Research uptake is defined as the ‘process of becoming aware of and accessing research outputs, and the institutions, policies, systems and mechanisms supporting this process’. Research uptake involves the following categories:
- Dissemination of research findings (message);
- Capacity development;
- Influence (social influence);
- Collaboration between researchers and users (Communication);
- Incentives and reinforcement;
- an Enabling environment and
- Research on Uptake and Use (Development Research Uptake in Sub-Saharan Africa (DRUSSA), 2010).
In this article, we focus on Research Communication (dissemination of research findings).
Research Communication also is known as Science Communication (SciCom) is defined in a report by the Office of Science and Technology and the Welcome Trust (2000) as a term that encompasses communication between:
a) groups within the scientific community, including those in academia and industry
b) the scientific community and the media
c) the scientific community and the public
d) the scientific community and government, or others in positions of power and/or authority
e) the scientific community and government, or others who influence policy
f) industry and the public;
g) the government and the public
h) the media (including museums and science centres) and the public
Why should academics communicate their research/ scientific works?
Public communication about science is increasingly seen as an important element within the creation of a knowledge society (Horst, 2013). Science is inherently social and informal scholarly scientific communication forms the backbone that connects scientists and enables scientific progress (Pikas, 2006). Research should not be seen as carrying financial benefits for the researcher but should be seen from a viewpoint of adding value to innovation and economic development. Universities are becoming more engaged in research for policy and practice.
NUST has been working on research uptake and communication through the Development Research Uptake in Sub-Saharan Africa (DRUSSA) programme. Research communication and dissemination had not been so much of a priority before 2012, but there is now a great emphasis on carrying the outcomes and findings of research to industry, policy makers and the wider community in which most research activities take place. The NUST Research Policy which was approved in 2014 includes research uptake and dissemination which will be rolled out adopted in 2016. There are plans to identify ongoing projects in all faculties and to work with researchers to communicate their research outputs and engage various stakeholders including policymakers and the general public and increase research visibility and uptake from NUST academics.
NUST academics have also been called upon, by the Vice-Chancellors office to engage with The Conversation and send articles to this platform. The Conversationis a newsroom, based in Johannesburg that is funded by local and international donors to make the expertise of academics available to the general public by publishing articles written by them and edited by journalists.
Academics who have written for The Conversation elsewhere had this to say:
“Often, we as scientists are sceptical of journalists, as we fear that our work may be wholly misinterpreted and the wrong message purveyed: not in this case – The Conversation Africa’s editor took my work and expertly crafted it into an article. I guess that’s why we are scientists and journos are journos! Such an easy process from suggestion of the article to completion – only a matter of days with excellent editing. Also the platform for submitting, editing and accepting the final draft before publication is easy to use and gives the author a lot of control over the final product. Look forward to writing my next article!” Dr Janet Viljoen, Chair, Departmental Ethical Standards Committee, Department of Human Kinetics and Ergonomics, Rhodes University
Is it our duty as academics to communicate our research to non-academic audiences?
The question that comes to the minds of most academics is: as long as we are effective at actually conducting our research, should we care whether we can explain that work to the public?
The short answer is yes. Nearly every aspect of our lives; what we eat and wear, how we work, face illness and share information; rests on scientific research. To make well-founded decisions about our future, both as societies and as individuals, we need a basic understanding of the way science works. We need politicians, policymakers and media figures to understand that, too (The Conversation, 2015).
Scientific information is a social need that cannot be discarded in any full democracy. Society needs scientific information (Greco, 2002). Effective communication is an essential part of science for at least two reasons. First, if nobody hears about your work, you might as well have never done it. Second, if you do not communicate your work effectively, there are many people around who will communicate it for you, and when they do, it will probably be skewed in order to support whatever agenda they have (Grant et al., 2015:2). The fundamental goal of science is to develop a shared, public understanding of our observations (Grant et al., 2015:2).
And researchers owe it to us. Almost every scientist receives some support from the public, including subsidies for graduate education or grants. So scientists have a responsibility to share their work with the public that funds them. That may mean opening themselves to criticism, as well as appreciation. But if the public doesn’t understand science, they won’t support government funding for research (The Conversation, 2015).
Clear communication benefits the scientists too
As science gets more specialised, colleagues in neighbouring fields become a lot like the public. They speak different languages, with different knowledge bases. Words like “transformation,” “activation” and even “theory” mean different things in different fields (and something else again in everyday English). Does AI mean artificial intelligence or artificial insemination? (The Conversation, 2015).
Scientists often tell us that at meetings in their own field, they don’t understand 60%-80% of the lectures they hear. (“I want those hours of my life back.”) (The Conversation, 2015). Yet, the world’s big challenges; from climate change to brain disease; increasingly require chemists, biologists, physicists, computer scientists, material scientists, earth scientists and others to collaborate.
And when scientists distill their message for lay audiences, they can actually gain insight that improves their science. Neurobiologist Nicholas Spitzer, co-director of the Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind at University of California in San Diego, put it this way:
… when I talk publicly, I appreciate the need to step back and present the big picture, and in so doing put details into a larger context that is much more accessible – and much more memorable – for an audience. This has stimulated me to think about larger questions over the years and has influenced the directions of my research (The Conversation, 2015).