Context, Evidence, & Links

Context, Evidence, & Links
An analytical and practical framework to improve links between research and policy ODI’s Research and Policy in Development, Context, Evidence and Links Framework is an analytical tool to understand how research-based and other forms of evidence contribute to policy and practice. It is aimed at researchers, policy makers and practitioners involved in policy-relevant research rather than academic research. It can also be used as a practical tool to determine what needs to be done to influence specific policies and practices. John Young / Enrique Mendizabal Overseas Development Institute, UK

Programme Introductions The RAPID framework ODI case studies
Your case studies RAPID and the CSPP The challenges of running a Think Tank Influencing policy in Latin America How can we help?

Self Introductions An initial review of the literature produced a long list of existing theory. Julius talked about these last time.

The RAPID Framework An initial review of the literature produced a long list of existing theory. Julius talked about these last time.

Overseas Development Institute
Britain’s leading development Think Tank £8m, 60 researchers Research / Advice / Public Debate Rural / Humanitarian / Poverty & Aid / Economics (HIV, Human rights, Water) DFID, Parliament, WB, EC Civil Society ODI is Britain's leading independent think-tank on international development and humanitarian issues. Our mission is to inspire and inform policy and practice which lead to the reduction of poverty, the alleviation of suffering and the achievement of sustainable livelihoods in developing countries. We do this by locking together high-quality applied research, practical policy advice, and policy-focused dissemination and debate. We work with partners in the public and private sectors, in both developing and developed countries. ODI's work centres on its research and policy groups and programmes: Rural Policy and Governance Group Humanitarian Policy Group International Economic Development Group Poverty and Public Policy Group ODI holds regular discussion meetings, workshops and seminars on development topics of general interest, addressed by speakers from the UK and overseas. ODI manages three international networks linking researchers, policy-makers and practitioners and hosts the Secretariat of the Active Learning Network on Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP). The Fellowship Scheme has been sending young postgraduate economists to work in the public sectors of developing countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific on two-year contracts since The Institute regularly provides advice on development issues to a wide range of organisations including governments, international agencies, and non-governmental bodies. ODI provides research support and advice to Parliamentary Select Committees, MPs and Peers. Since 1984 the Institute has provided research and administrative support to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Overseas Development. The Group's recent activities have covered aid, debt, Southern Africa, EU development policy and the workings of the UN/Bretton Woods system in development. For more information see:

RAPID Programme Research Advisory work Workshops and seminars
Desk-based literature reviews Bridging Research and Policy Communications Knowledge Management GDN project: 50 preliminary case studies Phase II studies (25 projects) ODI projects 4 detailed case studies HIV/AIDS Advisory work Workshops and seminars ODI’s Research and Policy in Development (RAPID) programme aims to improve the use of research and evidence in development policy and practice through research, advice and debate: how policy-makers can best use research, for evidence-based policy-making; how researchers can best use their findings in order to influence policy; and how to improve the interaction between researchers and policy-makers. The programme works on four main themes: 1. The role of evidence in policy processes; 2. Improved communication and information systems for policy and practice; 3. Better knowledge management and learning for development agencies; 4. Approaches to institutional development for evidence-based policy. RAPID work includes: Research – on policy, the role of research, knowledge management and communications; Advice – on maximising policy impact; Programme design – for research, action-research and operations for policy impact; Training – in policy processes, research communications and organisational development; Communications – internal and external using traditional, electronic and mass media; Knowledge Management – within projects, programmes and organisations; Evaluations – of practical and research projects, and policy processes within organisations; Promotion – through public policy debate with policy-makers and civil society.

Definitions Research: “any systematic effort to increase the stock of knowledge” Policy: a “purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors” Agendas / policy horizons Official statements documents Patterns of spending Implementation processes Activities on the ground We define both research and policy very broadly. By research we do not just mean classical scientific research. It include any systematic learning process - from theory building and data collection to evaluation action research. Similarly, policy is not just narrowly defined as a set of policy documents or legislation; it is about setting a deliberate course of action and then implementing it. It includes the setting of policy agendas, official policy documents, legislation, changes in patterns of government spending to implement policies, and the whole process of implementation. It is also about what happens on the ground: a policy is worth nothing unless it results in actual change. These are all relevant if we want to try to make policy more evidence-based and see the results of our research adopted in policy and practice.

