Archives
The politics of research management
Reflections on the gap between what we ‘know’ (about SDH) and what we do
Carol Bacchi
School of History and Politics, University of Adelaide, SA
Abstract
Health researchers in a number of settings are expressing concern about the 'gap' between what we ‘know' about the social determinants of health and of health inequalities, and the lack of action based upon this 'knowledge'. Indeed, the 'know-do gap' has become almost a mantra echoed across international and some national institutional sites.
This paper examines how the ‘problem' of the 'gap' is understood and represented in dominant and sub-dominant conceptualisations. It highlights what is missing from these representations: adequate reflection on changing modes of governance of research management.
Where once there was a degree of separation between research production and government policy, increasingly there is congruence between these governmental functions. This congruence means that the problem we face today is not a 'gap' but rather a 'fit' between what we 'know' and what we (don't) do regarding SDH.
Keywords
Social determinants of health, research utilisation, health services research, governance, knowledge production, priority setting, sociology
Article Text
The scientist is called upon to contribute information useful to implement a given policy, but the policy itself is 'given', not open to question ... So long as the social scientist continues to accept a role in which he (sic) does not question policies, state problems, and formulate alternatives, the more does he (sic) become routinised in the role of bureaucratic technician (Merton and Lerner 1951:306).
Concern about the 'gap' between what we 'know' and what we do about the social determinants of health (SDH) and of health inequalities is widespread and growing. Importantly, this concern is being expressed in two quite different conversations. One is a conversation of some longevity and with significant institutional endorsement, which I refer to as the dominant conversation (see WHO 2005). The aim in this conversation about what is called the 'know-do gap' is to determine 'how knowledge can more effectively be transformed into action', how to increase the 'uptake' of 'evidence' in public policy (ARACY 1995). The second conversation, positioned somewhat at the margins of the first, wants to tackle the perceived lack of government responsiveness to SDH. The concern in this sub-dominant conversation is the apparent ‘lack of will' (Harvey 2006) of those with institutional authority to implement SDH insights and their possible ideological aversion to those insights (Raphael 2005; see also Bambra et al 2005).
This paper examines how the 'problem' of the 'gap' is understood and represented in these two conversations, with a predominant focus on the dominant, institutionally endorsed conversation. It highlights a key silence in both conversations: inadequate reflection on changing modes of governance of research ('knowledge') management. Where once there was a degree of separation between research production and government policy, it argues, increasingly there is congruence between these governmental functions, reflected in the recent endorsement of 'user-driven research' both overseas and in South Australia, with 'users' identified as policy-makers and administrators. This congruence means that the challenge faced by those committed to addressing SDH is not a 'gap' but rather a 'fit' between what we 'know' and what we do. That is, increasingly researchers are ‘rewarded' (funded and promoted) for producing research that supports the priorities of governing bodies intent on preserving social cohesion and stability. Hence, it is unsurprising that the deep, structural changes required to address SDH and the reproduction of health inequalities do not occur.
In terms of the theme of this special issue of HSR therefore, my concern is not the preventive paradigm per se. I am not asking how 'prevention' could be thought about differently or better, nor indeed am I putting into question the understanding of health within the preventive paradigm. Rather, my target is the larger paradigm within which preventive approaches are located: that is, implied models of the research-policy nexus and relatedly implied models of policy-making. I suggest that researchers who proceed as if all they need to do is make suggestions to government about necessary policy changes and then wait for these to be enacted need to think again about how policy questions and proposals frame 'problems' in ways that delimit the policy agenda. Hence a key site of intervention is the need to put into question 'user-driven research' and to insist on the inclusion of researchers and the lay public (Popay et al 2003) in shaping research agendas.
The paper proceeds as follows. First, it lays out and briefly examines the kinds of explanations put forward to explain the 'gap' between what we 'know' and what we do about SDH (the two conversations).
Next, it focuses on the assumptions and presuppositions underpinning the dominant, institutionally supported understanding of the 'know-do gap', using the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) and its founder and long-time director, Jonathon Lomas, as exemplars. To elaborate the models of the research-policy nexus and of policy-making associated with this understanding, it explores the languages used to frame the 'problem' of the 'know-do gap': 'evidence-based/influenced policy', 'knowledge translation','knowledge brokers', 'research synthesis', 'priority setting' and 'user-driven research'. This analysis necessitates a brief excursion into the history of the 'research utilisation' problematic and some reflections on Mode 2 propositions about the ‘new mode of knowledge production' (Gibbons et al 1994).
