Information Technology for Development

ISSN: 0268-1102 (Print) 1554-0170 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/titd20

How ICT4D Research Fails the Poor

Roger W. Harris

To cite this article: Roger W. Harris (2016) How ICT4D Research Fails the Poor, Information
Technology for Development, 22:1, 177-192, DOI: 10.1080/02681102.2015.1018115

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2015.1018115

Published online: 27 Mar 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6001

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 20 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=titd20
Information Technology for Development, 2016
Vol. 22, No. 1, 177– 192, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2015.1018115

VIEW FROM PRACTICE

How ICT4D Research Fails the Poor

∗
Roger W. Harrisa,b
a
Roger Harris Associates, Hong Kong; bInstitute of Social Informatics and Technological Innovation,
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kuching, Malaysia

Research can improve development policies and practices and funders increasingly require
evidence of such socioeconomic impact from their investments. This article questions
whether information and communication technologies for development (ICT4D) research
conforms to the requirements for achieving socioeconomic impact. We report on a
literature review of the impact of research in international development and a survey of
ICT4D researchers who assessed the extent to which they follow practices for achieving
socioeconomic impact. The findings suggest that while ICT4D researchers are interested in
influencing both practice and policy, they are less inclined toward the activities that would
make this happen, especially engaging with users of their research and communicating
their findings to a wider audience. Their institutions do not provide incentives for
researchers to adopt these practices. ICT4D researchers and their institutions should engage
more closely with the users of their research through more and better communications with
the public, especially through the use of information and communication technologies.
Keywords: ICT4D; research; policy; practice; impact

1. Introduction
The UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) has acknowledged that research
can have powerful influences on both policies and institutions in support of development objec-
tives and is therefore likely to be an essential element in meeting the Millennium Development
Goals and reducing poverty. Research has a crucial role to play, it says, in helping to develop
evidence-based and innovative approaches to international development. However, while
journal articles remained the predominant output of DFID research, this form of output, says
the report, inevitably constrains the impact that the research will have on the problems being
studied, as it relies on a trickle-down mechanism from readers of journal papers which is
hard to justify. Accordingly, DFID needs to invest in uptake pathways in which there is a
need to go beyond research and dissemination (Surr et al., 2002). By 2013, the guide for
DFID-funded research had announced that research programs are expected to plan and
implement a research uptake strategy, which should encompass stakeholder engagement,
capacity-building, communication and monitoring and evaluating uptake (2013).
Alongside this development, the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC),
which invests around £3 billion annually in research, has announced that it expects that the
researchers it funds will have considered the potential scientific, societal and economic
impact of their research. In recent years, says ESRC, the government has placed increasing
emphasis on the need for evidence of economic and social returns from its investment in

∗
Email: [email protected]
S. Qureshi is the accepting Editor for this article

# 2015 Commonwealth Secretariat

178 R.W. Harris

research. By ensuring that ESRC-funded research makes the biggest possible impact on policy
and practice, it says, and improving how we measure and capture this, we are better able to
support the case for research funding. Impact helps to demonstrate that social science is impor-
tant – that it is worth investing in and worth using.1 On its website, the Research Councils UK
outlines the common characteristics of high-quality pathways to impact that research proposals
should contain. These include good consideration of the relevant beneficiaries and user needs
with specific targeting and tailored activities; clear description of how the applicant intends to
reach and engage with the beneficiaries of the research, including clear deliverables and mile-
stones; co-production and involvement of beneficiaries and users from the outset (including
research design); and clearly demonstrated commitment for realizing both academic and non-
academic research impacts.
This article questions the extent to which academic research in information and communi-
cation technologies for development (ICT4D) conforms to the requirements for achieving econ-
omic and societal impact. There seems to be an implicit acceptance that ICT4D research should
achieve such impact. For example, the Declaration of Principles of the World Summit on the
Information Society makes repeated reference to the use of information and communication
technologies (ICTs) for alleviating poverty,2 which it reaffirms for the Post-2015 Development
Agenda (WSIS, 2014). Accordingly, as Heeks (2014) points out, “if the post-2015 agenda
reflects what matters and what works in delivering socioeconomic development, then there
can be no better guide for prioritizing research that makes a difference, and that has a real-
world impact.” It therefore becomes valid to question whether research that is prioritized by
an agenda that includes poverty alleviation is capable of leading to such an outcome, whether
or not it does in fact serve the poor.
The article is structured as follows: first, after briefly recalling debates around theory-
building in the role of research, we report on a review of the literature on research into the
impact of research in international development; next, we report on a survey of ICT4D research-
ers, which is structured around the results of the literature review. After a discussion of the
survey findings, we offer some recommendations for consideration by ICT4D researchers and
their institutions, as well as proposals for further enquiries.

