Stakeholder engagement and evidence uptake plan (SEEP)
STUDY TITLE
3ie GRANT CODE
AUTHOR(S) OF SEEP
PRIMARY CONTACT FOR
SEEP
PRIMARY CONTACT’S
EMAIL AND SKYPE
INFORMATION
TOTAL BUDGET
ALLOCATED FOR SEEP
ACTIVITIES
About 3ie
3ie’s mandate is to improve the evidence base for what works, how, why and at what cost in
international development policies and programmes in low- and middle-income countries
(L&MICs). To further that mission, 3ie funds high-quality impact evaluations and systematic
reviews that are policy relevant and useful to decision makers.
What is a stakeholder engagement and evidence uptake plan
(SEEP)?
3ie recognises that evidence alone does not have much impact. This evidence suggests
that, among other things, uptake and use is highly dependent on factors related to
communication and engagement. Early and ongoing engagement with a range of key actors
can therefore be very effective. Dedicated to funding policy-relevant research that decision
makers can access and understand, 3ie requires researchers to develop a stakeholder
engagement and evidence uptake plan to benefit from what we know about evidence uptake
and use.
This plan will help you think through strategies to encourage study ownership by key
stakeholders from the very beginning, strengthen the demand for information about study
progress and results and help increase the likelihood that findings will be known, understood
and used to improve policy and programming.
Version 03 July 2015
Page 1 of 14
Ensuring that the plan is appropriate to your role as the evaluation
team
3ie expressly cautions against the promotion of findings from single studies without seating
findings in the broader evidence base. Researchers have a necessary and vital role to play
as communicators of evidence so that policymakers and implementers understand and use
your information in appropriate ways. This plan takes into account where timely and
appropriate communication and engagement by researchers makes the most contribution.
We also know that there are limits to what researchers can do in promoting evidence use
from a given study.
Knowledge intermediary
Actively engaging in
policy and policy practice
debates: taking part in
meetings and providing
expert advice
Knowledge translator
Translating research
evidence for non
specialist audiences:
holding workshops,
consultations and writing
policy briefs
Information intermediary
Making information
available: putting
research into the public
domain
Moving from dissemination to engagement
(Adapted from Fig 4: The spectrum of knowledge functions in the Global Mental Health Policy Toolkit developed by ODI)
Realistic expectations from a plan
Change in policy or programme may take longer than the life of the grant. However,
evidence is much more likely to contribute to that change if the team does lay down the
foundation with effective communication and engagement approaches.
The plan and its implementation are 3ie grant requirements
We strongly recommend that you develop your plan in the team and in collaboration with the
implementing agency as appropriate. You may reach out to 3ie for any inputs or constructive
feedback as you develop your plan.
A completed SEEP must be approved by 3ie before the first tranche for full impact
evaluation is disbursed. For each reporting cycle, grantees will be required to report on their
policy and programming engagement and uptake activities (as per the guidelines in Error!
Reference source not found. of this document).
The plan is a living document and an active strategy. Policy and programme implementation
contexts are dynamic. Opportunities for engagement emerge or change regularly and this
should be reflected in evolving approaches to engagement over the life of the project.
Version 03 July 2015
Page 2 of 14
CONTEXT ANALYSIS
GUIDANCE
The political economy context for evidence production is an
important determinant in whether or not the evidence is likely
to be taken up and used (see guidance box for relevant
resources). Usually, the main driver is the political context,
which includes the political system- actors and institutionsand the power dynamics both among and within the
institution. For example, whether it is a relatively open and
democratic or a closed and autocratic society, or if it is a
fragile and in-conflict society where political institutions are
weak or non-functioning. This is likely to impact how
knowledge circulates and how decisions are taken. It would
hence be important to consider if knowledge is public, or
whether critical debates and decisions take place in private
networks and behind closed doors? Political context, while
outside of the control of the study, is an important
consideration to make given its potential impact.
Context analysis is crucially important for ensuring quality
study design and implementation, but also for understanding
how, when and with whom to communicate and engage. The
guidance box lists some indicative questions that are useful to
consider in your analysis.
Version 03 July 2015
Page 3 of 14
DFID Political Economy Analysis How
to Note, 2009
www.odi.org/publications/4797political-economy
ODI Political economy analysis
framework
http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files
/odi-assets/publications-opinionfiles/8334.pdf

What are the knowledge or
evidence gaps in policy and
practice that the study is hoping to
address?

What opportunities does the
context present, which make this
evaluation and the issues it seeks
to address timely and relevant?

