EDIT©R AL

Research Dissemination: Bottom Line and Bottom Drawer

U NFORTUNATELY, but all too frequently, completed research studies occupy the bottom

desk drawer. Many will never be written for publica- tion. Some manuscripts will never be submitted to a refereed journal or be represented in chapters and re- search surveys establishing visibility in professional books. Though surrounded by good intent, some sub- mitted manuscripts will slowly perish because the au- thor is busy with another project and will not devote the time and the discipline necessary to rewrite the manuscript based on specific suggestions and requests of editors and referees. Hence, practicing nurses will continue to be uninformed about findings that have direct bearing on the improvement of patient care.

The Finish Line

We don't often see a Boston Marathon runner sit down and eat his or her lunch when the finish line tape is in view. Yet, in my opinion, until the research is published, the research process is incomplete. Many researchers sit down when the end of the process is in view and--unfortunately, in some cases--never get up again. This is appalling return on considerable investment of two precious commodities: dollars and time. These resources are those of the principal inves- tigators, the team, and the taxpayer.

Locked Data

Months invested in identifying the problem and the methodologies, years invested in grant seeking, data gathering, and analysis finally produce a piece of research representing several years' time and tens of thousands of dollars. Though impatient, we accept the rigor of the research process including the Insti- tutional Review Board requirement of filing and stor- ing data for 5 years after the study is over. How

tragically symbolic that those who most need it (pa- tients) and those who can most use it (practitioners) are locked out of haM-earned knowledge unless and until publication has taken place.

The Interdisciplinary Bus

Publication of research performed by an interdisci- plinary team in some cases seems even more problem- atic. One visualizes a "research bus" picking up and decanting various members of the research team who probably do not all join the effort at the same time. Though the practice is not condoned it often happens due to fiscal practicalities. The statistician is picked up at one "bus stop." The principal investigator asks the methodologist to join the group. At another bus stop in time, various members of the data gathering team arrive. When their tasks are complete they may be replaced by persons adept at data analysis. Over the months or years, one by one the personnel key to interdisciplinary research leave the study. But unless great foresight has resulted in the designation or hir- ing of a technical writer, the last person on the re- search bus looks around and realizes that he or she is the only one left to write the research for publication. The principal investigator is indeed responsible, but what if he or she is not able, motivated, or committed to writing?

Researchers As Writers

As one might surmise, researchers like doing re- search and are good at it. However, they may or may not like writing. They may or may not be good at it.

Without doubt, the use of language in a research grant, contract, thesis, or dissertation is not the lan- guage of even the most technical journal. Before their translation into the language of the reader, the re-

Journal of Professional Nursing, Vol 6, No 4 (July-August), 1990: DD 187-188 187

188 LAUREL ARCHER COPP

searcher must have clearly in mind the answers to these questions: (1) What will be the goals of the publication? (2) How old are the data now, how old will they be when accepted for publication, and how old will they be when first disseminated to those who may use them? (3) Who is the target audience and which are the representative journals of these audi- ences? (4) Which of the potential foci will actually be selected and why? (5) How many articles are planned on the same study and how are they different? (6) In the case of multiple authors, is there preresearch, written or unwritten understanding of who will be the first author in which journal, and who will be ac- countable for assuring accuracy of the content?

Dissemination Urgency

An appreciation for the history and accomplish- ment of nursing research is often measured by evalu- ating research publications over time. Setting the stage for current research is accomplished by a pains- taking review of current relevant publications. A sense of the growing edge of professional nursing and its trend precursors is backed by published data. Thus, in all three time tenses--past, present, and future--published research findings have a central and even pivotal role.

From a clinical nursing point of view, there may even be an ethical consideration if researchers learn insights to important problems and withhold these findings from the nursing and general public. As im- portant as is the presentation of research papers at national and international conferences, the spoken words distill into the air; they change and fade in the listener's memory. But what of the paper that is read? Does it go to the publisher or in a desk drawer? For the well meaning it probably possesses an in-between life. It travels hundreds of miles in a briefcase await-

ing its author's attention. Some lie dormant even dur- ing the reading of these thoughts.

Researcher Accountability

For there to be professional change based on reliable and valid research, findings must be disseminated, evaluated, and utilized. These steps are initiated by the publication of the original research. Only then does it gain respect from author, editor, and reader.

We have suggested that the research process in- clude publication of the findings and urge as much timeliness, visibility, and accessibility as possible. But who will see that it is done? Funding agencies require that when published, the source of funds be clearly acknowledged. But although they urge publi- cation, few require it, or make funds contingent on publication.

A problem is compounded, and there is the begin- ning of a downward spiral. Lack of published findings may discourage and curtail future funding priorities and initiatives by a funding agency. What might have been a rich vein seeded with compelling arguments and recommendations for future work is discontinued and for the time being abandoned. For the neophyte investigator, no published findings diminish research choices and "no publications" may be interpreted as "no existing research" in that area. How are studies to build on previous studies? When funding agencies survey studies and search the literature to determine needs and directions of future research, only a portion of research findings is retrievable. Unfortunately, other important but never to be proven relevant stud- ies are still in the bottom desk drawer and unavail- able.

LAUREL ARCHER COPP, RN, PHD, FAAN Editor