She presented her views on this during the recent Navigating Open Science and Industry Collaboration virtual training session that was presented by the Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association (SARIMA) and the Department of Science and Innovation on 7 and 8 August.
Q: What was the main aim of the training?
A: The purpose of the training was to equip researchers, their managers and industry partners with an understanding of concepts such as research impact, research outcomes and output, as well as the relationship between Open Science and collaborations.
Q: In what ways can research create and sustain knowledge?
A: There are two approaches to knowledge creation: the reactive approach and proactive approach.
The reactive approach is the “traditional” approach. This is when researchers just apply for grants, conduct research, produce papers or reports, and speak at conferences. This is the approach used by most. It helps them to improve their profile and to stand a better chance of attracting more funding to repeat the cycle, without necessarily impacting the community.
There is a more impactful way – this is why I encourage the proactive approach to knowledge creation. It is a realistic continuum where research end-users are involved as partners in every phase. This involves obtaining a research grant, conducting research, disseminating the findings, participating in the uptake and implementation of the findings, and finally, assessing the impact.
This approach is also strongly linked to the concept of Open Science and a generic research theory of change to show what knowledge can affect.
Q: Is it important for researchers to share their research effectively if they want it to be used to bring about change?
A: Yes, and as with knowledge creation, there are two approaches to the sharing of research. I call these traditional and non-traditional research dissemination approaches.
The traditional channels that academic institutions use for research dissemination include journal articles, books, book chapters and conference proceedings, and industry uses technical reports (with recommendations) and presentations to management.
Unfortunately, the traditional approach limits access, uptake and use by potential users, because it stays within a closed group and mostly results in limited or no impact.
Non-traditional research dissemination includes policy briefs, position papers, opinion pieces, blogs, media articles and the like. This is preferred in community engagement projects owing to its unlimited access.
This approach also makes room for stakeholder opinions and can impact different communities (users) within a short space of time.
Though frowned upon for challenges experienced with quality control, the uptake and use of non-traditional methods by industry and the academic community has improved over time. These enable ease of measurement and reporting of economic, environment and social impact.
Q: What do you think is the most important role of research managers in knowledge creation and dissemination?
A: Open Science approaches play a crucial role in all spheres of research impact.
I encourage researchers to engage in collaborative research and use open access publishing platforms to improve the uptake of their research.
It is here that research managers can play a vital role in the three spheres of research impact: sphere of control, influence and interest.
Faculty and research managers should encourage partnerships and multidisciplinary approaches and support effective collaboration.
They should also support dissemination of research output to both the academic and non-academic community, including industry partners, the government sector, etc.
The managers must also create visibility opportunities for researchers in and outside the institution, and where possible facilitate dissemination of research output on relevant platforms.
