Naved Chowdhury and Fletcher Tembo

Naved Chowdhury and Fletcher Tembo
Policy Analysis, Engagement and Advocacy A workshop for Southern Africa Trust Johannesburg, South Africa 2 April 2007 Naved Chowdhury and Fletcher Tembo Overseas Development Institute, London

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 Policy change projects
Workshops and seminars Civil Society Programme 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.

Workshop Objectives Share experiences about CSO-policy context in different countries; Learn about the latest worldwide research and practice in this area; Share experiences about approaches to influence policy and what works; Start to develop strategies to improve policy impact.

Outline of the Workshop
Day 1 General Introductions Tools, Strategy and Knowledge management

Self Introductions 2 minutes! Name Area of Work
What do you want to get out of this workshop? An initial review of the literature produced a long list of existing theory. Julius talked about these last time.

Definitions Research: “any systematic effort to increase the stock of knowledge” Evidence: the result/output of the research process 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 policy model…
Identify the problem Commission research Analyse the results Choose the best option Establish the policy Implement the policy Evaluate the results

Generic Policy Processes

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 Africa.” 2 “CSOs often have very little to bring to the policy table.” 3 “CSOs, researchers and policymakers seem to live in parallel universes.” 4 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. 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) 2 – Omamo (2003) 3 – CSPP Consultations 4 – ODI-AFREPREN Workshop

Industry CSOs Scientists Agenda setting Problem definition & analysis
Policy tools Selection Implementation Enforcement Policy evaluation Each actor may participate in the different policy formulation stages (thin black lines). Some actors have better access than the others to different stages – according to the policy issue. Government (state actors) participate in all stages (thick black lines). Actors have relationships (formal or non formal) among themselves (red lines). These relationship may be temporary or long term and can vary along the process. Each stage of the process has it own outcomes. The outcomes are influenced by the actors’ network and can therefore be explained by the specific stage network and its characteristics. Policy shaping is a continuous process. Hence, outcomes of initial stages influence the outcomes of the following stages. For example, an ill defined problem will most probably lead to a poor tools selection. Source: Yael Parag Government Media Public Source: Yael Parag

CSOs and Policy: Existing theory
Linear model of communication, Shannon ‘Space’ for thought & action, Howell Simple and surprising stories, Communication Theory Provide solutions, Marketing Theory I Find the right packaging, Marketing II Global Civil Society?, Keane Global Legitimacy, van Rooy Epistemic communities, Haas Policy entrepreneurs, Najam Advocacy coalitions, Keck & Sikkink Negotiation through networks, Sabattier Social capital, Coleman Accountability, OneWorld Trust Communication for social change, Rockefeller Foundation Wheels and webs, Chapman & Fisher Linear model Too close for comfort, Edwards Impact & Effectiveness, Fowler ‘Context, evidence, links’, RAPID Policy narratives, Roe CSO legitimacy, L. David Brown Links and Learning, Gaventa ‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer ‘Street level bureaucrats’, Lipsky Policy as experiments, Rondinelli Policy Streams & Windows, Kingdon Disjointed incrementalism, Lindquist Tipping point model, Gladwell Mercenaries, missionaries and revolutionaries , Malena ‘Non-Western?’, Lewis Global Civil Society, Salamon, Kaldor Types of Engagement, Coston 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.

A word of warning… The world is complex
We do not aim to make it simple Only to find recognisable patternrs or beacons Which might guide your actions There is NO blueprint. NO linear, logical, rational, proper, method. Most of the time it is up to you.

… A word of warning You will probably never find out what goes on within the policy process And not have all the evidence you need You need to be confident to act even in a context of uncertainty And be systematic and scientific (context, strategy, action, record, learn) but flexible and original

Policy life is complex. What issues matter? The RAPID Framework

The 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.

To Maximize Chances You need to:
better understand how policy is made and options for policy entrepreneurship; use evidence more effectively in influencing policy-making processes; build stronger connections with other stakeholders; actively participate in policy networks communicate better.

