600 MODULE 9

Ferguson, J. 2005. Bridging the gap between research and practice.

Volume 1(3), 46-54 www.km4dev.org/journal

46

Bridging the gap between research and practice

Julie E. Ferguson

Ideas serve often enough to furnish our actions with justifying motives… What

is called rationalisation at this level is called ideology at the level of collective

action.

Habermas (1968)

Enhancing development understanding

Over the past decade many international development agencies have broadened their

activity portfolios beyond financial support of development projects or programmes,

focusing increasingly on capacity development and knowledge sharing. This

development is a response to the need for enhancing development understanding,

expressed both within these agencies as well as amongst their constituents and/or

partners. Reflecting a complementary development, academic institutes are

responding to this need by expanding their scope beyond the research community, and

are progressively including stakeholders such as policy makers and practitioners in the

process of knowledge generation, even sometimes providing consultancy to decision-

makers and agencies committed to development. Despite this convergence of focus

between development research and practice, a wide gap still exists: knowledge

transfer between the two is limited, collaboration is limited and there is still a dearth

of relevant knowledge reaching Southern stakeholders. Many efforts to bridge this

gap have been initiated; almost as many have failed.

The challenge of bringing together research and practice towards the achievement of

mutual development objectives is fascinating. It is a field much explored, but an

adequate response is rare. Initially motivated by diminishing public extension services

available to counterparts in the South, especially in the field of agriculture and health,

and augmented by the ongoing demands of the ‘Information Society’ in which access

to information has become an increasingly important condition for personal

development, the logical step forward for knowledge sharing practitioners would be to

call on the experts in the field of ‘knowledge development’, namely researchers and

academic institutes. Oddly enough, this is not (yet) a common practice. There is a lack

of literature exploring why this is. What are the challenges? What are the

opportunities? What can be learnt from past efforts, successes or failures? Is it worth

pursuing such partnerships? Or are the differences simply too overwhelming to be

overcome?

This story provides a perspective, not a definitive answer, and draws from numerous

examples and experiences in current development practice 1 . It explores the question

why it is so difficult for research and practice to work together effectively in servicing

mutual stakeholders and bridging the ‘knowledge gap’. Why? Because there is so

much fertile ground for more in-depth knowledge sharing amongst both research

institutes and development agencies – and it seems too good an opportunity for us all

to forgo.

Ferguson, J. 2005. Bridging the gap between research and practice.

Volume 1(3), 46-54 www.km4dev.org/journal

47

Overcoming cultural barriers in a knowledge partnership

Many development agencies over the past five to ten years have developed new

strategies in response to the demand for more in-depth knowledge and the need to

make more effective use of financial means and experiences. Subsequently,

knowledge sharing strategies have flourished.

Nonetheless, many organisations find themselves pressed by the urgency of day-to-

day operations, maintaining a focus on the here and now and future directions, with

less time to reflect on previous efforts; and whilst significant time and financial

resources are increasingly spent on monitoring and evaluation, motivated both by

internal drivers for organisational learning as well as external drivers such as donor

requirements, this is not always enough to truly grasp fundamental change drivers or

causes for failure or success. However, the need to enhance organisational learning

internally and amongst counterparts continues to grow, but pragmatic contingencies

imposed by direct stakeholders (counterparts and donors) are likely in the future to

restrict even further the opportunities for in-depth reflection and learning. As such, a

response might be to find a strategic partner with the time and skills to address this

need for more thorough knowledge – and a partnership between development

agencies and development-oriented research institutes seems to be an obvious

solution. Even so, not many such strategic partnerships exist. Experience shows that

fundamental character differences contribute to the apparent gap: the pragmatic

approach harnessed by most development agencies versus the thorough manner by

which research institutes seek to move scientific knowledge (see also Barrett e.a.

2005).

Overcoming differences

Developing initial interest for a research-practice partnership, and subsequently

overcoming pragmatic obstacles such as finding the time and financial resources as

well as establishing management support are challenging in any partnership;

nonetheless, with perseverance and patience, these are easier to overcome than

cultural differences.

Three cultural factors

The main factors standing in the way of effective partnership between research and

practice might be roughly categorised as institutional, communicative and

philosophical differences.

Institutional differences

Significant institutional differences exist, first, in the manner by which the two type of

institutes work towards achieving their goals, and second, in terms of the intended

beneficiaries which these efforts target.

