Presentation on theme: "Naved Chowdhury and Fletcher Tembo"— Presentation transcript:
1Naved Chowdhury and Fletcher Tembo Policy Analysis, Engagement and Advocacy A workshop for Southern Africa Trust Johannesburg, South Africa 2 April 2007Naved Chowdhury and Fletcher TemboOverseas Development Institute, London
2Overseas Development Institute Britain’s leading development Think Tank£8m, 60 researchersResearch / Advice / Public DebateRural / Humanitarian / Poverty & Aid / Economics (HIV, Human rights, Water)DFID, Parliament, WB, ECCivil SocietyODI 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 GroupHumanitarian Policy GroupInternational Economic Development GroupPoverty and Public Policy GroupODI 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:
3RAPID Programme Research Advisory work Policy change projects Workshops and seminarsCivil Society ProgrammeODI’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 andcommunications;Advice – on maximising policy impact;Programme design – for research, action-research and operations for policy impact;Training – in policy processes, research communications and organisationaldevelopment;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 withinorganisations;Promotion – through public policy debate with policy-makers and civil society.
4Workshop ObjectivesShare 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.
5Outline of the Workshop Day 1General IntroductionsTools, Strategy and Knowledge management
6Self 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.
7DefinitionsResearch: “any systematic effort to increase the stock of knowledge”Evidence: the result/output of the research processPolicy: a “purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors”Agendas / policy horizonsOfficial statements documentsPatterns of spendingImplementation processesActivities on the groundWe 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.
8The linear logical policy model… Identify the problemCommission researchAnalyse the resultsChoose the best optionEstablish the policyImplement the policyEvaluate the results
10in 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.” 4Policy-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 Consultations4 – ODI-AFREPREN Workshop
11Industry CSOs Scientists Agenda setting Problem definition & analysis PolicytoolsSelectionImplementationEnforcementPolicyevaluationEach 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 ParagGovernmentMediaPublicSource: Yael Parag
12CSOs and Policy: Existing theory Linear model of communication, Shannon‘Space’ for thought & action, HowellSimple and surprising stories, Communication TheoryProvide solutions, Marketing Theory IFind the right packaging, Marketing IIGlobal Civil Society?, KeaneGlobal Legitimacy, van RooyEpistemic communities, HaasPolicy entrepreneurs, NajamAdvocacy coalitions, Keck & SikkinkNegotiation through networks, SabattierSocial capital, ColemanAccountability, OneWorld TrustCommunication for social change, Rockefeller FoundationWheels and webs, Chapman & FisherLinear modelToo close for comfort, EdwardsImpact & Effectiveness, Fowler‘Context, evidence, links’, RAPIDPolicy narratives, RoeCSO legitimacy, L. David BrownLinks and Learning, Gaventa‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer‘Street level bureaucrats’, LipskyPolicy as experiments, RondinelliPolicy Streams & Windows, KingdonDisjointed incrementalism, LindquistTipping point model, GladwellMercenaries, missionaries and revolutionaries , Malena‘Non-Western?’, LewisGlobal Civil Society, Salamon, KaldorTypes of Engagement, CostonThere 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.
13A word of warning… The world is complex We do not aim to make it simpleOnly to find recognisable patternrs or beaconsWhich might guide your actionsThere is NO blueprint. NO linear, logical, rational, proper, method.Most of the time it is up to you.
14… A word of warningYou will probably never find out what goes on within the policy processAnd not have all the evidence you needYou need to be confident to act even in a context of uncertaintyAnd be systematic and scientific (context, strategy, action, record, learn) but flexible and original
15Policy life is complex. What issues matter? The RAPID Framework
16The Analytical Framework External InfluencesSocio-economic and cultural influences,donor policies etcThe political context – political and economic structures and processes, culture, institutional pressures, incremental vs radical change etc.The links between policyand 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 etcThe 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.
17To 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 networkscommunicate better.