Political Context: Key Areas
The macro political context (democracy, governance, media freedom; academic freedom) The sector / issue process (Policy uptake = demand – contestation) [NB Demand: political and societal. Power.] How policymakers think (narratives & policy streams) Policy implementation and practice (bureaucracies, incentives, street level, room for manoeuvre, participatory approaches) Decisive moments in the policy process (policy processes, votes, policy windows and crises) Context is crucial, but you can maximize your chances

Evidence: Relevance and credibility
Key factor – did it provide a solution to a problem? Relevance: Topical relevance – What to do? Operational usefulness – How to do it? : Credibility: Research approach Of researcher > of evidence itself Strenuous advocacy efforts are often needed Communication Context: Demand & Contestation The degree of demand and contestation matter greatly. Demand: Policymaker demand: (eg – initiating a review) Societal demand: (focus on problems) Contestation: Ideology / Narrative Vested Interests In virtually all cases: Policy uptake = demand – contestation Evidence can change the policy narrative (Need to think about how they can work to increase demand and reduce contestation.)

Links: Coalitions and Networks
Feedback processes often prominent in successful cases. Trust & legitimacy Networks: Epistemic communities Policy networks Advocacy coalitions The role of individuals: connectors, mavens and salesmen Context: Demand & Contestation The degree of demand and contestation matter greatly. Demand: Policymaker demand: (eg – initiating a review) Societal demand: (focus on problems) Contestation: Ideology / Narrative Vested Interests In virtually all cases: Policy uptake = demand – contestation Evidence can change the policy narrative (Need to think about how they can work to increase demand and reduce contestation.)

External Influence Big “incentives” can spur evidence-based policy – e.g. PRSP processes. And some interesting examples of donors trying new things re. supporting research But, we really don’t know whether and how donors can best promote use of evidence in policymaking (credibility vs backlash) What we don’t know - 2. External Influences It seems that big “incentives” can spur evidence-based policy – e.g. EU accession, PRSP processes. WTO And some interesting examples of donors trying new things re. supporting research But, we really don’t know whether and how donors can best promote use of evidence in policymaking (credibility vs backlash)

The PRSP Story… The WB & IMF “adopted” PRSPs at the AGM in Sept as the 1o instrument for HIPIC II (and subsequently for all loans) Why? What were the key factors? What role did “evidence” play in the process?

PRSPs – Evidence Long-term academic research informing new focus on poverty, participation, ownership, aid effectiveness etc Applied policy research: ESAF reviews HIPC review SPA Working Groups NGO research on debt Uganda’s PEAP

PRSPs – Political Context
Widespread awareness of a “problem” with international development policy in late 90s Failure of SAPs (and Asian financial crisis) Mounting public pressure for debt relief Stagnation of Comprehensive Development Framework idea Diverging agendas (UK – Poverty, US – Governance) WB/IMF Annual General Meeting, Sept 1999

PRSPs – Links WB, IMF, SPA, Bilaterals, NGOs all involved
Formal and informal networks “None of the players was more than two handshakes away from any of the others”

Civil Society Partnerships Programme
Aim: Strengthened role of southern CSOs in development policy processes Outcomes: CSOs better understanding evidence-policy process Capacity to support CSOs established Improved information for CSOs Global collaboration CSOs understand how research → policy: Collaborative research on bridging research and policy issues Collaboration with Government and CSOs in the UK to identify useful lessons from evidence-based policy making in the UK Synthesis of results into demand-driven, user-tested information and training materials for CSOs CSOs actively participate & link N & S Networks: A collaborative study to identify CSOs and CSO networks in the North and South interested in improving their use of research-based evidence in pro-poor policy work; A series of virtual and real meetings through ODI’s own and other policy-research networks to identify and discuss common policy issues; A joint programme of analysis and action on one policy issue each year to build capacity and learn how local and international CSOs can work together effectively in networks; Information, training and capacity building programmes to strengthen networking capacity for southern development policy institutes. Knowledge on pro-poor policy issues is accessible A survey of existing users of ODI information. A demand assessment of CSOs. A more strategic range of information materials for CSOs An up-to-date database of partners & research interests Improved knowledge management within ODI Re-design of the ODI website, and better integration of ODI project and network sites Active marketing of ODI’s information materials to CSOs. An enhanced programme of public meetings and seminars for NGOs and other CSOs; Training courses for staff from NGOs and CSOs Regional capacity to support CSOs is established A collaborative survey of regional PRIs & TTs. Development of principles and guidelines for partnerships. Small-scale collaborative projects. Technical assistance and capital grants to strengthen organisational capacity; Assistance to develop closer links with CSOs and promote e.g. public affairs programmes; Assistance to develop information, training and capacity building programmes