The linear logical model…
Identify the problem Commission research Analyse the results Choose the best option Establish the policy Policy-making used to be widely thought of as a linear and logical process, in which policy-makers identified a problem, commissioned research, took note of the results and made sensible policies which were then implemented. Clearly that is not the case. Policy-making is a dynamic, complex, chaotic process Implement the policy Evaluate the results

…in reality… “The whole life of policy is a chaos of purposes and accidents. It is not at all a matter of the rational implementation of the so-called decisions through selected strategies 1” “Most policy research on African agriculture is irrelevant to agricultural and overall economic policy in Africa2” “Research is more often regarded as the opposite of action rather than a response to ignorance”3 Clay and Schaffer’s book ‘Room for Manoeuvre’ in 1984 described “the whole life of policy is a chaos of purposes and accidents. It is not at all a matter of the rational implementation of decisions through selected strategies”. That is increasingly recognised as a more realistic description of the policy process than the linear rational model – though the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Furthermore, as Steve Omamo pointed out in a recent report on policy research on African agriculture: “Most policy research on African agriculture is irrelevant to agricultural and overall economic policy in Africa”. It is not really surprising that the link between research and policy is tenuous and difficult to understand if policy processes are complex and chaotic and much research is not very policy relevant. 1 - Clay & Schaffer (1984), Room for Manoeuvre; An Exploration of Public Policy in Agricultural and Rural Development, Heineman Educational Books, London 2 - Omamo (2003), Policy Research on African Agriculture: Trends, Gaps, and Challenges, International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Research Report No 21 3 - Surr (2003), DFID Research Review

Existing theory X www.odi.org.uk/rapid/lessons/theory Linear model
Percolation model, Weiss Tipping point model, Gladwell ‘Context, evidence, links’ framework, ODI Policy narratives, Roe Systems model (NSI) External forces, Lindquist ‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer ‘Street level bureaucrats’, Lipsky Policy as social experiments, Rondinelli Policy Streams & Windows, Kingdon Disjointed incrementalism, Lindquist The ‘tipping point’, Gladwell Crisis model, Kuhn ‘Framework of possible thought’, Chomsky Variables for Credibility, Beach The source is as important as content, Gladwell Linear model of communication, Shannon Interactive model, Simple and surprising stories, Communication Theory Provide solutions, Marketing Theory I Find the right packaging, Marketing II Elicit a response, Kottler Translation of technology, Volkow Epistemic communities Policy communities Advocacy coalitions etc, Pross Negotiation through networks, Sebattier Shadow networks, Klickert Chains of accountability, Fine Communication for social change, Rockefeller Wheels and webs, Chapman & Fisher There is a vast amount of existing theory on this subject - you can read all about many of them on our website. But most of it is from developed, OECD countries and there is very little systematic research on the interface of research and policy in developing countries. This is a serious problem given the massive diversity of cultural, economic, and political contexts in the developing world – particularly given the weaker research and policymaking capabilities and democratic deficits that characterize some developing countries. Furthermore, international actors have an exaggerated impact on research and policy processes in the South. This makes it difficult to draw valid generalizations and lessons from existing experience and theory.

Existing theory – a short list
The RAPID Framework Policy narratives, Roe Systems of Innovation Model, (NSI) ‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer ‘Street level bureaucrats’, Lipsky Policy as social experiments, Rondene Policy streams and policy windows, Kingdon Disjointed Incrementalism, Lindblom Social Epidemics, Gladwell Malcolm Gladwell’s book ‘The Tipping Point’ describes how social epidemics spread. It is about the different types of people who are involved in the policy process: connectors, who know a lot of people; mavens, who hoover up and digest information; and salesmen who are very good at ‘selling’ ideas. He describes research into US news anchors in the run-up to the elections in the United States, which showed how very small differences in the way they behave on screen can give very strong messages to the public. He talks about how the context affects how people behave. In another experiment in the US, researchers sent student on errands all over the campus, and arranged for them to pass somebody in distress who clearly needed help and anaysed the factors which influenced whether the students stopped to help or not. The most important factor seemed to be whether the student was in a hurry or not. He describes how some ideas seem to be “sticky” - the factors that determine whether people remember specific bits of information. Gladwell describes how the conjunction of these factors create the “tipping points” when ideas suddenly spread and are adopted.

