Inequalities in Research Translation: Toward more Equitable Pathways to Impact
基于作者在印度研究时尚供应链劳动条件和商业与NGO伙伴关系时的亲身经历，揭示了研究转化过程中权力动态和利益冲突导致的不平等，并提出了三条路径来促进更公平的研究影响。
In March 2019, Vivek was preparing to present a report based on his research on the labour conditions in fashion supply chains in India. This presentation was part of a series of events aimed at engaging stakeholders, including exporters in India who supply to large brands worldwide. However, just two hours before the scheduled event, Vivek received surprising news: the main point of contact, a gatekeeper in the industry, had decided to withdraw and asked the exporters to boycott the event. Facing this sudden setback, Vivek urgently called the gatekeeper and other key industry members. It quickly became apparent that they were opposed to the report because it highlighted the negative practices uncovered by the research. The industry gatekeepers wanted to protect the industry's reputation and avoid scrutiny of their labour practices. Consequently, out of the hundreds of invitees, only 30 showed up at the event. While some attendees expressed support for the research report and its objectives, a significant portion of the audience resisted the findings and even expressed anger. The event highlighted the tension between the research findings and the vested interests of industry stakeholders, underscoring the complexities involved in bringing about meaningful change in industry practices. Garima's initial encounter with the challenges of research translation occurred during her study in India, focusing on business partnerships with NGOs. The NGOs in her study worked closely with marginalized beneficiaries, including victims of sex trafficking and women living in impoverished villages. Garima faced situations where business managers would ask for the audio recordings of her interviews with the NGOs and their beneficiaries, which were conducted as part of the project. Recognizing the potential implications and ethical concerns, Garima firmly declined the managers’ request. It became evident that these managers wanted to control the data, and, hence, the translation and interpretation of the insights derived from the research. Their intention was to influence the narrative surrounding the findings by downplaying or omitting aspects that may be unfavourable to their business interests or reputations. This essay stems from our frustrating and challenging experiences in our efforts toward research translation and impact. However, the essay is not a mere venting of frustration; instead, we want to explore solutions and actions. We are not the first to emphasize the significance of research translation in driving practical impact. In fact, others have recognized research impact as a translation problem (Shapiro et al., 2007). However, we have come to realize that research translation is more than the straightforward rendering of evidence. It is a process in which the interests, agendas, and power dynamics of various actors come into play. Our hope is that we can show how we have experienced these dynamics, and what the research community can do about these implicit inequalities. Our experience with research translation shows that the complexity of translating research is currently hidden behind a ‘façade of rationality’ (Hodgkinson, 2012). Challenging this facade is especially important when we study marginalized stakeholders in the global South, such as lower caste workers or slum dwellers in India, stuck in entrenched poverty and exploitation. Moreover, we see that the inequalities compound when these translation efforts are led by researchers from these contexts. To address some of these inequalities, we propose three pathways that management and organization researchers can follow. These pathways are not prescriptive templates. Instead, they are a call to action for the research community to translate their insights with concern and sensitivity toward who is included and who is left behind. Translating with a sensitivity to the power dynamics has meant for us that marginalized stakeholders have a voice in research translation. One way to do so is to engage in the co-creation of research implications with the marginalized. Co-creation requires that we seek the marginalized stakeholders’ input throughout the research process, rather than sharing findings after the research has concluded. Those who will use or can be affected by the research findings have valuable insights on what is useful to amplify and how. By engaging these stakeholders right from the outset, we can integrate the criterion of ‘usefulness’ into the research process. We can use the (translated) outputs that such stakeholders want, as the north star to direct research efforts. By adopting this approach, the translated insights will be better positioned for research impact. However, co-creation is not easy because researchers are seen as experts detached from the lived realities of those we study. The marginalized stakeholders think that we do not understand their experiences, such that the research insights are irrelevant, disconnected from reality, or excessively abstract to bring about significant change. For example, in her fieldwork in a slum in India, it became evident to Garima that the slum dwellers were looking for immediate assistance. For example, they would often ask in interviews if they could receive a cash payment or information on a government assistance scheme that Garima may know about. This vastly differed from the focus of Garima's research on the role of place, identity, and dignity of work in the context of slum dwelling. Similarly, Vivek realized, during a dissemination meeting organized for workers, that the workers were interested in the immediate improvement in their working and living conditions, such as the provision of water, gender-specific clean toilets, and provision of sanitary pads, rather than the research insights published and translated months or years later. While long-term impact is essential, it is equally important that we do not disregard the immediate needs of the marginalized stakeholders. It requires that we ask them what their immediate needs are and include activities that are in response to these needs. For example, in our research contexts, conducting a training workshop for entrepreneurs in slums, sharing information about government schemes, mentoring slum dwellers for career development, offering guidance on kids’ education, creating awareness of their rights as workers, and similar activities can allow us to give back in the short term. These activities can also be helpful for translation that comes after the study is completed, i.e., such activities can help us understand what outputs can be created at the end of our project that will be useful for similar others. Further, co-creation brings our focus to those whose voices are excluded. We have experienced events in the translation process where the more influential stakeholders asked us to disregard the voices of marginalized stakeholders. For example, Vivek was asked by an influential actor in the supply chain to omit negative insights on poor working conditions from the report. In such instances, Vivek was steadfast in providing an unbiased representation, without favouring a specific stakeholder interest. He adopted a neutral and evidence-based approach, ensuring that the findings were translated objectively and without bias. While this made him the ‘bad guy’ for some of the influential actors in the context who created challenges for future research efforts, many saw the value of the insights in the report and continued to support him. Most importantly, Vivek's stance was aligned with the interests of the marginalized stakeholders. None of this was easy. Vivek faced significant pressure. However, he has been intentional about creating a safe space for the workers to share their voices, for example, by choosing a physical space that cannot be easily accessed by powerful stakeholders, giving time for the marginalized to trust Vivek before they share their experiences – at other times, including facilitators from the worker community to make workers comfortable. Also, he incentivizes their participation in various ways, such as offering food and monetary incentives for their time. We have also seen researchers involving community-specific arts and games to make the marginalized express themselves freely. In a nutshell, we call on researchers to co-create research implications with marginalized communities. In the co-creation process: (a) we have to take on the role of listeners and not always the role of an expert; (b) be intentional about considering the immediate needs of those we study, not just long-term systemic changes; (c) include the interests of the marginalized from the start of the project; (d) recognize power dynamics between various actors in the field, dynamics that can influence the translation process and (e) do the right thing even when it is hard and can sometimes mean researchers may lose access to future data sources. We have provided examples of how we have implemented these ideas, but there are likely many other creative approaches that we hope our essay encourages others to share. When it comes to complex social issues pertaining to the marginalized, such as poverty, inequality, and climate injustice, a long-term programme of research translation has more significant potential than single studies. Translation, when seen solely in terms of one-shot, big news headlines connected to a single study, is ineffective in reaching marginalized communities. Such translation may influence the practices of elite actors, but big news headlines are seldom read by the less powerful. Such headlines can exclude those who cannot participate in the mainstream public discourse around the big headlines. Instead, a programme of research builds a body of translated work that addresses a specific problem. In so doing, researchers can establish themselves as a legitimate voice on the topic. Despite the benefits, developing a comprehensive translation programme is resource-intensive. Resources for translation may not be readily available to many of us. So, instead of seeing a programme of translation as a grandiose project, we suggest seeing it as a series of small steps taken throughout our academic career. What has proven effective for us is trusting that each small step will contribute to meaningful change and ultimately benefit the communities we study. This approach involves disseminating research findings in accessible formats that cater to the needs and preferences of different stakeholders, especially the marginalized. When it comes to India, for example, the most accessed digital platforms are Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp and Telegram. These platforms have a wider reach among the marginalized than reports and blogs. Vivek has an Instagram page, for example, in which he translates management research insights into Tamil (one of the regional languages of Southern India). With just a smartphone and social media platform software, content creation is now more accessible than ever before. Through this process, he learned that content should be concise, consistently posted, of good quality, and accessible in the local language. Also, researchers must be available to engage with comments and messages. In parallel, researchers can actively engage in platforms accessed by elite actors, such as reports, blogs, workshops, seminars, or public talks. These activities can get the attention of leaders and policymakers and possibly shift the conversation in the interests of marginalized communities. For instance, Vivek and his colleagues published a project report on garment exporters in India, which initially appeared to have limited impact. However, over time, the report garnered the attention of critical stakeholders concerned with labour rights in fashion supply chains. Moreover, it elevated Vivek's public visibility, resulting in an interview with the BBC for a feature on the exploitation of Indian factory workers in the fashion industry. If Vivek had not taken the initiative to write that initial report alongside his colleagues, the potential for long-term impact might have gone unrealized. In Garima's case, the journey has involved embracing opportunities for translation, regardless of their magnitude, recognizing that these efforts accumulate over time. She responds to every translation opportunity that comes her way, whether it is with a prominent name such as the Financial Times or a small local paper such as the Taos News in New Mexico. Her hope is that over time, these small steps will accumulate to make a change in practice. In engaging in these small steps, Garima is mindful that the interests and needs of marginalized stakeholders must not be lost in translation. For example, in translating her research on business-NGO partnerships in India, Garima was intentional that the call to action is loud and clear for businesses. Many, especially smaller NGOs in India, are chastised by businesses for not being more business-like. By focusing on what businesses can do to make such partnerships successful, Garima elevated the voice of the NGOs and translated the narrative to one in which the victim (in this case, the NGOs) is not blamed for not fitting into the ways of the more powerful (in this case, the businesses). Further, for researchers’ small steps of translation to have a more profound impact, they can leverage the influence and legitimacy of systemic actors such as the United Nations (UN), International Labour Organization (ILO), World Health Organization (WHO), business associations, and think tanks, who are interested in uplifting the marginalized. These entities have the necessary resources and networks for translation that may surpass what individual institutions