Research Management is not Research Governance
Before institutions launch high-stakes civic engagement research initiatives, they focus on external and operational aspects of the project—securing funding, buy-in, and hiring a team to execute the initiative. Governance is not considered.
When institutions are preoccupied with the external support needed to launch the initiative, they default to internal processes for research management. At the launch, reliance on existing processes feels reasonable because, although the stakes are high, the research itself is viewed as a longer, more expanded scope of a regular project. In the beginning, leaders view these initiatives as just more expensive versions of what the organization already does—not initiatives that risk reputational exposure, field positioning, or the institution’s financial well-being. Misaligned findings heighten each of these risks.
Where Process Breaks Down
Internal research management processes were built for execution. They were not built for the decisions that precede it. Process cannot govern an undefined strategy for the initiative—why the initiative exists, why the institution must launch it now, and how the initiative will advance the institution. Process cannot govern decisions about which data points are important, the language used to report them, and how to communicate politically sensitive findings.
When it’s time to analyze the data, the research manager is given a strategic decision on what to report without the authority or a strategic framework. When many external stakeholders are involved in the initiative—funders, practitioners, and other research organizations—they exert varying levels of influence on what the research should report. Funders need to see how the research offers a return on their investment by advancing their own institution’s goals. Practitioners need recommendations to apply in their voter outreach plans. And other research organizations want to see how the initiative advances learning and unearths opportunities for future research. The research manager then triages between stakeholders and works backwards to create an interpretive framework under the tight timelines of an election cycle. When the research manager cannot resolve competing stakeholder demands, a governance gap is confused as a skills gap. And the institution sources external support to resolve a problem that governance would have addressed.
When governance is absent, leadership starts executing on the research, analyzing the data, and deciding what to report. Leadership and the research team iterate on interpretative decisions that should have been established before launching the initiative. Leadership and the research team operate without a defined strategic framework. The institution risks failing to deliver on its commitments and missing a narrow window to influence stakeholders’ decisions in a looming election cycle.
Research Governance vs. Research Management
Research governance is not research management. Research management executes on strategy, including applying the interpretive framework to the data. Research governance establishes the strategy of the initiative, decision rules, accountability, and an interpretive framework for data analysis. Research governance is a leadership function that must be established before execution.