An Analytical Framework
External Influences Socio-economic and cultural influences, donor policies etc The political context – political and economic structures and processes, culture, institutional pressures, incremental vs radical change etc. The links between policy and research communities – networks, relationships, power, competing discourses, trust, knowledge etc. The evidence – credibility, the degree it challenges received wisdom, research approaches and methodology, simplicity of the message, how it is packaged etc The aim of our framework is to simplify the complexity of how evidence contributes to the policy process so that policy makers and researchers can make decisions about how they do their work to maximise the chance that policies are evidence-based, and that research does have a positive impact on policy and practice. It is based on a thorough review of the literature and a wide range of case studies at international, regional and national level across the developing world. It identifies four broad groups of factors. We call the first external influences. These are the factors outside a particular country which affect policy makers and policy processes within the country. Even in big countries such as India, international economic, trade and even cultural issues matter a great deal. In smaller, heavily indebted countries, World Bank and Bilateral Donor policies and practices can be very influential. At national level the factors fall into three main areas. The political context includes the people, institutions and processes involved in policy making. The evidence arena is about the type and quality of research and how it is communicated. The third arena links is about the mechanisms affecting how evidence gets into the policy process or not.

A Practical Framework External Influences political context evidence
Politics and Policymaking Campaigning, Lobbying Policy analysis, & research Media, Advocacy, Networking Scientific information exchange & validation An interesting thing about the framework is how well it maps onto real-life activities. The political context sphere maps onto politics and policy making, evidence onto the processes of research, learning and thinking, and links onto networking, the media and advocacy. Even the overlapping areas map onto recognisable activities. The intersection of the political context and evidence represents the process of policy analysis – the study of how to implement and the likely impact of specific policies. The overlap between evidence and links is the process of academic discourse through publications and conferences, and the area between links and political context is the world of campaigning and lobbying. The area in the middle – the bulls-eye – where convincing evidence providing a practical solution to a current policy problem, that is supported by and brought to the attention of policymakers by actors in all three areas is where there is likely to be the most immediate link between evidence and policy. Research, learning & thinking evidence links

What you need to know The external environment: Who are the key actors? What is their agenda? How do they influence the political context? The political context: Is there political interest in change? Is there room for manoeuvre? How do they perceive the problem? The evidence: Is it there? Is it relevant? Is it practically useful? Are the concepts familiar or new? Does it need re-packaging? Links: Who are the key individuals? Are there existing networks to use? How best to transfer the information? The media? Campaigns? So, if you are a researcher, policy maker or development practitioner with the desire to promote a particular policy you need to know about: the external environment which might influence how people think or behave: who are the key external actors? what is their agenda? And how do they influence the political context? the political context you are working in: is there political interest in change? is there room for manoeuvre? how do policy makers perceive the problem? the evidence you have, or could get: is there enough of it? is it convincing? is it relevant? is it practically useful? are the concepts familiar or new? does it need re-packaging? and the links that exist to bring the evidence to the attention of policy makers: who are the key organisations and individuals? are there existing networks to use? What’s the best way to transfer the information: face-to-face or through the media or campaigns?

What researchers need to do
What researchers need to know What researchers need to do How to do it Political Context: Evidence Links Get to know the policymakers. Identify friends and foes. Prepare for policy opportunities. Look out for policy windows. Work with them – seek commissions Strategic opportunism – prepare for known events + resources for others Who are the policymakers? Is there demand for ideas? What is the policy process? Establish credibility Provide practical solutions Establish legitimacy. Present clear options Use familiar narratives. Build a reputation Action-research Pilot projects to generate legitimacy Good communication What is the current theory? What are the narratives? How divergent is it? For researchers wishing to influence policy and practice, understanding the context, evidence and links is just the first part of the process. Our case studies also identify a number of practical things that researchers need to do to influence policy and practice, and how to do it. In the political context arena you need to get to know the policymakers, identify friends and foes, prepare for regular policy opportunities and look out for policy windows. One of the best ways is to work with them through commissions, and establish an approach that combines a strategic focus on current issues with the ability to respond rapidly to unexpected opportunities. Make sure your evidence is credible. This has much more to do with your long term reputation than the scientific credibility of an individual piece of research. Provide practical solutions to policy problems in familiar language and concepts. Action-research using pilot projects to generate legitimacy seems to be particularly powerful. Make the most of the existing links by getting to know the other actors, working through existing networks and building coalitions and partnerships. Identify the key individuals who can help. You need people who can network with others, mavens to absorb and process information, and good salesmen who can convince the sceptics. You may also need to use informal “shadow networks” as well as more formal channels. Get to know the others Work through existing networks. Build coalitions. Build new policy networks. Build partnerships. Identify key networkers, mavens and salesmen. Use informal contacts Who are the stakeholders? What networks exist? Who are the connectors, mavens and salesmen?