can offer. Vivek's experience of working with organizations like UNDP, the Confederation of Indian Industries, and Partners in Change in India suggests that we must identify individual representatives who closely align with the project's interests. Along the same lines, Garima worked with the local B Corps and their association in New Mexico and DC to share the research insights they can disseminate further. Garima found that meeting them where they are, and listening as much as telling was important for such engagement. Influential individuals in such organizations have multiple commitments and hold distinct priorities. Thus, it is crucial to align with their interests to involve them. It is also important to share our expectations and utilize their time efficiently. To conclude, we urge researchers to take small steps toward impact by considering a programme of translation. Specifically, researchers must: (a) consider context-appropriate methods (e.g., videos) and platforms (e.g., Instagram and YouTube in India) tailored to diverse stakeholders (e.g., by translating in the local language); (b) act on every translation opportunity, regardless of its scale, (c) amplify the voices of the marginalized when faced with the decision of whose voice to amplify; and (d) deepen the impact of small steps with the help of institutions (e.g., WHO) working for the marginalized. Researchers situated in the same context as marginalized stakeholders (e.g., the global South) have a deep understanding of the local intricacies compared to those in the West who make intermittent visits to the field. Thus, collaborating with local researchers can improve the effectiveness of research translation. Nonetheless, this collaboration can be unequal. The local researcher's participation is often peripheral. Researchers working in the West, including us, can often relegate local researchers to conducting fieldwork and gathering data. Local researchers are overlooked and rendered invisible during the translation phase. A case in point is how researchers from Western institutions, such as ours, garner more international media attention in comparison to their institutions from the Global South. Even businesses and civil society groups operating within these contexts favour engaging with researchers from the West. While this is partially due to comparatively well-funded marketing departments in our institutions that provide substantial support for translation, it is also rooted in the disregard for research insights originating from institutions and researchers in the global South. For example, during the Covid pandemic, research implications from South African scientists regarding the Omnicorn variant were discounted by the Western world. This led to leading scientists in South Africa criticizing the West for disregarding their research evidence due to reasons of racism or disbelief in scientific contributions originating from Africa (Harding, 2022). As we dig deeper into our own roles of perpetuating these inequalities, we are cognizant of research presentations where research insights are presented to a global audience, the local researchers are not given due recognition for their immense contributions. We can find similar examples if we look around the presentations in academic conferences, such as when panels on management research in Africa may have no researchers from African institutions, or discussions on decolonization may leave out researchers from the global South. One often-cited explanation is that the skills and, hence, research outputs of the local researchers fail to meet the narrow Western standards. Consequently, we have observed that the ‘who’ behind the translation (e.g., a researcher from a resourceful institution in the West) can overshadow the content of the translation (‘what’). This dynamic often results in valuable insights being excluded from the public sphere or actively rejected by the audience if they do not originate from individuals or groups with preferred characteristics. One way to address this disparity is to recognize the value of the researchers from the global South. For example, both of us have been actively involved in the Center for Business and Society (CBOS) ‘thinklists’, which rewards social media engagement by social scientists. In curating these lists, CBOS, along with our own participation, has been deliberate in recognizing the voices of scientists in the global South that are often overlooked. However, recognition is only the first step. Researchers from the global South will need to be included as partners throughout the project, allowing them to bring insights that are relevant to marginalized stakeholders. To do so, we must critically evaluate the current metrics of quality of research, and be open to what quality can look like in a different context. For example, in putting together a research project with a local researcher on the transgender community in India, Garima proposed framing the project as ‘dirty work’, a framing that has traction in management research. This transgender community in India is highly ostracized and hence engages in in some The local who the community back on the use of the ‘dirty work’, that to these their work is not The framing would have the translation efforts the project was For it the framing with in and instead where the local researchers and the community take the even if it not fitting into what we the same time, the of resources in the institutions of the local often that there is an opportunity for skills development, which we can For instance, Vivek is in like to and Global for to the skills and of researchers in and that both research and translation. Similarly, Garima the providing a platform for to the of engagement in research impact efforts both of us actively and participate as in events around impact and translation. we focus on events toward such as or programme especially in of the global South. The institutions in the West can also establish a such as the for Business to help including those in the global South. for Business in Business translates research findings for a audience and support from institutions or government entities with available Garima to and the that to the researchers in the translated and providing a global of for disseminating these We have this essay with a clear call to action for our colleagues who to make a meaningful impact in the global Our call is for them to and recognize the inequalities in the research translation process. solutions often short in this context. if not and ask for the researchers to be mindful of the power and Our call is for researchers to recognize and from the of perpetuating inequalities in the of research translation. our call to action must not be taken to mean that the for this solely on the of individual The to business academic and institutions that business We that these complexities is no easy However, it is a that our efforts and