DISEÑO METODOLÓGICO

In view of the peculiarities of the “market” for research output, the imperative of government intervention in research management for national development appears evident. Nevertheless, it is needful to underscore such intervention from its underlying theoretical bases and the practical problems that warrant it.

S. I. Oladeji: The Imperative of Institutional and Policy Framework for Dissemination of Research Output

Theoretical Consideration

It has been argued, from the technocratic conception of science, that many practically useful scientific results can be treated as a sort of commodity, to be produced under contract, tailored to the special needs of the purchaser.

Ravertz (1971:22). This viewpoint also finds relevance in humanities and social sciences. After all, in contemporary times, every body of knowledge is increasingly becoming scientific; whether in sciences or arts! (Hakemulder and Zynger, 2012).

Acknowledgement of the technocratic position amounts to the existence of the “market” for research outputs. The question that naturally arises is: what prospect is there for the market mechanism to serve as the platform for effective promotion and dissemination of research output in a manner as to ensure national development? In a competitive situation, the role of market forces is to induce firms to purchase (or adopt) research output in order to survive and, additionally to create opportunities for the growth of new firms or old (Braun, 1981:168). Provided certain conditions hold, competitive pressures are expected to bring about efficient allocation of resources to R& D and thus presumptively research necessarily engenders national development.

However, the market for research output is rather special, grossly imperfect and therefore not amenable to the spontaneity of the market forces.

The fundamental defects in the market are the invalidation of the real initial conditions necessary for Pareto optimality the framework on which the market mechanism rests. For instance, either in time or in space, research output is not homogenous. Research information comes in different forms and shapes, depending on discipline and context of research. Accessibility to the market for research output is not completely free. In one respect, communications systems of the academic community in most cases are such that they make research findings rather inaccessible to end-users and practitioners. In another respect, transactions in the market for research output are subject to regulations and controls. The enforcement of intellectual property rights on its own constrains access to, and dissemination of research results. Just like education, research output is a quasi-public good, conferring benefits not just on the buyers but also the society at large (Gyorgy 2011). The considerable spill over benefits of research information in this regard, and thus the divergence between private and social returns, are an indication that exclusive relevance on competitive pressures of the market will always result in some social under-investment in research.

The strategic importance of research and development (R and D) in the promotion of a higher rate of economic growth and indeed national development cannot be over-emphasised. Evidently research development and dissemination is not a matter for market forces or a concern for small investors.

The substantial capital outlays required to pursue development work, coupled with a high risk of failure to come up with a marketable product tend to favour the larger firms. Thus, it might be argued that monopoly or oligopoly market

91

structures tend to be more conducive to research development, Pass, Lowes and Davis (2005:452). The market position of the oligopolists is perhaps a more compelling force for them to undertake R and D much more than monopolists.

Establishing competitive advantage over rival firms through R and D is in this case at a premium for the oligopolists. As for the monopolist, the capability to fund R and D is always there, but the incentive to do so may not be there given its present secure market position. The creation of incentive in this case could warrant some intervention by government for example, tax exemption for research undertakings.

Evidently, government intervention at the market place of research output is needful in as much as the market for research information is never and cannot be perfect. The imperfections are not of the type that can be corrected with the traditional self-correcting mechanisms, Oladeji (1998:126). By itself the marketplace has proved unable to promote research and to ensure its correspondence with development objectives. Effective dissemination of research information, in particular, calls for government intervention for research to serve truly as the bedrock of development.

Problems of Dissemination of Research Findings

A paradoxical situation that has remained characteristic of the market for research information in most African countries, Nigeria inclusive, is that despite the apparent inadequate supply of research output, there is corresponding lack of demand. This is evidenced by the volume of yet-to-be utilised research findings available in the universities and research institutes.

Apparently, therefore, the impact of researches in these countries is rather minimal. As argued elsewhere, in contemporary Nigeria, the institutionalisation of research (through universities and research institutes) has superficially and deceptively attained a very high level with limited impact on national development (Oladeji 1996:57). Poor funding and lack of supportive infrastructure have undermined the capacity of the Nigerian universities to make the much needed impact on generation and dissemination of research outputs.

Perhaps much more problematic is the issue of the dissemination of research findings. The development impact of research depends not only on the volume of the productive utilisation of the research results. It is, therefore, needful to probe into the basic problem of research information dissemination and thereafter underscore the imperative of government intervention as opposed to relying upon the market forces. A basic problem of dissemination of research findings is the lack of effective “social demand” for these sorts of information.

In the context of this paper, the concept social demand is an expression for society’s awareness, desire for, and readiness to utilise research information.

Where there exists and effective social demand, dissemination of research results is facilitated which then makes for the development impact of any research effort. The myriad of problems of dissemination of research findings are encapsulated in the phrase “lack of effective social demand”. Apparently the

S. I. Oladeji: The Imperative of Institutional and Policy Framework for Dissemination of Research Output

issue is not affordability as such because research output, by and large, is available at a little or no cost, especially to the public sector. Lack of research-consciousness, awareness of, and /or taste for research information appears more promising explanation for the low social demand.

Other than these, prejudices and perceived extreme academisation have been reported to have undermined social demand and, of course, impaired the flow of research ideas to end-users and practitioners. If the researcher’ works are not generally considered irrelevant or too theoretical, the impenetrable jargons used by academician are enough to prejudice practitioners’

understanding and the motivation to appreciate the relevance of the scholars’

contributions (Simmons 1971). Consequently, the net effect is impaired accessibility of intellectual produce to its end-users, a situation which Simmons graphically reflects in the following words:

It is tragic (and perhaps symptomatic of the pathology of academia) that relatively little of this work has ever been channelled to governmental end-users in a systematic manner.

It piles up on colleagues’ desk, gets catalogued in libraries, entered in bibliographies, referred to in the paper of other scholars, published in reviews rather than communicated well and widely to practitioner. (Simmons, 1971: 209)

Of a truth, communication gap between the academia and end-users is a reality that calls to question the communication skills and marketing drive of the former. Inertia on the part of the academia in this matter may not be inexcusable, albeit it calls for understanding. Whatever intervention is being contemplated, the world-view of the academia should be borne in mind in the most realistic manner. Providing some understanding of the world of academia in the publication of research output, Ravertz argues as follows:

for a paper to be published, it is sufficient that the author, an editor, and a publisher all find some purpose served by its publication. From the side of the publisher, it is a matter of economics; given the guaranteed library subscriptions and the economics of journal publication, it is possible to make a profit even on an obscure journal. The editor may receive an honorarium from the publisher, and will certainly derive prestige at his own university by virtue of his position. The author may need to have another title in his record, as a demonstration (for his employer) as his continued competence in research, or as another point to be included in his aggregate score of publications when he applied for a grant from a larger and impersonal investing agency. (Ravertz, 1971:50)

93

In the bid to address the problem of dissemination, the conventional approach requires that researchers should market their research output to policy makers, providing intellectual support for those charged with the responsibility for policy making, Ajakaiye (1992:129). As for Simmons (1971:208), the academics should launch out into a strong programme of extension services, with a view to engendering effective social demand for research findings.

However, to stimulate social demand for research information is a whole lot of work; a daunting task which requires a concerted effort beyond what academics could find time to undertake. If the principle of specialisation has some applicability, a brokerage unit to play the intermediary role between academics and practitioners is strongly advised.