centre, which draws on the research carried out for this Findings paper.
• To request a printed copy of the full document summarised here, or of the Key List referenced just above, please contact info@healthlink.org.uk

Click here to access a related peer-reviewed summary on the Health e Communication website, and to participate in peer review.