Bridging Research, Policy and Practice

Bridging Research, Policy and Practice
John Young: ODI, London Sudarno Sumarto: SMERU, Indonesia Addressing Poverty: Pro-Poor Growth and Financial Inclusion in Asia Pacific

Overview Introduction to ODI, RAPID & SMERU
Group work: Policy influence stories Some theory How SMERU does it Some tools for researchers Group work: Using the tools Tools for organisations Sources of further information.

ODI, UK Development Think Tank 60 researchers
Research / Advice / Public Debate Rural / Humanitarian / Poverty & Aid / Economics / Policy Processes DFID, Parliament, WB, EC Civil Society For more information see:

RAPID Group Promoting the use of research-based evidence in development policy Research / Advice / Public Affairs & Capacity-building Programmes: Research for Policy Progressive Policymakers Parliamentarians Southern Think Tanks for further information see:

SMERU, Indonesia Independent research and policy studies on
the impact of government programs and policies, poverty, health, education, gender, labour, fuel costs labour market conditions etc decentralization and impact on services etc. Publications and public affairs. NGO unit: provides research-based evidence to and facilitates NGO interaction capacity building: research methodology.

Civil Society Programme
More use of research- based evidence for policy and practice through: A Network of Think Tanks. Capacity-development for the network and other CSOs. Research and learning from practical experience. Global and national action-research projects. for further information see:

End of slide show, click to exit
Group work: Stories of evidence and Policy Change

Stories of evidence and policy
Refresh your memory about your story Find someone you don’t know and tell each other your stories Don’t write anything down! 2½ minutes each! Use the story templates to interview and write each others story down Make sure your images and messages are clear. 5 minutes each! Tell your partner’s story to everyone else at your table Discuss among yourselves and identify 5 concrete actions emerging from these stories. How might you apply these? 10 minutes!

The theory and practice of bridging research and policy

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” Evidence: “the available information supporting or otherwise a belief or proposition” Evidence-based Policy: “public policy informed by rigorously established evidence”.

Policy Processes Identify the problem Commission research
Analyse the results Choose the best option Establish the policy Implement the policy Evaluation

Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Implementation
Policy Processes Cabinet Donors Monitoring and Evaluation Agenda Setting Decision Making Policy Implementation Policy Formulation Parliament Civil Society Ministries Private Sector

Chronic Poverty in Uganda
Kate Bird et al, Fracture Points in Social Policies for Chronic Poverty Reduction, ODI WP242, 2004 (

…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 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

But Policy makers are… …practically incapable of using research-based evidence because of the 5 Ss… Speed Superficiality Spin Secrecy Scientific Ignorance Vincent Cable – Lib. Democrat MP & Shadow Minister of Finance More at:

Factors influencing policy making
Experience & Expertise Pragmatics & Contingencies Judgement Evidence Lobbyists & Pressure Groups Resources Habits & Tradition Values and Policy Context Source: Phil Davies Impact to Insight Meeting, ODI, 2005

Different Notions of Evidence
‘Scientific’ (Context free) Proven empirically Theoretically driven As long as it takes Caveats and qualifications Researchers’ Evidence Colloquial (Contextual) Anything that seems reasonable Policy relevant Timely Clear Message Policy Makers’ Evidence Source: Phil Davies Impact to Insight Meeting, ODI, 2005

Existing theory X 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 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

Existing theory – a short list
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 The RAPID Framework

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

Case Studies Detailed: Summary Sustainable Livelihoods
Poverty Reductions Strategy Processes Ethical Principles in Humanitarian Aid Animal Health Care in Kenya Dairy Policy in Kenya Plant Genetic Resources Summary GDN x 50 CSPP x 20 Good news case studies x 5 Mental health in the UK

Animal Healthcare in Kenya
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Professionalisation of Public Services. Structural Adjustment → collapse of services. 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 Dr Kajume 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.

A Practical Framework External Influences political context evidence
Politics and Policymaking Campaigning, Lobbying Policy analysis, & research Media, Advocacy, Networking Scientific information exchange & validation 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 evidence: Is it there? Is it relevant? Is it practically useful? Are the concepts new? Does it need re-packaging? The political context: Is there political interest in change? Is there room for manoeuvre? How do they perceive the problem? Links: Who are the key actors? Are there existing networks? How best to transfer the information? The media? Campaigns?

What you need to do What need to know What 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? 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.