2. What is the purpose of research?

Debates around the impact of research within policy-making processes and for the shaping of
professional practices have continued for some time. However, recent trends relating to calls
for greater use of evidence in policy-making as well as the demands of major research funding
agencies have brought the issue into sharper focus. It is not the intention here to discuss the rela-
tive merits of research that emphasizes either theory development or problem-solving, or both,
but in introducing a review of the literature on the impact of research in international develop-
ment it seems worth pointing out that the problems posed by the difficulty in transferring scien-
tific information or research results to decision-making have become a subject for academic
thinking (Almeida & Báscolo, 2006). Accordingly, theory-building around the role of research
in knowledge transfer constitutes a legitimate academic pursuit, dating back at least to the
seminal work of Carol Weiss who categorized the different meanings associated with the
concept of the use of social science research in the sphere of public policy. She concluded that
social scientists can at least improve the contribution that research makes to the wisdom of
social policy (Weiss, 1979). More recently, Lavis, Ross, McLeod, and Gildner (2003) have high-
lighted three ways of improving research utilization: producer push; user pull and knowledge
exchange. Based on these theoretical perspectives, the concept of knowledge mobilization has
emerged, characterized as a suite of services that enhances the two-way connection between
 Information Technology for Development 179

researchers and research users so that research and evidence can inform decisions about public
policy and professional practice (Phipps & Shapson, 2009).
The relatively recent field of ICT4D research is yet to address the issue of transferring or
mobilizing its knowledge into the spheres of policy formulation or professional practice.
Research impact, as in most academic disciplines, actually refers to the impact that research
has on other research, thus perpetuating a closed loop of intellectual pursuit. The currently domi-
nant discourse around the impact of ICT4D research reveals its obsession with citation rates
(Heeks, 2010a, 2010b, 2014). Despite claims in published accounts that research findings will
be useful in guiding governments, aid agencies, NGOs and communities toward desirable out-
comes with ICT4D projects, little evidence that this actually happens is offered. Although pub-
lished journal papers in ICT4D often close with the author’s reflection that their findings can
inform professional practice and policy reform, rarely is it reported how it is intended to
bring such changes about; the apparent assumption being that saying it can be so will be suffi-
cient for it to happen. Is it not time for an end to such lip-serving naivety?
Academic research in general receives continued criticism in the media over its apparent discon-
nection from real-world issues and the people who might make good use of its findings. One obser-
ver, Anne-Marie Slaughter, who is currently the president and CEO of the New America Foundation
and Professor Emerita of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University has noted:
all the disciplines have become more and more specialized and more and more quantitative, making
them less and less accessible to the general public; a basic challenge is that PhD programs have fos-
tered a culture that glorifies arcane unintelligibility while disdaining impact and audience. This
culture of exclusivity is then transmitted to the next generation through the publish-or-perish
tenure process. (Kristof, 2014)
The online publication Inside Higher Ed reported that the International Studies Association,
with 6200 members worldwide and which labels itself as “the most respected and widely known
scholarly association dedicated to international studies,” unveiled a proposal to bar members
affiliated with its scholarly journal from blogging. It quotes Stephen M. Saideman, a professor
at Carleton University in Canada, saying “there’s still a segment of academia that doesn’t engage
in any kind of social media” (Straumsheim, 2014).
In order to examine issues such as these in the field of ICT4D research, and in the absence of
an existing body of research into the socioeconomic impact of ICT4D research, we turn to the
wider field of international development, of which ICT4D is arguably a part, in order to learn
more about how the knowledge that research generates is translated into policy formulations
and professional practices that can actually benefit the poor.

3. The impact of research in international development

In a review of the literature on the impact of research on development practice and policy for-
mulation, Harris (2015) highlights 2 overriding observations and 10 themes. In this section, we
summarize the review and introduce the survey research that stems from it.
The first observation relates to stark differences between researchers and practitioners in inter-
national development. According to de Vibe, Hovland, and Young (2002), there is a clear divide
between development researchers and policy-makers, which underpins the traditional view of the
link between research and policy. It seems that researchers, practitioners and policy-makers live in
parallel worlds with different values, languages, time frames, reward systems and professional ties
(Stone, 2009). Others also attribute a failure to transfer knowledge to cultural differences between
researchers and users, which act as barriers to engagement (Jacobson, Butterill, & Goering, 2004).
Moreover, researchers in any one field tend not to speak with one voice, and not all researchers see
policy engagement as part of their role (Datta, 2012).
180 R.W. Harris

