ARCH Stakeholder Mapping Report

8 In some contexts, research work is not of high standard, especially during pandemics. Consequently, most
institutions look up to developed countries for interventions because the perception is that their initiatives are
better.
9 Knowledge generation, including publication of findings is more emphasized than the use of knowledge generated.
10 It is unclear who guides or influences what work or topic is relevant.
Stakeholder snowballing and stakeholder analysis (power interest)
For the workshops and the survey, participants identified stakeholders and the contexts in which they work in, the
health areas they work in, and how they interact with research uptake. These stakeholders have been showcased on
the ‘regions page’ of the ARCH hub (https://arch.tghn.org/regions/).
Following the stakeholder snowballing, participants categorised stakeholders they mentioned and other stakeholder
categories according to the power-interest matrix. Because the stakeholder mapping process was continuous, regional
coordinators for the ARCH programme supplemented the list of identified stakeholders within their networks and
regions.
Through these snowballing activities, we identified 56, 69, 16, and 24 stakeholders for Africa, Latin America, Asia, and
Global respectively.
3. Discussion and Key Takeaways
Participants recognised the revolving nature of the research uptake cycle and the different stakeholders involved. They
concurred that while most research is performed with rigor and integrity and results end up in good publications, what
happens after that is not prioritised. They also agreed how policies and practices should feedback into the research
cycle in generating new research questions, therefore completing the research cycle.
It was also stressed the importance of thinking about research uptake during particular moments throughout the
research cycle. Advocacy of research uptake should be done from the very beginning and at all spatial levels, such as local,
provincial, and federal. Researchers also need to increase their confidence, to plan and conduct research tailored to
taking up the findings or recommendations into policy and practice.
Participants from Asia argued that stakeholders may be able to influence an activity because of other circumstances
such as having a link to an institution or individual who can provide them that power. Participants also highlighted that
the categorisation of stakeholders in this manner is not a static or permanent approach. Levels of power or interest are
constantly changing among stakeholders. Additionally, power and interest levels among stakeholders depend on specific
health issues in question. Like the Asia workshop, participants in the Africa workshop argued that stakeholders,
especially the community, may change their position across the power-interest matrix. Also, they mentioned that some
stakeholder’s interest can be provoked. Such is for example the case of the parliament, who in general has power, but
their interest needs to be “provoked” through engagement. The parliamentarians may not understand the importance
of evidence, but this can be changed or created through policy engagement.
Further, it was emphasised by the participants that communities 3 are usually not involved in research process, and
especially in the formulation of research proposals, which then in return makes it hard for them to understand how
research results and resulting action (policies) impact their life. As such, research needs to be brought to communities
3
Referred here by participants as group that benefits from research, such as health personnel, local governments, or non-profit
organisations, etc.
7