18Political 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
19Evidence: 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 approachOf researcher > of evidence itselfStrenuous advocacy efforts are often neededCommunicationContext: Demand & ContestationThe degree of demand and contestation matter greatly.Demand:Policymaker demand: (eg – initiating a review)Societal demand: (focus on problems)Contestation:Ideology / NarrativeVested InterestsIn virtually all cases:Policy uptake = demand – contestationEvidence can change the policy narrative(Need to think about how they can work to increase demand and reduce contestation.)
20Links: Coalitions and Networks Feedback processes often prominent in successful cases.Trust & legitimacyNetworks:Epistemic communitiesPolicy networksAdvocacy coalitionsThe role of individuals: connectors, mavens and salesmenContext: Demand & ContestationThe degree of demand and contestation matter greatly.Demand:Policymaker demand: (eg – initiating a review)Societal demand: (focus on problems)Contestation:Ideology / NarrativeVested InterestsIn virtually all cases:Policy uptake = demand – contestationEvidence can change the policy narrative(Need to think about how they can work to increase demand and reduce contestation.)
21External InfluenceBig “incentives” can spur evidence-based policy – e.g. PRSP processes.And some interesting examples of donors trying new things re. supporting researchBut, 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 InfluencesIt seems that big “incentives” can spur evidence-based policy – e.g. EU accession, PRSP processes. WTOAnd some interesting examples of donors trying new things re. supporting researchBut, we really don’t know whether and how donors can best promote use of evidence in policymaking (credibility vs backlash)
22The 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?
23PRSPs – EvidenceLong-term academic research informing new focus on poverty, participation, ownership, aid effectiveness etcApplied policy research:ESAF reviewsHIPC reviewSPA Working GroupsNGO research on debtUganda’s PEAP
24PRSPs – Political Context Widespread awareness of a “problem” with international development policy in late 90sFailure of SAPs (and Asian financial crisis)Mounting public pressure for debt reliefStagnation of Comprehensive Development Framework ideaDiverging agendas (UK – Poverty, US – Governance)WB/IMF Annual General Meeting, Sept 1999
25PRSPs – 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”
26Civil Society Partnerships Programme Aim: Strengthened role of southern CSOs in development policy processesOutcomes:CSOs better understanding evidence-policy processCapacity to support CSOs establishedImproved information for CSOsGlobal collaborationCSOs understand how research → policy:Collaborative research on bridging research and policy issuesCollaboration with Government and CSOs in the UK to identify useful lessons from evidence-based policy making in the UKSynthesis of results into demand-driven, user-tested information and training materials for CSOsCSOs 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 accessibleA survey of existing users of ODI information.A demand assessment of CSOs.A more strategic range of information materials for CSOsAn up-to-date database of partners & research interestsImproved knowledge management within ODIRe-design of the ODI website, and better integration of ODI project and network sitesActive 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 CSOsRegional capacity to support CSOs is establishedA 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
27CSOs and Pro-poor Policy Influence Complementing state in providing servicesInnovators in service deliveryAdvocates with and for the poorIdentifying problems & solutionsExtending our understandingProviding informationTraining and capacity buildingCSOs understand how research → policy:Collaborative research on bridging research and policy issuesCollaboration with Government and CSOs in the UK to identify useful lessons from evidence-based policy making in the UKSynthesis of results into demand-driven, user-tested information and training materials for CSOsCSOs 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 accessibleA survey of existing users of ODI information.A demand assessment of CSOs.A more strategic range of information materials for CSOsAn up-to-date database of partners & research interestsImproved knowledge management within ODIRe-design of the ODI website, and better integration of ODI project and network sitesActive 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 CSOsRegional capacity to support CSOs is establishedA 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
28Key factors for CSO influence (Malawi) SupportingEvidence of the value of CSO involvementGovernments becoming more interested in CSOsCSOs are gaining confidenceStrength of networksThe mediaPolitical factorsOpposingLack of capacityLack of local ownershipTranslating data into evidenceLack of dataDonor influenceCrisesPolitical factors
29CSPP Log Frame Not a major change but: Recognition of external and internal objectives (purpose)4 external outputs:Facilitating the networkCapacity developmentCollaborative action-research projectsResearch3 internal outputs:ODI Communication CapacityCapacity to work with CSOsOrientation towards CSOs
30Narrative Summary Super-Goal Poverty reduced in developing countries Development policy is more pro-poorPurposeSouthern CSOs make more use of research-based evidence to influence the establishment of pro-poor policy, andODI 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.