The second observation concerns the different perspectives that development researchers and
practitioners have of impact. For academics, the impact of their research is usually reflected by the
impact factor that is assigned to the journal in which the research report is published. For prac-
titioners, if research is to have any impact, the results must inform and shape policies and pro-
grams, and it should be adopted into practice (Young, 2008). Shanley and López (2009) argue
that appropriation of the word “impact” to designate a journal’s ranking constitutes a potential mis-
representation of what impact really is and that research institutions discourage impact-oriented
research by prioritizing the number and frequency of publications in peer-reviewed journals.
The excessive spread of performance measurement practices in academia is argued to have led
to an identity representation of academics as performers who are assessed on the basis of their
journal publication “hits” instead of on the substance of their work (Gendron, 2008). As a reflec-
tion of the shortcomings in the academic systems of rankings and ratings, Hovland (2007) notes
that policy research programs will not usually use conventional academic citations in peer-
reviewed journals as a primary monitoring and evaluation tool.
Turning to the 10 themes identified by Harris (2015), we note first that for research to have an
influence on policy and practice, researchers need to have the intent for it to do so (Carden, 2009;
Sen, 2005; Wheeler, 2007). However, even if such intent exists, without other conditions, such
as leadership and capacity within the user community, the impact of high-quality policy-relevant
research will be limited. Communication is by far the most cited factor in the literature on the
impact of research on development policy and practice. Newman, Fisher, and Shaxson (2012)
point to the recent interest in supporting evidence-informed policy-making in developing
countries through building the capacity of researchers and research intermediaries to supply
appropriately packaged research information to policy-makers. Greijn (2008) describes the
ability to communicate in a language that policy-makers can understand as a crucial capacity
for researchers. However, Jacobson et al. (2004) found that plain language communication
with the public is not widely accepted as a legitimate form of scholarship.
Of particular relevance in the current context, the increasing use of ICTs is seen as blurring the
line dividing academic researchers and other observers such as op-ed writers and bloggers (Lewin
& Patterson, 2012). Some highlight a more transformative role for ICTs for practitioners and
researchers who are engaged in iterative and participatory communication processes using ICTs
for announcing research findings as they unfold (Harvey, Lewin, & Fisher, 2012). DFID describes
the “echo-chamber” effect of social media, referring to the overlap between individuals and organ-
izations working in allied or similar fields, which works to amplify its content, giving rise to enor-
mous reach. For example, the 50 biggest followers of the Twitter account @DFID_Research have
a combined reach of 2.4 million users, of @IDS_UK number 3.6 million and of @odi_develop-
ment have a combined reach of 4.3 million.3 Despite DFID’s argument that online media plays
a central role in all areas of knowledge and research, a study by Brown (2012) found that UK
researchers are discouraged from publishing online by the policy of having international peer-
reviewed journal citations, rather than online citations, count toward academic promotion.
With the cultural differences that exist between academics and practitioners, compounded by
systemic inadequacies in institutional incentive structures and weaknesses in academic communi-
cation skills and processes, the separate role of intermediaries as translators and communicators
has emerged (Harvey et al., 2012). These are individuals or institutions that act as research com-
munication specialists, not necessarily undertaking research themselves, but who strengthen the
use of research within change processes (Court & Maxwell, 2005; Harvey et al., 2012).
Shaxson (2010) describes the contribution that knowledge intermediary organizations make in
synthesizing, interpreting and communicating research results to individuals and organizations
in policy and practice. She also highlights their role in understanding the demand for such knowl-
edge. For intermediaries, measures of impact move away from content analysis issues such as hit
 Information Technology for Development 181

rates, downloads and citations and more toward measures of inclusivity and stakeholder involve-
ment in project and program plans and institutional strategies (Shaxson, 2010).
Going one step further than the intermediary, the role of policy entrepreneur has emerged for
researchers wishing to influence policy. A policy entrepreneur is an individual who invests time
and resources to advance a position or policy, with one of their most important functions being to
change people’s beliefs and attitudes about a particular issue (Stone, 2009). Masset, Mulmi, and
Sumner (2011) specify four essential skills for policy entrepreneurs: understanding politics;
synthesizing research into simple compelling stories; good networking and building programs
that bring these factors together.
Although research may not have a direct influence on specific policies, the production of
research may still exert a powerful influence through shaping the policy discourse (Weiss,
1977). Weiss describes this as a process of percolation, in which research findings and concepts
circulate and are gradually filtered through various policy networks. Various types of networks
feature in the development research-policy link literature, such as policy streams, policy commu-
nities, epistemic communities, think tank networks and advocacy coalitions. Networks and inter-
organizational linkages are among the determining influences as to why some ideas are picked up
and acted on, while others are ignored and disappear (de Vibe, Hovland, & Young, 2002).
The next requirement for research to become influential in practice and policy circles, ensur-
ing that science is shared with those who need it, is a shift in academic incentive structures so
that they reward actual impact rather than only publication in so-called high-impact journals
(Datta, 2012). Cultural changes around the impact agenda are required and they need to be
led with strong leadership by senior management and academics at research institutions
(Stevens, Dean, & Wykes, 2013). Apparently, incentives for researchers to produce outputs
that reach a broader swath of society are so low that if engaged in at all, this occurs as an after-
thought once results are published (Shanley & López, 2009). Additionally, researchers must
know the key stakeholders in the policy-making process, and they should understand how the
door can be opened to politicians and the public interest (Taylor, 2005). Academics and think
tanks have a far greater chance of being heard when there are like-minded influential politicians
in the dominant advocacy coalition (Hovland, 2007). Understanding the political context will
also contribute to an awareness of the demand for research, as Mulgan and Puttick (2013) put
it, one of the most striking factors impeding the effective use of evidence is the absence of organ-
izations tasked with linking the supply and demand of evidence. Shaxson (2010) observes that
we know more about how to improve the supply of evidence than we do about how to improve
the demand for it. Adolph, Jones, and Proctor (2010) argue for the development of new user par-
ticipation models in research design and implementation.
Several of the themes in the literature converge around the final theme, that of engagement;
the need for closer relationships between researchers and research users (O’Neil, 2005). DFID
regards engagement as individuals moving from simply accessing or consuming the content and
services offered by an online platform to becoming more involved in the platform, recommend-
ing or promoting it and actively co-creating the content. However, many researchers still regard
engaging in knowledge transfer as a low priority activity (Jacobson et al., 2004) and fewer than
5% of academics responding to Shanley and López’s (2009) survey regarded engagement with
the media as an outlet for scientific findings as having any consequence for measuring scientific
performance at their institutions.

