There is no doubt that research is an important dimension for us to improve as a society; But for that, we need to fundamentally change the power equations in our research ecosystem, in which people determine what research needs to be done. This is how I ended my last column. A friend of mine, who has reviewed each of my columns for the past 12 years, suggested that the line be “softened,” such as “…It was a wise suggestion, but I didn’t heed it.
The reason is simple. The voice and role of practitioners is so non-existent in the research ecosystem, and power so concentrated with academia and policy makers that ‘active participation’ can drive necessary fundamental changes and maintain the status quo. Before proceeding, a brief description: This discussion is about areas like education, public health, livelihood generation, economics etc., which directly and immediately affect the lives of the people in the field of action. It is not about physics, mathematics or sociology, where the effects on human life are indirect and distant, at most. In areas like these, descriptions and explanations are worthy endings in themselves.
A better understanding of our social and natural world may ultimately lead to improved human well-being. We cannot even imagine the use of all such knowledge, let alone predicting. This is why knowledge that may seem meaningless in such areas may someday be useful; Let’s call these ‘interpretive areas’.
On the other hand, sectors like education and health affect human life in the here and now. And therefore, the knowledge developed in such ‘work areas’ deserves if useful in improving lives in the here and now. Economics may be an interpretive field, but the embodiment it has taken for itself over the years is that of a field of action: seeks to influence policy through action on the ground.
Therefore, in work areas, what questions and issues should be explored should be determined by the real world. It should focus on the issues which are most important to improve the lives of the people. Its nuances are better judged by those deeply involved with the actual action: that is, practitioners. Therefore, it is the practitioners who should take the lead in prioritizing the questions.
Reorganizing the power equations in research ecosystems such that clinicians determine that the research they do is insufficient for this to happen. Capacity issue. Business people working on the ground—including organizations and institutions—rarely have the capacity for rigorous research. Since they don’t see it as their business, they haven’t developed that ability.
So, we are caught in this double bond. People who know what needs to be researched do not have the capability and those who do have research ability are often detached from reality.
One approach to solving this puzzle is closer collaboration between organizations with research capability and those deeply embedded in the real world. Over the past 8 years, we have run a large ‘research grant’ program in several areas to financially support other organizations that do useful research. The hundreds of proposals we have received have separated this separation of research potential from the knowledge of where to use it. As with anything in our country, it would be nave to suggest that there is no organization that mixes both knowledge and capability. Obviously, there are. Some organizations in the research-practitioner divide collaborate productively, but the numbers are nowhere near what the country needs.
Simply empowering business organizations to ask research questions and support them with funding to conduct such research may also be insufficient. Business organizations will have to act in other complementary ways.
First, they should adequately prioritize their contributions to such research. Of the hundreds of organizations I’m familiar with, very few even try to do so. They have good reasons. Limited bandwidth, almost no financial support, and just daily struggles in their dirty reality to get their work done hinder their other intentions and efforts. Like all significant changes, any such effort by these organizations is difficult. But business organizations can be activated by the real possibility that if they engage in such research, their contribution to the society will be manifold. Second, they need to build productive collaborations with organizations that have research capability. If they try, surely they will find some enlightened research organizations who do not sit on ivory but are ready to fight shoulder to shoulder in the heat and dust of our country.
Given the horrific history of any kind of system change in our country, we cannot wait for the systemic changes in the research ecosystem, which may get a boost when the National Research Foundation proposed by the National Education Policy 2020 becomes a reality. But for now, like any pioneering effort, some need to be led to join those—including physicians, researchers, and grantees—who are already attempting this path. . This will make India’s position better.
Anurag Behar is the CEO of Azim Premji Foundation