Conclusions To influence policy you need: Clear intent
A thorough understanding of the context A strategic approach The right incentives / culture The right skills in the team To engage, engage, engage

How SMERU influences policy and practice

The SMERU Research Institute CSPP Partner’s Workshop 2006
BRIDGING RESEARCH POLICY AND PRACTICE: SMERU’S EXPERIENCE A Case Study of Indonesia’s Unconditional Cash Transfer SUDARNO SUMARTO The SMERU Research Institute Jakarta, Indonesia CSPP Partner’s Workshop 2006 Canberra, Australia 7 December 2006

Background Since the New Order era, domestic retail fuel price in Indonesia has been subsidized. The fuel subsidy is regressive as consumption of each energy category increases with income. The subsidy was not pro-poor because the poor benefited less from it, including the kerosene subsidy. Very high world price of oil in 2005 has made the subsidy balloon out of proportion. The SMERU Research Institute

Background To ease the pressure on the state budget from the ballooning subsidy and to improve spending allocation, GOI has increased the fuel price twice in 2005: 1 March, by an average of 30%  “compensation” program: free education & healthcare, rice for the poor, rural infrastructure. 1 October, by an average of 120%  “compensation” program, among others, unconditional cash transfer (UCT) to poor households. The SMERU Research Institute

Brief Description of the UCT Program
The largest cash transfer program in the world, targeting more than 15 million households starting in October 2005. Transfer of Rp 300,000 per beneficiary household per quarter for 1 year. Eligibility was determined by a household census conducted by BPS using district-specific “proxy means testing” based on 14 indicators of poverty. Delivery of the UCT is conducted through the post office by way of direct payment. An additional 2.5 million households were added as eligible recipients after the first tranche. The SMERU Research Institute

SMERU's Involvement in Evaluating UCT
SMERU carried out simulations on the likely impact of fuel price increase on poverty (based on Susenas 2004 data): Baseline: poverty head count (P0) = 16.66% After oil price increase: P0 = 22.05% Compensation through cash transfer: 100% correct targeting: P0 = 17.87% 80% correct targeting: P0 = 18.73% 50% correct targeting: P0 = 20.05% The SMERU Research Institute

SMERU's Involvement in Evaluating UCT
SMERU conducted a rapid appraisal in Jakarta at the end of October 2005. The results were then disseminated to policymakers through consultations and presentations of research findings. Bappenas commissioned SMERU to conduct a larger evaluation, funded by the World Bank. The larger evaluation was conducted in 5 districts across Indonesia. The SMERU Research Institute

SMERU’s Policy Inputs Convert the UCT to conditional cash transfers (CCT) on education, health, and nutrition Improve targeting by reformulating criteria, strengthening local cadre, and empowering locally-specific poverty assessments Develop cash for work or guaranteed employment scheme to improve rural infrastructure Strengthen the supply sides of social services (health, nutrition, and education facilities) The SMERU Research Institute

Results from SMERU's Inputs
The government will pilot test CCT in 2007 The government intensified its effort to increase the budget allocation for education and health The SMERU Research Institute

What Worked? Stakeholders’ trusted SMERU’s credibility because of its evidence-based recommendations SMERU’s approach with gov’t and top level officials Effective linkages and networking with stakeholders Maintenance of quality of research Impartiality Successful presentation of findings through discussions The SMERU Research Institute

Constraints Encountered
Political leverage Lack of tools to understand the political context of policy change Lack of lobbying skills & opportunities Lack of resources (human and financial) and time to monitor and follow-up the policy decision-making process SMERU being associated with donors The SMERU Research Institute

The SMERU Research Institute www.smeru.or.id
Thank You The SMERU Research Institute

Tools for bridging research and policy

Introducing some tools
Some simple tools for researchers RAPID Framework Outcome Mapping Problem Situation Analysis (Tree Analysis) Policy Process Mapping Stakeholder Analysis Force field analysis SWOT analysis Some examples Some more complex tools (for donors) Some tools for policymakers

A Practical Framework External Influences political context evidence
Politics and Policymaking Campaigning, Lobbying Policy analysis, & research Media, Advocacy, Networking Scientific information exchange & validation Research, learning & thinking evidence links

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 Policy Influence Tools - Influence Mapping & Power Mapping - Lobbying and Advocacy - Campaigning: A Simple Guide - Competency self-assessment

RAPID Framework

Outcome Mapping OUTCOME MAPPING: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs Sarah Earl, Fred Carden, and Terry Smutylo

Problem Tree Analysis Discuss and agree the problem or issue to be analysed. Identify the causes of the focal problem (roots) and then the consequences (branches) NB: The discussion is the most important thing: as issues are debated factors are arranged and re-arranged, often forming sub-dividing roots and branches

Policy Process Mapping
General Context issues – domestic and international. Specific Policy Issues (i.e. the policy cycle) 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
Formulation Implementation Politicians Cabinet Government Bureaucrats Civil Society International Identify key actors that influence SME policy Create Matrix: Organizations and Key Steps of the Policy Process Describe Organizations’ formal position in the policy process Describe Organizations’ informal influence on the policy process Give a number rating (1=low; 5=high) for the influence each organization has on different parts of the policy process. Relative location of Research

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 Identify what you want to achieve
Identify forces for and against change Identify which are most important Develop strategies to reinforce those for and overcome those against

SWOT Analysis 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

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.

