This report aims at unraveling some of the factors that drive knowledge production face to face with sustainable development (SD) in the context of Pakistan. It addresses the questions such as: how research agendas are determined, what gives rise to the need for a particular kind of research to be undertaken, how then the research is used and who benefits from it?

Sample selection is important since it is central to the drawing of the results. The interviewees were chosen carefully, keeping in mind the diverse roles of various organizations in the whole process of knowledge production, especially in the Pakistani context. We chose to interview representatives from four organizations/institutions including Planning Commission of Pakistan; World Bank; National Rural Support Program (NRSP), and Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE).

Main findings

Before discussing the major themes that the survey has brought into light, a couple of points need special consideration. The most important among them is the vague categorization of institutions as ‘users, donors or research institutes’. None of the organizations in the study could categorically be placed in one group per se. In fact a few of them shared the characteristics pertaining to all the three categories to a certain extent. This multiplicity of identities plays a key role in explaining the processes that determine knowledge production and dissemination. This would become conspicuous as we discuss the emerging themes. The second aspect is the broad overarching agendas of the organizations. Broad in this context implies lack of focus, vagueness and ambiguity. This would become more obvious as we discuss the following salient themes.

A. Research Criteria

The questionnaire data indicates that users base their demands on national and local agendas and donors/sponsors provide funding on more or less the same issues. The research institutes then take these up and things seem to be quite orderly. However, this is where one should contemplate on the issue pointed out in the beginning, that is, of the hazy categorization and multiple identities of the participating organizations. Since in a couple of cases, the same organization happens to be the user and the researcher, there is an ostensible alignment between them. This should not be taken to represent the whole scenario prevalent in this context since it would lead to biased conclusions.

Careful sample selection for interviews plays crucial role in drawing conclusive results and categorical images with their complexities. An interviewee from the World Bank asserted that the projects are taken up entirely on the client’s initiative (Government of Pakistan). Whereas an interviewee from the Planning Commission of Pakistan thought otherwise arguing that the government would only propose those projects that could bring in money, which implicitly would be donor-driven. In fact, client-driven agenda is a donor-driven one.

B. Selecting Research Institutes and transmitting agendas

There are a handful of development sector institutions carrying out research in Pakistan. They have carved a niche for themselves in this arena. The criteria for selection are the credibility and sound research background of the institution. Moreover, relationship of a research institute with funding and user agencies seems to be very important and useful. Quality of research and public relations are equally important in the selection of a research institute to provide knowledge on Sustainable Development.

C. Use of research

Research organizations do give importance to independent research, but impact of the usefulness of that research is hardly portrayed. They have no strict and sophisticated designs for impact assessment. They do publish studies and conduct seminars, but dissemination and flow of

information seem restricted and limited only to a certain class of people. NRSP is such an organization that conducts research for internal consumption. It reflects in the annual report with a focus on programme content rather qualitative research.

D. Networking

Efforts were made to have formal networking among various research organizations. But the extent and benefits and tangible advantages of the networking could not be defined. This led to certain informal networking among various organizations. Although, breadth of vision and regional outlook have been mentioned as important benefits arising out of these networks, but there still appears to be a lot of room for using these alliances as a means to improving the quality of ongoing research and initiating fresh work.

Secondly, another major issue is networking among research institutes and users other than the government. Most of the research being conducted in Pakistan is policy research, which sometimes tends to preclude perspectives that are coming from the lower strata of society. Sometimes due to donor pressures for quick delivery of information knowledge production exercise tends not to be comprehensive and inclusive of multiple sources of data. This focus on quick research conducted by consultants from mostly the upper and middle class is not conducive to networking with people beyond the government circles or select Research Institutes.

The government serves more like a link between the suppliers and the ultimate users of research. Hence, there is a dire need, for stronger networking among the suppliers and the immediate users of the research. These can be community organizations working directly with the people. We need to underscore the importance of disseminating knowledge to those who are the ultimate recipients. Language, in this context, plays a major role. Most of the research is conducted in English, which limits the scope of dispersion of knowledge, particularly to those who matter the most. These obstacles need to be reckoned with, to facilitate the propagation of knowledge.

E. Problems with Research institutes and research

According to the funding bodies, lack of networking amongst research organizations and lack of networking with other segments of society is a major problem for the research organizations. Another problem is that of better quality data. Unfortunately, it is quite vague as to what ‘better quality data’ implies. It could be attributable to a number of factors like lack of qualified personnel or lack of funding for particular agendas.

An important point is that there is a need for ‘pro-active’ research as mentioned by the government. It was argued that an institution like SDPI was brought into being, specifically keeping the requirement of ‘pro-active’ research in mind. This again is a contradiction in terms, since the government barely ever releases funds for ‘pro-active’ research or demands such a research project to be conducted in any case. This further intensifies the funding issue. It is due to lack of funds that ‘pro-active’ research is not being conducted, which brings us back to the initial argument of ‘donor driven’ research agendas. Since the primary motive of starting a research project, as far as the government is concerned, happens to be whatever is palatable to the donors, therefore laying the blame on lack of pro-active research appears to be an empty argument.

What has served, as another grave setback to the process of knowledge production, is the brain drain. Research Institutes do not get funding due to lack of qualified personnel and vice versa. Apparently we are stuck in a CATCH 22 situation where both of these factors are reinforcing each other, creating serious hurdles in the smooth functioning of this process.

Conclusion

Knowledge production with respect to Sustainable Development is not as smooth a process, as it appears to be, specifically in the context of Pakistan. The government, is simply ‘not interested in knowledge production’ as one participant pointed out, either in its own right or as put forward by the people’s needs. The drive for selecting a particular research theme is the amount of funds that it can generate, which ultimately results in following the donors’ agenda. For research institutes, lack of funding has been termed as a major obstacle in carrying out more research. This further underscores the influence exerted by donors in the whole process of knowledge production.

The major donors not only control the funds, they are more involved in the direction of the knowledge production exercise. What the donors, might perceive as better accountability, might turn Pakistani researchers into being mere managers of knowledge rather than knowledge producers.