CSOs and Pro-poor Policy Influence
Complementing state in providing services Innovators in service delivery Advocates with and for the poor Identifying problems & solutions Extending our understanding Providing information Training and capacity building CSOs understand how research → policy: Collaborative research on bridging research and policy issues Collaboration with Government and CSOs in the UK to identify useful lessons from evidence-based policy making in the UK Synthesis of results into demand-driven, user-tested information and training materials for CSOs CSOs actively participate & link N & S Networks: A collaborative study to identify CSOs and CSO networks in the North and South interested in improving their use of research-based evidence in pro-poor policy work; A series of virtual and real meetings through ODI’s own and other policy-research networks to identify and discuss common policy issues; A joint programme of analysis and action on one policy issue each year to build capacity and learn how local and international CSOs can work together effectively in networks; Information, training and capacity building programmes to strengthen networking capacity for southern development policy institutes. Knowledge on pro-poor policy issues is accessible A survey of existing users of ODI information. A demand assessment of CSOs. A more strategic range of information materials for CSOs An up-to-date database of partners & research interests Improved knowledge management within ODI Re-design of the ODI website, and better integration of ODI project and network sites Active marketing of ODI’s information materials to CSOs. An enhanced programme of public meetings and seminars for NGOs and other CSOs; Training courses for staff from NGOs and CSOs Regional capacity to support CSOs is established A collaborative survey of regional PRIs & TTs. Development of principles and guidelines for partnerships. Small-scale collaborative projects. Technical assistance and capital grants to strengthen organisational capacity; Assistance to develop closer links with CSOs and promote e.g. public affairs programmes; Assistance to develop information, training and capacity building programmes

Key factors for CSO influence (Malawi)
Supporting Evidence of the value of CSO involvement Governments becoming more interested in CSOs CSOs are gaining confidence Strength of networks The media Political factors Opposing Lack of capacity Lack of local ownership Translating data into evidence Lack of data Donor influence Crises Political factors

CSPP Log Frame Not a major change but:
Recognition of external and internal objectives (purpose) 4 external outputs: Facilitating the network Capacity development Collaborative action-research projects Research 3 internal outputs: ODI Communication Capacity Capacity to work with CSOs Orientation towards CSOs

Narrative Summary Super-Goal Poverty reduced in developing countries
Development policy is more pro-poor Purpose Southern CSOs make more use of research-based evidence to influence the establishment of pro-poor policy, and ODI engages more effectively with southern CSOs and other stakeholders to make more use of ODI’s research-based evidence to influence the establishment of pro-poor policy.

Narrative Summary Network: Interactive community website
Information and knowledge exchange General support Capacity-building: staff exchange, visiting fellows to ODI and Southern institutes, Southern participants in global policy events Training and ToT Research (lessons disseminated): Ongoing learning “How to do it” guidelines New research Collaborative projects: Small-scale ARPs Continued support to existing projects One new global collaborative project each year

Global Consultation Workshops were held in Africa (Southern, Eastern and West), Asia ( south and South East) and Latin America ( Argentina and Bolivia) and organized in partnership with local CSOs Case studies on various issues: Budget Monitoring( Zambia), Community Participation in Waste Management ( Ghana), Rice pricing ( Bangladesh), Public participation ( Indonesia) etc. Research Global Project (FFA) Workshops and seminars were held in Southern Africa (Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique), Eastern Africa (Tanzania and Uganda) and West Africa (Ghana and Nigeria). Participants at these events were mainly from research institutes, national NGOs and networks, along with a wide spectrum of stakeholders interested in the issue of bridging research and policy – including government officials, international NGOs and bilateral and multilateral donors. In total, approximately 400 members of civil society were in attendance. The events were organised in partnership with: Malawi Economic Justice Network (MEJN) (Malawi); Institute of Economic and Social Research (INESOR), University of Zambia, (Zambia); Cruzeiro do Sul (Mozambique); Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF) (Tanzania); FARM Africa (Uganda); Participatory Development Associates (PDA), the Centre for the Development of People (CEDEP) etc. Budget Monitoring (Malawi); Transparency and Public Participation in National Budgets (Zambia); Poverty Monitoring (Mozambique); Agricultural Extension Services by NGOs (Uganda); NGO Policy and Poverty Reduction Action Plan (Tanzania); Government and Community Collaboration in a Waste Management Programme (Ghana); and Participation of CSOs in Environmental Policy of Cross River State (Nigeria).