Writing Policy Papers 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

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 Policy Process Mapping RAPID Framework
Stakeholder Analysis Force-Field Analysis SWOT Action Planning

Political Context Tools
Civil Society Index (CIVICUS) Country Policy & Institutional Assessment (World Bank) Democracy and Governance Assessment (USAID) Drivers of Change (DFID) Governance Questionnaire (GTZ) Governance Matters (World Bank Institute) Power Analysis (Sida) World Governance Assessment Civil Society Index (CIVICUS): Civil society's structure, impact, environment and values Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (World Bank): Governance institutions, policies, economic management Democracy and Governance Assessment (USAID): Players, interests, resources, objectives, rules, institutional arenas Drivers of Change (DFID): Structure, agents, institutions Governance Questionnaire (GTZ): State-society relations, political system, political culture, politics and gender, economic policy and political framework of markets, international integration Governance Matters (World Bank Institute): Voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, control of corruption Power Analysis (Sida): Power and its distribution World Governance Assessment: Participation, decency, fairness, accountability, transparency, efficiency

Demand-side Tools Increasing the pull for evidence
Require the publication of the evidence base Require spending bids to provide evidence base Submit government analysis to external expert scrutiny Provide open access to information Facilitating better evidence use Encourage better collaboration across analytical services Co-locate policy makers and internal analysts Integrate analytical staff at all stages Link R&D strategies to departmental business plans Cast external researchers more as partners than as contractors Second more university staff into government Train staff in evidence use Source: Abstracted from PIU 2000, Bullock et al (2001)

UK Government “Tools” Overview and Checklist
1. Impact Assessment and Appraisal: guidance checklist for policy makers. Strategy and Policy Evaluation 2. Strategy Survival Guide 3. Magenta Book: Guidance notes on Policy Evaluation 4. Green Book: Appraisal and evaluation in Central Government 5. Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Ensuring Key Perspectives are Included 6. Incorporating regional perspectives into policy making toolkit (Subnational) 7. International Comparisons in Policy Making Toolkit 8. Gender Impact Assessment: a framework for gender mainstreaming 9. Managing risks to the public: Appraisal Guidance Testing Policy Ideas 10. Policy Pilots Public-orientated Tools 11. Concern Assessment Tool 12. Community Engagement How to Guide 13. Connecting with Users and Citizens Getting Better Advice and Evidence 14. Expert Advisory Bodies for Policymakers 15. Improving Standards of Qualitative Research

Group work: Trying out some of the tools

Trying the tools Working on one of the stories, try out one (or more) of the tools: RAPID Framework (Page 12) Stakeholder analysis (Page 24) Force-field analysis (page 20) Problem Tree (Page 22) SWOT (Page 28)

Building effective organisations

The (changing) role of CSOs
Is huge: Worth $12bn globally, reach 20% of world’s poor, provide 40% health & education services in Ghana, Zimbabwe & Kenya. Is changing: service provision → policy engagement. Can be very effective: Globally, eg Jubilee 2000; locally eg animal health in Kenya, Is uncomfortable: with governments: lack of trust with donors: emphasis on GBS & policy with academics/policy advisers: weak evidence representation (organisations that aggregate citizen voice) advocacy (organisations that lobby on particular issues) technical inputs (organisations that provide information and advice) capacity building (organisations that provide support to other CSOs, including funding) service delivery (organisations that implement development projects or provide services) social functions (organisations that foster collective recreational activities)

Some examples AFREPREN: a network to promote pro-poor energy policies.
CIPPEC: works on Education, Fiscal Policy, Health, Transparency and Justice an Argentina. Unnayan Onneshan: works on pro-poor agricultural and trade policies in Bangladesh. International Budget Project: works to promote budget transparency and accountability SMERU: provides reseach-based evidence to NGOs and other actora and promotes public debate

How CSOs influence Policy

Obstacles to CSO Engagement

Obstacles for Research

Key problems and solutions
External Difficult Political Contexts Campaigns Boomerangs Policy Pilots Internal Weak understanding of political contexts Rigorous context assessments Weak engagement Better strategies for engagement at all parts of the policy cycle Inadequate use of evidence Collecting the right evidence for each situation (qualitative vs quantitative etc) Weak communication Better communication: publications, events, face-to-face Isolation Collaboration with other CSOs, donors and government agencies: Networks Capacity constraints “Systemic” capacity-building: of organisations and networks within their contexts