Is there demand from
policymakers and/or programme
implementers for the kind of
evidence the evaluation is
designed to provide?

Is there a culture of using
evidence for decision making by
those directly involved in the study
and by those not directly involved
but who could benefit from
knowing about its findings (such
as the public, government, the
media, academia)?

Are you working in a country that
has a formalised system for the
use of evidence?

Is independent evidence looked
upon favourably in the political
context?
RISKS
GUIDANCE
All undertakings have risk. Doing a risk register
of both the controllable and the uncontrollable is
an important study management tool.
Below we provide an indicative list of some risks
that the research teams might face during the
course of the study.
Certain contextual factors present risks that, if
not adequately recognised and mitigated, could
hamper or even derail uptake of study findings.
Risks in your immediate environment of the
programme and implementing agency are
important to identify given that there may be risks
related to study ownership, understanding of the
study design and objectives, and expectations
about the findings (especially findings with no or
negative impact) by the implementing agency
and other key actors.
Using the template below, please list all risks,
both controllable and the uncontrollable that you
are likely to face, focussing first on risks that you
can manage or mitigate through communication
and engagement. You can add additional rows
below for more risks that may have been
identified.
Examples of risks amenable to mitigation by the
team:









Null or negative findings (you manage
expectations and explain the findings clearly)
Opposition from actors who are against
implementation or success of the programme
being evaluated
Tight budgets in the implementing agency ( you
include cost-effectiveness findings and ensure
recommendations are financially feasible)
Over reliance on one key stakeholder
Screening of findings to suit vested interests
lobbied by a few
Lack of ownership among stakeholders of the
intervention being evaluated
Risks related to successful implementation of
the programme being evaluated
Disinterested project staff and/or beneficiaries
Chance that no one with power knows about
the findings
Examples of risks that are hard to control or outside
the team’s control that could negatively impact
study results or uptake and use:



Version 03 July 2015
Page 4 of 14
Upcoming elections that prevent actors from
taking positions or actions needed to support
policy change
Limited freedom of press
High political or staff turnover.
Risk 1:
Mitigating action (if possible):
Risk 2:
Mitigating action (if possible):
Risk 3:
Mitigating action (if possible):
Version 03 July 2015
Page 5 of 14
SUMMARY OF ENGAGEMENT DURING
THE PROPOSAL PREPARATION GRANT
(PPG) PHASE
In your application proposal you briefly noted the process
followed during the PPG phase for ensuring engagement
with the implementing agency. Here we expect you to
elaborate on the process by summarising the activities
undertaken during the PPG phase, both with the
implementing agency and other stakeholders. Please
also highlight feedback or inputs received on study
design and questions and how this feedback was
incorporated or addressed in the design proposed to 3ie.
You are requested to be specific in your information
about the details related to each activity below as well as
the stakeholders met. To the extent possible, please
provide the names of the stakeholder and their
institutional affiliation and their position in the institution.
The guidance box provides broad expectations around
engagement.
Using the table below, please highlight efforts undertaken
by the team to establish ongoing dialogue and promoting
ownership of the study.
Objective
Activities undertaken
(include highlights from the
discussion and action points)
Promoting
understanding of the
IE, including
preparing the IA for
findings of no or
negative impact
Ensuring
involvement of IA
and other
stakeholders in the
study design and
identifying the
research questions
Establishing the
policy relevance of
the evaluation
Version 03 July 2015
Page 6 of 14
GUIDANCE
Below is an indicative list of activities that
3ie expects the grantee to undertake, as
communicated in the RFQ or the
introductory calls.