Building Capacity for Policy Influencing: Lessons Learnt 1
Understanding Policy process means understanding the politics Lack of trust between CSOs and government Demand led vs Supply driven Capacity to use and package research for policy influence is limited Donor influence is huge Gradual erosion of research capacity in the South Proposals by CSOs should be feasible and practical

Lessons Learnt 2 Engagement with policymakers varies
Varied level of capacity in the south Retention and recruitment of qualified staff Role of research in development organization Lack of training opportunities More emphasis on policy advocacy Limited fund for research Strong Demand for support ( regional bias) Capacity of government institutions also in question

What the CSOs need to do to influence Policy?
Use (research-based) Credible evidence to influence policy Timely, relevant and reliable information Understanding the Politics Conflict to Sustained Engagement Long term Demand Driven research Strength in numbers How best to build capacity?

What the CSOs need to do? 2 Effective communication: develop different materials for different audience Choosing roles and responsibilities Financial and human resources Using the media Engaging donors Inviting policymakers from the outset

The overall framework Identify the problem Understand the context
How? Who? What? Audience Promotion Message Identify the problem Understand the context Identify the audience(s) Develop a SMART Strategy Identify the message(s) Resources – staff, time, partners & $$ Promotion – tools & activities Monitor, learn, adapt

Policy Analysis: Methods and tools
RAPID Framework Problem Situation Analysis (Tree Analysis) Stakeholder Analysis Policy Process Mapping Force field analysis Influence mapping SWOT analysis

Identifying the problem
First win the fight over the problem Then fight for the solution Therefore the first thing we are going to do is think about the problem: What is the problem? Why is it important that we address this problem?

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

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

Using the framework 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?

Using the Framework 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 CSOs need to do What CSOs need to know What CSOs 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?

Group Work Use the RAPID Framework to analyse the key factors likely to affect the policy influence of your work (remember you will present each other’s work)

To do: Go over all factors (pick the most relevant questions) Answer:
How friendly is the policy context? Do you have access to the right evidence? Are there clear and strong links between evidence and policy? How influential are the external forces?

Feedback and Discussion Groups (a few key points): What is the issue
Feedback and Discussion Groups (a few key points): What is the issue? What factors matter? Is the evidence credible? Others: Are the same issues important? Do you find the evidence credible? What is the present policy agenda?

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

Problem Tree Analysis The first step is to discuss and agree the problem or issue to be analysed. Next the group identify the causes of the focal problem – these become the roots – and then identify the consequences – which become the branches The heart of the exercise is the discussion, debate and dialogue that is generated as factors are arranged and re-arranged, often forming sub-dividing roots and branches

Stakeholder Analysis Clarify the policy change objective
Identify all the stakeholders associated with this objective Organise the stakeholders in the matrice according to interest and power Develop strategy to engage with different stakeholders Keep Satisfied Engage Closely and Influence Actively Monitor (minimum effort) Keep Informed High Power Low Interest

SWOT Analysis Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
What type of policy influencing skills and capacities do we have? In what areas have our staff used them more effectively? Who are our strongest allies? When have they worked with us? Are there any windows of opportunity? What can affect our ability to influence policy? Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Skills and abilities Funding lines Commitment to positions Contacts and Partners Existing activities Other orgs relevant to the issue Resources: financial, technical, human Political and policy space Other groups or forces

Planning: Social Network Analysis
Focus on structure of relationships Nodes and links between nodes Nodes: people, groups and organizations, etc. Links: social contacts, exchange of information, political influence, membership in org etc Social processes influence organizations and vice versa

Force field Analysis Specific Change Identify Forces
(Identify Priorities) (Develop Strategies)

Force Field Analysis Think about:
Who needs to change Who can support and who can resist change Do not confuse strength of force with importance of force Look out for: VERY strong forces Priorities Nested FFA (you might have to re-think your problem)

Group work: Use Force field analysis to identify key issues and strategic objectives Feedback Main forces for and against Overall strategic options Implications for problem analysis? What opportunities are there for SAT partners to influence development policies in Southern Africa.?