Organisational Capacity
Knowledge, Attitudes & Practice Policy entrepreneurs Training & mentoring etc 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

Learning & KM Learning before, during & after Collaboration Tools
Peer Assist Reflective Inquiry After-Action Review Collaboration Tools E-discussions Shared workspaces Information management tools Intelligent search engines Incentives

Policy Processes in DFID
Looking at internal policy processes – what works in DFID. Small, informal workshop with 7 staff. Participatory pair-wise ranking of factors influencing the success of 8 policy processes. Worked quite well. In DFID - agendas and processes rather than documents are key

How SMERU does it

The SMERU Research Institute CSPP Partner’s Workshop 2006
SUDARNO SUMARTO The SMERU Research Institute Jakarta, Indonesia CSPP Partner’s Workshop 2006 Canberra, Australia 7 December 2006

What is SMERU? SMERU is an independent research institute that undertakes research and policy studies on socio- economic, poverty, decentralization, and vulnerability issues considered most urgent and relevant for the welfare of the people of Indonesia SMERU adopts both quantitative and qualitative research methods to carry out these studies The SMERU Research Institute

What is SMERU? SMERU engages in policy dialogues and provides inputs
SMERU enhances the capacity of NGOs through training and discussions Organizes workshops, seminars, and discussions as part of the sharing and networking process Regularly publishes papers, reports, and newsletters and maintains a website to disseminate research findings The SMERU Research Institute

How and Why SMERU Was Set Up?
In October 1998, SMERU (previously known as the Social Monitoring & Early Response Unit) was established with a mandate to carry out independent, reliable, real-time monitoring of the social impact of the crisis unfolding in Indonesia It was funded by AusAID, ASEM, and USAID, and with logistical and administrative support from the World Bank. SMERU's mandate from its stakeholders came to an end by December 2000 The core group of staff and researchers continued SMERU's existence as an independent institution for research and policy studies under the name of The SMERU Research Institute The SMERU Research Institute

Initial Sources of SMERU’s Core Funding (Year 2001)
AusAID The Ford Foundation DFID (ended in 2005) Commissioned research projects and training Other Sources of Funding The SMERU Research Institute

How Does SMERU Operate? Planning Reporting
Based on strategic planning and Vision 2010 Administrative and financial matters: in consultation with its management and staff, and occasionally with the Board of Governors Research matters: in consultation with designated research teams Reporting Project Consultative Committee Meetings and BOG meetings; quarterly and biannual reports The SMERU Research Institute

Maintenance of Academic Credibility
Peer review/refereed journals Linkage with universities, research institutes, development organizations Participation in local and international seminars, conferences, and workshops through presentations of papers and attendance as participants The SMERU Research Institute

Maintenance of Independence
SMERU does not belong to any entity No kickback – remains impartial, transparent and accountable Third party agreement – SMERU has the right to co-own the data and publish the research findings Research outcome is not influenced by political or religious and other entities, and is not being controlled by any entity Not driven by donors’ agenda The SMERU Research Institute

Engagement with Policy Processes
Interacting, organizing seminars and workshops, disseminating SMERU’s publications, research findings and recommendations, sending memorandum/policy briefs to relevant high-ranking government officials, donors, and other stakeholders. Establishing networks and collaboration/coalition with CSOs, and lobbying with MPs The SMERU Research Institute

Engagement with Policy Processes
Disseminating information/research findings towards forming better-informed CSOs Providing free access to all SMERU’s publications, reports, working papers, and NGO Database through the SMERU Website: Linking SMERU’s website to others The SMERU Research Institute

CHALLENGES …….. Developing trust and credibility through better research quality Understanding and dealing with other influencing contextual factors in bridging research to policy Striving to be financially sustainable by maintaining the research quality to win the trust of stakeholders and donors Balancing consultancy work and SMERU’s own research agenda Widening networks and linkages Facilitating linkages and cooperation among CSOs, enhancing capacity and promoting public accountability The SMERU Research Institute

The SMERU Research Institute www.smeru.or.id
Thank You The SMERU Research Institute

Conclusions and sources of more information

Conclusions It is possible to improve the impact of research on policy if you: really, really want to do it understand the (esp. political) context use a strategic approach establish the right incentives / culture develop the right skills in the team engage, engage, engage There are some good tools There are a growing number of organisations who can help

Civil Society Programme

Further Information ODI – www.odi.org.uk RAPID - www.odi.org.uk/rapid
CSPP – or contact: John Young SMERU: or contact: Sudarno Sumarto

Bridging Research, Policy and Practice

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Bridging Research, Policy and Practice"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Bridging Research, Policy and Practice

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Bridging Research, Policy and Practice"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback