Presentation on theme: "John Young: ODI, London firstname.lastname@example.org Making Knowledge Count Maximising the value of Research for Development John Young: ODI, London email@example.com."— Presentation transcript:
1John Young: ODI, London firstname.lastname@example.org Making Knowledge Count Maximising the value of Research for DevelopmentJohn Young: ODI, London
2Overview Part 1: Introduction to ODI & RAPID Definitions Policy processes & the role of researchPolicy-makers perspectiveAn Analytical frameworkPart 2:A Practical frameworkSome tools for researchers, policy-makers and donors + some examples of their use.Some conclusionsSources of further information.
3Overseas Development Institute Development Think Tank60 researchersResearch / Advice / Public DebateRural / Humanitarian / Poverty & Aid / Economics / Policy ProcessesDFID, Parliament, WB, ECCivil SocietyFor more information see:
4RAPID Group Promoting evidence-based development policy & practice ThroughResearchAdvicePublic AffairsCapacity-buildingWorking with:researcherspolicymakersparliamentarianssouthern think tanksfor further information see: /
5DefinitionsResearch: “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”.
6Policy Processes Identify the problem Commission research Analyse the resultsChoose the best optionEstablish the policyImplement the policyEvaluation
7Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Implementation Policy ProcessesCabinetDonorsMonitoring and EvaluationAgendaSettingDecisionMakingPolicy ImplementationPolicy FormulationParliamentCivil SocietyMinistriesPrivate Sector
8Chronic Poverty in Uganda Kate Bird et al, Fracture Points in Social Policies for Chronic Poverty Reduction, ODI WP242, 2004 (http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/working_papers/wp242.pdf)
9…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”31 Clay & Schaffer (1984), Room for Manoeuvre; An Exploration of Public Policy inAgricultural and Rural Development, Heineman Educational Books, London2 Omamo (2003), Policy Research on African Agriculture: Trends, Gaps, and Challenges,International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Research Report No 213 Surr (2003), DFID Research Review
10But Policy makers are……practically incapable of using research-based evidence because of the 5 Ss…SpeedSuperficialitySpinSecrecyScientific IgnoranceVincent Cable – Lib. Democrat MP & Shadow Minister of FinanceMore at:
11Factors influencing policy making Experience & ExpertisePragmatics & ContingenciesJudgementEvidenceLobbyists & Pressure GroupsResourcesHabits & TraditionValues and Policy ContextSource: Phil Davies Impact to Insight Meeting, ODI, 2005
12Different Notions of Evidence ‘Scientific’ (Context free)Proven empiricallyTheoretically drivenAs long as it takesCaveats and qualificationsResearchers’ EvidenceColloquial (Contextual)Anything that seems reasonablePolicy relevantTimelyClear MessagePolicy Makers’ EvidenceSource: Phil Davies Impact to Insight Meeting, ODI, 2005
13Existing theory X Linear model Percolation model, Weiss Tipping point model, Gladwell‘Context, evidence, links’ framework, ODIPolicy narratives, RoeSystems model (NSI)External forces, Lindquist‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer‘Street level bureaucrats’, LipskyPolicy as social experiments, RondinelliPolicy Streams & Windows, KingdonDisjointed incrementalism, LindquistThe ‘tipping point’, GladwellCrisis model, Kuhn‘Framework of possible thought’, ChomskyVariables for Credibility, BeachThe source is as important as content, GladwellLinear model of communication, ShannonInteractive model,Simple and surprising stories, Communication TheoryProvide solutions, Marketing IFind the right packaging, Marketing IIElicit a response, KottlerTranslation of technology, VolkowEpistemic communitiesPolicy communitiesAdvocacy coalitions etc, ProssNegotiation through networks, SebattierShadow networks, KlickertChains of accountability, FineCommunication for social change, RockefellerWheels and webs, Chapman & Fisher
14Existing theory – a short list Policy narratives, RoeSystems of Innovation Model, (NSI)‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer‘Street level bureaucrats’, LipskyPolicy as social experiments, RondenePolicy streams and policy windows, KingdonDisjointed Incrementalism, LindblomSocial Epidemics, GladwellThe RAPID Framework
15An 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
16Case Studies Detailed: Summary Sustainable Livelihoods Poverty Reductions Strategy ProcessesEthical Principles in Humanitarian AidAnimal Health Care in KenyaDairy Policy in KenyaPlant Genetic ResourcesSummaryGDN x 50CSPP x 20Good news case studies x 5Mental health in the UK
17Animal Healthcare in Kenya 1970s1980s1990s2000sProfessionalisation 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 AdjustmentPrivatisationITDG Paravet network and change of DVS.KVB letter (January 1998).Multistakeholder WSs → new policies.International ResearchITDG projects – collaborative research.The Hubl StudyDr KajumeShortly 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.