For instance, development agencies generally mainly focus on activities such as

funding, networking, lobby, capacity development and knowledge sharing, and

counterparts consist predominantly of Southern-based NGOs. Academic institutes

Ferguson, J. 2005. Bridging the gap between research and practice.

Volume 1(3), 46-54 www.km4dev.org/journal

48

have educational goals, targeting primarily the international research community. In

other words, whilst on the long term there is a mutual objective, such as sustainable

development, there are significant differences in the manner by which this is

achieved. For instance, a measure of success for a development agency might be a

vast network of development NGOs achieving their institutional objectives, whereby

its main output is financial and political support for civil organisations and initiatives

that share its policy priorities. For an academic institute, a measure of success is more

likely to be a flourishing research community, whereby critical analysis of practice

and development of formal knowledge are the most important means by which this is

achieved.

In a research-practice partnership, institutional differences manifest themselves

particularly in the manner by which the agencies attempt to move forward. This

means first, a difference in pace: whereas a development agency tends to move

(relatively) fast and pragmatically, in response to the continuing and urgent demands

of its counterparts, a research agency prefers a thorough, analytical approach, maybe

even taking a step back once in a while, to ensure everything is comprehensively

explored and academically valid.

As a result, determining the terms and scope for a partnership on mutual grounds is

likely to lead to many discussions in an attempt to come to a common understanding

and define the main issues at stake. Whilst extremely important, interesting and

relevant, it can be a challenge to find a satisfactory balance for both parties in terms of

not just content, but also the process and form by which the partnership is to be

substantiated.

Obviously, it will take some time to find a productive balance between content and

process, between the need to ensure that outputs of the knowledge network are

thoroughly analysed, befitting of an institute with an academic reputation to defend,

versus the desire to move forward quickly and pragmatically.

Communicative differences

The field of development is no different than any other expertise, in that it has a very

particular vocabulary. This ‘jargon’ is largely shared in academic circles and practice-

oriented development, but the way in which a message is articulated and

communicated does vary significantly. This has to do primarily with the differences in

the targeted audience and readership.

The need for and pressure on researchers to publish in academic journals to gain

academic credit makes it less attractive for them to spend their time and energy (re-)

articulating their ideas for practitioners or for people in developing countries who may

be able to take advantage of research findings to improve their personal situation.

Development agencies consider precisely these people the ultimate beneficiaries of

their efforts and will make an effort to ensure outputs are produced which are relevant

and appropriate for this audience. Amongst development practitioners, the level of

formal education is widely divergent, they often have a native language other than

English, they are not necessarily accustomed to academic discourse, and all in all,

they do not have the time or priority for long and complex analyses even if the subject

matter is pertinent to them. Generally speaking, amongst practitioners there is

Ferguson, J. 2005. Bridging the gap between research and practice.

Volume 1(3), 46-54 www.km4dev.org/journal

49

primarily a need for easily accessible, to the point and pragmatic knowledge on how

to get a job done more effectively, and in terms of formal literature, it is primarily

case- and action-based research that is appreciated. Moreover, development agencies

often cannot afford to invest in long-term, in-depth research: the financial and time-

commitments are simply too strenuous, both in terms of supporting its production as

well as its ‘consumption’. Staff is often overwhelmed by the urgency of their day-to-

day activities, so that there is insufficient opportunity to stay up to date on research

findings; these are simply often too long and complex, too theoretical and far-

removed from development practice. This would lead to the clear conclusion of the

need for bridging between researchers and practitioners, for example by distilling and

making user-friendlier what practitioners need to know from researchers. In other

words, it is not only about the knowledge itself but also about its accessibility.

At the same time, the concept of knowledge sharing differs between the two:

development practice (as the name suggests), relies primarily on empirical evidence to

show whether policy and strategic assumptions are correct or not, often tested by

sharing amongst peers. However, in academia, knowledge is acceptable after

comprehensive analysis, thorough documentation, cross-examination and peer review

has proven it valid, and deems it worthy of the researcher to set his or her name under

it. Further, whilst knowledge amongst development practitioners can be shared fairly

openly and informally through a vast array of methods and tools including

storytelling, informal publications and the Internet, academic knowledge is often

proprietary because of the credit to be gained by the researcher, and is only acceptable

after publication in an academic journal. Anything besides that is considered ‘grey

literature’ and doesn’t really count.

