Research for people’s benefit

Culture shift

By Prof Athula Sumathipala and Dr Buddhika Fernando

Peaceful elections, without posters, cut-outs or violence, came and went without too much of a fuss, unlike in the past. The new cabinet and state ministers have now been sworn in and the parliament is in session. Is it going to be ‘business as usual’ in the research community anymore? We think not.

In the very first hour after assuming duties in November 2019, His Excellency the President ordered the display of the state emblem in government offices, instead of personal photographs, earning the respect of even those who did not vote for him. Through that simple act, he displayed how norms can be challenged through setting an example at a personal level. The response to such change was reflected in the election that followed: floating votes ensured the two-thirds mandate the President requested, paving the way for a new political culture.

People sent a powerful message via a two-thirds mandate not only to politicians but also to government officials, and importantly, to intellectuals, academics and scientists – they want to see a culture shift in all these arenas. ‘Vistas of prosperity and splendour’ has now been transformed from a presidential candidate’s election manifesto into state policy and therefore any planned activities including research should be aligned with it for policy impact. For researchers, it is no longer merely ‘publish or perish’, it is not business as usual and the entire research ecosphere needs to see a culture shift towards research for people’s benefit.

Research and Development, Innovation and Technology Transfer

The post-industrial knowledge economy of today clearly displays the close correlation among economic growth, innovation and indigenous research capacity. University-based research has been the most effective driver of such economically-relevant innovation. Furthermore, there is a clear association between a country’s health and research and development (R&D) investment.

As a result, leveraging the public investment in universities to stimulate innovative R&D is now a critical need for a country to remain competitive in the global arena. Most high-ranking universities in the world are no longer just teaching universities but have transformed into to research universities. In the same vein, Sri Lanka needs a paradigm shift to make research and innovation core components of tertiary education. Research and innovation need to be incorporated not only into postgraduate education, but also into undergraduate education in order to produce individuals with both a creative vision for innovation as well as the sufficient intellectual breadth and depth to realise that vision.

What is a strategy?

We believe strategy is about capturing opportunities arising in a dynamic world, as scientific opportunities cannot always be foreseen. The flexibility to respond to novel ideas with solid potential is therefore crucial for success. For example, the Covid-19 pandemic has created an unprecedented window of opportunity for research in as-yet fully unexplored subject matters. Sri Lanka requires innovative R&D contributions to re-stabilise the economy, to ensure national security and for sustainable development in strategically important areas.

Culture shift – what does it entail?

Any culture shift demands change in the triad of thinking, feelings and behaviours. According to cognitive theory, thoughts are central to any feelings or behaviour. The way people think determine how they feel and behave. Therefore, ‘attitudes’ which are a significant component of thinking, need to change for any modification in thinking or behaviour to happen.

What is success?

At the end of the day what we all want, either as individuals or as a society is ‘success’; but how do you define success?

The definition of ‘success’ is determined by one’s attitude towards ‘success’. It could mean personal success or material gains for one’s own benefit or it could mean the public good arising from one’s efforts. The attitude towards success is the driving force for the vision, strategy and focus and a wrong attitude can lead to a ‘success’, which could even be destructive. The classic example for such a harmful attitude and focus is the LTTE separatist war, the war that brought destruction to every one irrespective of the language spoken. Similarly, where knowledge is power, that too can lead to a destructive end.

Success in research

For a researcher, the institution he is affiliated to may have a proud history, it may be a place of research excellence with a reputation for cutting edge research, an institution supporting future research leaders. However, what does it mean to an ordinary citizen? What could such an institution offer them? This is the standard ‘so what’ question, as it is applicable to the ordinary citizen.

For whose benefit is research carried out? It is high time to reflect on this question.

An academic or research institution can be a place that can offer a degree, a job, a better life, a promotion, a good marriage, a patent, the opportunity to see the world through academic travel, publications, a thesis to gather dust in a library. However, we need to question ourselves regarding the purpose of research – aiming for public good and benefit beyond personal gain.

Serious reflection on achieving something beyond personal gain is an urgent need; that is what the culture shift – research for people’s benefit demands. A paradigm shift is necessary in the way we look at the benefits and the impact of our research. In the simplest terms, impact means making a difference to people’s lives.

Why is such a change necessary? We are products of free public education, we use public funds for research, and even public knowledge; knowledge is also on most occasions something others have left behind and we are merely enhancing such past knowledge through our current research. We therefore have a moral and ethical obligation to think beyond personal gain. It is not only politicians who should be transparent and accountable. We academics too are answerable to the public. This is a salient feature not usually recognised by academics, and a part of the necessary culture shift.

