Bridging Research and Policy
East Asia Development
Network Workshop
Jakarta, July 2004
John Young & Cokro Leksmono
Overseas Development Institute, UK
rapid@odi.org.uk
Workshop Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introductions
The BR&P Project, RAPID Programme
Lessons and an analytical framework
Key factors affecting linkages in the region
A practical framework to improve links
What you do
Some tools and more information
The GDN BR&P Project
• To improve understanding of Research-Policy
links and provide practical advice to
researchers and policy makers:
– Increased awareness among policy-makers of
the value of research
– Enhanced understanding of how to imporve
research-policy links
– Lessons, recommendations and practical tools for
researchers and policy makers
The BR&P Project
• 3 years, $5m
• Phase I:
– Literature Review
– Preliminary Case Studies
– Surveys
– A framework for further research
• Phase II: More detailed research
• Phase III: Information and Training
The BR&P Project
RAPID Programme
• Research
– Desk-based literature reviews
• Bridging Research and Policy
• Communications
• Knowledge Management
– GDN project:
– ODI projects
• 4 detailed case studies
• HIV/AIDS
• Advisory work
• Workshops and seminars
www.odi.org.uk/rapid
Definitions
• Research: “any systematic effort to increase the
stock of knowledge”
• Policy: a “purposive course of action followed by an
actor or set of actors”
– Agendas / policy horizons
– Official statements documents
– Patterns of spending
– Implementation processes
– Activities on the ground
Existing theory
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Linear model
Percolation model, Weiss
Tipping point model, Gladwell
‘Context, evidence, links’ framework, ODI
Policy narratives, Roe
Systems model (NSI)
External forces, Lindquist
‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer
‘Street level bureaucrats’, Lipsky
Policy as social experiments, Rondinelli
Policy Streams & Windows, Kingdon
Disjointed incrementalism, Lindquist
The ‘tipping point’, Gladwell
Crisis model, Kuhn
‘Framework of possible thought’,
Chomsky
16. Variables for Credibility, Beach
17. The source is as important as content,
Gladwell
18. Linear model of communication, Shannon
19. Interactive model,
20. Simple and surprising stories,
Communication Theory
21. Provide solutions, Marketing Theory I
22. Find the right packaging, Marketing II
23. Elicit a response, Kottler
24. Translation of technology, Volkow
25. Epistemic communities
26. Policy communities
27. Advocacy coalitions etc, Pross
28. Negotiation through networks, Sebattier
29. Shadow networks, Klickert
30. Chains of accountability, Fine
31. Communication for social change,
Rockefeller
32. Wheels and webs, Chapman & Fisher
www.odi.org.uk/rapid/lessons/theory
Existing theory – a short list
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Policy narratives, Roe
Systems of Innovation Model, (NSI)
‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer
‘Street level bureaucrats’, Lipsky
Policy as social experiments, Rondene
Policy streams and policy windows, Kingdon
Disjointed Incrementalism, Lindblom
Social Epidemics, Gladwell
ODI working paper 174, 2002, Hovland, de Vibe and Young
Bridging Research and Policy: An Annotated Bibliography.
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”
1
- Clay & Schaffer (1984), Room for Manoeuvre; An Exploration of Public Policy in
Agricultural and Rural Development, Heineman Educational Books, London
2 – Omamo (2003), Policy Research on African Agriculture: Trends, Gaps, and Challenges,
International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Research Report No 21
An Analytical Framework
External Influences
Socio-economic and
cultural influences,
donor policies etc
The links between policy
and research communities –
networks, relationships, power,
competing discourses, trust,
knowledge etc.
The political context –
political and economic structures
and processes, culture, institutional
pressures, incremental vs radical
change etc.
The evidence – credibility, the
degree it challenges received
wisdom, research approaches
and methodology, simplicity of
the message, how it is packaged
etc
Political Context: Key Areas
• The macro political context (democracy, governance, media
freedom; academic freedom)
• The degree of demand for, and contestation research-based
evidence
• How policymakers think (narratives & policy streams)
• Policy implementation and practice (bureaucracies,
incentives, street level, room for manoeuvre, participatory
approaches)
• Decisive moments in the policy process (policy processes,
votes, policy windows and crises)
Context is crucial, but you can maximize your chances
Evidence: Relevance and credibility
• Key factor – did it provide a solution to a problem?
• Relevance:
– Topical relevance – What to do?
– Operational usefulness – How to do it? :
• Credibility:
– Research approach
– Of researcher > of evidence itself
• Strenuous advocacy efforts are often needed
• 2-way communication
Links: Feedback and Networks
• Feedback processes often prominent in successful
cases.
• Trust & legitimacy
• Networks:
– Epistemic communities
– Policy networks
– Advocacy coalitions
• The role of individuals: connectors, mavens and
salesmen
External Influence
• Big “incentives” can spur evidence-based policy –
e.g. EU accession, PRSP processes.
• And some interesting examples of donors trying
new things re. supporting research
• But, we really don’t know whether and how donors
can best promote use of evidence in policymaking
(credibility vs backlash)
Any Questions?
