The Politics of Research Management: Reflections on the Gap between What We 'Know' (about SDH) and What We Do

By Bacchi, Carol | Health Sociology Review, August 1, 2008 | Go to article overview

The Politics of Research Management: Reflections on the Gap between What We 'Know' (about SDH) and What We Do


Bacchi, Carol, Health Sociology Review


Introduction

The scientist is called upon to contribute information useful to implement a given policy, but the policy itself is 'given', not open to question So long as the social scientist continues to accept a role in which he (sic) does not question policies, state problems, and formulate alternatives, the more does he (sic) become routinised in the role of bureaucratic technician

(Merton and Lerner 1951:306).

Concern about the 'gap' between what we 'know' and what we do about the social determinants of health (SDH) and of health inequalities is widespread and growing. Importantly, this concern is being expressed in two quite different conversations. One is a conversation of some longevity and with significant institutional endorsement, which I refer to as the dominant conversation (see WHO 2005). The aim in this conversation about what is called the 'know-do gap' is to determine 'how knowledge can more effectively be transformed into action', how to increase the 'uptake' of 'evidence' in public policy (ARACY 1995). The second conversation, positioned somewhat at the margins of the first, wants to tackle the perceived lack of government responsiveness to SDH. The concern in this subdominant conversation is the apparent 'lack of will' (Harvey 2006) of those with institutional authority to implement SDH insights and their possible ideological aversion to those insights (Raphael 2005; see also Bambra et al 2005).

This paper examines how the 'problem' of the 'gap' is understood and represented in these two conversations, with a predominant focus on the dominant, institutionally endorsed conversation. It highlights a key silence in both conversations: inadequate reflection on changing modes of governance of research ('knowledge') management. Where once there was a degree of separation between research production and government policy, it argues, increasingly there is congruence between these governmental functions, reflected in the recent endorsement of 'user-driven research' both overseas and in South Australia, with 'users' identified as policy-makers and administrators. This congruence means that the challenge faced by those committed to addressing SDH is not a 'gap' but rather a 'fit' between what we 'know' and what we do. That is, increasingly researchers are 'rewarded' (funded and promoted) for producing research that supports the priorities of governing bodies intent on preserving social cohesion and stability. Hence, it is unsurprising that the deep, structural changes required to address SDH and the reproduction of health inequalities do not occur.

In terms of the theme of this special issue of HSR therefore, my concern is not the preventive paradigm per se. I am not asking how 'prevention' could be thought about differently or better, nor indeed am I putting into question the understanding of health within the preventive paradigm. Rather, my target is the larger paradigm within which preventive approaches are located: that is, implied models of the research-policy nexus and relatedly implied models of policymaking. I suggest that researchers who proceed as if all they need to do is make suggestions to government about necessary policy changes and then wait for these to be enacted need to think again about how policy questions and proposals frame 'problems' in ways that delimit the policy agenda. Hence a key site of intervention is the need to put into question 'user-driven research' and to insist on the inclusion of researchers and the lay public (Popay et al 2003) in shaping research agendas.

The paper proceeds as follows. First, it lays out and briefly examines the kinds of explanations put forward to explain the 'gap' between what we 'know' and what we do about SDH (the two conversations). Next, it focuses on the assumptions and presuppositions underpinning the dominant, institutionally supported understanding of the 'know-do gap', using the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) and its founder and long-time director, Jonathon Lomas, as exemplars. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

The Politics of Research Management: Reflections on the Gap between What We 'Know' (about SDH) and What We Do
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.