4. Method
In order to assess the extent to which ICT4D research conforms to the requirements for devel-
opment research to have any socioeconomic impact, especially on professional practice and
182 R.W. Harris

policy formulations, a survey was conducted among ICT4D researchers. The survey was struc-
tured around the findings of the literature review, a model of which is shown in Figure 1.
A questionnaire was circulated to ICT4D researchers in November 2013 through an online
survey tool.4 Survey respondents were drawn from 1884 individuals who have registered them-
selves on the website of the Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries
(EJISDC) which has published 61 volumes since 2000.5 This sample was supplemented with a
further 61 respondents drawn from the author’s network of colleagues. A total of 272 replies
were received, giving a response rate of 14%. The questionnaire contained 48 questions answer-
able on a Likert-type scale from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating strongly disagree/never and 5 indicating
strongly agree/very often. The questions and the variables they represent are shown in the
Appendix. Respondents’ demographic data are shown in Table 1.
A summary of the scores for each variable is shown in Table 2 and depicted graphically in
Figure 2. Statistically significant correlations between variables that were found to depict strong
relationships are shown in Table 3.
The data reveal that respondents are generally attracted by the prospect of their research
having influence on policy and practice. About 91.1% agree that research-based evidence is
important for shaping policy and 93.8% agree that it is important for shaping professional prac-
tice. Moreover, 85.8% of respondents agreed that when they start an ICT4D research project,
they have the intention to use the results to influence professional practice, and 74.6% agree
that they intend to influence government policy. Similar proportions agree that the impact of
their research is reflected by its influence on professional practice (88.8%) and policy formu-
lation (79.0%). At the same time, however, 70.7% agree that their institutions emphasize
peer-reviewed publications over communications with the public, and this is despite the fact
that 82.3% of respondents agree that informing the public of their research findings is a legiti-
mate form of scholarship.

Figure 1. The impact of research on policy and practice.

 Information Technology for Development 183

Table 1. Demographic data of respondents.

N
Gender
Female 23.60% 62 266
Male 76.40% 204
Age
Under 21 0% 0 266
21 –29 12.03% 32
30 –39 34.96% 93
40 –49 33.08% 88
50 –59 12.03% 32
60 –69 7.52% 20
70 or older 0% 0
Rather not say 0.38% 1
Education
High school 0.37% 1 267
Diploma 0.37% 1
Graduate 6.37% 17
Masters 49.81% 133
Ph.D. 43.07% 115
Location of current research
Global 11.70% 31 265
North Africa 1.13% 3
Sub-Saharan Africa 29.43% 78
Oceania 2.26% 6
North America 1.51% 4
Central America and the Caribbean 3.40% 9
South America 4.91% 13
Europe 7.55% 20
Southwest Asia (Middle East) 7.55% 20
South Asia 12.45% 33
Southeast Asia 17.74% 47
East Asia 0.38% 1
Current academic position
Student 13.62% 35 257
Research assistant 5.84% 15
Lecturer 20.23% 52
Senior lecturer 11.28% 29
Assistant professor 8.56% 22
Associate professor 10.89% 28
Research fellow 7.78% 20
Professor 7.39% 19
Dean 0% 0
Other 12.45% 32
Rather not say 1.95% 5
Length of time carrying out research in ICT4D
Less than a year 5.26% 14 266
1–3 years 24.06% 64
3–5 years 15.41% 41
5–7 years 19.92% 53
7–9 years 9.02% 24
9–11 years 10.90% 29
11 –13 years 3.38% 9
13 –15 years 4.14% 11
More than 15 years 7.89% 21
184 R.W. Harris

Table 2. A summary of the scores for each variable.

Intent to influence 4.10
Understanding of communication with the public 3.91
Understanding of research impact as policy and practice influence 3.81
Cultural affinity with research users 3.69
Extent of engagement with research users 3.67
Understanding of research impact as publications 3.61
Influence of incentives 3.38
Level of consideration of the political context 3.36
Involvement of intermediaries 3.27
Use of ICTs 3.20
Extent of demand for research 3.03
Degree to which considered to be a policy entrepreneur 3.00
Degree of participation in networks 2.93

Figure 2. Variable summary values.