The over all framework Identify the problem Understand the context
How? Who? What? Audience Promotion Message Identify the problem Understand the context Identify the audience(s) Develop a SMART Strategy Identify the message(s) Resources – staff, time, partners & $$ Promotion – tools & activities Monitor, learn, adapt

Communication Toolkit for Researchers and CSOs
Why Communicate? (To inspire, inform and learn). African agriculture Researchers have failed identify the problems facing policymakers ( Omamao 2003). Each stakeholder has different communication needs, information is accessed by them differently, need research results in different times and different formats (Mortimer et al 2003). Communication capacity – is a long term process How to improve communication of research to policymakers, to other researchers and the end users ( i.e NGOs, CBOs, etc). Communication tools

Audience Who needs to make these changes? Who has the power?
What is their stance on the issue? Who influences them? Identify targets and influence (use stakeholder & context mapping tools)

Message Why should things change (or what is the evidence to support your case?) How to make sure that the evidence is credible and ‘legitimate’? What the target audience can hear.... frameworks of thought Language, content, packaging, and timing

Messenger (Promotion)
How to access information and target? Who is a trusted and credible messenger? What is the most appropriate medium? (campaigns, public mobilisation, formal and informal lobbying) How will you package your information? Role of the media?

Different Approaches

Issues: Persuasion Separate people from problem
Focus on interests, not positions Invent options for mutual gain Insist on using objective criteria. Manage human emotion separately from the practical problem Highlight the human need to feel heard, understood, respected and valued.

Targeting: Writing Effective Policy Papers
Providing a solution to a policy problem 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

Issues: Lobbying Be an authority on the subject
Include all group in the work Be positive in your approach Be aware of the agenda and language on the government in power Identify and target politicians Time your input Use the Media to lobby

(Or how to influence people to make changes ....)
Advocacy Rules (Or how to influence people to make changes ....)

What are the changes you are trying to bring about?
Use the problem tree or some other tool to identify problems, impact of the problem and root causes Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-Bound (SMART) objectives

Who are you advocating/communicating to?
Who needs to make these changes? Who has the power? What is their stance on the issue? Awareness, Knowledge, Attitude, Behaviour Targets and influence Mapping where decisions happen Analyse the outcome and then decide.

Who are you working together with?
Who do you need to work with? Identify your ‘niche’ (SWOT) Stakeholder Mapping Structures for collaborative working Skills needed in teams Benefits and pitfalls of collaborations

Why do you want to make the changes?
Why should things change (or what is the evidence to support your case?) How to make sure that the evidence is credible and ‘legitimate’? The evidence : accurate, credible, well researched, authoritative… What the target audience wants to hear....

Should ‘communicate’ with your target audience and prompt action
Advocacy Statement A concise and persuasive statement that captures What you want to achieve, Why, How and by when? Should ‘communicate’ with your target audience and prompt action Think about language, content, packaging, and timing Persuasive

How will you communicate your messages and evidence?
How to target and access information? Who is a trusted and credible messenger? What is the most appropriate medium? How will you package your information? Role of the media

Where and when to advocate/communicate?
Creating opportunities (campaigns, public mobilisation, formal and informal lobbying etc.) Influencing existing agendas Piggybacking on other agendas

There are different forms of knowledge…
Implicit Y Has it been articulated? Can it been articulated? Start N Tacit to tacit Acquiring someone else’s tacit knowledge through observation, imitation and practice e.g. research methodologies, presentations Explicit to explicit Combining discrete pieces of explicit knowledge to form new explicit knowledge, for example, compiling data and preparing a report that analyses and synthesises these data. The report constitutes new explicit knowledge. Tacit to explicit researchers subsequent conversion of acquired tacit knowledge into specifications or good practices Explicit to tacit Internalizing explicit knowledge. We acquire new tacit knowledge; specifically, they came to understand in an intuitive way Y N Explicit Tacit

Why is this important? Because we need to be able to be strategic
And strategies need to be evidence based But most relevant evidence is held by the process of policy influence –we will learn it as we do it And we must have the capacity to respond to new evidence and adapt our strategy Do not think about evaluation! Think monitoring LEARNING and adapting

Getting the environment right
Shared beliefs and common values A willingness to ask for help Common technology which connects people Effective Peer Processes Rewarding and recognising learning Identifying and reinforcing the right leadership behaviours Environment: his nudist beach principle ("...if I have to get naked, I would at least do it where there is relative equality") of shared beliefs, common values, effective peer processes etc. Technology: "...common is more important than current." Rewards: how to motivate thinking and questioning with a rewards system to encourage innovation while generating conversation and pride Leadership: Leaders need to be keen and need instant support in digestible form not deeply buried HR documents (e.g. how do I show that asking for help is OK?)

