DRAFT PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE NOTE TO THE DISCUSSANT: due to a lack of - PDF document

28 th International Population Conference – IUSSP – 29 Oct.-4 th Nov. 2017 – Cape Town (South Africa) DRAFT – PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE NOTE TO THE DISCUSSANT: due to a lack of time we haven’t been able to review the English and translate the quotes. This will be done before the presentation. Title Reporting scientific results back in Health and demographic surveillance systems in Africa: a socio- anthropological perspective on knowledge interaction and behavioural change. Authors : Nathalie Mondain (University of Ottawa, School of sociological and anthropological studies), Somnoma Valérie Ouédraogo (MacEwan University, Edmonton, School of Social Work) Main issues This paper addresses issues related to knowledge circulation between participants and researchers in the population and health domains in developing countries, more specifically in health and demographic surveillance systems (HDSS) in sub-Saharan Africa. Such research platforms have significantly increased in the past decades (http://indepth-network.org/) as they offer unique opportunities for providing valuable data which can be used as evidence for policy and program implementation. HDSS imply heavy methodological constraints with the longitudinal follow-up based on repeated visits within each household composing it as well as the great number of specific surveys conducted on samples of its residents. As a result, HDSS residents, whether participating or not to these research activities end up with mixed perceptions of being overwhelmed by research teams and projects and by their lack of understanding of the whole research process (Mondain et al, 2016). Because such sites are meant to last for long periods of time, researchers, local fieldworkers and populations are increasingly concerned by the issues related to results dissemination. Madhavan et al (2007) looking more specifically at the Agincourt HDSS in South Africa argued that: “ 1) long-term presence and community involvement contribute to high response rates and data quality, 2) to maintain community support the project must demonstrate its usefulness, 3) reporting to community members provides valuable checks on the local relevance and comprehension of questions, and 4) community opinion can modify both wording and content of research questions ” . In this study, we follow these lines adding two ideas: (i) that reporting to community members – meaning a wide range of the population and not only the local authorities – requires to adopt a socio-anthropological perspective in order to identify what should be reported, to whom and how; (ii) beyond influencing the content of research questions, informing the community at large can also lead to changes in individuals’ health behaviours in various ways. One key issue regarding knowledge circulation in such contexts concerns how to reach and make the information understandable by lay people, particularly in contexts of great socio-cultural diversity. Various communication tools are increasingly mobilized such as documentary films or slides shows, short sketches and even forum theatre. If these have gained an increasing popularity in the health domain for knowledge transfer in conventional research projects (Rossiter et al, 2008), they can also be 1

28 th International Population Conference – IUSSP – 29 Oct.-4 th Nov. 2017 – Cape Town (South Africa) used in HDSS as has been done in Mali (Hertrich et al, 2011). However, because of an often ‘top - down’ design process despite the best intentions of the different actors involved, greater attention should be paid to more participatory approaches in order to ensure that information is actually circulating and does not only take a unilateral path – from researchers to populations. In 2015, the IRD (Institut de recherche pour le développement), managing the Niakhar HDSS in Senegal since the early 1960s, decided to organize three “thematic days” to report back to the local populations the most salient results of 50 years of scientific activities in the area in the three following scientific domains: population dynamics, health and environment. The authors of the paper were solicited by the local IRD research and technical staff to design the content of the three days as well as the communication tools most appropriated to make the results accessible for the majority of the population. A participatory approach was used followed by an evaluation of the process a month after the 3 days took place. Drawing from the fieldnotes taken at the preparation phase, and from 100 interviews conducted for the evaluation (80 with regular participants, 15 with key informants and field workers and 5 with researchers), we discuss the paths through which the information circulates in the context of these 3 days’ restitution , the potential of the approach chosen as well as its limitations (Cornwall & Brock, 2005). Theoretical background As elsewhere in the world, the population and health research protocols in developing countries are saturated by the idea of providing evidence to support policy and practice. We observe that since the mid-2000s, local populations have begun to demonstrate resistance in continued participation in HDSS data collection. In particular, the participants expressed their need and desire to better understand their gains in continuing to take part in the research projects (Mondain et al., 2010). Related to this the need for “knowledge transfer”, has become an almost moral and ethical prescriptive notion for researchers and practitioners. As a result many initiatives have taken place in these fields in order to “report results back” to key actors but often not to those who are most directly concerned: the research participants themselves. Another problem arises when too little attention is paid to what should be reported back, to whom and how. We argue that, especially in the context of HDSS where research teams are constantly present in the area, either in person or through the field workers they have trained to conduct the surveys/interviews, reporting results back may contribute to create a better informed, and thus voluntary participation, to research projects by local residents. Depending on how such initiatives are designed, it could also influe nce participants’ behaviours in the related domains – here population and health essentially, but also in other areas such as education or environment. The notion of knowledge transfer/translation in the context of restitution has been intensely debated, criticized it for its ‘top - down’ perspective, thus leading to a move towards the idea of knowledge exchange (Gravois Lee & Garvin, 2003). However, researchers and practitioners are still failing to contextualize the process of sharing information and thus end up having a limited view on which actors should be involved. We understand that restitution is “that act or dynamic through which the researcher shares with the field partners, the preliminary and/or final resu lts of the processing of the data collected for analysis” (Bergier, 2000, p.8). In this perspective, reporting results back is articulated as an ethical and pedagogic 2