Notwithstanding this apparent interest in practice and policy influence, only 51.4% of
respondents include communicating the results of their research to the public in their research
design, even though 92% claim they are willing to do so; in clear, non-technical language. Fur-
thermore, although 92.9% of respondents agree that being an effective communicator is an
important skill for an ICT4D researcher, only 50.0% use ICTs to communicate their findings,
33 –34% use social media to communicate their research activities and findings and 32.7%
use Web 2 tools within their work. Only half of respondents agree that their institutions either
encourage them to produce research outputs that reach a broad section of society (51.0%) or
to effectively engage with users of their research findings (50.7%). Roughly the same proportion
Table 3. Statistically significant correlations between variables that depict strong positive relationships.
Cultural Use of Network Political Research User
affinity Intent Communication ICTs Intermediaries participation context demand engagement
Communication .430∗∗
.000
Use of ICTs .423∗∗
.000
Network participation .454∗∗
.000

Information Technology for Development 185

Political context .520∗∗
.000
Research demand .455∗∗ .497∗∗
.000 .000
User engagement .403∗∗ .421∗∗ .547∗∗ .422∗∗ .466∗∗ .564∗∗ .475∗∗
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Policy entrepreneur .411∗∗ .372∗∗ .416∗∗ .528∗∗ .416∗∗ .550∗∗ .642∗∗ .476∗∗ .601∗∗
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
∗∗
Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).
186 R.W. Harris

agrees that their institutions assess their performance based on their influence on professional
practice (55.0%) or on policy formulation (43.4%).
In contrast to the apparent belief and interest in the influence that their research should have on
practice and policy, only 34.3% of respondents claim to spend much time synthesizing their find-
ings into compelling stories, and 27.8% in communication programs targeting policy-makers.
Even fewer participate in either national or international networks that include practitioners
and/or policy-makers (27.3–35.0%); 51.5% try to stay familiar with the demand for their research
findings among policy-makers and 36.7% claim to be familiar with the methods for accessing
policy-makers. Only 25.7% invest time in advancing a political position or policy.

5. Discussion
The survey results have revealed the relative strengths of the factors relating to ICT4D research
that are thought to influence professional practice and policy formulations, as derived from the
review of the literature on the impact of research in international development. It is encouraging
to see that ICT4D researchers generally show an interest in influencing both practice and policy.
It is less encouraging to see that such interest is less likely to manifest itself in actual influence as
a result of a number of weaknesses.
Firstly, ICT4D researchers do not engage closely with the users of their research findings.
Few seem to interact with research users in a way that would either stimulate demand for
their research or help them understand how research could contribute to solving their problems.
Likewise, few researchers engage in advancing policy positions or working with others who
might do so. Similarly, while communicating with the public is quite well regarded as a research
output by ICT4D researchers, they seem less inclined to translate this into tangible activity
within formal communication programs that might involve ICTs or other forms of networking.
Finally the incentives of the institutions within which researchers work militate against the
activities that are deemed necessary for research to have practice and/or policy influence.
Cited publications are more highly regarded than other forms of communication and on achiev-
ing any influence on practice or policy. It is arguably because of this that researchers engage less
in activities that might yield practice or policy influence.
Beyond these shortcomings in ICT4D research, the study has revealed evidence in support of
the research-related factors that are postulated to influence practice and policy. Several strong
positive relationships between the variables of interest emerged from the study, as depicted in
Table 3. They indicate the importance of ICTs and participation in networks for engaging and
communicating with research users in order to understand the demand for research that is
suited to the political context within which the findings will be inserted.
The survey suggests that ICT4D researchers are at least interested in achieving socioeco-
nomic impact, but they pay lip service to the processes that might make this possible. One plaus-
ible explanation for this is that their institutions have less interest than they do in achieving
socioeconomic impact with research, being more focused on the traditional perspective of pub-
lications and citation counts for assessing their version of impact. Previous findings conform to
this view. According to Phipps and Shapson (2009), almost all academic institutions still lack the
capacity to support research utilization to inform decisions about public policy and professional
practice. Another observer has noted that at major research institutions, publication in leading
academic journals is a necessary condition for tenure and promotion, whereas influencing
practitioners is not a goal of these journals and university reward systems are not designed to
facilitate practitioner-oriented research (Bolton & Stolcis, 2003).
Assuming that respondents were sincere in stating their intentions to influence policy and
practice and not just conforming to some perceived political correctness, there is the possibility
 Information Technology for Development 187

that they are either unaware of and/or untrained in the processes that are required to induce
socioeconomic influence from their findings. This is unsurprising, given that the pathway
from research to policy has been described as overwhelmingly complex (Jones et al., 2013).
Moreover, as Weiss (1977) pointed out, government decision-makers tend to use research
indirectly, as a source of ideas, information and orientations to the world and outsiders cannot
often trace the effect of a particular finding or a specific study on a public decision. Accordingly,
as reasoned by Harvey et al. (2012), research communication has evolved away from solely
linear and top-down models of influencing (e.g. getting research onto the desks of the most
senior decision-makers), toward more complex and multi-sited theories of change. They see a
proliferation in roles and actors for communicating research in development which push the
boundaries of conventional ideas of research and challenge how research agendas are set, and
how knowledge is generated and shared. It appears, therefore, that the activities and skills
required to achieve policy influence with research are quite different from those that are necess-
ary for conducting it. Yet they are rarely included in training and education programs in research
methods for young and early-career researchers.

6. Conclusions
The study has sought to understand the extent to which ICT4D academic research conforms to
the requirements for achieving economic and societal impact, as revealed by a review of the l-
iterature on the impact of research in international development. Not only is such impact
regarded as a powerful component in support of development objectives, it is also increasingly
being demanded by research funders. The findings illustrate how ICT4D research fails the poor.
By performing weakly in the areas which have been identified as important for the findings of
research to reach wider audiences beyond the research community, which would render them
capable of influencing professional practice and policy formulations, ICT4D research falls
short of its potential to benefit the recipients of development programs.
More than 85% of the respondents in the current survey were qualified at the postgraduate
level, and 43% had Ph.Ds. Eighty-six percent of respondents were in academic positions,
ranging from student to professor. It is plausible to assume that most have received training
in research methodologies and see the publication of their findings as the key to advancing
their careers. While it is laudable that more than 90% declare their intention to influence practice
and policy with their research findings, it is lamentable that so few engage with the processes that
could lead to this happening.
This study concludes that ICT4D researchers and their institutions need to take practice and
policy influence more seriously, by engaging more closely with the users of their research and by
encouraging more and better communications with the public, especially through the use of
ICTs. They need to do this for at least three reasons: (1) to continue receiving funding; (2) to
realize their potential for influence on international development policy and practices and (3)
because it is the right thing to do. They should pay more attention to how their research can
be used outside academia and, where necessary, adopt positions for practice and policy that
can be furthered through their research activities. The emphasis on academic publication
should be matched with an equal prominence given to socioeconomic influence, despite the chal-
lenges that this implies in terms of both the skills required to achieve it and the measures required
to recognize it when it happens. The commendable intentions of ICT4D researchers deserve to
be matched by equal efforts at generating tangible benefits for the subjects of their work.
In the spirit of practicing that which one is teaching, the author is preparing capacity-building
activities in support of achieving socioeconomic impact with research for members of his own
institution. This includes engaging with research users, adopting specific policy positions and
188 R.W. Harris

strategies for communicating findings to the right audiences, in the right language and using the
most suitable medium of communication. Additionally, in recommending further research, the
next stage of the current enquiry is being formulated to collect stories about instances where
ICT4D research seems to have influenced practice and policy-making in developing countries
in order to reveal the complexities of the process and how it can be possible to engage with them.

Notes
1. http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding-and-guidance/impact-toolkit/what-how-and-why/why-impact.aspx.
2. http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html.
3. @DFID_Research R4D is the open access portal to DFID-funded research. It houses over 30,000
research documents on international development, UK: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d; @IDS_UK. The
Institute of Development Studies is a leading global charity for research, teaching and communications
on international development, Brighton, UK: http://www.ids.ac.uk/; @odi_development is the UK’s
leading independent think-tank on international development and humanitarian issues, London, UK:
http://www.odi.org.uk.
4. https://www.surveymonkey.com/.
5. The EJISDC strives to become the foremost international forum for practitioners, teachers, researchers
and policy-makers to share their knowledge and experience in the design, development, implementation,
management and evaluation of information systems and technologies in developing countries (https://
www.ejisdc.org/).

Notes on contributor
Dr Roger W. Harris has a Ph.D. in Information Systems from the City University of Hong Kong. He works
as an independent consultant in the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for poverty
reduction and rural development in Asia, providing services to Asian governments, NGOs and development
agencies. Dr Harris is also Visiting Professor at the Institute of Social Informatics and Technological Inno-
vation at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, where he is involved with the deployment of ICTs for development
for remote indigenous communities in Borneo.

References
Adolph, B., Jones, S. H., & Proctor, F. (2010). Learning lessons on research communication and uptake.
Triple Line Consulting Ltd for DFID. Retrieved from http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/
Communication/Research-uptake-report-part1.pdf
Almeida, C., & Báscolo, E. (2006). Use of research results in policy decision-making, formulation, and
implementation: A review of the literature. Cadernos Saúde Pública, 22, 7– 33.
Bolton, M. J., & Stolcis, G. B. (2003). Ties that do not bind: Musings on the specious relevance of academic
research. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 626–630.
Brown, C. (2012). Are Southern Academics virtually connected? Retrieved from http://depot.gdnet.org/
cms/files//GDNet_study_of_adoption_of_web_2_tools_v2.pdf
Carden, F. (2009). Knowledge to policy: Making the most of development research. New Delhi: SAGE/
IDRC.
Court, J., & Maxwell, S. (2005). Policy entrepreneurship for poverty reduction: Bridging research and
policy in international development. Journal of International Development, 17, 713– 725.
Datta, A. (2012). Deliberation, dialogue and debate: Why researchers need to engage with others to address
complex issues. IDS Bulletin, 43(5), 9–16.
DFID. (2013). Research uptake. A guide for DFID-funded research programmes. Retrieved from https://
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/200088/Research_uptake_
guidance.pdf
Gendron, Y. (2008). Constituting the academic performer: The spectre of superficiality and stagnation in
academia. European Accounting Review, 17(2), 97– 127.
Greijn, H. (2008). Linking research-based evidence to policy and practice. Capacity, 35(3), 3.
Harris, R. W. (2015). The impact of research on development policy and practice: This much we know. A
literature review and the implications for ICT4D. In A. Chib, J. May, & R. Barrantes (Eds.), Impact
 Information Technology for Development 189