Establish an ongoing dialogue with the
implementing agency staff to ensure
buy-in and increase ownership to
encourage uptake of study findings.
Hold at least one workshop with the
implementing agency staff to increase
understanding of impact evaluation and
develop the programme theory of
change, evaluation questions and
timeframes for evaluation.
Carry out scoping and other background
information needed to ensure that the
full evaluation proposal is relevant to the
programme and policy needs and
priorities of the implementer and identify
any global public goods, as in filling a
priority evidence gap, needed beyond
the immediate study context.
Who participated
(name and affiliation)
EVIDENCE UPTAKE AND USE
OBJECTIVES
GUIDANCE
We recognise that your primary objective is to implement a
study that leads to sound findings. However, as noted
earlier, 3ie believes that the role of the study team extends
beyond evidence production since the mere presence of
evidence is usually not enough to promote use.
Specific – do the evidence uptake
and use objectives specify what is to
be achieved clearly enough to be
monitored?
Your objectives should be SMART:
We would like you to summarise your main objectives for
evidence uptake and use, in the light of the type of
evidence that you expect to produce and the context in
which it will be communicated. We encourage you to try
and limit objectives to not more than three.
Measurable – can you monitor your
progress on the objectives that you
have set out for yourself? (see
section on Evaluation and Learning)
Achievable – are the objectives
realistic given the resources
available to you? This could include
resources in addition to 3ie funding.
Relevant – is the study design likely
to produce findings that will be
useful, even if null?
Time-bound – have you identified
objectives that can be achieved
within the timeframe of this project?
Longer term: Some objectives may
not be achievable during the study,
but setting goals is important to
ensure work is done to promote the
conditions needed to achieve them.
Note: Your objectives could be
influencing strategy and resource
allocation within the implementing
agency, or higher order objectives
like reframing the debate on the
issue being studied, informing
programmatic approach either
nationally or globally, facilitating
enactment or elimination of a
specific legislation or building an
alliance or network around a specific
policy recommendation.
Version 03 July 2015
Page 7 of 14
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
Your engagement and evidence uptake and use objectives
will help define your key stakeholders for the study and its
findings.
A comprehensive analysis of stakeholders who are likely to
be key in the uptake of research findings is an important
precursor to drafting a successful stakeholder engagement
and communication strategy.
Identify key individuals and groups that will be essential to
your engagement as well as groups that may hinder your
engagement and evidence uptake efforts (detractors).
Provide analysis of how and why these actors will be
beneficial and how you plan on engaging with them.
Version 03 July 2015
Page 8 of 14
HOW TO DO A STAKEHOLDER
ANALYSIS
Appended to the document is a 3ie
worksheet for stakeholder mapping
and analysis (Error! Reference
source not found.). The worksheet
provides a step wise approach to
doing a robust stakeholder analysis
and mapping your key stakeholder
and influencers.
Note: 3ie doesn’t require you to
submit the filled out worksheets. A
summary of the findings from the
exercise can be provided to us here.
KEY INFLUENCERS
Identify at least three stakeholders (we would expect you to have more in most instances) with the potential to influence policy in the area addressed by
your evaluation and explain your selection. Key influencers include various groups when they are in a position to influence policy and programming, such
as policymakers, media, civil society organisations, professional associations and trade unions, religious groups and traditional leaders, private sector
and so on. Not all contacts should be at the project level, nor, generally speaking, should your first three all be from government.
You may add additional contacts if you wish in separate sheets.
ONE
Name:
Name of organisation:
Position:
Website:
Contacts: (email or telephone number)
Type of organisation: (Government agency- central, regional or local; civil society
organisations; international organisations, research organisations, think tanks,
development agencies, media, trade unions or professional associations, private
sector partners and others)
Relevance or level of influence: Why is his or her participation important? What role does she or he play in the decision-making process? How
much influence or leverage is she or he expected to have? What is his or her perceived interest in the evaluation process? Is she or he part of a
particular network (e.g. policy network, policy committees, advisory boards or research communities)?
Do you have any previous experience of working with this stakeholder? If so, please elaborate.
Version 03 July 2015
Page 9 of 14
TWO
Name:
Name of organisation:
Position:
Website:
Contacts: (email or telephone number)
Type of organisation: (Government agency- central, regional or local; civil society
organisations; international organisations, research organisations, think tanks,
development agencies, media, trade unions or professional associations, private
sector partners and others)
Relevance or level of influence: Why is his or her participation important? What role does she or he play in the decision-making process? How
much influence or leverage is she or he expected to have? What is his or her perceived interest in the evaluation process? Is she or he part of a
particular network (e.g. policy network, policy committees, advisory boards or research communities)?
Do you have any previous experience of working with this stakeholder? If so, please elaborate.
Version 03 July 2015
Page 10 of 14
THREE
Name:
Name of organisation:
Position:
Website:
Contacts: (email or telephone number)