The final section of the paper points to tensions and inconsistencies in this dominant understanding of the 'problem' of the 'know-do' 'gap'. It also reflects on the implications that follow from identifying the limitations of this dominant conceptualisation of the 'problem' for those engaged in the second, marginalised conversation, those who wish to promote deep-seated social structural change to improve health and reduce health inequalities.
References
Australian Government (2006) Research Quality Framework: Assessing the quality and impact of research in Australia. The Recommended RQF. Date of access 10 March 2007, available at www.unisa.edu.au/rqie/rqfhistory/docs/TheRecommendedRQFwebsiterelease14November2007.
Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) (1995) ‘Closing the know-do gap' 12 August, Sydney. Date of access 10 February 2007, available at http://www.aracy.org.au/conference2005_jlomas.htm.
Bacchi C (1999) Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems, Sage: London.
Ball SJ (2001) 'You've been NERFed!' Dumbing down the academy: National Educational Research Forum: 'A national strategy - consultation paper': A brief and bilious response, Journal of Education Policy 16(3): 265-268.
Bambra C, Fox D and Scott-Samuel A (2005) Towards a politics of health, Health Promotion International 20(2): 187-193.
Birnbaum R (2000) Policy scholars are from Venus: Policy makers are from Mars, The Review of Higher Education 23(2): 119-132.
Black N (2001) Evidence based policy: Proceed with care, British Medical Journal 323: 275-279.
Bolam BL (2005) Public participation in tackling health inequalities: Implications from recent qualitative research, The European Journal of Public Health 15(5): 447-462.
CHSRF (Canadian Health Services Research Foundation) (2001) Communication Notes: Reader-Friendly Writing - 1:3:25. Date of access 16 September 2006 available at http://www.chsrf.ca.
CHSRF (2006) Innovation through Collaboration: Working Together for an Evidence-informed Health System, Report of the 8th Annual Invitational Workshop, CHSRF, Vancouver, British Columbia, 21-22 March. Date of access 16 September 2006 available at http://www.chsrf.ca.
Collyer FM (2007) A sociological approach to workforce shortages: Findings of a qualitative study in Australian hospitals, Health Sociology Review 16(3-4): 248-262.
Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S and Frankel S (2001) How policy informs the evidence, British Medical Journal 322: 184-185.
Davies B (2003) Death to critique and dissent? The policies and practices of new managerialism and of 'evidence-based practice', Gender and Education 15(1): 91-103.
Davis HR and Salasin SE (1978) Strengthening the contribution of social R&D to policy making, in Lynn LE (ed) Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection, National Academy of Sciences: Washington DC, pp.93-124.
Dean M (2006) Governmentality and the powers of life and death, in Marston G and McDonald C (eds) Analysing Social Policy: A Governmental Approach, Cheltenham Edward Elgar: UK, pp.19-48.
Donald A (2001) Commentary: Research must be taken seriously, British Medical Journal 323:278-279.
Elliot A (2006) The best friend Medicare ever had? Policy narratives and changes in Coalition health policy, Health Sociology Review 15(2): 132-144.
Feldman S (1999) Strangers in the night: Research and managed mental health care, Health Affairs (Sept/Oct): 48-51.
Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman PS and Trow M (1994) The New Production of Knowledge, Sage: London.
Government of South Australia (2007a) Strategic Health Research Program: Research Priorities 2006-2007, Government of South Australia: Adelaide.
Government of South Australia (2007b) Strategic Health Research Program: Guidelines 2006-2007, Government of South Australia: Adelaide.
Hanney SR, Gonzalez-Block MA, Buxton MJ and Kogan M (2003) The utilisation of health research in policy-making: Concepts, examples and methods of assessment, Health Research Policy and Systems 1(2): 1-28.
Harvey PW (2006) Social determinants of health: Why we continue to ignore them in the search of improved population health outcomes! Australian Health Review 30(4): 419-423.
Janowitz M (1970) Sociological Models and Social Policy, in Janowitz M (ed) Political Conflict: Essays in Political Sociology, Quadrangle Books: Chicago, pp.243-259.
Lasswell HD (1951) The policy orientation, in Lerner D and Lasswell HD (eds) The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method, Stanford University Press: Stanford, California, pp.1-15.
Lin V (2003) Competing rationalities: Evidence-based health policy? In Lin V and Gibson BJ (eds) Evidence-based Health Policy: Problems and Possibilities, Oxford University Press: Melbourne, pp.3-17.
Lin V and Gibson BJ (eds) (2003) Evidence-based Health Policy: Problems and Possibilities, Oxford University Press: Melbourne.
Lindblom CE (1965) The Intelligence of Democracy, Free Press: New York.
Lindblom CE and Cohen DK (1979) Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving, Yale University Press: New Haven.
Lomas J (1997) Research and evidence-based decision making, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 21(5): 439-440.
Lomas J (2000a) Connecting Research and Policy, Isuma Spring: 140-144.
Lomas J (2000b) Using 'linkage and exchange' to move research into policy at a Canadian Foundation, Health Affairs 19(3): 236-240.
Lomas J, Fulop N, Gagnon D and Allen P (2003) On Being a Good Listener: Setting Priorities for Applied Health Services Research, The Milbank Quarterly 8(3): 363-388.
Lomas J, Culyer T, McCutcheon C, McAuley L and Law S (2005) Conceptualizing and Combining Evidence for Health System Guidance, Final Report, produced for the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Date of access 16 September 2006 available at http://www.chsrf.ca.
Lynn LE (1978a) Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection, Study Project on Social Research and Development Volume 5 National Academy of Sciences: Washington DC.
Lynn LE (1978b) The question of relevance, in Lynn LE (ed) Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection, National Academy of Sciences: Washington DC, pp.12-22.
Lynn L (1978c) Introduction, in Lynn LE (ed) Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection, National Academy of Sciences: Washington DC, pp.1-11.
Marmot M (2004) Evidence based policy or policy based evidence? British Medical Journal 328: 906-907.
Marston G and Watts R (2003) Tampering with the evidence: A critical appraisal of evidence-based policy-making, The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs 3(3):143-163.
Merton RK and Lerner D (1951) Social scientists and research policy, in Lerner D and Lasswell HD (eds) The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method, Stanford University Press: Stanford, California, pp.282-363,
Popay J, Bennett S, Thomas C, Williams G, Gatrell A and Bostock L (2003) Beyond 'beer, fags, eggs and chips'? Exploring lay understandings of social inequalities in health, Sociology of Health and Illness 25(1): 1-23.
Raphael D (2005) 'Exploring the gap between knowledge and action on the social determinants of health', presentation at Dahlgren and Whitehead and Beyond: The Social Determinants of Health in Research, Policy and Service Delivery Cardiff University, 21 April. Date of access 16 September 2006 available at http://www.cardiff.uk/socsi.
Sanders D, Labonte R, Baum F and Chopra M (2004) Making research matter: a civil society perspective on health research, Bulletin of the World Health Organization 82: 757-63.
Solesbury W (2001) Evidence based policy: whence it came and where it's going, ESRC Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice: Working Paper 1. Date of access 10 October 2006 available at www.evidencenetwork.org.
Sundquist JQ (1978) Research brokerage: the weak link, in Lynn LE (ed) Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection, National Academy of Sciences: Washington DC, pp.1126-144.
Von Lengerke T, Rütten A, Vinck J, Abel T, Kannas L, Lüschen G, Rodriguez Dias JA and van der Zee J (2004) Research utilization and the impact of health promotion policy, Social and Preventive Medicine 49(3): 185-197.
Weiss CH (1977a) Research for policy's sake: The enlightenment function of social research, Policy Analysis 3(4): 531-545.
Weiss CH (1977b) (ed) Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, Lexington Books: Lexington, Mass.
Weiss CH (1978) Improving the linkage between social research and public policy, in Lynn LE (ed) Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection, National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, pp.23-80.
What Works Clearinghouse (2005) Who we are. Date of access 26 March 2007 available at www.whatworkshelpdesk.ed.gov/.
WHO (World Health Organisation) (2005) The Know-Do Gap: Knowledge Translation in Global Health, WHO Department of Knowledge Management and Sharing, Geneva, October 10-12. Date of access 10 October 2006 available at www.who.int/kms/WHO_EIP_KMS_2006_2.pdf.
eContent Home