A research Group report drops. It is data-heavy. Structured. Methodical. It dissects a national issue with charts, citations and uncomfortable conclusions.
And then — silence. Why? Because in Sri Lanka, evidence alone is not enough.
We are a country that claims to crave accountability, transparency and reform. We say we want facts over rhetoric. Yet when independent research lays out those facts — calmly, systematically — it struggles to gain traction.
The problem is not necessarily the research. The problem is us.
Crisis Fatigue Is Real
We have lived through economic collapse, street revolts, governance scandals, IMF negotiations, political reshuffles and court verdicts that still reverberate. The public mind is exhausted. Another report becomes just another document in a long procession of national self-examinations.
Attention has become scarce currency. And research does not shout. It does not trend. It does not go viral. It requires reading.
Polarisation Eats Credibility
In a media ecosystem where loyalty often precedes logic, every report is judged not on methodology but on perceived alignment.
If findings challenge the government, they are branded partisan. If they question opposition narratives, they are dismissed as selective.
If they critique systemic structures, they are labelled ideological. Facts are filtered through faction. Acceptance, therefore, becomes political — not intellectual.
Elites Rarely Applaud Scrutiny
Independent research often asks uncomfortable questions of power — fiscal discipline, media freedom, economic policy, governance gaps. Those being scrutinised have little incentive to amplify such work.
The quietest way to defeat a report is not to rebut it. It is to ignore it. And in Sri Lanka, strategic indifference can be more effective than loud opposition.
Complexity Does Not Travel
Let us be honest.
Research reports are rarely written for the average citizen. They are written in the language of policy analysis. They contain footnotes, models, indices and qualifiers. They are cautious.But public debate rewards clarity and punch.
If a report does not translate itself into a compelling narrative — “This is what it means for your electricity bill” or “This is how it affects your job” — it remains trapped in elite circles.
Data without story does not travel far. The News Cycle Is Brutal
On any given day, Sri Lanka is juggling: • court verdicts
• cricket victories
• political manoeuvring
• foreign policy tremors • local crime stories
A research document competes with spectacle. And spectacle usually wins.
The Harder Truth
Perhaps the real discomfort is this: Research demands accountability without theatrics. It does not allow convenient outrage.
It does not allow selective memory. It does not flatter any camp. It asks us to confront structure — not just personalities. And structural reform is far less exciting than personal scandal.
So What Is “Acceptance”?
Acceptance is not applause. It is engagement. Do policymakers cite the findings?
Do journalists interrogate them? Do civil society actors build campaigns around them? Do universities debate them? If not, then the report remains a document — not a movement.
The Final Question
We often lament the absence of evidence-based policymaking in Sri Lanka. We complain about populism. We criticise governance built on slogans. Be that as it may, when evidence appears, do we embrace it — or do we scroll past it? A nation cannot demand better decisions while ignoring better information.
Research does not fail because it is flawed. It fails because we do not insist that it matters.Until that changes, reports will be written. And the country will continue arguing in circles.