19A Practical Framework External Influences political context evidence Politics and PolicymakingCampaigning, LobbyingPolicy analysis, & researchMedia,Advocacy, NetworkingScientific information exchange & validationResearch, learning & thinkingevidencelinks
20What 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?
21What you need to do What need to know What need to do How to do it Political 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?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?
22Policy 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.
23Supply-side 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 DiscussionPolicy Influence Tools- Influence Mapping & Power Mapping- Lobbying and Advocacy- Campaigning: A Simple Guide- Competency self-assessment
25Policy Process Mapping General Context issues – domestic and international.Specific Policy Issues (i.e. the policy cycle)Stakeholder analysisArena: government, parliament, civil society, judiciary, private sector.Level: local, national, internationalWhat is their Interest and Influence?Process matrix + political matrixPolitical and administrative feasibility assessment[Sources: M. Grindle / J. Court ]
26Policy Process Mapping FormulationImplementationPoliticiansCabinetGovernmentBureaucratsCivil SocietyInternationalIdentify key actors that influence SME policyCreate Matrix: Organizations and Key Steps of the Policy ProcessDescribe Organizations’ formal position in the policy processDescribe Organizations’ informal influence on the policy processGive a number rating (1=low; 5=high) for the influence each organization has on different parts of the policy process.
27Stakeholder Analysis Why: Steps: To understand who gains or lose from a policy or project.To help Build Consensus.Steps:Identify StakeholdersAnalysis WorkshopDevelop StrategiesKeep SatisfiedEngage CloselyMonitor (minimum effort)Keep InformedHighPowerLowInterest
28Forcefield Analysis Identify what you want to achieve Identify forces for and against changeIdentify which are most importantDevelop strategies to reinforce those for and overcome those against
29Groundwater in Indiato maximise impact of DFID forest/ ground water research project in IndiaResearchers, policy makers and activistsUsed framework to analyse factors in water sector in IndiaDeveloped strategy for final phase:Less researchMore communicationDeveloping champions in regional and national governmentLocal, Regional & National advocacy campaign
30Communications strategy Identify the audience(s)Identify the message(s)PromotionEvaluate impact andchange as necessaryClear StrategyInteractiveMultiple formatsHow?Who?What?AudiencePromotionMessageIn 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 bookThe policy community & The policy processStructural elements of a paper - Problem description / Policy option / ConclusionKey issues: Problem oriented, targeted, multidisciplinary, applied, clear, jargon-free.