of information society research in the Global South (pp. 19– 41). Singapore: Springer Science +
Business Media.
Harvey, B., Lewin, T., & Fisher, C. (2012). Is development research communication coming of age? IDS
Bulletin, 43(5), 1 –8.
Heeks, R. (2010a). ICT4D research: Quality and impact. Retrieved from http://ict4dblog.wordpress.com/
2010/02/23/ict4d-research-quality-and-impact/
Heeks, R. (2010b). ICT4D research: How should I publish? Retrieved from http://ict4dblog.wordpress.
com/2010/03/31/ict4d-research-how-should-i-publish?/
Heeks, R. (2014). Future priorities for development informatics research from the Post-2015 Development
Agenda (Development Informatics Working Paper Series 57). Centre for Development Informatics,
Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester. Retrieved from http://
www.seed.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/idpm/research/publications/wp/di/
Hovland, I. (2007). Making a difference: M&E of policy research. Overseas Development Institute.
Retrieved from http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/
2426.pdf
Jacobson, N., Butterill, D., & Goering, P. (2004). Organizational factors that influence university-based
researchers’ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication, 25(3), 246–259.
Jones, H., Jones, N., Shaxson, L., & Walker, D. (2013). Knowledge, policy and power in international
development: A practical framework for improving policy. ODI Background Note. Retrieved from
http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/7214-knowledge-policy-power-international-development-
practical-framework-improving-policy
Kristof, N. (2014, March 14). Professors, we need you! New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.
nytimes.com/2014/02/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-professors-we-need-you.html?_r=0
Lavis, J., Ross, S., McLeod, C., & Gildner, A. (2003). Measuring the impact of health research: Assessment
and accountability in the health sector. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 8(3), 165–170.
Lewin, T., & Patterson, Z. (2012). Approaches to development research communication. IDS Bulletin,
43(5), 38–44.
Masset, E., Mulmi, R., & Sumner, A. (2011). Does research reduce poverty? Assessing the welfare impacts
of policy-oriented research in agriculture. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
Mulgan, G., & Puttick, R. (2013). Making evidence useful. The case for new institutions. The Economic and
Social Research Council and NESTA Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/
documents/MakingEvidenceUseful.pdf
Newman, K., Fisher, C., & Shaxson, L. (2012). Stimulating demand for research evidence: What role for
capacity-building? IDS Bulletin, 43(5), 17 –24.
O’Neil, M. (2005). What determines the influence that research has on policy-making? Journal of
International Development, 17, 761 –764.
Phipps, D. J., & Shapson, S. (2009). Knowledge mobilisation builds local research collaborations for social
innovation. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 5(3), 211–227.
Sen, K. (2005). Rates of return to research: A literature review and critique. DFID. Retrieved from http://
r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/ThematicSummaries/Returns%20to%20Research%20Final%20Report.pdf
Shanley, P., & López, C. (2009). Out of the loop: Why research rarely reaches policy makers and the public
and what can be done. BIOTROPICA, 41(5), 535–544.
Shaxson, L. (2010). Improving the impact of development research through better research communi-
cations and uptake (Report of the AusAID, DFID and UKCDS Funded Workshop). London.
Retrieved from http://www.ukcds.org.uk/sites/default/files/content/resources/AusAID-DFID-
workshop-background-paper.pdf
Stevens, H., Dean, A., & Wykes, M. (2013). DESCRIBE project (Final Project Report). University of Exeter.
Retrieved from http://www.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/research/inspiringresearch/
describeproject/pdfs/2013_06_04_DESCRIBE_Final_Report_FINAL.pdf
Stone, D. (2009). RAPID knowledge: Bridging research and policy at the overseas development institute.
Public Administration and Development, 29, 303– 315.
Straumsheim, C. (2014). Is blogging unscholarly? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.
insidehighered.com/news/2014/01/29/international-studies-association-proposes-bar-editors-
blogging
Surr, M., Barnett, A., Duncan, A., Speight, M., Bradley, D., Rew, A., & Toye, J. (2002). Research for
poverty reduction: DFID Research Policy Paper. London. Retrieved from http://www.dfid.gov.
uk/pubs/files/povredpolpaper.pdf
190 R.W. Harris

Taylor, M. (2005). Bridging research and policy: A UK perspective. Journal of International Development,
17, 747– 757.
de Vibe, M., Hovland, I., & Young, J. (2002). Bridging research and policy: An annotated bibliography
(ODI Working Paper 174). Retrieved from http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/
publications-opinion-files/182.pdf
Weiss, C. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Research,
Policy Analysis, 3(4), 45– 51.
Weiss, C. (1979). The many meanings of research utilisation. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–
431.
Wheeler, J. (2007). Creating spaces for engagement: Understanding research and social change.
Development Research Centre on Citizenship, Participation and Accountability. Retrieved from
http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/centreoncitizenship/creatingspacesforengagement.pdf
WSIS. (2014). World Summit on the Information Society WSIS+10 statement on the implementation of
WSIS outcomes. ITU. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/dam/
documents.html
Young, J. (2008). Impact of research on policy and practice. Capacity, 35, 4–7.

Appendix. The questions and the variables they represent

Variable Question
Understanding of research impact as 10 The impact of my research is reflected by the impact factor
publications of the journal in which it is reported
11 The impact of my research is reflected by the number of
times it is cited in peer-reviewed journals
15 My institution emphasizes peer-reviewed publications
over communications with the public
16 My institution assesses my performance on the basis of my
publications in peer-reviewed journals
Understanding of research impact as 12 The impact of my research is reflected by the influence it
influence on policy and practice has on professional practice
13 The impact of my research is reflected by the influence it
has on policy formulation
14 Informing the public of my research findings is a
legitimate form of scholarship
17 My institution assesses my performance on the basis of my
influence on professional practice
18 My institution assesses my performance on the basis of my
influence on policy formulation
Cultural affinity with research users 19 I spend time interacting with people who can use the
findings of my research
20 My research findings are usually accessible in time for
policy decisions
21 My research findings are usually digestible in time for
policy decisions
22 Research-based evidence is important for shaping policy
23 Research-based evidence is important for shaping
professional practice
Intent to influence 24 When I start an ICT4D research project, I have the
intention to use the results to influence professional
practice
25 When I start an ICT4D research project, I have the
intention to use the results to influence government
policy

(Continued)
 Information Technology for Development 191

Appendix. Continued
Variable Question
Amount of communication with the 26 I invest time communicating my ICT4D research results to
public the public in plain language
27 Communicating the results of my ICT4D research to the
public is included in the design of my research
28 I am willing to communicate the results of my ICT4D
research to the public in clear, non-technical language
29 Being an effective communicator is an important skill for
an ICT4D researcher
30 Communication for development is a discipline that is
closely associated with ICT4D
Use of ICTs 31 ICTs are blurring the line dividing academia and
journalists/bloggers
32 I use ICTs to communicate my ICT4D research findings as
they unfold
33 I use social media to communicate my ICT4D research
activities
34 I use social media to communicate my ICT4D research
findings
35 I use Web 2 tools within my ICT4D research work
36 My institution encourages me to publish my ICT4D
research findings online
Involvement of intermediaries 37 I would rather have other individuals or organizations
communicate my ICT4D research findings to the public
38 I try to stay aware of other individuals or organizations
that could communicate my ICT4D research findings to
the public
39 When conducting my ICT4D research, I involve other
individuals or organizations who can communicate my
findings to the public
Degree to which considered to be a 40 In my ICT4D research, I invest time and resources in
policy entrepreneur advancing a political position or policy
41 I keep up to date with who the key political players are in
my field of ICT4D research
42 I spend time synthesizing my ICT4D research findings
into simple compelling stories
43 I put effort into communication programs targeted at
policy-makers and/or their advisors
Degree of participation in networks 44 I participate in a national network of ICT4D researchers
that also includes practitioners
45 I participate in a national network of ICT4D researchers
that also includes policy-makers
46 I participate in an international network of ICT4D
researchers that also includes practitioners
47 I participate in an international network of ICT4D
researchers that also includes policy-makers
Influence of incentives 48 My institution encourages me to produce ICT4D research
outputs that reach a broad section of society
49 My institution encourages me to effectively engage with
users of my ICT4D research findings

(Continued)
192 R.W. Harris

Appendix. Continued
Variable Question
Level of consideration of the political 50 I understand the political context of my ICT4D research
context work
51 I am familiar with the methods for accessing politicians
52 I try to keep myself familiar with the demand for my
ICT4D research among policy-makers
Extent of demand for research 53 I participate in activities that are aimed at stimulating the
demand for my ICT4D research
54 I have conducted research into the demand for my ICT4D
research
Extent of engagement with research 55 I make an effort to cultivate relationships with people who
users can use the findings of my ICT4D research
56 I encourage the beneficiaries of my ICT4D research to
communicate the research findings to the public
57 I regard engagement with the media as an outlet for my
ICT4D research findings as being important for my
institution’s measurement of my performance
58 Policy engagement is part of my role as an ICT4D
researcher