Type of organisation: (Government agency- central, regional or local; civil society
organisations; international organisations, research organisations, think tanks,
development agencies, media, trade unions or professional associations, private
sector partners and others)
Relevance or level of influence: Why is his or her participation important? What role does she or he play in the decision-making process? How
much influence or leverage is she or he expected to have? What is his or her perceived interest in the evaluation process? Is she or he part of a
particular network (e.g. policy network, policy committees, advisory boards or research communities)?
Do you have any previous experience of working with this stakeholder? If so, please elaborate.
Version 03 July 2015
Page 11 of 14
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PLAN
Please provide a detailed plan for engaging relevant stakeholders throughout the study duration that you identified in your stakeholder analysis. You will
report progress on those activities and provide supporting documents including list of participants, key takeaways or follow-up plans from meetings,
presentations, blogs, articles, policy briefs, memos and other related knowledge products including publications.
Key milestones
Why- objectives of the
engagement
Who- stakeholders
How- channels
By whom
*Specify approximate
timelines within each
evaluation stages.
Please summarise here why you
are engaging with the identified
stakeholders? e.g. raising
awareness, updating on study
progress, securing buy-in from
sceptics, sharing preliminary
results or disseminating final
results.
Of the stakeholders identified
above, please specify which
ones you would engage with at
what stage of the project
Specify the channels to be used for
each stakeholder or group of
stakeholders (an indicative list is
provided below):
Team members who will lead on
engagement
These should be aligned
to your deliverables and
disbursements (D&D)
schedule. Tranche
numbers are only
indicative. Your project
may have less or more
than 5 tranches
depending upon the
study duration
 Meetings
 Design, training or dissemination
workshop
 Participation in online forums or
working groups
 Media interviews, briefings, opinion
pieces, social media or blogging
 Presentation at conferences
 Study outputs such as briefing
notes and videos
Tranche 2
Tranche 3
Tranche 4
Final tranche
Note: The plan needs to align with your deliverables and disbursements (D&D) schedule. You will hence be asked to revisit the engagement plan once your D&D has
been agreed to.
Version 03 July 2015
Page 12 of 14
MONITORING
GUIDANCE
Do you have a systematic approach for monitoring whether
your stakeholder engagement and communication plan is on
track? Using Error! Reference source not found., please
list the indicators you will use and the tools for monitoring the
same.
Monitoring engagement, uptake and
use indicators are a part of 3ie’s
reporting to its donors that in turn help
ensure funding for future studies.
You can frame your indicators based
on the activities you are likely to
undertake (as also indicated in the
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
AND COMMUNICATION PLAN
section of the SEEP). So, if you say
media engagement will play an
important role as part of your overall
strategy, you should have indicators
that monitor your level of media
engagement and coverage (i.e. media
clippings or citations).
The team should identify:
Engagement indicators- Evidence
dissemination (e.g. # knowledge
products, media coverage, #
knowledge sharing or dissemination
events or meetings, # of people
reached or consulted, # of high level
policymakers reached or consulted
etc.)
Uptake indicators- Research
communication or evidence that the
study is catalysing a debate (e.g.
study findings cited in policy and
strategy documents by key
stakeholders in the sector or
discussed in the parliament, people
reporting they have been influenced
by the study, feedback on study etc.)
Influence and use indicatorsEvidence uptake or evidence of
practical use (e.g. adopted legislation,
behavioural changes in practices on
the ground (in programme design and
implementation as well at the
institutional level etc.)
Version 03 July 2015
Page 13 of 14
LEARNING
GUIDANCE
3ie encourages you to have a system in place for
documenting learnings from the study. These learnings
could be around study design, implementation and/or
stakeholder engagement and communication. You could
use a journal, or any other tool, to track these learnings
and report to 3ie. At the end of the study as part of the
final progress report, you will be requested to produce a
document that comprehensively captures your learnings
from the study.
Given this, please elaborate on the activities that you will
undertake to promote learning within the team and with
your key counterparts (e.g. key stakeholders and
implementing agency staff) in the study.
An indicative list of questions that you
will be requested to report on towards
the end of the study is provided
below.
Evaluation design
Challenges faced while designing the
study; facilitating or enabling factors
that contributed to the design of a
policy-relevant study; mid-term
changes in the study design, if any
and factors leading to the same; any
lessons for approaching study design
differently for future studies in similar
settings.
Study implementation
Challenges related to adhering to the
planned timeline of the evaluation;
implementation bottlenecks, if any,
along the causal chain of the
intervention evaluated; lessons
around data collection.
Engagement
Reflections on stakeholder
engagement and communication,
including lessons learnt from
mitigating unforeseen challenges and
risks.
Based on the findings and the
context, we are interested in knowing
what, how and where you see that
there may be uptake and use at some
point in the short to medium term for
which we might find that the study
contributed to the change. Your
information will be the basis by which
3ie can determine if it will continue to
monitor a grant for tracking change
that may be associated with the study.
Version 03 July 2015
Page 14 of 14