Bridging Research and Practice in International Development

Posted on 11 March 2009

 

About a week ago, I was on a panel on “Bridging the Gap: Researchers and Practitioners in International Development” at the Social Enterprise Conference held at Harvard Business School.  It was a lively exchange that covered a lot of ground – both panelists and audience members drew from a breadth of experience.

 

I was struck by what was said – and what was not said.  Among the issues discussed were:

 

Academics’ and practitioners’ incentives to collaborate are sometimes divergent – and these misaligned incentives can make collaboration frustrating.  For example, NGOs often need research results quickly, especially if influencing policy is the goal.  For policy advocacy, NGOs often need to simplify research results and hammer away at a few key arguments.  Researchers’ timeframes are much longer and they seek results that can be generalized – and they are uncomfortable about the simplification of their results.

 

Academic research is often not accessible to practitioners, and needs to be “translated” into practical concepts.  This work is often done by “think tanks” (units that have the mandate for evaluation, knowledge management and learning) within NGOs.  This function of drawing from relevant research and analysis to infuse programmatic frameworks and advocacy strategies with the best knowledge is critical to the effectiveness of NGOs.

 

Practitioners find that academic research is often narrowly focused – and it is hard to make sense of the spectrum of research on a given issue.  Think tanks like the Center for Global Development and the Overseas Development Institute have played a useful role in synthesizing research, making sense of the spectrum of findings, and making them accessible to practitioners. 

 

Researchers, in turn, are often frustrated when NGOs seem only to be interested in research that supports their claims and approaches.  There is a feeling that NGOs are not genuinely open to findings that run counter to their programmatic philosophy or advocacy positions.

 

Both researchers and practitioners acknowledged that, when it came to evaluation, quantitative methods like randomized control trials must be complemented by qualitative methods that elicit a deeper understanding of context and social change.  There is a need to recognize both sets of methods – and the meaningful combination of them – as rigorous.

 

I can’t help but note that we did not touch on the following issues (mostly because we ran out of time):

 

We sometimes implicitly assume that researchers are the thinkers (where the knowledge resides) and practitioners are the doers (where the action takes place).  This misses the reality that practitioners have a wealth of knowledge (some tacit, some explicit) as do the poor communities they work alongside.  Bridging the research-practice gap must acknowledge and value that.

 

It is easier to do research on the efficacy of technical interventions (e.g. providing sanitation, vaccinating children) than on the impact of cross-cutting approaches (e.g. women’s empowerment, peace building).  Such research is as necessary and important.

 

Much more research is needed on leadership, management, accountability and similar organizational issues.  These issues are well studied in the corporate world, but under-studied in the international development arena – and are critical to organizational performance and, therefore, the social impact of NGOs.

 

The big question to keep asking: how can researchers’ and practitioners’ incentives be more closely aligned to encourage the kind of collaboration that enhances the social impact of both parties?