31Narrative Summary Network: Interactive community website Information and knowledge exchangeGeneral supportCapacity-building:staff exchange,visiting fellows to ODI and Southern institutes,Southern participants in global policy eventsTraining and ToTResearch (lessons disseminated):Ongoing learning“How to do it” guidelinesNew researchCollaborative projects:Small-scale ARPsContinued support to existing projectsOne new global collaborative project each year
32Global ConsultationWorkshops 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 CSOsCase studies on various issues: Budget Monitoring( Zambia), Community Participation in Waste Management ( Ghana), Rice pricing ( Bangladesh), Public participation ( Indonesia) etc.ResearchGlobal 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).
33Building Capacity for Policy Influencing: Lessons Learnt 1 Understanding Policy process means understanding the politicsLack of trust between CSOs and governmentDemand led vs Supply drivenCapacity to use and package research for policy influence is limitedDonor influence is hugeGradual erosion of research capacity in the SouthProposals by CSOs should be feasible and practical
34Lessons Learnt 2 Engagement with policymakers varies Varied level of capacity in the southRetention and recruitment of qualified staffRole of research in development organizationLack of training opportunitiesMore emphasis on policy advocacyLimited fund for researchStrong Demand for support ( regional bias)Capacity of government institutions also in question
35What the CSOs need to do to influence Policy? Use (research-based) Credible evidence to influence policyTimely, relevant and reliable informationUnderstanding the PoliticsConflict to Sustained EngagementLong termDemand Driven researchStrength in numbersHow best to build capacity?
36What the CSOs need to do? 2Effective communication: develop different materials for different audienceChoosing roles and responsibilitiesFinancial and human resourcesUsing the mediaEngaging donorsInviting policymakers from the outset
37The overall framework Identify the problem Understand the context How?Who?What?AudiencePromotionMessageIdentify the problemUnderstand the contextIdentify the audience(s)Develop a SMART StrategyIdentify the message(s)Resources – staff, time, partners & $$Promotion – tools & activitiesMonitor, learn, adapt
38Policy Analysis: Methods and tools RAPID FrameworkProblem Situation Analysis (Tree Analysis)Stakeholder AnalysisPolicy Process MappingForce field analysisInfluence mappingSWOT analysis
39Identifying the problem First win the fight over the problemThen fight for the solutionTherefore 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?
40An Analytical Framework External InfluencesSocio-economic and cultural influences,donor policies etcThe political context – political and economic structures and processes, culture, institutional pressures, incremental vs radical change etc.The links between policyand 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
41A Practical Framework External Influences political context evidence Politics and PolicymakingCampaigning, LobbyingPolicy analysis, & researchMedia,Advocacy, NetworkingScientific information exchange & validationAn 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 & thinkingevidencelinks
42Using the frameworkThe 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?
43Using the FrameworkSo, 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?
44What CSOs need to do What CSOs need to know What CSOs need to do How to do itPolitical Context:EvidenceLinksGet to know the policymakers.Identify friends and foes.Prepare for policy opportunities.Look out for policy windows.Work with them – seek commissionsStrategic opportunism – prepare for known events + resources for othersWho are the policymakers?Is there demand for ideas?What is the policy process?Establish credibilityProvide practical solutionsEstablish legitimacy.Present clear optionsUse familiar narratives.Build a reputationAction-researchPilot projects to generate legitimacyGood communicationWhat 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 othersWork through existing networks.Build coalitions.Build new policy networks.Build partnerships.Identify key networkers, mavens and salesmen.Use informal contactsWho are the stakeholders?What networks exist?Who are the connectors, mavens and salesmen?