Particularly for knowledge sharing practitioners in development agencies, a priority is

getting the best information out on how to get a job done well, and determining the

most effective way to communicate this. In other words, besides the message itself,

finding an appropriate mode of communication is very important, and this might

include, besides conventional forms such as books, articles, etc., more creative

formats such as cartoons, posters, the Internet, etc.

This might mean, for instance, ensuring the availability of good, up-to-date websites,

taking advantage of readily available material within both institutes. For research

agencies, this less of a priority because the development of new content through

research initiatives is more important. Fostering commitment from both sides for two

equally important activities can as such prove challenging. Nonetheless, this is

concurrently an opportunity to be creative in harnessing each others’ strengths: a

website is an excellent source to make accessible the high-quality content generated

by academics such as grey and formal literature, student and staff research outputs,

etc., and can disclose cases, programme evaluations, etc. from development practice

to be used for academic purposes. This is an opportunity for researchers to better

familiarise themselves with practitioner motivations and needs, and gain access to

case material, whilst for development practitioners, this means access to in-depth

knowledge allowing them to enhance their development efforts.

Ferguson, J. 2005. Bridging the gap between research and practice.

Volume 1(3), 46-54 www.km4dev.org/journal

50

Philosophical differences

The third cultural factor affecting collaboration between research and practice, is the

different epistemological views i.e. the theory of knowledge. This relates to the

difference in the interpretation of the question ‘what is knowledge’. This complex

question will remain unanswered here, but it is inevitable to briefly explore the

parameters of the discussion to understand the fundamental differences in approach

between academics and practitioners.

The quest for an ‘absolute body of knowledge’ was pursued from Aristotle to Kant,

but has been deconstructed from thereon forward. Nonetheless, the pursuit of

knowledge as objectively as possible still lies at the heart of all science. Habermas

(1972) captures this problem by identifying the subjectivity which idealism brings to

scientific pursuit, and the impossibility of human interest to be divorced from

knowledge. Barrett et al (2005) developed a view that knowledge is differentiated by

the capacity of individuals to exercise judgment and is closely connected to action.

This affects the capacity of individuals to ‘capture’ and transfer knowledge – it is

indeed always subjectively affected. This is inherent to the human capacity to know,

implying the relativism of knowledge.

Science can only be comprehended… as one category of possible knowledge,

as long as knowledge is not equated effusively with the absolute knowledge of

a great philosophy or blindly with the self-understanding of the actual

business of research. [Habermas 1972]

Habermas identifies different processes of inquiry, of which the approach of critically

oriented sciences incorporate emancipatory cognitive interest. In other words, the

facts relevant to the empirical (practice-based) sciences are first constituted through

an a priori understanding of our own experiences, viewed in the perspective of doing

for a purpose: by understanding the motivation underlying our actions, we are able to

identify the stake (human interest) we have in the activity and develop our scientific

knowledge on the topic – furthering it beyond this stake. Habermas’ critical reading of

empirical knowledge is such that our actions are coated with subjective beliefs,

serving to furnish us with justifying motives; at the level of science this is called

rationalisation, at the level of collective action it is ideology (Habermas 1978).

Obviously, such a train of thought implies a serious pitfall for scientific research that

aims to develop ‘objective knowledge’, in that knowledge represents an innate human

interest that cannot be divorced from the topic at hand. And this is of course

especially the case within a field that is so suffused with ideological motives, as social

sciences and development in particular.

The rather banal conclusion we can draw from this is that science and practice need to

understand what each constitutes as ‘knowledge’, acknowledging the different stake

each has. We might state that on the one hand science’s stake in knowledge is the

pursuit of pure theory stripped as much as possible of ideology, and on the other hand

practice-oriented pursuit of knowledge is an understanding and justification of human

interest: a verification of methodological approaches – or rather, simply understanding

what works for whom.

This abstract analysis of the stake in knowledge (or the motivation for its pursuit)

between research and practice-oriented institutes is nonetheless highly illustrative of

Ferguson, J. 2005. Bridging the gap between research and practice.

Volume 1(3), 46-54 www.km4dev.org/journal

51

the fundamental differences that they have to understand in order to establish a

successful partnership, especially in a field as ideologically driven as development. It

is precisely the pursuit of ideological interest that drives development practice, and

precisely the intention of science to remove this very ideology, releasing knowledge

from interest.

