Academic research often fails to reach its full potential because it doesn't always address the most pressing questions facing policymakers and organizations. While traditional publishing focuses on novelty, many critical decisions are made without clear evidence due to this disconnect. A way to bridge this gap could involve reshaping how research questions are selected and evaluated.

Aligning Research with Real-World Needs

The core idea involves identifying "pivotal questions" – those where answers would most significantly impact policies or funding. Instead of starting with existing studies, organizations like NGOs or government agencies would first articulate their biggest uncertainties. Researchers would then synthesize evidence specifically addressing these questions, producing actionable insights. For example, a health nonprofit might prioritize "Which interventions most reduce vaccine hesitancy in rural areas?" – guiding researchers to evaluate studies on that exact issue.

How It Would Work

One approach could involve a three-step process:

1. Elicitation: Work with stakeholders to define and prioritize their most critical questions
2. Evaluation Systematically assess existing research against these questions, identifying gaps and strengths
3. Synthesis: Distill findings into clear reports highlighting practical implications