Briefing Notes |
B: Further Analysis of Research Methods |
B10: Whose research is it anyway?Who should decide what research to undertake, what methods to employ and what to do with the findings? The funding bodies, I hear you cry (which probably shows what a fantasy world I inhabit), but, who are they acting for when they commission work and should they have the right of veto over the results? Some research bodies, such as the Institute of Fiscal Studies in the UK, insist on the right to publish their findings regardless of how well or badly they are viewed by the people who fund their work, but most research organisations prefer to avoid such potential confrontation. Instead, such research bodies are likely to spend time, energy and effort in negotiating mutually acceptable compromises in what they commit to print. I still remember my sense of shock on the first occasion that I was asked by a senior civil servant to change one of the key recommendations in a research report because it didn't accord with their view of priorities. (In the event, I took the risky route and arranged to collect more research data which, fortunately, supported the original recommendation.)Such ambiguity about control of research findings leaves open a question about the objectivity of funded research, particularly when conducted by large specialist research bodies that depend upon maintaining and sustaining a good relationship with the major research sponsors in their field. Given that government bodies are directly or indirectly active in funding much research it is little surprise that some 'independent' academic researchers are suspicious of this symbiotic relationship. Respected researchers such as John Elliott have argued that research funded by government policy makers is at least suspect because it is likely to be slanted towards providing them with the tools they need to control situations. This may at first seem like an esoteric argument, but concerns about State control of research in the guise of informing the policy agenda have been voiced in such disparate quarters as the Times Higher Education Supplement1 and the European Union Socrates Programme2. The THES article quoted John Field of the University of Warwick, who had objected to a consultation paper from the (Government) Office of Science and Technology because of its evident tendency to make academic social science research into an instrument of government social policy. Interestingly, this article drew a denial from the (Government) Cabinet Office which referred to their vision being reliant on "the involvement of the wider research community in real debates about the future direction of society", but omitted to say how3. Where does library and information research feature in this debate? Looking at the UK scene, there is still some scope for pursuing an independent research course and experimenting with non-traditional research methods within universities or via funding from charitable trusts, but the national scene has changed significantly at each stage in the transition of research funding from the British Library (who were open to approaches from any researcher with an idea) to the Library and Information Commission (mainly interested in funding research within pre-selected policy areas) to Re:source (only interested in funding research in line with their announced policies and with little scope for innovative research methods). Does it matter who sets the research agenda? Leaving aside the entire debate about democratic decision making, one could argue that it is better to have a strategically-focussed research agenda rather than a disjointed jumble of projects, but how can we ensure that the agenda is set sufficiently broadly, addresses the key concerns (of whom?) and what about the important research issue that hasn't yet been widely recognised as important? There is much talk in government circles about encouraging a climate of evidence-based decision making, especially in the public sector (where there is a suspicion that insisting upon decisions about service provision being taken on the basis of best available evidence actually equates to rationing of provision – if you can't prove that it works you can't do it!). In reviewing the scope for evidence-based museums, archives and libraries work recently, I was struck by the continuities in approach to developing evidence-based approaches in other disciplines such as education, health and social care. All called for:
Efforts to apply EBPP approaches to social care and education, as well as to the public health end of the health service continuum, have brought issues about the nature of professional practice and knowledge to the fore:
In other words, future library and information research is probably too important to be left to the decision of a small group of (alleged) policy makers. What is needed is a debate involving policy makers and shapers, library and information service managers and researchers about what research is needed and what to do with the findings. The question now (in the UK at least) is – will Re:source be willing to surrender its grip on the research policy reins in order to encourage compliance with a key government aspiration – evidence-based policy and practice?
|
| | briefing notes | A | B | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | B5 | B6 | B7 | B8 | B9 | B10 | C | |
|
|
| | IMA | about IMA | briefing notes | articles | best value | publications | feedback | top |
Contents © Information Management Associates 2000 - 2003 Design © ConnectWorks Ltd. 2000 - 2003 |