Policy entrepreneurs Storytellers Networkers Engineers Fixers
Doing all of these things requires a wide range of skills. Researchers who want to be good policy entrepreneurs also need to be: Storytellers: Practitioners, bureaucrats and policy-makers often articulate and make sense of complex realities through simple stories. Though sometimes profoundly misleading there is no doubt that narratives are incredibly powerful. Networkers: Policy-making usually takes place within communities of people who know each other and interact. If you want to influence policymakers, you need to join their networks. Engineers: There is often a huge gap between what politicians and policy-makers say they are doing and what actually happens on the ground. Researchers need to work not just with the senior level policy-makers, but also with the 'street-level bureaucrats'. Fixers: Policy making is essentially a political process. Although you don’t need to be a Rasputin or Machiavelli, successful policy entrepreneurs need to know how to operate in a political environment - when to make your pitch, to whom and how. Try ODI’s Policy Entrepreneur Questionnaire to find out whether you tend to favour, or to avoid any of these activities. If so, you may need to develop new skills in these areas, or work with others who have these skills.

Practical Tools Overarching Tools Context Assessment Tools
- The RAPID Framework - Using the Framework - The Entrepreneurship Questionnaire Context Assessment Tools - Stakeholder Analysis - Forcefield Analysis - Writeshops - Policy Mapping - Political Context Mapping Communication Tools - Communications Strategy - SWOT analysis - Message Design - Making use of the media Research Tools - Case Studies - Episode Studies - Surveys - Bibliometric Analysis - Focus Group Discussion Influencing policy change is an art as much as a science, but there are a wide range of well known and often straightforward tools that can provide powerful insights and help to maximize your chances of impact on policy. We’ve already seen how ODI’s RAPID Framework can help you to understand the context you are working in and how you could use the Policy Entrepreneur Questionnaire to figure out what you are good at. Other useful tools to help to understand the policy context include Stakeholder Analysis, Forcefield Analysis, Writeshops, Policy Mapping and Political Context Mapping. This is vital in terms of developing an influence strategy. There is a wide set of research tools – from case studies to action research – that can help generate new or better evidence to support your case. The key communications questions are: Who do I want to convince? What do I want them to do? What will convince them? What relevant material do I have? A SWOT analysis can help to focus a communications strategy on the key messages and targets, and using the media can help you to reach a wide audience. Many tools have also been developed by organisations involved in lobbying, advocacy and campaigning for pro-poor change. Policy Influence Tools - Influence Mapping & Power Mapping - Lobbying and Advocacy - Campaigning: A Simple Guide - Competency self-assessment

Conclusions Policy processes are complex.
It is possible to understand enough… to make sensible choices. There are many well-known tools. It is neither rocket-science nor fine art. But it needs a systematic approach… and work “outside the research itself”… and enough resources.

ODI Case Studies An initial review of the literature produced a long list of existing theory. Julius talked about these last time.