45Group WorkUse 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)
46To 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?
47Feedback 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?
49Practical Tools Overarching Tools Context Assessment Tools - The RAPID Framework- Using the Framework- The Entrepreneurship QuestionnaireContext Assessment Tools- Stakeholder Analysis- Forcefield Analysis- Writeshops- Policy Mapping- Political Context MappingCommunication Tools- Communications Strategy- SWOT analysis- Message Design- Making use of the mediaResearch Tools- Case Studies- Episode Studies- Surveys- Bibliometric Analysis- Focus Group DiscussionInfluencing 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
50Problem Tree AnalysisThe 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 branchesThe 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
51Stakeholder Analysis Clarify the policy change objective Identify all the stakeholders associated with this objectiveOrganise the stakeholders in the matrice according to interest and powerDevelop strategy to engage with different stakeholdersKeep SatisfiedEngage Closely and Influence ActivelyMonitor (minimum effort)Keep InformedHighPowerLowInterest
52SWOT 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?StrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesThreatsSkills and abilitiesFunding linesCommitment to positionsContacts and PartnersExisting activitiesOther orgs relevant to the issueResources: financial, technical, humanPolitical and policy spaceOther groups or forces
53Planning: Social Network Analysis Focus on structure of relationshipsNodes and links between nodesNodes: people, groups and organizations, etc.Links: social contacts, exchange of information, political influence, membership in org etcSocial processes influence organizations and vice versa
54Force field Analysis Specific Change Identify Forces (Identify Priorities)(Develop Strategies)
55Force Field Analysis Think about: Who needs to changeWho can support and who can resist changeDo not confuse strength of force with importance of forceLook out for:VERY strong forcesPrioritiesNested FFA (you might have to re-think your problem)
56Group work:Use Force field analysis to identify key issues and strategic objectivesFeedbackMain forces for and againstOverall strategic optionsImplications for problem analysis?What opportunities are there for SAT partners to influence development policies in Southern Africa.?
58The over all framework Identify the problem Understand the context How?Who?What?AudiencePromotionMessageIdentify the problemUnderstand the contextIdentify the audience(s)Develop a SMART StrategyIdentify the message(s)Resources – staff, time, partners & $$Promotion – tools & activitiesMonitor, learn, adapt
59Communication 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 processHow to improve communication of research to policymakers, to other researchers and the end users ( i.e NGOs, CBOs, etc).Communication tools
60Audience 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)
61MessageWhy 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 thoughtLanguage, content, packaging, and timing
62Messenger (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?
64Issues: Persuasion Separate people from problem Focus on interests, not positionsInvent options for mutual gainInsist on using objective criteria.Manage human emotion separately from the practical problemHighlight the human need to feel heard, understood, respected and valued.
65Targeting: Writing Effective Policy Papers Providing a solution to a policy problemStructural elements of a paperProblem descriptionPolicy optionsConclusionKey issues: Problem oriented, targeted, multidisciplinary, applied, clear, jargon-free.[Source: Young and Quinn, 2002]BACKGROUNDGood 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 webCHALLENGE – Massive amount of work into 15 minutes
66Issues: Lobbying Be an authority on the subject Include all group in the workBe positive in your approachBe aware of the agenda and language on the government in powerIdentify and target politiciansTime your inputUse the Media to lobby
67(Or how to influence people to make changes ....) Advocacy Rules(Or how to influence people to make changes ....)
68What 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 causesSpecific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-Bound (SMART) objectives
69Who 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, BehaviourTargets and influenceMapping where decisions happenAnalyse the outcome and then decide.
70Who are you working together with? Who do you need to work with?Identify your ‘niche’ (SWOT)Stakeholder MappingStructures for collaborative workingSkills needed in teamsBenefits and pitfalls of collaborations
71Why 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....
72Should ‘communicate’ with your target audience and prompt action Advocacy StatementA concise and persuasive statement that captures What you want to achieve, Why, How and by when?Should ‘communicate’ with your target audience and prompt actionThink about language, content, packaging, and timingPersuasive
73How 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
74Where and when to advocate/communicate? Creating opportunities (campaigns, public mobilisation, formal and informal lobbying etc.)Influencing existing agendasPiggybacking on other agendas
75There are different forms of knowledge… ImplicitYHas it been articulated?Can it been articulated?StartNTacit to tacitAcquiring someone else’s tacit knowledge through observation, imitation and practicee.g. research methodologies, presentationsExplicit to explicitCombining 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 explicitresearchers subsequent conversion of acquired tacit knowledge into specifications or good practicesExplicit to tacitInternalizing explicit knowledge. We acquire new tacit knowledge; specifically, they came to understand in an intuitive wayYNExplicitTacit
76Why is this important? Because we need to be able to be strategic And strategies need to be evidence basedBut most relevant evidence is held by the process of policy influence –we will learn it as we do itAnd we must have the capacity to respond to new evidence and adapt our strategyDo not think about evaluation!Think monitoring LEARNING and adapting
77Getting the environment right Shared beliefs and common valuesA willingness to ask for helpCommon technology which connects peopleEffective Peer ProcessesRewarding and recognising learningIdentifying and reinforcing the right leadership behavioursEnvironment: 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 prideLeadership: 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?)
78ODI experienceKnowledge and learning are at the heart of the ODI approach to bridge research, policy and practiceODI research groups and networks provide a substantial knowledge basee.g. ALNAP and RAPIDThe CSPP has systematic learning as a core principleAs an ‘Active Learning Network’ ALNAP at the ODI has been concerned with learning since its inception
79The Knowledge Strategies Framework external factorsknowledge of partners, donors, other external agencies; networks; national and global factorsorganisational 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, etcknowledge – forms and locations; processes – e.g.: creation, sharing, storage, use; key activities and tools; staff capacities; relevance, M&E
80Knowledge: processes and tools There are a range of processes to considerMapping and creation of knowledgeManaging and storing knowledgeLearning and sharing knowledgeUse of knowledgeThe 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).
83ActivistsActivists 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 afterwardsActivists 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.
84ReflectorsReflectors 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 thoughtfulReflectors 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 groupdoing things without preparation;rushed by deadlines.
85TheoristsTheorists 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 judgementsTheorists 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;
86PragmatistsPragmatists 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 peoplePragmatists 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 itit appears to be ‘all theory’
87After 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 ArmyUsed by all the troopsAfter each ActionNow firmly embedded in Army culturePart of the training program13
88What is the problem we face while monitoring? The problem with attributionMultiple actors and factors contributeUnintended results are often ignoredInfluence shifts overtime (indirect relation)Impact of our interventions occurs further down the development chainThe problem with Accountability vs. LearningThe 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.
89Why 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 workFocusing on downstream impact increases programming bureaucratisation and is inconsistent with our understanding of development as a complex process.
90What 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 resultsFocuses on Outcomes instead of impactsIt deals with Contribution instead of attributionForces us to limit our planning and evaluation to our sphere of influenceDeals with changes in the behaviours of our direct partners
91Intentional 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.
93Intentional 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….
95Further Information / Resources ODI Working PapersBridging Research and Policy BookJID Special IssueMeeting ReportsTools for ImpactMalcolm 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.
96Contact Details: Naved Chowdhury – email@example.com Fletcher TemboRAPID Programme, ODI
97Other 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.Visitor for a copy of the RAPID/CSPP CD-ROM