However fundamental the difference, in the need to achieve a realistic balance – in the

development of relevant research, and in the meta-analysis of development practice –

a joint space can be identified. Effectiveness of knowledge depends on whether it in

fact addresses a human interest or ideology and whether the methodology it describes

is appropriate for scientific purposes. In other words, the process of knowledge

generation entails the development of a theory arising from an ideology; it entails

testing the theory whilst identifying and acknowledging the particular human interest

which by the nature of science and human scientific pursuit obstructs the achievement

of ‘pure theory’; and last but not least it seeks the evidence that supports this theory.

Translated to (knowledge for) development practice, this means developing critical

empirical evidence to support – by proving or disproving – a theory, identifying

whether the premises upon which a development approach is motivated are justified,

and through this analysis, moving knowledge forward. (Popper 1963/1959)

Paradoxically, whilst underscoring the fundamentally different approaches to

knowledge generation and understanding, development knowledge – inherently driven

by ideological motivations – can not exist without being firmly rooted in scientific

pursuit. Namely, philosophical analysis of practitioner and academic knowledge

illustrates the need to work together in collecting empirical data, analysing its

meaning and identifying/deconstructing ideological justifications, to create a new

realm of evidence as to whether the assumptions that motivate our strategies are valid,

or need to be adjusted.

Bridging the gap between research and practice Sharing knowledge between research and practice in a structural manner is highly

challenging but can be rewarding, inspiring and fun for all parties involved and their

constituents. It contains the potential to enhance development understanding,

capitalising on the particular strengths of researchers and practitioners to mutual

benefit. Experience shows that it is often cultural barriers that stand in the way of

effective collaboration. However, these can be overcome and valuable knowledge

sharing partnerships can be fostered if built upon a number of basic building blocks.

10 building blocks

1. Get to know each other Articulate, acknowledge and try to understand each others’ differences at all levels

(institutional, communicative and philosophical). Start with a few small initiatives to

experiment what works and what doesn’t rather than going for a ‘big bang’. In getting

to know each other, social networking can be highly effective!

2. Be patient It takes time to understand each others’ interests, differences and priorities; but invest

the time now, it will avoid a lot of frustrations and misunderstandings in the long run.

Different types of institutes have different working paces due to their approach and

Ferguson, J. 2005. Bridging the gap between research and practice.

Volume 1(3), 46-54 www.km4dev.org/journal

52

objectives, and finding a balance in these can be challenging: forcing things forward if

they appear to stagnate can be counterproductive, but beware of losing momentum.

3. Be respectful Researchers and practitioners have a different understanding of knowledge, divergent

approaches to developing it and alternative justifications for action. Develop a

common understanding of these differences, acknowledge each others’ insights – and

respect them. Be prepared to look beyond your own years of development experience

or an academic title, and rather listen to each other and learn from viewpoints shared

from a different perspective.

4. Embrace diversity Both scientific knowledge and practitioner knowledge are highly context specific in

terms of their relevance and applicability. However, don’t be afraid to step out beyond

the usual boundaries: a research-practice partnership can provide an opportunity for

both partners to venture beyond the conventional frame of reference, which can

provide energy, innovation and new insights.

5. Scientific knowledge is nothing without practical knowledge – and vice-versa As illustrated above, progress in knowledge is an interaction between formal,

scientific analysis and empirical, practitioner evidence – without the one, the other is

weakened. Harness the potential to move your knowledge ‘out of the box’.

6. Foster a clear, mutual frame of reference Develop a set of concrete parameters for the partnership which both partners feel

comfortable with. This doesn’t have to be ‘set in stone’ but can be adapted as the

partnership develops. A strong common goal with a number of clear mutual objectives

will provide direction and focus to work towards, but be realistic in what is feasible,

especially in the beginning.

7. Build the partnership incrementally Better to let many small buds develop into a blossoming tree than to go for one big

bang: whilst there is potentially more to win in terms of visibility, it can cost too much

energy to maintain momentum after the big bang; and in case of failure the whole

partnership is likely to flop. Small initiatives are easier for people to get involved in

and broad ownership of research-practice partnership is the key to success.

8. Ensure broad institutional buy-in The most valuable knowledge lies within the heads of people, so the more people get

involved, the more knowledge can be mobilised. Partnerships between research and

practice-oriented institutes will succeed on the long term if there is broad institutional

buy-in: this is necessary to guarantee priority can be given to the initiative and time

and resources can be invested. Without institutional commitment, such initiatives

remain the ‘hobby’ of individuals – and when their energy falters or their time

becomes scarce, that’s the end of it. Specifically in research-practice partnerships,

institutional buy-in ranges from management, faculty/staff, to students and of course

institutional counterparts – the ultimate intended beneficiaries of such initiatives.

9. Equal commitment to the partnership In terms of investments in the partnership, this needs to be roughly equal; whether this

involves in-kind contributions, financial resources or other, partners need to feel as if

their counterpart is matching their investment.

10. Allow for mistakes Due to the significant cultural differences between practise-based and academic

institutes, a partnership between the two is a challenge, no matter what. The

investments are significant – but so are the potential rewards. It can be highly

motivating for development practitioners to step back from their daily practise and

Ferguson, J. 2005. Bridging the gap between research and practice.

Volume 1(3), 46-54 www.km4dev.org/journal

53

reflect in more depth upon the meaning and effect of their work; likewise, more

interaction with development practitioners can provide new perspectives for

researchers in terms of extending their intellectual pursuits beyond the academic

community and into the field of those people most thirsty for relevant knowledge.

However, it will take time for staff of both institutes to truly harness the potential of

such initiatives. There is no clear-cut formula for success, and therefore identifying

the most effective manner for fruitful interaction can be found only by trying. It is

inevitable that some initiatives will fail but be prepared to learn from these together

and move forward.

Critical success factors

The development of a joint knowledge partnership is by no means easy, but it can

prove stimulating for both parties involved – and beyond.

Critical success factors include:

• The involvement of stakeholders– of researchers and students, as well as of development practitioners and counterparts.

• Harnessing momentum, to enhance active commitment beyond the core group of a partnership.

• Show results to stakeholders of the partnership.

It appears that cultural differences might pose the biggest threat to a successful

research-practice partnership. But with time and patience success can be achieved.

Once partners have come to know each other more profoundly, understanding each

others’ priorities and needs, they can start learning from each other, truly reaping the

benefits of a research and practice partnership. New professional dimensions can be

unearthed through small wins – a student research here, a practitioner lecture there –

baby steps which can help to overcome the most urgent differences.

Whilst a definitive bridging of the gap between research and practice is still far down

the road, only time will tell whether we are able to jump over our own shadows and

move knowledge – both scientific and practice-based – forward.

References

Barrett M., B. Fryatt, G. Walsham, S. Joshi (2005) Building bridges between local

and global knowledge KM4D Journal Vol1.2, 31-46

Habermas, J. (1968, English translation 1972) Knowledge and Human Interest,

Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.: London

Popper, K.R. (1989) Conjectures and Refutations – the growth of scientific

knowledge, Routledge: London

Wesley, P. (1982) Elementaire Wetenschapsleer, Boom: Amsterdam

Abstract

This article provides a perspective on the cultural differences which can be

encountered between academic institutes and development agencies in pursuit of

knowledge sharing partnerships. It identifies a number of the major obstacles to be

overcome and provides ten building blocks which can contribute to bridging the gap

Ferguson, J. 2005. Bridging the gap between research and practice.

Volume 1(3), 46-54 www.km4dev.org/journal

54

between research and practice, enabling knowledge to be shared effectively within the

development community – from research institute, to development agency, to the

ultimate beneficiaries: development practitioners in the South.

About the author

Julie Ferguson is Project Leader Knowledge Sharing for a Dutch

development agency. She was previously responsible for the thematic

networking programme in IICD’s knowledge sharing team, preceded

by several years as ICT consultant. Julie has completed Masters

Degrees in Philosophy and Comparative Literature at the University

of Amsterdam and the University of California, Los Angeles and in

2006 she will commence her doctoral research at the University of

London, focusing on result measurement of ICT-enabled knowledge sharing strategies

in development. Julie is co-chief editor of KM4D Journal and Board Member of

Computers for Development Foundation. Email: [email protected]

1 This story draws from experiences shared formally and informally from various institutes including

Hivos, IICD, Ford Foundation, the Institute for Social Studies, and the University of Dar es Salaam.