TEHIP, Tanzania Policy change: In the way that local health policy and practice is planned and resources are allocated Reasons: Political leadership International curiosity and support Reliable and relevant quantitative data EBP tools and skills introduced into policy process

TEHIP, Tanzania Impact The results of household disease surveys informed processes of health service reform which contributed to a 43 and 46 per cent reduction in infant mortality between 2000 and 2003 in the two districts in rural Tanzania where TEHIP was implemented

TEHIP, Tanzania Lessons
Multiple benefits from research and development funding and interaction Global relevance can give credibility Clear and decentralised decision making strategies favour EBP Demographic data can help plan, monitor and evaluate

Coalition 2000, Bulgaria Policy change: Introduced anti-corruption education in the national curricula Reasons: Pertinent issue in The EU is calling Quantitative and qualitative evidence of corruption Publicity (name a shame) and cooperation (pilots): Show and tell Coalition 2000 in Bulgaria The Coalition 2000 initiative ( was launched in 1998 with the aim to counteract corruption in Bulgarian society through a process of co-operation among NGOs, governmental institutions and citizens Type and extend of policy change The introduction of Anticorruption classes in the official curricula of the Bulgarian secondary schools in the fall of 2004. Reasons The political context: Anticorruption education was a pertinent issue to work on in 2003 and 2004 International factors: The year 2005 was announced as the Year of Democratic Citizenship through Education by the Council of Europe Nature of research-based evidence: The Corruption Monitoring System (CMS) and the Media Monitoring System (MMS) of Coalition 2000 consist of a set of quantitative and qualitative monitoring instruments that generate information about the structure and dynamics of corrupt behaviour The strategies of policy influence: Publicity (name and shame) and cooperation (pilot projects) Lessons CSOs provided background information, where it was lacking or insufficient. CSOs supported the governmental institutions in the design and implementation of practical tools to effect the intended policy change (e.g. pre-testing tools and methods). The introduction of anticorruption education was a result of the activities and joint efforts of the broad network of Coalition 2000’s partner NGOs. It was these partnerships that gained legitimacy and recognition by institutions and authorities and credibility among the media, general public and donor community. The efforts of a broader alliance of NGOs did not go unnoticed by the donor and international community, which also recognized the Coalition as a successful model for public-private partnership in the fight against corruption.

Coalition 2000, Bulgaria Lessons CSOs filled the information gap
CSOs supported government initiatives Credibility gained through partnerships (trust by association) External support (prompted by credibility and results)

Case Studies Sustainable Livelihoods: The Evolution of DFID Policy
The PRSP Initiative: Research in Multilateral Policy Change The adoption of Ethical Principles in Humanitarian Aid post Rwanda Animal Health Care in Kenya: Evidence fails to influence Policy 50 GDN Case Studies: Examples where evidence has or hasn’t influenced policy

International Research
Paravets in Kenya 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Professionalisation of Public Services. Structural Adjustment → Collapse Paravet projects emerge. ITDG projects. Privatisation. ITDG Paravet network. Rapid spread in North. KVB letter (January 1998). Multistakeholder WSs → new policies. Still not approved / passed! Professionalisation of Public Services. Structural Adjustment Privatisation ITDG Paravet network and change of DVS. KVB letter (January 1998). Multistakeholder WSs → new policies. International Research ITDG projects – collaborative research. The Hubl Study Shortly after setting up its first decentralised animal health projects, ITDG organised the first, of what were to become annual “vets workshops” which became the focus of a network of people involved in paravet projects. A conscious effort was made at the start to invite senior government veterinary staff to participate to convince them of the value of the approach. Many NGO and bilateral project staff who were already involved in, or wanted to start decentralised animal health projects, were keen to join the network, and it increasingly focused on practical issues. While this contributed to the rapid spread of the approach across northern Kenya, it neglected to involve senior government policy makers. Dr Kajume, then Provincial Head of Veterinary Services heard about one of these workshops by accident, checked with the Director of Veterinary Services in Nairobi, and was instructed to attend the workshop, tell the participants it was illegal, and close it down. But instead, he became convinced of the value of the approach and persuaded the Director to allow the projects to continue. So paravet projects continued to spread across northern Kenya, deliberately ignored by the Director of Veterinary Services, until the publication of the Kenya Vet Board letter brought matters to a head, and he was forced to do something about it. At which point, Dr Kajume, now Deputy Director of Veterinary Services persuaded him to support the process of multi stakeholder workshops and commission the Hubl study which led to the development of a new policy framework. Dr Kajume