31Writing Policy Papers Providing a solution to a policy problem The policy communityThe policy processStructural elements of a paperProblem descriptionPolicy optionsConclusionKey issues: Problem oriented, targeted, multidisciplinary, applied, clear, jargon-free.[Source: Young and Quinn, 2002]
32Organisational development Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices:The entrepreneurship questionnaireTraining & mentoring etcKnowledge ManagementOrganisational developmentFinance, admin & personnel systemsStrategic (action & business) planningFundraising & reportingBuilding an organisational profileCommunications, Public Affairs and the MediaStruyk, 2002, Local Governance Institute, Open Society Network, Budapest
33Tools for Policymakers Increasing the pull for evidenceRequire the publication of the evidence baseRequire spending bids to provide evidence baseSubmit government analysis to external expert scrutinyProvide open access to informationFacilitating better evidence useEncourage better collaboration across analytical servicesCo-locate policy makers and internal analystsIntegrate analytical staff at all stagesLink R&D strategies to departmental business plansCast external researchers more as partners than as contractorsSecond more university staff into governmentTrain staff in evidence useSource: Abstracted from PIU 2000, Bullock et al (2001)
34UK Government “Tools” Overview and Checklist 1. Impact Assessment and Appraisal: guidance checklist for policy makers.Strategy and Policy Evaluation2. Strategy Survival Guide3. Magenta Book: Guidance notes on Policy Evaluation4. Green Book: Appraisal and evaluation in Central Government5. Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)Ensuring Key Perspectives are Included6. Incorporating regional perspectives into policy making toolkit (Subnational)7. International Comparisons in Policy Making Toolkit8. Gender Impact Assessment: a framework for gender mainstreaming9. Managing risks to the public: Appraisal GuidanceTesting Policy Ideas10. Policy PilotsPublic-orientated Tools11. Concern Assessment Tool12. Community Engagement How to Guide13. Connecting with Users and CitizensGetting Better Advice and Evidence14. Expert Advisory Bodies for Policymakers15. Improving Standards of Qualitative Research
35Regulatory Impact Assessment Aims to improve causality between evidence and adviceA process that must be completed for all proposed policy changes:Purpose / intended effectPolicy problemOptions & evidenceImpact & evidenceResults of consultationPublishedMore at: office.gov.uk/regulation/ria/ria_guidance/index.asp
36Using Qualitative Research A framework developed by the Cabinet Office / National Centre for Social ResearchBased on review of 29 existing frameworks (esp from medical/health)Four principles. Research should be:contributory;defensible in design;rigourous in conduct;credible in claim.18 Questions, with criteriaRecognises need for:Policymakers to have necessary expertiseNew approaches to research
37Using Qualitative Research How credible are the findings?How has knowledge or understanding been extended by the research?How well does the evaluation address its original aims and purpose?How well is the scope for drawing wider inference explained?How clear is the basis of evaluative appraisal?How defensible is the research design?How well defended are the sample design/target selection of cases/documents?How well is the eventual sample composition and coverage described?How well was the data collection carried out?How well has the approach to and formulation of analysis been conveyed?How well are the contexts of data sources retained and portrayed?How well has diversity of perspective and content been explored?How well has detail, depth and complexity of the data been conveyed?How clear are the links between data, interpretation and conclusions - i.e how well can the route to any conclusions be seen?How clear and coherent is the reporting?How clear are the assumptions/theoretical perspectives/values that have shaped the form and output of the evaluation?What evidence is there of attention to ethical issues?How adequately has the research process been documented?More at:
38“Tools” for donors… Funding mechanisms Funding communications etc Competition vs SupportAcademic rigour vs Policy relevanceIndividual Organisations vs PartnershipsProject vs ProgrammeOutputs vs Outcomes“Home” capacity vs Southern capacity-buildingFunding communications etcFunding networksEvaluation
39Evaluation Classical case studies… Episode Studies… IFPRI, IDRC Can capture depth and diversityOverestimate role of researchEpisode Studies…ODIFocus on policy changeHistoricalUnderestimate role of research
43Policy process ranking What works in DFID?Small workshop with 7 staff.Participatory pair-wise ranking of factors in key policy processes.Worked quite well.Policy processes work if they are:at the right timechampioned by a senior personbased on good theory & evidencesolve a problemhave budget for implementation
44Conclusions To improve research impact you need: Clear intent A systematic approachThe right incentives / cultureThe right systemsTo spend more on communicationsTo engage, engage, engageTo produce the right products for the right people at the right timeTo look to the long term
45Further Information ODI – www.odi.org.uk RAPID - www.odi.org.uk/rapid PublicationsWorking PapersBriefing PapersBooksCase StudiesWorkshops and SeminarsTools and ToolkitsContact: