Nearly three decades after Mishra’s exposition, experts today reiterate that things don’t seem to have changed much, either. In fact, while talking to them, one gets the feeling that the problems have grown in scope rather than diminished.[break]
“Research has failed to register as a priority area in a country like ours where we are still working to build roads and schools and distribute Vitamin A capsules,” said Suman Raj Aryal, Deputy Director at the Central Bureau of Statistics.
Though many in the country seem to have realized its importance, experts, including Aryal, say that research in Nepal is mostly limited to data collection, that too by using unscientific methods. Aryal, for example, suggested that government spending still largely occurs arbitrarily rather than based on scientifically collected information and data.
Political process, social development, markets, and natural environment all must rely on research findings for planning, predictions and even explaining and finding solutions to intriguing problems that crop up from time to time.
Why then have the planners in our country not done enough to promote analytical research by prioritizing it as an important part of the national planning process?
Scarce resources mean that its efficient use is critical, not only for sustainability but also for equitable distribution. Lack of reliable data cannot only hinder development by fomenting dissatisfaction among target populations but also lead to wastage of its natural, financial and human resources as a result of poor planning or duplication of efforts, something very common in Nepal.
But with governments and international agencies emphasizing evidence-based planning, the role of research is becoming more crucial.
“We are now heading toward evidence-based planning,” said Bal Gopal Baidya, Chairman and Senior Research Associate at New Era, a research firm with decades of experience. “Gone are the days when you did things by assuming that doing this or that might be good.”
But Baidya admits that there is a shortage of quality manpower in the field of social science research.
“Research doesn’t merely mean data collection. Analyses that draw conclusions from the gathered data are equally important,” he said. “Much of the data gathered by New Era, for example, are sent to Macro International, a US-based opinion research organization, which sends back analyses that are more acceptable internationally.”
Lack of required human resources is a problem with government agencies as well.
“Research done by government ministries involves huge amounts of data, so we must have statisticians who really understand their significance,” said CBS Deputy Director Aryal. “If that happens, the data that comes out will be timely and of better quality and reliable. If a person is not from the relevant field, he can neither create nor communicate knowledge relevant to the field. We have people on the job who don’t have the background or knowledge of the subject.”
Experts attribute lack of quality human resources in the field to funding crunch and to an overall culture of viewing research as an insignificant activity.
“Research is an expensive process from the point of view of technology and human resources, and that’s why we haven’t seen massive involvement of the private sector in this field,” Aryal said. “Even the handfuls of private organizations that are involved mostly rely on government data and usually carry out researches that support government policies and programs.”
Baidya of New Era seconded Aryal’s view.
Though it is good that donors are helping to sustain an area that is virtually neglected by the government, donor-funded researches have their own set of problems.
“Most of our clients are foreign governments and INGOs. Even the government projects we work on are mostly funded by outside donors,” said Baidya.
Donors, according to Baidya, fund only those areas that are of interest to them. That, he added, can be a constraint as other areas for research may also be identified. But one still has to go by donors’ choice of topic. “It is like who pays the piper calls the tune,” Baidya said.
Even in the case of Tribhuvan University, funds for research mostly come from donors – foreign countries and institutions.
Mrigendra Bahadur Karki, a Lecturer at the Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies (CNAS) of Tribhuvan University, said, “Such funds come with a Terms of Reference that constrains the research from various aspects, like time limit, topic selection, and donor’s interests.”
The major problem with donor-funded research projects is that such undertakings may not cover an area that is of interest to a researcher.
“In this scenario, we’ll never be able to produce expert researchers in any particular fields because they’ll keep hopping to the areas where they find funds,” Karki opined.
To be continued next week...
The writer is a copy editor at Republica and can be reached at amendrapokharel@gmail.com
Related story
TU research centers heading nowhere
