Memorandum submitted by the Open University
Integrated Waste Systems Research Group
With 12 academics and researchers, Integrated
Waste Systems (IWS) is one of the UK's principle academic research
groups specialising in sustainable waste management research.
At the time of writing we have several "live" Government
funded research projects underway. Applied research is fundamental
in the development of our distance learning and many of the staff
in IWS are actively engaged in course development.
There are four points we would like to make to the
committee relating to the scope of its work:
1. DEVELOPING
A "RESEARCH
PROTOCOL"
If research is to be robust and inspire public
confidence in its outcomes, particularly as a key contributor
to policy development and implementation then it must be neutral,
objective and transparent. We would urge the committee to consider
developing a protocol for Government funded research which addresses
the issues noted.
2. ENCOURAGING
WIDER PARTNERSHIP
WORKING
We believe that partnerships which link academic
and non academic agencies are an essential way of working. Creative
partnerships, which encourage cross disciplinary working, enrich
the research process, widen communication and dissemination and,
by helping to avoid duplication of effort, amplify research funding.
We feel the committee could usefully consider how partnerships
can be encouraged in the research process.
3. RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
ISSUES
Building from partnership working, we feel wider
communication issues are paramount. For example, making research
accessible to groups who might not have capacity to assimilate
direct research outcomes into their day to day working but do
have requirements to absorb research outcomes into their modus
operandi. Often such groups are at the sharp end of implementation,
in direct contact with citizens and so are important agents of
change. How to make research outcomes relevant and accessible
to such groups could usefully be considered by the committee.
4. LINKING RESEARCH
ACTIVITIES
Although encouraged by, for example Defra, communication
across research agencies is not always adequate. For example we
know of waste managers in local authorities who had several telephone
calls across a week or so from different research agencies, all
of whom wanted their input to separate but linked projects. Other
than those projects with direct relevance to the funded research
it is challenging and beyond scope for a single research group
to coordinated a wider and often diverse set of research activities.
The committee could usefully consider how to better link and coordinate
across research groups.
Finally, these four points clearly do not exist
in isolation and form part of a wider systemic research framework.
We would be pleased to elaborate on the points
above should the committee wish.
March 2008
| 