ODI experience Knowledge and learning are at the heart of the ODI approach to bridge research, policy and practice ODI research groups and networks provide a substantial knowledge base e.g. ALNAP and RAPID The CSPP has systematic learning as a core principle As an ‘Active Learning Network’ ALNAP at the ODI has been concerned with learning since its inception

The Knowledge Strategies Framework
external factors knowledge of partners, donors, other external agencies; networks; national and global factors organisational contexts leadership approaches, governance structures, management processes, institutional pressures, funding cycles, historical evolution etc. links within and across the organisation boundaries – via communities and ICTs; to communications plans; to core functions and support functions, etc knowledge – forms and locations; processes – e.g.: creation, sharing, storage, use; key activities and tools; staff capacities; relevance, M&E

Knowledge: processes and tools
There are a range of processes to consider Mapping and creation of knowledge Managing and storing knowledge Learning and sharing knowledge Use of knowledge The different processes and different forms of knowledge can be brought together… There are also range of processes to consider - creating, sharing, storing and using knowledge. Individuals, teams, organisations and groups of organisations engage in such processes in order to achieve positive change and realise their goals. More specifically: The mapping and creation of knowledge comprises activities associated with the entry of new knowledge into the organisational system. It includes all the transformations suggested by the ‘data to information to knowledge to wisdom’ frameworks, models of knowledge creation derived from the Knowledge Management (KM) literature (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) , as well as research work, participatory work, workshops, and so on. Sharing knowledge relates to the flow of knowledge from one party to another. This includes the diverse tools used for translation, conversion, filtering and two-way communication. Storing knowledge relates to the preservation of knowledge, allowing it to remain within the organisational system, and to those activities that help to maintain the viability of this system. These include intranets, search engines, content management systems (CMSs), electronic publishing systems, workflow systems, groupware, help desk applications, as well as more fundamental systems such as personal and group filing, project archiving, and so on. Finally, the use of knowledge relates to its application in organisational policy and practice. This involves taking and shaping decisions, making informed actions and modifying behaviours in order to achieve goals. In the case of all organisations, certain decisions, actions and behaviours have become embedded in the form of processes, procedures, rules, instructions and standards. It is perhaps one of the few truisms in this area that all such elements of organisational life were, at some point, specialist tacit knowledge or know-how, which was then converted to explicit forms in order to enable application by non-specialists. Also included in this category is the development of such tools as task performance measurement and coordination patterns, interaction guidelines and process specifications (ODI, 2003; ODI, 2004a; ODI, 2004b; US Knowledge Forum, 1999). Various tools may be used to facilitate these knowledge activities, ranging from information management (IM) systems through structured learning activities, to comprehensive M&E processes. The different types of activities and the different forms of knowledge can be brought together in a simple, easy to understand format as shown in Figure 1 (ODI, 2005).

Knowledge: a menu of tools

What kind of learner are you?

Activists Activists are people who learn by doing. They like to involve themselves in new experiences, and will ‘try anything once’. They tend to act first and consider the consequences afterwards Activists learn best when: involved in new experiences, problems and opportunities; thrown in at the deep end; working with others in problem solving, games, role-playing exercises; able to lead a group. Activists learn least when: listening to lectures or reading long explanations; reading, writing and thinking on their own; analysing and interpreting lots of data; following precise instructions.

Reflectors Reflectors learn by observing and thinking about what happened. They like to consider all the possible angles and implications before coming to a considered opinion. They spend time listening and observing, and tend to be cautious and thoughtful Reflectors learn best when: able to stand back and observe first; given time to think and investigate before commenting or acting; given an opportunity to review what has happened; doing tasks without tight deadlines. Reflectors learn least when: forced to take a lead in a group doing things without preparation; rushed by deadlines.

