Healthlink Worldwide

In this article, Andrew Chetley presents Healthlink Worldwide's work in support of the effective communication of research. Though the author states that there is no simple pathway for the process of translating knowledge into action and no single solution, he describes the intent "to explore ways of increasing access to this knowledge so new stakeholders can engage with it..." in order to bridge the gap between what is known and what is actually being done. Further, he states that it is important to look at the communication of research as "the result of a complex set of interactions and relationships that includes critical analysis of decision-making processes and the actors and factors that influence those processes."

The author cites several examples of the prioritisation of the communication of research: 1) the United Kingdom (UK) Department for International Development (DFID) committed a mandatory 10% of all new research funding to communication of the research; and 2) the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada, allocates an average of 40% of its expenses to communication and engagement processes. HealthLink's approach to prioritising communication of research is described as creating a dialogue. "Part of the work of encouraging uptake may well be the often hidden, slow and resource intensive work of changing the culture of a community, an institution, or a society so that knowledge flows more easily throughout the decision-making processes."

The article summarises and places in context the work of a number of organisations on the communication of research. As stated here: "...the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) has been studying how to maximise the impact of research and policy through its RAPID programme (Research and Policy in Development). One of the many lessons emerging from its work is that without a holistic understanding of the context in which policy change occurs, it is difficult to make an impact (Young, 2007). ODI has developed a simple analytical framework that identifies four broad factors: external influences, the political context, the evidence and the links....All of this suggests that researchers either need an additional range of skills if they want their evidence to have an impact on policy and practice, or need to work more closely with a number of other stakeholders. This underlines the importance of networking as a key tool in ensuring engagement with evidence."

The author cites findings from a 2006 workshop on monitoring and evaluation, which "highlighted four key findings about the challenges facing attempts to assess the impact of communicating research:

• the importance of having a sound conceptual framework for research communication programmes;
• the difficulty of monitoring unexpected impacts of research communication programmes;
• the challenge of defining potential stakeholders and audiences at an early stage; and
• the challenge of identifying long-term impact as opposed to snapshots of impact.

The lesson here is that much more attention needs to be paid to understanding the policy process, its timeline, and the limited windows of opportunity to work closely with policy makers."

Using an example of research that did not result in intervention, the article suggests that: 1) data can be helpful to donors; 2) too much detailed academic research description can be lost on policy makers; 3) stories and case studies are often most useful; and 4) personal interaction, dialogue, and interpersonal communication were seen as the most important elements in policy development. Further, "[a]n area often overlooked in the use of research to influence policy is the socialization of the evidence – grounding the research in local priorities, and the engagement of local people in the process of critical enquiry and analysis."

Citing the fact that "media staff and researchers find it difficult to interact" and that media practitioners may find some research inaccessible, the article emphasises the critical role of media practitioners in information dissemination. It highlights the role of Panos’ RELAY programme in developing a new way of linking the media with academic research communities. "RELAY works with southern radio and print journalists and radio stations to communicate development research information through features, reports and on-air discussions that target public audiences primarily in the south....The media plays a crucial role in the effective communication of development research in southern countries through bringing existing practice and new policy solutions to the public attention, stimulating civil society debate and action and bringing pressure to change to bear on government...."

The article concludes with six practical steps, identified by Healthlink Worldwide, that are focused on helping to strengthen links between research, policy and practice (Vincent, 2006). These include:

• "ensuring that researchers seek input from policy makers, intended users, and beneficiaries of the research early in the research planning process.
• encouraging researchers to specify the principal audiences for the research and aim to provide accessible summaries for these audiences, and any key messages that are relevant to policy.
• developing an explicit communication strategy for the research, which identifies roles and responsibilities for communicating the research between researchers, research managers, and any people who bring additional communication expertise.
• encouraging commissioners of research to include support for capacity development of researchers to facilitate networking with stakeholders and communication of research, particularly for southern researchers. * encouraging funders of research to earmark a proportion of their support to organisations involved in applied critical enquiry beyond academia.
• ensuring that adequate investigation is undertaken to learn and share research communication lessons from development work in agriculture, natural resources management, disaster relief, advocacy, and other disciplines."

Glocal Times, February 2008, Issue #10.