Bridging Research and Policy

1. Bridging Research and Policy East Asia Development Network Workshop Jakarta, July 2004 John Young & Cokro Leksmono Overseas Development Institute, UK rapid@odi.org.uk

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. The BR&P Project

6. 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

7. 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

8. Linear model Percolation model, Weiss Tipping point model, Gladwell ‘Context, evidence, links’ framework, ODI Policy narratives, Roe Systems model (NSI) External forces, Lindquist ‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer ‘Street level bureaucrats’, Lipsky Policy as social experiments, Rondinelli Policy Streams & Windows, Kingdon Disjointed incrementalism, Lindquist The ‘tipping point’, Gladwell Crisis model, Kuhn ‘Framework of possible thought’, Chomsky Variables for Credibility, Beach The source is as important as content, Gladwell Linear model of communication, Shannon Interactive model, Simple and surprising stories, Communication Theory Provide solutions, Marketing Theory I Find the right packaging, Marketing II Elicit a response, Kottler Translation of technology, Volkow Epistemic communities Policy communities Advocacy coalitions etc, Pross Negotiation through networks, Sebattier Shadow networks, Klickert Chains of accountability, Fine Communication for social change, Rockefeller Wheels and webs, Chapman & Fisher Existing theory www.odi.org.uk/rapid/lessons/theory

9. 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.

10. 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 strategies1” • “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

11. The political context – political and economic structures and processes, culture, institutional pressures, incremental vs radical change etc. The links between policy and research communities – networks, relationships, power, competing discourses, trust, knowledge etc. The evidence – credibility, the degree it challenges received wisdom, research approaches and methodology, simplicity of the message, how it is packaged etc An Analytical Framework External Influences Socio-economic and cultural influences, donor policies etc

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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)

16. Any Questions?

17. 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!

18. The political context – political and economic structures and processes, culture, institutional pressures, incremental vs radical change etc. The links between policy and research communities – networks, relationships, power, competing discourses, trust, knowledge etc. The evidence – credibility, the degree it challenges received wisdom, research approaches and methodology, simplicity of the message, how it is packaged etc An Analytical Framework External Influences Socio-economic and cultural influences, donor policies etc

19. Other models

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

21. 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 re-packaging? • Links: Who are the key individuals? Are there existing networks to use? How best to transfer the information? The media? Campaigns?

22. What researchers need to do • Work with them – seek commissions • Strategic opportunism – prepare for known events + resources for others • Get to know the policymakers. • Identify friends and foes. • Prepare for policy opportunities. • Look out for policy windows. • Who are the policymakers? • Is there demand for ideas? • What is the policy process? • Establish credibility • Provide practical solutions • Establish legitimacy. • Present clear options • Use familiar narratives. • Build a reputation • Action-research • Pilot projects to generate legitimacy • Good communication • What is the current theory? • What are the narratives? • How divergent is it? • Build partnerships. • Identify key networkers, mavens and salesmen. • Use informal contacts • Get to know the others • Work through existing networks. • Build coalitions. • Build new policy networks. • Who are the stakeholders? • What networks exist? • Who are the connectors, mavens and salesmen?

23. Paravets in Kenya • Professionalisation of Public Services. • Structural Adjustment → collapse. • 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! 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

24. Paravets in Kenya - Political Context • Professionalisation of Public Services. • Structural Adjustment → collapse of services. • Paravet projects emerge. • ITDG projects. • Privatisation. • ITDG Paravet network. • Rapid spread in North. • KVB letter (January 1998). • Multistakeholder WSs → new policies. • Still not approved / passed! • Professionalisation of Public Services. • Structural Adjustment • Privatisation • ITDG Paravet network and change of DVS. • KVB letter (January 1998). • Multistakeholder WSs→ new policies. 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

25. International Research The Hubl Study Paravets in Kenya - Research • Professionalisation of Public Services. • Structural Adjustment → collapse of services. • Paravet projects emerge. • ITDG projects. • Privatisation. • ITDG Paravet network. • Rapid spread in North. • KVB letter (January 1998). • Multistakeholder WSs → new policies. • Still not approved / passed! • Professionalisation of Public Services. • Structural Adjustment • Privatisation • ITDG Paravet network and change of DVS. • KVB letter (January 1998). • Multistakeholder WSs→new policies. 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s ITDG projects – collaborative action research.

26. International Research The Hubl Study Dr Kajume Paravets in Kenya - Links • Professionalisation of Public Services. • Structural Adjustment → collapse of services. • Paravet projects emerge. • ITDG projects. • Privatisation. • ITDG Paravet network. • Rapid spread in North. • KVB letter (January 1998). • Multistakeholder WSs → new policies. • Still not approved / passed! • Professionalisation of Public Services. • Structural Adjustment • Privatisation • ITDG Paravet network and change of DVS. • KVB letter (January 1998). • Multistakeholder WSs→new policies. 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s ITDG projects – collaborative action research.

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. Policy entrepreneurs Networkers Storytellers Fixers Engineers

32. Policy Entrepreneur Scores Herman Joseph Kraft 37 30 29 54 Vijay Kanapathy 18 32 46 54 Hach Sok 28 38 40 44 Prof Ragayah Hj Mat Zin 40 26 36 48 Average >44 = Low <30 = High <23 = V.High

33. Policy Entrepreneurs in UK Ashley Parashram 45 25 35 45 Bernard Lawer Tetteh-Dumanya 36 27 37 50 Dan Start 26 34 43 47 David Redhouse 39 36 39 36 Enrique Mendizabal 40 29 37 44 Gerry Power 39 35 35 41 Harinder Janjua 22 38 43 47 Karen Iles 41 37 40 32 Lydia Richardson 39 36 39 36 Marta Foresti 42 30 38 40 Michael Majale 36 36 37 41 Mike Albu 41 32 32 45 Monica Blagescu 38 37 35 40 Patrick Watt 31 41 41 37 Richard Graham 37 26 37 48 Average 37 33 38 42 >44 = Low <30 = High <23 = V.High

34. Any Questions?

35. 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!

36. 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

37. 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 • Building an organisational profile • Communications, Public Affairs and the Media Struyk, 2002, Local Governance Institute, Open Society Network, Budapest

38. Practical Tools Overarching Tools - The RAPID Framework - Using the Framework - The Entrepreneurship Questionnaire Context Assessment Tools - Stakeholder Analysis - Forcefield Analysis - SWOT analysis - Policy Mapping - Political Context Mapping - Problem Tree Communication Tools - Communications Strategy - Writeshops - Message Design - Making use of the media Research Tools - Case Studies - Episode Studies - Surveys - Bibliometric Analysis - Focus Group Discussion Policy Influence Tools - Influence Mapping & Power Mapping - Lobbying and Advocacy - Campaigning: A Simple Guide - Competency self-assessment

39. 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.

40. High Keep Satisfied Engage Closely Power Monitor (minimum effort) Keep Informed Low Low High Interest Stakeholder Analysis • Why: • Understand who will gain or lose from a policy or project. • Help Build Consensus. • Steps: • Identify Stakeholders. • Analysis Workshop. • (Develop Strategies)

41. 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

42. Forcefield Analysis • Process: • Identify a specific change you want to achieve • Identify supporting and opposing forces • (Identify Priorities) • (Develop Strategies)

43. 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.

44. 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 SWOT Analysis Stages: • Write clear policy influence aim, • Brainstorm of ideas, • Assess internal capacity, • Assess external environments, • Wrap-up with action oriented discussion

45. Any Questions?

46. 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!

47. Other sources of information: RAPnet: www.gdnet.org/rapnet RAPID: www.odi.org.uk/rapid