In the journey towards such a ‘culture shift’, the ethos and attitudes are crucial. Bad attitude is like a flat tire, you cannot go anywhere without changing it. We also need to remember that change is generally resisted and challenging the ‘norm’ may be faced with significant animosity, especially from ego centric, self-centred, insecure personalities and power brokers.

Achieving an attitude change starts from within oneself. Such an internal change will ignite the change externally. It’s a synergistic process. That is why we started this article by noting the President’s attitude of not having his photograph at state institutions. It was a small step which had an impact and we saw a leap that will have an incremental journey. Who would have believed that an election could be run without posters at every wall and culvert? That is where agents of change are needed, as a prerequisite for a culture shift.

Agents of change for this culture shift to research for people’s benefit, should be scientists and researchers themselves. We need far sighted future research leaders to be role models, genuine and committed research leaders. Such leadership attributes will count much more than academic brilliance.

We need to realise that action without a vision is drudgery and vision without action is only dreaming. Never dream, because dreams are easily forgotten, have targets instead. A vision coupled with action can change the world.

We should remember that any change, especially a culture shift towards research for people’s benefit needs good teams and the ethos to ignite transferable and sustainable changes. In such teams we need visionaries, theoreticians, but also pragmatists and activists. All these attributes will be rare in one person, and that is why we need teams. A true leader in a team is different from a manager or a boss. Leaders manage the future and managers manage the day to day ‘mess’. However, a ‘boss’ is also different to a manager. A true leader is a coach, a mentor, relies on goodwill, generates enthusiasm among the team members, say ‘we’, develops people, gives credit to others and shares benefits while accepting the blame and defeat. They bind team members together. However a ‘Boss’, demands and relies on authority only, says I, uses people, takes credit for success but blames others for failures, and thinks only about ‘ my way’. Such ego centric and self-centred attributes could be the worst enemy within any professional and will hinder team work and progress. Therefore, self-reflection becomes an essential component of the culture shift we discuss.

The art of science is very different from science. Most scientists are generally good at science, but lack the art of science – the art of delivering scientific benefits by communicating the research findings to policy planners and converting the research findings into products and services. Ironically this conceptual framework is mostly non-existent in our part of the world.

That is why there is plenty of research describing the problem (descriptive research) but no intervention research to rectify the problem. For example, there is extensive descriptive research on CKDU (Chronic Kidney Disease of unknown origin) but people continue to suffer from kidney failure. Similarly, although there is a wide body of research on the human – elephant conflict, people continue to die from elephant attacks.

A culture shift towards research for people’s benefit is therefore critical. We need to next consider the process of achieving such a shift.

The new government has a State Ministry of Skills Development, Vocational Education, Research and Innovation which is led by a dynamic and able professional with the suitable background. However, is it only the duty of the Minister, the Ministry officials and the scientist and the far-sighted research leaders.

The public has an equal responsibility as they should not be expected to be passive recipients of the benefits. The criticism that the general public does not have any insight into the word research is a serious misperception that needs to change if one expects a tangible culture shift.

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) or community engagement in medical research is firmly established in the West. It is now extending as a fundamental element of health research in low and middle income countries (LMIC). It places public contributors at the centre of research and its outcomes, and helps ensure that its scope, processes, and evaluation are more relevant, appropriate and beneficial to the end users of research. There is overwhelming research evidence that the public frequently prioritise themes and topics for research that are different to those of academics and health professionals. Research evidence also demonstrates that the quality and appropriateness of research is enhanced and the likelihood of successful recruitment to studies increased, and implementation of the findings is improved when the public are involved and engaged in research.

It is a process of active partnership between researchers, professionals, and members of the public in prioritising, designing and delivering research. It is defined as “research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them”. This change is absolutely essential if one is serious about making this culture shift towards research for people’s benefit.

We have brilliant researchers who are world-leading in terms of the conventional indicators of ‘success’ and from an academic point of view. This is however fragmented and patchy. An overarching research culture is the necessity of the day, but even that will not deliver effective results if it is ‘business as usual’.

Finally, a culture shift also demands working within truly respectful and mutually beneficial partnerships rather than in separate silos. In such an ethos, plagiarism (taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own) should be thoroughly condemned as it is a moral violation of research ethics. Patents will never be the sole protection against plagiarism. The silent good majority researchers should also be educated and empowered to strictly adhere to broader research ethics principles. Such a collective effort with public engagement and involvement will pave the way for the culture shift towards research for people’s benefit which is the slogan of only a minority right now. But it can be made ‘infectious’.

We therefore once again reiterate that we need a culture shift towards research for people’s benefit.

Let’s work collectively not just to make Sri Lanka the granary of Asia, but also the intelligence warehouse/hub of Asia.