No research is an end in itself. This is particularly true of research to do with public policies and issues relating to society, politics, economies and governance. Different sections of the public avail of research for different purposes. Those in government tend to use it to strengthen their own grip, those in advertising and marketing use research to persuade and promote, many others use research to change behaviours and perceptions. Many also avail of research to explore options, find correctives, understand outcomes and for perspectives on the future. Who conducts research, what is the source of data, what is the scope and structure of the organisation responsible – these determine the credibility of the research. Whether the public is concerned about these aspects is doubtful. But it is important that these aspects should be in the public knowledge.

With research becoming a business proposition, and even big corporates taking to research, the credibility of the findings often come under increasing questioning. Particularly when those findings are used to influence, or make a profit by controlling data and manipulating research. The reliability, objectivity and transparency of research helps minimise such threats to the efficacy of the research itself. Validation, and provisions for checks and verification determines the credibility of research findings.

For research conducted for public policy on socio-economic issues, credibility matters even more. When research is conducted by ‘independent’ agencies, credibility is expected or presumed to be better than otherwise. When a public trust or foundation conducts research or sponsors research on specific issues, the outcome is presumed to be trustworthy. This is because of the legal provisions of such organisations which, apart from being non-profit, are expected to follow certain self-imposed obligations and make the process and outcome of such research transparent and responsible.

Any research organisation, irrespective of its legal stature, can do a particular piece of research objectively, independently, avoiding influence or bias or any conflict of interest. The bias can come in at any stage of research from conceptualising, designing the study, selection of methodology, designing instruments used to collect primary data, and in analysing and in writing the report itself and even the timing of the research. An independent organisation is expected to be transparent about such practices and about its overall operations in conducting the research.

An independent research outfit should stand out as distinct in its practices and positioning. Some of the elements of independence, apart from its formal organisational nature, include the following.

First, an independent research body, to uphold itself, must have concerns of its own which it believes in as a pursuit. Governance, children and women or civic society or citizen activism, for example, could be the concerns of a research organisation.

Second, it should operate as an institution which is an ongoing or continuing body with long-term interests, and does not operate on a project-to-project basis. It should not be individual-centric even if it has been set up or guided by one particular person.

Third, it must have a wide-ranging database, such as reports of the Census, NFHS, ASER, etc. This includes having a library with access to extensive reference sources – books, reports, or software and digital databases.

Fourth, it should have a team of experts specialising in a range of subjects like demography, economy, geography, etc. They should be able to design research, conduct field work, analyse and write reports.

Fifth, it must have infrastructure, including a reference library, analytical tools, application packages, consultation back up, and a field network to conduct field studies.

Sixth, it must have standard validation procedures. For example, having an Ethical Committee, to assess whether a particular piece of research is following the standard procedures, whether anyone is likely to be disadvantaged or harmed by it, whether such a study undermines prevailing regulations, etc.

Seventh, it conducts studies which enhance its capabilities, and constantly improves its own procedures and practices. For example, it should conduct a validation of its methodologies before adopting them. Learning should be evident in that process.

Eighth, it shares its research and findings in different ways so that many others benefit from the research findings.

Ninth, it must be transparent in its functioning, complying with regulations of the profession, government and regulatory provisions

Tenth, it never hesitates to offer insights for policy formulation and correction, shares suggestions in crisis situations as a part of public service.

Eleventh, it remains a not-for-profit body and sustains its viability in such a way that it does not have to succumb to market forces or sponsor’s interests, and can avoid external support from doubtful backgrounds.

Twelfth, as an independent institute, it should follow as many of these self-prescribed principles as norms or protocols in such a way that its independence is never questioned.

There are several Indian-origin institutes who have enriched the national discourse and sustained themselves without compromising their core concerns and independence. Of over a hundred legitimate research organisations engaged in India in applied or operational or behavioural research, there are perhaps around a dozen truly independent ones. Many of these are independent of any affiliations, political or corporate origins. They are distinguished for one or other specialisation or attribute despite being multifaceted. Of those which have lasted three decades and more, CSDS, CSD, CMS, CSE and CPR stand out in terms of research quality and transparency. There are of course many others. As independent research organisations in the public domain, these have distinguished themselves from others including many state-funded institutes described as “autonomous”. I have had first-hand acquaintanceship with most of them over the years, and even more closely with ORG and CMS for much longer. These independent organisations have contributed original activities and initiatives, and distinguished themselves over those pursuing sponsored research.

I have witnessed, during my active years at ORG (1972- 89) and at CMS thereafter (1989-2023), what this “third eye position” of research is all about. A third-eye view could also be taken by research agencies without being independent. But only a few organisations maintained such a position beyond a couple of decades.

Excerpted with permission from The Emperor’s Mirror: The State of Independent Research in India, N Bhaskara Rao, Speaking Tiger Books.