Group Task 1
For the EA region:
• What are the key factors affecting …
– The impact of your Institutes’ Work?
– Research policy interaction in the region
generally
• Appoint a secretary to take notes!
An Analytical Framework
External Influences
Socio-economic and
cultural influences,
donor policies etc
The links between policy
and research communities –
networks, relationships, power,
competing discourses, trust,
knowledge etc.
The political context –
political and economic structures
and processes, culture, institutional
pressures, incremental vs radical
change etc.
The evidence – credibility, the
degree it challenges received
wisdom, research approaches
and methodology, simplicity of
the message, how it is packaged
etc
Other models
A Practical Framework
External Influences
Politics and
Policymaking
Campaigning,
Lobbying
Scientific
information
exchange &
validation
political context
Media,
Advocacy,
Networking
links
Policy analysis, &
research
Research,
learning &
thinking
evidence
What you need to know
• The external environment: Who are the key actors?
What is their agenda? How do they influence the political
context?
• The 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 repackaging?
• Links: Who are the key individuals? Are there existing
networks to use? How best to transfer the information? The
media? Campaigns?
What researchers need to do
What researchers
need to know
What researchers
need to do
Political Context:
• Get to know the policymakers. • Work with them – seek
commissions
• Identify friends and foes.
• Strategic opportunism –
• Prepare for policy
prepare for known events
opportunities.
+ resources for others
• Look out for policy windows.
• Who are the policymakers?
• Is there demand for ideas?
• What is the policy process?
Evidence
• What is the current theory?
• What are the narratives?
• How divergent is it?
Links
• Who are the stakeholders?
• What networks exist?
• Who are the connectors,
mavens and salesmen?
•
•
•
•
•
Establish credibility
Provide practical solutions
Establish legitimacy.
Present clear options
Use familiar narratives.
• Get to know the others
• Work through existing
networks.
• Build coalitions.
• Build new policy networks.
How to do it
• Build a reputation
• Action-research
• Pilot projects to generate
legitimacy
• Good communication
• Build partnerships.
• Identify key networkers,
mavens and salesmen.
• Use informal contacts
Paravets in Kenya
1970s - Professionalisation of Public Services.
- Structural Adjustment → collapse.
- Paravet projects emerge.
1980s - ITDG projects.
- Privatisation.
- ITDG Paravet network.
1990s
- Rapid spread in North.
- KVB letter (January 1998).
- Multistakeholder WSs → new policies.
2000s
- Still not approved / passed!
Paravets in Kenya - Political Context
1970s - Professionalisation of Public Services.
- Structural Adjustment → collapse of services.
- Paravet projects emerge.
1980s - ITDG projects.
- Privatisation
Privatisation.
- ITDG Paravet network
network.and change of DVS.
1990s
- Rapid spread in North.
- KVB letter (January 1998).
- Multistakeholder WSs → new policies.
2000s
- Still not approved / passed!
Paravets in Kenya - Research
International
Research
1970s - Professionalisation of Public
Services.
- Structural Adjustment → collapse of services.
- Paravet projects emerge.
1980s - ITDG projects
projects.– collaborative action research.
- Privatisation
Privatisation.
- ITDG Paravet network
network.and change of DVS.
1990s
- Rapid spread in North. The Hubl Study
- KVB letter (January 1998).
- Multistakeholder WSs → new policies.
2000s
- Still not approved / passed!
Paravets in Kenya - Links
International
Research
1970s - Professionalisation of Public
Services.
- Structural Adjustment → collapse of services.
- Paravet projects emerge.
1980s - ITDG projects
projects.– collaborative action research.
- Privatisation
Privatisation.
- ITDG Paravet network
network.and change of DVS.
1990s
- Rapid spread in North. The Hubl Study
Dr Kajume
- KVB letter (January 1998).
- Multistakeholder WSs → new policies.
2000s
- Still not approved / passed!
Paravets in Kenya - Lessons
• Political stagnation, professional
protectionism
• Practical evidence invisible to policy makers
• Powerful individuals, “professional” interests
• Bad timing - ITDG missed the boat – twice!
