Academics at three African universities on the perceived utilisation of their research
Abstract
This article contributes to emerging knowledge on the utilisation of university research in sub-Saharan Africa. A survey was conducted comprising 463 academics at three African universities: the University of Ibadan (Nigeria), the University of Nairobi (Kenya) and the University of Rwanda. The study investigated the agreement between two measures of research utilisation and highlighted the types of research interactions associated with instances of perceived research utilisation, whilst taking into account the different categories of intended beneficiaries. The first measure, a single question, required the respondents to indicate to what extent the stated intended beneficiaries had utilised the research as planned. The second measure operationalised a stage model of research utilisation. Responses at the ‘upper end’ of both measures were labelled ‘true’ research utilisation. A percentage reduction in utilisation was observed when cross-tabulating the two measures – from 48 per cent who believed that research utilisation occurred to some extent (upper end of first measure), to 35 per cent who held the same opinion and who obtained above-average scores on the stage model of utilisation (upper end of second measure). For the subgroup at the upper end of both measures, the larger share of cases (54%) exemplified the instrumental utilisation of research. This subgroup was found to be involved in traditional academic research practices and participated in a number of outreach activities targeting non-academic audiences.References
Amara, N., M. Ouimet and R. Landry. 2004. New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication 26(1): 75–106.
Author. 2005.
Author. 2014a.
Author. 2014b.
Author. 2017.
Author. 2018. In press.
Beyer, J. M. and H. M. Trice. 1982. The utilization process: A conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings. Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 591–622.
Cherney, A., B. Head, P. Boreham, J. Povey and M. Ferguson. 2013. Research utilization in the social sciences: A comparison of five academic disciplines in Australia. Science Communication 35(6): 780–809.
Cherney, A. and T. R. McGee. 2011. Utilization of social science research: Results of a pilot study among Australian sociologists and criminologists. Journal of Sociology 47(2): 144–162.
Davies, H., S. Nutley and I. Walter. 2005. Assessing the impact of social science research: Conceptual, methodological and practical issues. Background discussion paper for the ESRC Symposium on Assessing Non-academic Impact of Research, Research Unit for Research Utilisation, University of St Andrews, May. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/events-documents/4381.pdf (accessed 20 August 2017).
De Jong, S., K. Barker, D. Cox, T. Sveinsdottir and P. van den Besselaar. 2014. Understanding societal impact through productive interactions: ICT research as a case. Research Evaluation 23(2): 1–14.
De Jong, S. P. L., P. van Arensbergen, F. Daemen, B. van der Meulen and P. van den Besselaar. 2011. Evaluation of research in context: An approach and two cases. Research Evaluation 20(1): 61–72.
Estabrooks, C. A. 1999. The conceptual structure of research utilization. Research in Nursing and Health 22(3): 203–216.
Knott, J. and A. Wildavsky. 1980. If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1(4): 537–578.
Kok, M. O. and A. J. Schuit. 2012. Contribution mapping: A method for mapping the contribution of research to enhance its impact. Health Research Policy and Systems 10: 1–16.
Kreuter, F., S. Presser and R. Tourangeau. 2008. Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys: The effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly 72(5): 847–865.
Landry, R., N. Amara and M. Lamari. 2001. Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy 30(2): 333–349.
Larsen, J. K. 1980. Knowledge utilization. What is it? Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1(3): 421–442.
Molas-Gallart, J. and P. Tang. 2011. Tracing “productive interactions” to identify social impacts: An example from the social sciences. Research Evaluation 20(3): 219–226.
Owoaje, E. T. and O. M. Desmennu. 2014. Research activities and identified constraints among academic staff at the University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. Paper presented at the 7th WARIMA International Conference and Workshop, University of Jos, 2–7 March.
Rich, R. F. 1979. The pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 12(3): 6–30.
Robinson-Garcia, N., T. N. van Leeuwen and I. Rafols. 2017. Using almetrics for contextualised mapping of societal impact: From hits to networks. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2932944 (accessed 15 May 2017).
Spaapen, J. and L. van Drooge. 2011. Introducing “productive interactions” in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation 20(3): 211–218.
Strandberg, E., A. C. Eldh, H. Forsman, A. Rudman, P. Gustavsson and L. Wallin. 2014. The concept of research utilization as understood by Swedish nurses: Demarcations of instrumental, conceptual, and persuasive research utilization. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 11(1): 55–64.
Upton, S., P. Vallance and J. Goddard. 2014. From outcomes to process: Evidence for a new approach to research impact assessment. Research Evaluation 23(4): 352–365.
Van den Akker, W. and J. Spaapen. 2017. Productive interactions: Societal impact of academic research in the knowledge society. http://www.leru.org/files/general/LERU_Position_Paper_Societal_Impact.pdf (accessed 1 August 2017).
Weiss, C. H. 1978. Broadening the concept of research utilization. Sociological Symposium 21: 20–33.
Weiss, C. H. 1979. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review 39(5): 426–431.
Weiss, C. H. 1980. Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1(3): 381–404.
Copyright (c) 2018 Nelius Boshoff
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This journal is an open access journal, and the authors and journal should be properly acknowledged, when works are cited.
Authors, copyright holders, may use the publishers version for teaching purposes, in books, theses, dissertations, conferences and conference papers.
A copy of the authors' publishers version may also be hosted on the following websites:
- Non-commercial personal homepage or blog.
- Institutional webpage.
- Authors Institutional Repository.
The following notice should accompany such a posting on the website: This is an electronic version of an article published in SAJHE, Volume XXX, number XXX, pages XXX “XXX", DOI. Authors should also supply a hyperlink to the original paper or indicate where the original paper (http://www.journals.ac.za/index.php/SAJHE) may be found.
Authors publishers version, affiliated with the Stellenbosch University will be automatically deposited in the University Institutional Repository SUNScholar.
Articles as a whole, may not be re-published with another journal.
The following license applies:
Attribution CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
