Knowledge creation is rapid fire and the world wants it now. The digitization and automation of knowledge content, creation and distribution is changing the way we perceive and perform research. Many scholars today continue to test and create emerging research approaches to question existing realities and alternative ways of knowing.
The mainstreaming of digital technologies, the emergence of alternative ways of knowing, peer to peer social innovations and the localization of content has intensified the debate that question existing theoretical and research methodologies’ and their applicability to local contexts and developing economies.
The inequality of access to knowledge, connectivity, the English bias and the hegemony of the North have, in so many ways, placed developing countries like the Philippines as recipients of their knowledge. This resulted to the inability of developing nations to create and internationalize local knowledge and content.
Today, the intensity of creating the knowledge society is getting more intense and researchers tend to collaborate using social media tools and emerging on-line research technologies to automate the gathering, circulation and diffusion of knowledge. These communities has prototyped a variety of emerging research practices and one amongst many are digital and futures research.
This seminar workshop aims to introduce emerging research approaches and methodologies to faculty and institutional researchers of Northwestern University. It aims to “game” the process of learning alternative research approaches. Gaming here means making the process more interactive, re-creative and fun. It will immerse participants to the process of “creative and experiential questioning” and expose them to the process and context of futures research method particularly scenarios and causal layered analysis.
Developing an engaged research culture is a long-term project and this workshop could serve as a catalyst to enhance existing approaches to improve research quality and output in the university.
Shermon Cruz, Romelene Pacis and Karl Benigno will facilitate the University Center for Research and Development organized workshop on August 28-29, 2013.
The 7th Philippine National Health Research System Week was held in Ilocos Norte a week ago.
The conference discussed the PNHRS research agenda and explored alternative pathways to advance people’s health, access and delivery in geographically disadvantaged areas and marginalized communities.
Roughly around 500 more or less number of delegates attended the three day conference.
Research Challenges in IP Communities
The pre-conference discussed some highs and lows of indigenous peoples (IP) health research.
We were able to jot down some significant points raised by panelists and participants:
Free Prior and Informed Consent is prohibitive; Create more ‘enabling mechanisms or drivers’for IP research
– the free prior and informed consent (FPIC) process is prohibitive; it delays and discourages the conduct of indigenous peoples health research.
NCIP processes and procedures appears to delay IP health research. The strict rules and procedures to obtain ‘consent’ enforced by NCIP on ‘mining application permits’ are applied to ‘research activities’. This process was considered ‘ridiculous’ by many of the participants. It could delay a research for about a year or two. It could disrupt plans and momentum of researchers and research participants.
The National Commission on Indigenous People, the Philippine National Health Research Council and IP researchers should convene a forum to discuss the issue further.
Key actors should collaborate to design a more practical approach in securing ‘consent’ and/or ‘certifications’ to conduct research in indigenous peoples communities.
LGUs can help facilitate to improve coordination on the ground
The involvement of LGUs in the research process is critical to IP research. Partnership and Memorandum of Agreements (MOAs) with local governments can improve process and coordination on the ground. It could mitigate some problems and address some challenges in practice.
IP as Co-Owners of Knowledge Generated/Created
IPs should be considered as ‘co-owners’ and ‘co-creators’ of knowledge derived in research. They must be entitled with the benefits (non-monetary/monetary) that may be obtained from research.
Forum on IP intellectual rights and heritage
A forum on IP intellectual rights, research and heritage is a good avenue to explore the issue of co-ownership. The ‘commercialization of IP knowledge systems and impact to IP health access and services’, issues of ‘pricing’ and the possibility of ‘disempowerment’ (their inability to access their own knowledge is possible) are some challenges anticipated by conference participants. Many IP communities are known to have experienced abuses by groups, educational institutions, people’s organizations and non-government organizations. The latter get the funding and recognition without acknowledging IPs as sources of knowledge, co-creators, etc.
Theory in action, transformative research and the blurring of research and advocacy
Tribal leaders and communities expects their “researchers” to do more than just ‘research’. More often than not researchers are seen by IP communities as ‘authorities’, ‘policy advocates’, ‘social workers’, ‘development workers’ or ‘advocates’ of their issues and causes. They view researchers as ‘communicators’ of their issues and knowledge in particular their right to access a responsive and adequate health care and government services. Their intention to share knowledge is informed by an outlook that ‘researchers’ could help them transform their lives. They ‘see’ researchers as a ‘moral critic’ of government services and actions.
While researchers wish to see themselves as ‘testers’ and ‘creators’ of theories, indigenous peoples and marginalized communities wish them to obtain/achieve, if not outright, policy-based and program of action based solutions.
Participants tried to offer some of their outcome based solutions.
Perhaps, research in developing countries like the Philippines should adopt a more flexible and context-situated research design to create more impact .
A blurring of research and advocacy is crucial at the grassroots level. Is advocacy an increasing feature of health research? Apparently, yes.
Folkloric narratives, ‘hero’ myths and legends is an emerging issue of health research; IP knowledge systems has the potential to disrupt current conventions of health research.
Soundbites and some things to work on Monday Morning
Here are some soundbites and policy proposals recommended by conference participants to transform health research, improve health access and service delivery:
– establish a workable/more pragmatic process to integrate ‘ethics’ in health research and the research review process;
System should allow feedback and innovation (self-assessment, external independent assessment system, ethics review committee, etc.) to occur. A strong network of ‘ethics research review committees’ could facilitate this. Panel was advised to explore more ‘ways and means’ to improve quality of health research systems and ethics.
A decentralize approach to ERC with an external independent assessment system with feedback is a plausible option.
-More research training to upgrade research capacities and mentoring for peer review and journal writing;
– Conduct roundtable discussions to explore ways for researchers to contribute more to universal health care efforts;
– Focus at sustaining partnerships at the local level;
– engage in more action research;
– funding available to encourage; accommodate more health research.