• A “Tipping Point”
• New champions
• Collaborative policy-research
What should ITDG have done?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Learned more about the political context
Involved more policy makers earlier
Collected more empirical data & used it better
Seized the chance in 1989
Involved non-livestock policy makers
Controlled the “club”
Looked for champions
Involved bilaterals and multilaterals
When and how to use it
• Historical analysis of a policy event
– Identify the event
– Elaborate the history – critical events, key people
– Review context, evidence and links at key
moments
– Identify & prioritise the influences
• Current analysis & strategic planning
– Identify key players
– “Workshop” the issues & develop a strategy for
maximising impact
A current example
• to maximise impact of DFID forest/ground
water research project in India
• Researchers, policy makers and activists
• Used framework to analyse factors in
water sector in India
• Developed strategy for final phase:
– Less research
– More communication
– Developing champions in regional and national
government
– Local, Regional & National advocacy campaign
Policy entrepreneurs
Storytellers
Engineers
Networkers
Fixers
Policy Entrepreneur Scores
Herman Joseph Kraft
Vijay Kanapathy
Hach Sok
Prof Ragayah Hj Mat Zin
37
18
28
40
30
32
38
26
29
46
40
36
54
54
44
48
Average
>44 = Low
<30 = High
<23 = V.High
Policy Entrepreneurs in UK
Ashley Parashram
Bernard Lawer Tetteh-Dumanya
Dan Start
David Redhouse
Enrique Mendizabal
Gerry Power
Harinder Janjua
Karen Iles
Lydia Richardson
Marta Foresti
Michael Majale
Mike Albu
Monica Blagescu
Patrick Watt
Richard Graham
Average
45
36
26
39
40
39
22
41
39
42
36
41
38
31
37
37
25
27
34
36
29
35
38
37
36
30
36
32
37
41
26
33
35
37
43
39
37
35
43
40
39
38
37
32
35
41
37
38
45
50
47
36
44
41
47
32
36
40
41
45
40
37
48
42
>44 = Low
<30 = High
<23 = V.High
Any Questions?
Group Task 2
• What do you do to ensure the policy impact of your
work
– Stories – Successes and Failures
– Specific Approaches that work in specific contexts
• What could do you do to improve the policy impact
of your work?
– Specific actions you’ll take when you get home
• Appoint a secretary to take notes!
Implications for Think Tanks
• Need to be able to:
– Understand the political context
– Do credible research
– Communicate effectively
– Work with others
• Need organisational capacity
– Staff
– Internal processes
– Funds
Organisational development tools
• Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices:
– The entrepreneurship questionnaire
– Training & mentoring etc
• Knowledge Management
• Organisational development
– Finance, admin & personnel systems
– Strategic (action & business) planning
– Fundraising & reporting
Struyk, 2002, Local
Governance
Institute, Open
Society Network,
Budapest
• Building an organisational profile
– Communications, Public Affairs and the Media
Practical Tools
Overarching Tools
- The RAPID Framework
- Using the Framework
- The Entrepreneurship
Questionnaire
Communication Tools
- Communications Strategy
- Writeshops
- Message Design
- Making use of the media
Policy Influence Tools
- Influence Mapping & Power Mapping
- Lobbying and Advocacy
- Campaigning: A Simple Guide
- Competency self-assessment
Context Assessment Tools
- Stakeholder Analysis
- Forcefield Analysis
- SWOT analysis
- Policy Mapping
- Political Context Mapping
- Problem Tree
Research Tools
- Case Studies
- Episode Studies
- Surveys
- Bibliometric Analysis
- Focus Group
Discussion
Stakeholder Analysis
‘A stakeholder is a person who has something to
gain or lose by the outcomes of a planning process
or project’.
Purpose:
•
•
Identify the needs and concerns of different stakeholders.
Should be done early in project planning stage.
Benefit:
•
•
•
To gain understanding / build consensus,
To communicate the benefit of the proposed project,
To build strong, inclusive public involvement campaign.
Stakeholder Analysis
Why:
• Understand who will gain or
lose from a policy or project.
• Help Build Consensus.
High
Keep
Satisfied
Steps:
• Identify Stakeholders.
• Analysis Workshop.
• (Develop Strategies)
Engage
Closely
Power
Monitor
(minimum
effort)
Keep
Informed
Low
Low
High
Interest
Forcefield Analysis
• Developed by Lewin (1951)
• Done by identifying the ‘driving forces’ and obstacles or
‘restraining forces’ to change.
• Can help identify the relative priority of factors on each side
of the issue.
Benefit :
• to inform decision-making
• to gain a comprehensive view of the different forces
• to analyze the possibilities for influencing policy
Forcefield Analysis
Process:
• Identify a specific
change you want to
achieve
• Identify supporting
and opposing forces
• (Identify Priorities)
• (Develop Strategies)
SWOT Analysis
Purpose:
• Can assess the internal forces that determine your
organisation’s potential to carry out a strategy (the Strengths
and Weaknesses),
• Assess the external forces that will help or hinder you (the
Opportunities and Threats),
• Helps organisations to be realistic about how much they can
achieve given limited resources and understand where they
are likely to be able to have most impact.
SWOT Analysis
Stages:
• Write clear policy influence
aim,
• Brainstorm of ideas,
• Assess internal capacity,
• Assess external
environments,
• Wrap-up with action
oriented discussion
Strengths
Weaknesses
Skills and abilities
Funding lines
Commitment to positions
Contacts & Partners
Existing Activities
Opportunities
Threats
Other orgs relevant to issue
Resources: financial, technical, human
Political and policy space
Other groups or forces
Existing Activities
Any Questions?
Group Task 3
Try a stakeholder analysis:
• Select a current research project aiming for policy
impact.
• Identify the stakeholders.
• Classify them by power and interest
• Identify one powerful, interested stakeholder
• Decide how you will engage with them
• Appoint a secretary to take notes!
Other sources of information:
RAPnet: www.gdnet.org/rapnet
RAPID: www.odi.org.uk/rapid