Theorists Theorists like to understand the theory behind the actions. They need models, concepts and facts in order to learn. They like to analyse and synthesise, and feel uncomfortable with subjective judgements Theorists learn best when: an activity is backed up by ideas and concepts that form a model, system or theory; in a structured situation with a clear purpose; they have the chance to question and probe;

Pragmatists Pragmatists are keen on trying things out. They look for new ideas that can be applied to the problem in hand. They like to get on with things and tend to be impatient with open-ended discussions; they are practical, down-to-earth people Pragmatists learn best when: there is an obvious link between the topic and a current need; they are shown techniques with clear practical advantages; they can try things out with feedback from an expert; they can copy an example, or emulate a role model. Pragmatists learn least when: there is no immediate practical benefit; there are no clear guidelines on how to do it it appears to be ‘all theory’

After action reviews: learning during projects
Four Simple Questions: What was supposed to happen? What actually happened? Why was there a difference? What can we learn from it? 15 minute team debrief, conducted in a “rank-free” environment. Invented by the US Army Used by all the troops After each Action Now firmly embedded in Army culture Part of the training program 13

What is the problem we face while monitoring?
The problem with attribution Multiple actors and factors contribute Unintended results are often ignored Influence shifts overtime (indirect relation) Impact of our interventions occurs further down the development chain The problem with Accountability vs. Learning The problem with Accountability vs. Learning. Being accountable demands a great deal of effort directed towards the development of M&E techniques, methods, indicators and procedures. It has fostered a bureaucratisation of development work demanding a great deal of information from research partners. This quest for accountability makes it difficult for programmes to learn about their work. The use of impact indicators do not tell researchers whether their work was successful or not. It does not separate the effects of other actors and influences that may have contributed to the final and observable impact.

Why do we face these problems?
Because the responsibility for achieving results ultimately depends on the actions of our partners as influenced by the contexts in which they work Focusing on downstream impact increases programming bureaucratisation and is inconsistent with our understanding of development as a complex process.

What is OM? OM is a dynamic methodology useful in the development of planning, monitoring and evaluation mechanism. OM: Provides the tools to think holistically and strategically about how it intends to achieve results Focuses on Outcomes instead of impacts It deals with Contribution instead of attribution Forces us to limit our planning and evaluation to our sphere of influence Deals with changes in the behaviours of our direct partners

Intentional design Boundary Partners
Individuals, groups and organisations with whom the programme interacts directly to effect changes. Those that you are trying to encourage to change so that they can contribute to the vision? With whom will you work directly? We must try to group similar partners according to the type of behavioural changes sought. Boundary partners are different from strategic partners. At first the number of boundary partners might be overwhelming. We must try to group similar partners according to the type of behavioural changes sought. Boundary partners are different from strategic partners. Strategic partners are those with whom the programme works but in whom it does not intend to influence changed behaviours. Boundary partners are a subset to the programme’s stakeholders.

= Program`s Partners Boundary partners Program

Intentional design Outcome Challenges
The changed behaviours (relationships, activities and/or actions) of the boundary partner and how they would be behaving if they were contributing ideally to the vision. Imagine that in 3-5 years TIB has been extremely successful. What would our boundary partners be doing to contribute maximally to the vision? Outcome challenges are about the boundary partner, not the programme. Outcome challenges are the vision for the boundary partners. What we intend to see in a few years time. We intend to see RFs who share research and evidence within the institute….

The three stages of OM

Further Information / Resources
ODI Working Papers Bridging Research and Policy Book JID Special Issue Meeting Reports Tools for Impact 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.

Contact Details: Naved Chowdhury – n.chowdhury@odi.org.uk
Fletcher Tembo RAPID Programme, ODI

Other sources of information:
You can find out much more about these and other tools on the RAPID Programme website at The site also contains annotated bibliographies, details of RAPID research and meetings and downloadable versions of all of RAPID’s publications. If you don’t have good access to the internet all of the material on the website plus video clips and presentations from RAPID meetings is available on a CD-ROM. If you would like further information, or to request a CD-ROM, please feel free to contact us: at: Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) or by writing to: The RAPID Programme, Overseas Development Institute, 111 Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7JD, UK. Visit or for a copy of the RAPID/CSPP CD-ROM

Thank you

Naved Chowdhury and Fletcher Tembo

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Naved Chowdhury and Fletcher Tembo"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Naved Chowdhury and Fletcher Tembo

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Naved Chowdhury and Fletcher Tembo"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback