On writing, and research
Crikey, sometimes you sit and look at the paper (screen) for AGES and nothing comes. I have been trying to be spontaneous and conversational with my writing so far, but today the conversation didn’t start…
I have been reading and thinking, but no writing. The key I believe is NOT to do other things in your allocated writing time, but that’s hard when there’s a whole internet of distraction out there.
So, I started reading some of my other papers / writings from work on Communicating Science to Non-Scientists, which was adopted into training at DSTL for those folks new to talking science to the military; Introduction to Metacognition was a new topic at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (RMAS), when I was there and I thought an intro would be useful. It seems I can write useful things, with some clarity, or they wouldn’t have worked — that gives me hope
I’ve had a quick flip through my Defence Research Paper, which I completed when I was a student on the Advanced Command & Staff Course at the UK Defence Academy (one of seven Civil Servants in a cohort of 300[ish] military officers). When I completed it, it was one of the papers I was most proud of, and it spoke to my passion while I was working with the military — Information Operations and Influence. The paper was called Integrated Action: Doctrine or Mindset, I was fortunate to interview 11 officers which was quite a lot at the time (for a number of logistical and timing reasons). I think most of the recommendations are still relevant — with a little updating maybe. This is the abstract:
“Integrated Action (IA) has recently been introduced as an element of the Army capstone doctrine. The paper considers how the implementation of IA will be achieved, through introduction of doctrine alone, or with a change of mindset. In synchronising non-lethal and lethal effects, and considering information effects as primary, IA introduces a new framework for how the army conducts its business. Through a brief review of factors which will contribute to the implementation of IA; contemplating capability, people and skills, education, training and exercises; the paper concludes that whilst doctrine will provide a useful framework, individual mindsets will be challenged, as will that of the organisational culture.“
I was an expert of sorts in this field and used my knowledge of psychology and human behaviour to advise and inform my thinking, research and findings. It still fascinates me, and I am still of the firm belief that fewer lives would be lost if this was conducted more effectively and was more mainstream (despite todays news from the Chief of the General Staff).
When I have completed this challenge, I may serialise it, as it may be of interest to some people. I think that the depth of thought & findings / recommendations would be useful in different contexts, not least the police and other uniformed services. Anyway… Let’s see in due course, I think I always thought it would be used and useful, rather than sitting in a dusty database in the Defence Academy. Please do let me know if you’re interested in reading more, or not, otherwise I may just run with it anyway.
Turns out I like writing with a purpose, good solid research and analysis, with real world conclusions and actionable recommendations. That was always one of my ‘things’. Recommendations shouldn’t read like a to do list; be better, change the process, have better trained people…. What’s the point in telling people something they already know.
One of the reasons research doesn’t get used, I found, was it wasn’t easily actionable. People take time to do the research, but don’t take time understand the ‘how’ their advice can be implemented — then they get miffed that the research has taken the time and hasn’t been used. TBH it’s infuriating when you’ve done some great research and it doesn’t get actioned, that’s what made me make this discovery in the first place :-)
If researchers allowed a little more time getting to know why things didn’t work (rather than simply stating they don’t work), and understanding how change could be implemented (process, people, skills, governance), both the research and contracting organisations would get more from the experience.
Recommendations should be something like: How can x organisation be better? Some people are not sure what their role is in the bigger scheme of things and can’t see the point of doing some things they do. So, they either don’t do them well, or have created shortcuts which may, or may not work. It would help to create the on-boarding process to include the relevance of each activity and importance of good process for your organisation. Your people would feel more involved, take the time to do the job properly, and be willing to challenge process when it isn’t achieving what you think it does. The additional benefit of this approach is a feeling of being included by your people.
OK that’s not perfect, but hopefully you get the drift! & while I am on my soapbox, please write in plain English. Don’t use jargon or long words because you think they sound clever — they are exclusive and mean your work is less likely to be used.
I challenge you to write actionable recommendations, to develop proposals that include time to uncover good solutions, not just tell people what they already know.
I know the barriers to this but it is up to the researcher to state the case for better recommendations.
Let me know how it goes. I am keen to see how we can change research utilisation.