A recurring theme in discussions between academics or researchers and policymakers or project implementers is that research outputs are too academic and tend to remain in libraries, rarely informing policy, action, or practice. 

Any research, if it is worth the paper on which it is written, is inherently academic. Those involved will identify a problem and systematically seek to find a solution.

Besides pinpointing the problem, they will aim to formulate research questions around it and establish what is already known in the study – this is what they call a literature review. 

The researchers will create an explanatory framework or theory that helps them predict potential findings.

Finally, they will develop a method to examine the issue and verify whether their assumptions are correct.

Of course, the specifics of conducting research are more detailed in research books than this, but the main point is that there is a clear method for conducting research. 

Once the findings are published, researchers return to their research communities to explain exactly what they did and what the results were.

These peers scrutinise the entire process to assess its validity and reliability, as well as whether anyone conducting the same study with the same approach would reach the same conclusions, among other considerations. 

With that done, the study is made available across various platforms: at conferences often attended by those interested in learning about the issues that have been researched, in publications that are then accessible to people typically interested in that kind of knowledge, and in libraries. 

For those in policymaking roles, this is where they encounter problems with researchers. The complaints concern language, accessibility, and the nature of the issues examined, among other things.

This presents the challenge of bridging the divide between those conducting research and those developing and implementing policies. 

Foremost among policymakers are, of course, parliamentarians. But they are not the only ones. Organisations in the development sector and various other offices are constantly developing policies and implementing them.

A question arises: on what basis do these people develop and implement policies if they do not have access to information on the issues and problems they are dealing with? 

Most offices involved in policy tend to have the necessary capacity to access these findings.

For example, parliamentary offices and committees have teams whose primary role is to carry out groundwork that uncovers what is already known on these issues.

This is the team that should be bridging the gap between academia and policy experts. Why does the gap persist, if it does? 

It could only mean one thing: those implementing policies rarely do their groundwork. Consider the challenge of briefing parliamentarians on the issues they usually deal with.

You would need to gather them at a resort, either in Mombasa or Naivasha, pay them to attend, and even after all the effort, most would still resist, kicking and screaming, to pay attention to the briefings. 

Is the gap a problem of academics or the reluctance of those involved in policy implementation to do their work?

It often appears that the blame is misplaced. Policymakers should actively seek out findings that are already publicly available and use these findings to inform their decisions. 

If you do not know the quality of soil in the area you represent, how can you advise your constituents on which crops to plant?

If you are unaware of the types of diseases common in your area, how can you decide which medicines to keep in your clinics?

If you cannot estimate the number of cars that will be competing for space on Nairobi’s roads in five years, how can you plan road construction? 

The writer is the Dean of Daystar University’s School of Communication