DELIVERI - Indonesia Decentralised Livestock Services in Eastern Indonesia 5 years (originally 10) Public Service reform (in livestock sector) Action-research + institutional development + policy reform Surprisingly successful: “The DELIVERI programme has developed some useful models of institutional change in the context of decentralisation, making a government service more responsive to the needs of local people”1 1 DFID Country Strategy Paper for Indonesia September 2000 For more information see:

Political context 1963 - 1995 centralised & bureaucratic
Policy “maintained” by senior bureaucrats Services “delivered” by bureaucrats Services “received” by farmers Participation & decentralisation in Repelita VI Senior champion Long DFID involvement & successful pilot Gradual budget squeeze 1998 economic crisis → Political crisis Sudden decentralisation → huge demand for new policies and practice

Evidence Radical new idea (in Indonesia)
Specific concerns (legal / welfare / corruption / quality / professional) Preference for word-of-mouth or sophisticated visual information Baseline study to illustrate need + evidence from elsewhere Practical action-research + good M&E > 20% “investment” in communication: hands-on engagement, visits, leaflets, video, multimedia

Links Senior internal champion Steering Committee
Farmers & Service staff working together Informal networks through peers The K20 Planning Bureau Department of Agriculture Rakontechnis Other Programmes (P4K, SfDM) The media

Luck Timing: Misunderstandings People and personalities REPELITA VI
Financial Crisis Misunderstandings about implications about “quality management” People and personalities Donor Dept of Livestock Services Department of Agriculture

Your Case Studies An initial review of the literature produced a long list of existing theory. Julius talked about these last time.

RAPID and the CSPP An initial review of the literature produced a long list of existing theory. Julius talked about these last time.

RAPID & the CSPP RAPID CSPP The role of evidence in policy processes;
Improved communication and information systems; Better knowledge management and learning; Approaches to institutional development for EBP CSPP CSOs, evidence and policy processes; Regional and national consultations; Useful information on current development policy issues; Collaboration in Southern and Northern policy networks

Tools for Policy Influence
An initial review of the literature produced a long list of existing theory. Julius talked about these last time.

Practical Tools Overarching Tools Context Assessment Tools
- The RAPID Framework - Using the Framework - The Entrepreneurship Questionnaire Context Assessment Tools - Stakeholder Analysis - Forcefield Analysis - Writeshops - Policy Mapping - Political Context Mapping Communication Tools - Communications Strategy - SWOT analysis - Message Design - Making use of the media Research Tools - Case Studies - Episode Studies - Surveys - Bibliometric Analysis - Focus Group Discussion Influencing policy change is an art as much as a science, but there are a wide range of well known and often straightforward tools that can provide powerful insights and help to maximize your chances of impact on policy. We’ve already seen how ODI’s RAPID Framework can help you to understand the context you are working in and how you could use the Policy Entrepreneur Questionnaire to figure out what you are good at. Other useful tools to help to understand the policy context include Stakeholder Analysis, Forcefield Analysis, Writeshops, Policy Mapping and Political Context Mapping. This is vital in terms of developing an influence strategy. There is a wide set of research tools – from case studies to action research – that can help generate new or better evidence to support your case. The key communications questions are: Who do I want to convince? What do I want them to do? What will convince them? What relevant material do I have? A SWOT analysis can help to focus a communications strategy on the key messages and targets, and using the media can help you to reach a wide audience. Many tools have also been developed by organisations involved in lobbying, advocacy and campaigning for pro-poor change. Policy Influence Tools - Influence Mapping & Power Mapping - Lobbying and Advocacy - Campaigning: A Simple Guide - Competency self-assessment

Stakeholder Analysis Why: Steps:
To understand who gains or lose from a policy or project. To help Build Consensus. Steps: Identify Stakeholders Analysis Workshop Develop Strategies Keep Satisfied Engage Closely Monitor (minimum effort) Keep Informed High Power Low Interest

Forcefield Analysis Steps: Identify a specific Change
Identify forces for and againsty change Prioritise the forces Develop Strategies to overcome opposing and reinforce supporting forces Force field analysis is widely used to inform decision-making, and in particular in planning and implementing change management programmes in organizations. It is also a useful method for gaining a comprehensive view of the different forces (their source and strength) acting on a potential policy change and is therefore a very powerful tool for analyzing the possibilities for influencing policy. Force field analysis can clarify the ‘driving forces’ and identify obstacles or ‘restraining forces’ to change. For bridging research and policy, it can be used to analyse the forces affecting a situation or to assess the forces affecting whether particular research might be adopted as policy. It might also be used to identify where research may help tip forces towards a change. How to do a forcefield analysis? The first step is to discuss and agree on the current situation and the goal of the policy or institutional change. All the forces for change should then be listed in one column and all forces against change in the other column. The next step is to brainstorm the ‘driving’ and ‘restraining’ forces and write them in the appropriate column. The ‘driving’ and ‘restraining’ forces should be sorted on common themes and/or prioritised according to their ‘magnitude’ towards change by assigning a score to each force, ranging from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong). The last and the most important step is to discuss action strategies to reduce the ‘restraining’ forces and to capitalise on the ‘driving’ forces.

Policy Process Mapping
General Context issues – domestic and international. Specific Policy Issues (i.e. the policy cycle) Who are the Stakeholders? (Stakeholder analysis) Arena: government, parliament, civil society, judiciary, private sector. Level: local, national, international What is their Interest and Influence? Process matrix + political matrix Political and administrative feasibility assessment [Sources: M. Grindle / J. Court ] BACKGROUND Good News – Evidence can matter (e.g. bednets vs malaria). Other cases around Room. DFID Research Policy Study. Bad News – But … often major gaps (e.g. HIV/AIDS). Resistance despite clear evidence. How to bridge the gap? Key Question: When does evidence matter? We still need a systematic understanding. ODI RAPID / GDN Bridging Research and Policy Project – 50 case studies. PAPER IN PRESS - Handout Exec Summary / Soon on web CHALLENGE – Massive amount of work into 15 minutes

Policy Process Mapping
National & Local (& International)

Think Tanks – 3 Modes of Influence
Gas Solid Liquid The Director of IPPR, Matthew Taylor, talks about the three functions of a think tank which affect who and how they engage: The solid function - to do substantial research and communicate core ideas to inform policy: the weighty research, publications, evidence, authority and independence The liquid function - to facilitate the trickling-down of these ideas through government and partner institutions; policy formulation and implementation The gas function - to change awareness and attitudes in the environment; agenda setting; problem identification

Different Roles

Log Frame Approach Goal Purpose Stakeholders Outputs Assumptions
Indicators / MoVs The DELIVERI Project Log frame Programme Design

Outcome Mapping Focuses on:
changes in behaviour how programs “facilitate” rather than “cause” change Recognizes the complexity of development processes Looks at “logical links” between interventions and outcomes Locates programme goals within the broader development context Encourages innovation and risk-taking Involves program staff and partners throughout The first stage, Intentional Design, helps a program clarify and reach consensus on the macro-level changes it would like to support and to plan the strategies it will use. Outcome Mapping is only appropriate and useful once a program has chosen its strategic directions and wants to chart its goals, partners, activities, and progress toward anticipated results. The Intentional Design stage helps answer four questions: The second stage, Outcome and Performance Monitoring, provides a framework for ongoing monitoring of the program's actions in support of its boundary partners' progress towards the achievement of outcomes. The program uses progress markers, a set of graduated indicators of behavioural change identified in the intentional design stage, to clarify directions with boundary partners and to monitor outcomes (Outcome Journal). It uses a Strategy Journal (to monitor strategies and activities) and a Performance Journal (to monitor organizational practices) to complete a performance monitoring framework. The third stage, Evaluation Planning, helps the program set evaluation priorities so that it can target evaluation resources and activities where they will be most useful. An evaluation plan outlines the main elements of the evaluations to be conducted.

Outcome Mapping: example
Bi/Multilateral Donors IDRC International NGO National SME Policy Other businesses /market National NGOs /think tanks SMEs Inter/National Media

Communications strategy
Identify the audience(s) Identify the message(s) Promotion Evaluate impact and change as necessary Clear Strategy Interactive Multiple formats How? Who? What? Audience Promotion Message In terms of the communications, there are a set of issues which seem to come out most clearly and which make a big difference to whether research is taken up. Communication is crucial in both directions: in terms of researchers listening to policy-makers and in terms of engaging policy-makers in the research right from the beginning and of keeping them involved or in touch with that process. The first step is to identify who you want to influence – the audience. A key aspect of this is to identify what you want them to do differently. Assess their specific information needs, likes and channels (Official / unofficial & Personal / impersonal & empirical data vs stories.) The second step is to clarify your messages – brevity, clarity, what form, language. The third step is promotion – there are many ways, but interactive communications works best; seeing is believing; multiple formats / media are better than one. OSI has been working on Writing Effective Policy Papers – really useful book The policy community & The policy process Structural elements of a paper - Problem description / Policy option / Conclusion Key issues: Problem oriented, targeted, multidisciplinary, applied, clear, jargon-free. The DELIVERI Project: Information Strategy / Leaflet Materials

Writing Effective Policy Papers I
Providing a solution to a policy problem The policy community The policy process Structural elements of a paper Problem description Policy options Conclusion Key issues: Problem oriented, targeted, multidisciplinary, applied, clear, jargon-free. [Source: Young and Quinn, 2002] BACKGROUND Good News – Evidence can matter (e.g. bednets vs malaria). Other cases around Room. DFID Research Policy Study. Bad News – But … often major gaps (e.g. HIV/AIDS). Resistance despite clear evidence. How to bridge the gap? Key Question: When does evidence matter? We still need a systematic understanding. ODI RAPID / GDN Bridging Research and Policy Project – 50 case studies. PAPER IN PRESS - Handout Exec Summary / Soon on web CHALLENGE – Massive amount of work into 15 minutes

How Networks Help: 6 Key Functions
Filters: Amplifiers: Convenors: 4. Facilitators: 5. Community builders: Filters: ‘decide’ what information is worth paying attention to Amplifiers: help take a new, little-know or little-understood ideas and makes them public, gives them a weight or makes them understandable Convenors: bring together people or groups of people Facilitators: help members carry out their activities more efficiently and effectively Community builders: promote and sustain the values and standards of the group of individuals or organizations within it Investor/providers: offer a means to provide members with the resources they need to carry out their main activities 6. Investor / Providers

For effective policy advocacy…
Need to be able to: Understand the political context Do credible (action)research Communicate effectively Work with others Need organisational capacity Staff Internal processes Funds

Organisational development tools
Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices: The entrepreneurship questionnaire Training & mentoring etc Knowledge Management Organisational development Finance, admin & personnel systems Strategic (action & business) planning Fundraising & reporting Building an organisational profile Communications, Public Affairs and the Media Struyk, 2002, Local Governance Institute, Open Society Network, Budapest

Groundwater in India to maximise impact of DFID forest/ground water research project in India Researchers, policy makers and activists Used framework to analyse factors in water sector in India Developed strategy for final phase: Less research More communication Developing champions in regional and national government Local, Regional & National advocacy campaign

SMEPOL Project Egypt An IDRC project to improve small and medium scale enterprise policy in Egypt Policy analysts & researchers Used a range of tools: Policy Process Mapping RAPID Framework Stakeholder Analysis Force-Field Analysis SWOT To develop action plans for more evidence-based policy development

DFID Internal Policy Processes
To explore how policies formed and promoted in DFID. Small, informal workshop: 7 staff Identified 8 recent policy initiatives pair-wise ranking of success factors. Key factors in DFID: Intellectual coherence & “evidence” Congruence with White Papers High-level support Follow-up

Running Think Tanks An initial review of the literature produced a long list of existing theory. Julius talked about these last time.

Influencing Policy in Latin America
In Groups: Identify key constraints and opportunities in each dimension of the CEL Framework for Latin America An initial review of the literature produced a long list of existing theory. Julius talked about these last time.

What do you need to be able to do this?
An initial review of the literature produced a long list of existing theory. Julius talked about these last time.

How can we help? An initial review of the literature produced a long list of existing theory. Julius talked about these last time.

Further Information / Resources
ODI Working Papers Bridging Research and Policy Book Meeting series Monograph Tools for Policy Impact RAPID Briefing Paper RAPID CDROM

Context, Evidence, & Links

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Context, Evidence, & Links"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Context, Evidence, & Links

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Context, Evidence, & Links"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback