Uploaded on

This document provides the annual progress report (Year 1) and update to GDNet’s Baseline and M&E Framework. The document is structured according to the GDNet logframe – with separate chapters from …

This document provides the annual progress report (Year 1) and update to GDNet’s Baseline and M&E Framework. The document is structured according to the GDNet logframe – with separate chapters from the Purpose-level down through Outputs 1 to 4. Purpose Level - Diverse research and policy audiences make better use of development research from the global south; Output 1- Southern research better informed by current ideas and knowledge; Output 2 - Researchers better able to communicate their research to policy; Output 3 - Knowledge networking between researchers and with policy actors increased; and Output 4 - Lessons about knowledge brokering best practice in the global south learnt and communicated. An additional chapter focusses on Value for Money (VfM) and Most Significant change Technique (MSC) which examins 8 cases of knowledge into use in the policy process.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
130
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. GDNet M&E Report 2012 – Year 1 Robbie Gregorowski and Jodie Dubber July 2012
  • 2. 1 Contents Introduction................................................................................................................................2 GDNet Year 1 M&E Summary.....................................................................................................3 Purpose Level - Diverse research and policy audiences make better use of development research from the global south..................................................................................................6 Output 1 - Southern research better informed by current ideas and knowledge ..................11 Output 2 - Researchers better able to communicate their research to policy........................15 Output 3 - Knowledge networking between researchers and with policy actors increased...20 Output 4 - Lessons about knowledge brokering best practice in the global south learnt and communicated..........................................................................................................................39
  • 3. 2 Introduction This document provides the annual progress report (Year 1) and update to GDNet’s Baseline and M&E Framework. The document is structured according to the GDNet logframe – with separate chapters from the Purpose-level down through Outputs 1 to 5. An additional chapter focusses on Value for Money (VfM) as a requirement of the DFID Annual Review process. Each Chapter is structured as follows:  Year 1 summary – A clear summary statement of progress for each output indicator for comparison against the baseline and the relevant milestone. The statement is followed by a more detailed elaboration of the year 1 M&E data generated and an analysis of its implications.  M&E approach summary – A very brief explanation of the approach and method adopted to generate the data for each output indicator. Readers should refer to the 2011 GDNet Baseline and M&E Framework for a more detailed account of how the M&E framework was designed and the methods adopted.  Data management plan – Setting out the on-going M&E roles and responsibilities within the GDNet team.  Evidence base – Providing detailed summaries of the relevant data used to support each output indicator – typically web statistics, web users survey, log templates, and interviews. Unless otherwise stated, Year 1 refers to the period January 2011 to December 2011. The GDNet M&E baseline was established in December 2010 and reports against an annual reporting cycle according to the calendar year January to December as follows: Logframe M&E Framework Baseline Baseline – est. December 2010 Milestone 1 (2011) Year 1 – January to December 2011 Milestone 2 (2012) Year 2 – January to December 2012 Target (2014) Year 3 – January to December 2013 with the potential to extend to July 2014 to cover GDNet Programme completion .
  • 4. 3 GDNet Year 1 M&E Summary Purpose Diverse research and policy audiences make better use of development research from the global south Indicator 1 Southern researchers use of other southern research in own research Baseline Significant use of Southern research in Southern researchers’ own research - 64% of GDNet researchers use Southern research to a great or moderate extent and GDNet’s most popular KB publications on average draw on research which is 40% from the global south and 60% from elsewhere Year 1 Significant use of Southern research in Southern researchers’ own research – 64% of respondents use Southern research to a great or moderate extent. GDNet Ownership  Sherine Ghoneim Tools & Frequency  GDNet users web survey - annual  Bibliometric sampling exercise –citation analysis - annual Indicator 2 Cases of knowledge into use in policy processes Baseline Eight cases of knowledge into use in the policy process selected, developed and validated by GDNet registered researchers Year 1 Eight new cases of knowledge into use in the policy process selected, developed and validated by GDNet registered researchers. 12-months follow up conducted with previous set of eight baselines cases. GDNet Ownership  Sherine Ghoneim Tools & Frequency  GDNet users annual web survey – case identification - annual  Awards & Medals Finalists Most Significant Change Technique – case selection  Informal case study telephone interview – case development and validation Output 1 Southern research better informed by current ideas and knowledge Indicator 1 Level of use of, and satisfaction with GDNet research-orientated online services Baseline High general use – an average of 23,617 visitors (33% from Global South) resulting in 8,359 recipients of Funding Opportunities newsletter, and 1144 JSTOR sessions to access online journals. Moderate satisfaction– Knowledgebase online papers rated extremely useful by 38% and moderately useful by a further 32% of respondents to the GDNet users’ web survey. Access to online journals rated extremely useful by 41% and moderately useful by a further 29% of respondents Year 1 Significant increase in headline level of use on the baseline, with the GDNet website receiving an average of 29,416 visitors per month with 39% coming from the Global South. Level of satisfaction is broadly maintained whilst noting a high proportion of users remain unaware of the suite of recently launched ‘Web 2.0’ services offered by GDNet. GDNet users seem satisfied with the services provided by GDNet. GDNet Ownership  Shahira Emara Tools & Frequency  GDNet web statistics – collected quarterly & analysed annually  GDNet users web survey - annual
  • 5. 4 Indicator 2 Level of use of, and satisfaction with themed services Baseline Themed services not yet established Year 1 GDNet piloted a beta version of 11 themed services on 13 July 2011, over half way through the Year 1 period under review, and launched the full set of 23 themed services on 11 November 2011. It is therefore too early to fully assess the level of use and satisfaction with the services. GDNet Ownership  Shahira Emara Tools & Frequency  GDNet web statistics – collected quarterly & analysed annually  GDNet users web survey - annual Output 2 Researchers better able to communicate their research to policy Indicator 1 Researchers’ confidence and ability to communicate their research – immediately following capacity building effort Baseline On a self-assessment scale where 0 = not at all confident and 5 = very confident, the average GDNet researcher is moderately confident (2.8 out of 5) to communicate their research to policy before any training/capacity building has been provided by GDNet. Year 1 On a ‘before and after’ self-assessment scale (where 0 = not at all confident and 5 = very confident to communicate their research to policy), the average capacity building participant increases from 2.6 before to 3.9 (a 50% increase) after a GDNet capacity building effort. Similarly in terms of ability, the average participant increases in ability from 1.8 before to 3.4 (an 89% increase) afterwards. GDNet Ownership  Zeinab Sabet Tools & Frequency  Research communications capacity building questionnaire – per event Indicator 2 Researchers’ confidence and ability to communicate their research – sustainability of capacity building effort Baseline First set of cases of researchers’ ability to communicate their research to policy being developed. Year 1 First set of nine ‘pledge’ cases developed from GDNet workshops 3-6 held during Year 1 indicating the sustainability and application of GDNet’s capacity building effort. GDNet Ownership  Zeinab Sabet Tools & Frequency  Research communications capacity building questionnaire – cases developed from 3-month pledge follow up  12-month pledge follow up (introduced in Year 1) in process Output 3 Knowledge networking between researchers and with policy actors increased Indicator 1 GDNet ‘user base’ interaction Baseline Very limited ‘user base’ interaction – online collaborative workspace piloted Year 1 GDNet have actively engaged with their ‘user base’ throughout Year 1, employing a wide range of communications products and activities (blogging, setting up community groups, using social media such as Twitter, producing electronic newsletters etc.) to generate a range of results and lessons. GDNet Ownership  Zeinab Sabet / Sherine Ghoneim Tools &  User base interaction log – on-going / following each round of interaction
  • 6. 5 Frequency Indicator 2 Researchers interactions with the policy domain Baseline Very limited interaction – GDNet facilitation of researchers interactions with the policy domain not yet established Year 1 During Year 1 GDNet have facilitated four distinct interactions between Southern researchers and the policy domain. This experience has generated a small number of valid lessons including the requirement for GDNet to actively ‘host’ any researcher – policy domain interaction in order to introduce both parties and encourage interaction based on common interest. GDNet Ownership  Zeinab Sabet / Sherine Ghoneim Tools & Frequency  Interaction log - on-going / following each round of interaction Output 4 Lessons about knowledge brokering best practice in the global south learnt and communicated Indicator 1 Generation of best practice lessons Baseline Generation of best practice lessons not yet established Year 1 GDNet routinely log and reflect on knowledge brokering best practice in order to generate lessons. GDNet Ownership  Sherine Ghoneim / Shahira Emara Tools & Frequency  Capacity building event reflection – on-going / following each knowledge brokering expert involvement  Synthesis of event reflection best practice - annual Indicator 2 Communication of lessons Baseline Communication of best practice lessons not yet established Year 1 GDNet has undertaken four distinct best practice communications activities during Year 1. Of particular note was a combined paper and blog entry on ‘Are southern academics virtually connected?’ which was picked up by The Guardian newspaper in the UK. GDNet Ownership  Sherine Ghoneim / Shahira Emara Tools & Frequency  Inventory log of communications activities - on-going / following each round of communication Indicator 3 Instances of GDNet incorporating new thinking or innovation into its practices as a result of participation in knowledge brokering fora Baseline No instances of GDNet incorporating new thinking or innovation into its practices as a result of participation in knowledge brokering fora Year 1 Output 4 Indicator 3 was introduced following the GDNet DFID Annual Review in May 2012 and consequently was not reported against in the Year 1 M&E process GDNet Ownership  Sherine Ghoneim / Shahira Emara Tools & Frequency  Inventory / log of incorporating new thinking or innovation into GDNet practices
  • 7. 6 Purpose Level - Diverse research and policy audiences make better use of development research from the global south Indicator 1 - Southern researchers’ use of other southern research in own research Year 1 summary – Significant use of Southern research in Southern researchers’ own research – 64% of respondents use Southern research to a great or moderate extent. GDNet user base web survey results – Surveyed using the same format as the baseline year, a number of questions in the web survey provide an indication of the level of use of Southern research. Further details on the responses to the web survey are provided in Annex 2. Asked to what extent Southern researchers use Southern research in their own work, 64% of respondents claimed that Southern research was used to a great or moderate extent (See Annex 2 question 23). This is precisely the same percentage figure as the baseline. When asked to describe the type of research that they read, the most common response researchers gave is that they do not distinguish between Northern and Southern research (32%) (See Annex 2 question 24). However, the next biggest group (28%) believe they read more Northern than Southern research, followed by 27% who believe they read the same amount of Southern and Northern research. These results are very similar to the baseline year as would be expected as any transition in the use of Southern research will be slow and dependent on multiple exogenous factors. As with the baseline, what emerges from the results of the web survey is a nuanced picture of use – significant use of Southern research by Southern researchers but perhaps no more significant than their use of Northern research. The web survey again provided a number of interesting insights into the nature and perceptions of Southern research by Southern users and how they tend to combine use of Northern and Southern research in a complementary manner (See Annex 2 question 24). The following responses illustrate this: “A good part of "southern research" is of very low quality, although some of it is top-notch quality. I therefore find most useful to read mainly "northern research" and the best southern research I can find.” “Academic research on subjective wellbeing (my current area of interest) is predominantly produced in Northern academic/research organizations and CSO/think tanks.” “Because there is little research by southern researchers that is published in internationally ranked journals I naturally tend to favour Northern research.” These responses hint at a potentially important niche for GDNet to consider and for which it may be well suited – raising the profile of the best Southern research so that it is perceived as on a par with Northern research in terms of quality. To a certain extent GDNet already does this through its tagline to ‘showcase’ Southern research but it is not clear that GDNet’s remit covers an explicit focus on raising perceptions of quality in order to increase use. M&E approach summary Purpose level indicator 1 draws on perceptions of use of Southern research gathered from the annual GDNet users web survey. The experimental citation analysis exercise undertaken for the baseline was not repeated in Year 1 as it was felt it would not produce any more meaningful results. It may be repeated in Year 3. Data management plan Robbie Gregorowski / ITAD  On an annual basis – Repeat analysis of the annual GDNet user base web survey. Sherine Ghoneim / GDNet  On-going – Interpretation of the findings of the annual GDNet user base web survey and application to better understand and improve the services GDNet offers
  • 8. 7 Evidence base See Annex 1 for the GDNet user base web survey questionnaire. See Annex 2 for a summary of the results of the Year 1 GDNet user base web survey.
  • 9. 8 Indicator 2 - Cases of knowledge into use in policy processes Year 1 summary – Eight new cases of knowledge into use in the policy process selected, developed and validated by GDNet registered researchers. 12-months follow up conducted with previous set of eight baselines cases. Brigitte Nyambo, Ethiopia, Agriculture Subject: Integrated Pest Management Technology (IPM). Context: To influence bio-control policy in Ethiopia. Impact: Wherever the parasitoid was piloted, the pesticide application was reduced by around 75%. In other words, “for every $ spent, there is a cost benefit rate of 1 to 26”.Policy Influencing Factor: The involvement of a multidisciplinary team, which included researchers, special workers, farmers, donors and other development partners GDNet Researchers- Cases of Knowledge into Use in Policy Processes – Year 1 Cecil Agutu, Kenya, Agriculture Subject: The formulation of national laws and government policy in the sugar sub-sector in Kenya. Context: Research aim to advocate for new reforms towards the revival and better management of the sugar sub-sector. Impact: Farmers’ rights are now preserved: they have to be paid within 30 days of delivery, or else they are paid at the market rate. Policy Influencing Factor: Identifying the audience first before choosing the communication channel to use is very important. Constancio Nguja, Mozambique, Good governance Subject: Advocacy on key issues for civil society. Context: Mozambique students were advocating for improved student rights for students studying in South Sudan. Impact: Public debate on the issue of student rights Policy Influencing Factor: The use of robust evidence and sound knowledge based on Southern research plays a key role in the legitimacy of the process. Waweru Mwangi, Kenya, Innovative banking Subject: Use of a card-less ATM systems for personal banking Context: Using bio-authentication to increase access to ATMS Impact: The National Planning Council of Kenya are in discussions with a view to launching a card- less ATM model for initial trials Policy Influencing Factor: The subject of the research is high-profile and of importance to a growing proportion of the population; 20% of Kenyans are currently involved in banking, and banking and security are issues of national importance. Hasina Kharbhih, India, Child labour rights Subject: Child labour in rat hole coal mining in India Context: To explore the nature of the work the children undertake in these informal and unregulated mines Impact: The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Trafficking questioned the governments of India, Nepal and Bangladesh on the use of child labour in coal mines. Policy Influencing Factor: A critical lesson is that it is important to generate and use a form of evidence that substantiates the research – the use of photo and video to support data generated in interviews. Francesco Pastore, Labour, Mongolia Subject: Mongolian youth education and employment Context: More than half of the population of Mongolia is under 24 years old, and more than a quarter of this group are unemployed. Impact: A series of policy tools were proposed to the government of Mongolia following the research. Policy Influencing Factor: A key lesson is the involvement of international organizations, such as the ILO and UNESCO and their ability to interact with the government, which is far greater than that of academic researchers Davidson Omole, Nigeria, Finance & economics Subject: Performance of the Nigerian stock exchange Context: To understand some of the reasons for the lack of performance since 1960 Impact: In line with some of the findings and those of others, a second-tier securities exchange market was introduced in Nigeria. Policy Influencing Factor: The research was part-funded by the AERC, who helped to publicize it through the AERC conference Martin Oteng-Ababio, Ghana, Waste management Subject: Electronic waste management services in Ghana Context: Appropriate regulation for e-waste management Impact: The research has provided a robust evidence base around which to engage and encourage the government to create an enabling environment for e-waste recycling. Policy Influencing Factor: The research offered government planners and policy makers potentially innovative solutions to what had previously been viewed as a hazardous informal activity.
  • 10. 9 The Year 1 case selection process has resulted in the 8 rigorous, robust and representative cases of knowledge into use in the policy process. Each case has been summarised on the map above and briefly written up in full in Annex 5. Based on a rapid synthesis of the eight cases developed in year 1, it is possible to extract a number of interesting policy influencing factors as well as a number of suggestions as to how GDNet’s role and contribution in supporting Southern research could be further enhanced: Policy influencing factors  Several of the themes which became the subject of the research in cases identified had very little in the way of a prior robust, empirical research or evidence-base. In this regard a number of the cases (for example, case 1 on e-waste regulation in Ghana) were particularly influential with policy makers because the provided them with the evidence upon which to base their policy. This characteristic of ‘direct applicability’ may be one of the features of Southern research in comparison more ‘traditional’ European and North America-style research, presenting opportunities for researchers to actively collaborate with policy makers in better understanding priority themes and contexts as well as providing the evidence base for more effective planning and policy.  A similar factor which perhaps distinguishes Southern research as being more innovative than more traditional forms of research relates to the form and use of evidence. The case on children engaged in rat hole mining in the coal mines of Jaintia Hills District, India demonstrated that successful policy influence came about only through the use of documentary evidence (photos and video footage) as well as more traditional research findings from child interviews etc. This allowed the team to engage not just Indian policy-makers but also the media and international human rights organisations.  A number of the cases indicate that Southern researchers are particularly adept at translating their research findings into formats appropriate the meeting the needs of multiple stakeholder and audience groups. For example, case 7 on the formulation of national laws and government policy in the sugar sub-sector in Kenya, employed a wider range of format and channels to disseminate the research findings to farmers (as primary stakeholders) as well as to local and national policy makers. GDNet’s role and contribution  Pointing Southern researchers in the direction of themes and contexts which require a better evidence-based understanding and solutions may be a future role for GDNet. More directly, GDNet can play a simple but critical role in sharing innovative research, connecting researchers in one region or country with other researchers so that knowledge and learning in one context can effectively be transferred and replicated in similar contexts elsewhere.  The use of evidence in the most appropriate format – using photos and videos combined with more formal research techniques such as surveys and interviews - is one of the areas where Southern research can be considered more effective and advanced than more traditional Western research – Southern research is better at bringing in innovative technology such as the use of visual and social media to generate more substantial impact. There is a potential role for GDNet in sharing the lessons and experience of how best to combine the two forms of research as well as potentially providing training in the use of more innovative research and documentation techniques for Southern researchers – building the capacity of Southern researchers to present their research in the most appropriate format for a particular stakeholder audience.  Overall, the case selection process has identified that GDNet engages a wealth of innovative, informed and highly motivated researchers. The simple process of producing the cases has provided a showcase for a number of these researchers. GDNet could use the on-going case selection process to provide a platform expressing GDNet’s lessons and learning on the key success factors in producing effective, policy-influencing work – this would both help raise the profile of innovativeness of Southern research (something that more traditional Western research may learn from) and help bring the lessons and success stories to a wider audience. M&E approach summary
  • 11. 10 The aim for this indicator is to develop a robust and credible portfolio of cases of knowledge into use on a year on year basis – updating progress with existing cases and developing new ones. The process for developing new cases involves 3 stages which are repeated annually:  Stage 1 – Case identification from GDNet Registered Researchers - A broad number of ‘cases’ (approx. 35-50) are identified from responses to the annual GDNet user base web survey.  Stage 2 – Most significant selection and validation panels – Engaging a group of GDN A&M Finalists at the GDN Annual Conference which is held in Budapest in June 2012 to review and select the ‘most significant’ cases. The A&M Finalists panel is followed by a second panel of GDNet key stakeholders including GDNet staff and independent research communications experts to further review and select the most significant cases down to a shortlist of 8-10 cases.  Stage 3 – Development and Validation of Most Significant Cases - The authors of the 8-10 selected cases are contacted by the ITAD consultant and each invited to an informal telephone interview to discuss and develop their case in more detail. Data management plan Robbie Gregorowski / ITAD  On an annual basis – Facilitation of the case selection process and development of new cases. Zeinab Sabet / GDNet  On-going – more detailed case follow-up and lesson learning if required. Sherine Ghoneim / GDNet  On-going – Extraction and synthesis of lessons to enhance GDNet’s role and contribution. Evidence base A detailed explanation of the process designed to identify the cases can be found in the Baseline and M&E Framework report.  Annex 3 provides the long-list of cases gained from the web survey.  Annex 5 provides the full write ups of the new cases developed in Year 1.  Annex 6 provides the updates and revalidated write ups of the existing 8 baselines cases.
  • 12. 11 Output 1 - Southern research better informed by current ideas and knowledge Indicator 1 - Level of use of and satisfaction with GDNet research-orientated online services Year 1 summary – Significant increase in headline level of use on the baseline, with the GDNet website receiving an average of 29,416 visitors per month with 39% coming from the Global South. Level of satisfaction is broadly maintained whilst noting a high proportion of users remain unaware of the suite of recently launched ‘Web 2.0’ services offered by GDNet. GDNet users seem satisfied with the services provided by GDNet. Summarised below are the key web statistics currently generated on the use of GDNet online services, averaged for Year 1 – January to December 2011. 2011 GDNet Monthly Web Statistics Report Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Total no. of Hits 92,099 133,708 120,433 95,304 163,515 112,291 148,691 159,240 180,052 114,390 111,068 141,016 130,984 Total no. of Visits 20,517 19,813 22,267 25,510 35,598 41,475 71,110 64,016 74,505 42,414 42,815 35,850 41,324 Total no. of Visitors 25,149 20,869 26,183 26,142 29,346 32,426 28,166 29,384 36,971 30,305 36,259 31,792 29,416 % of Visitors from Global South 40.40% 39.28% 40.34% 40.87% 39.24% 42.02% 41.17% 41.73% 38.35% 33.81% 34.17% 34.83% 38.85% Total Recipients 15,630 15,668 15,725 15,751 15,787 15,809 15,867 15,942 16,008 16,051 16,104 16,159 No. of new recipients/month 81 38 57 26 36 22 58 75 66 43 53 55 50.83 Total Recipients 8,191 8,222 8,275 8,298 8,328 8,347 8,396 8,464 8,522 8,556 8,602 8,649 No. of new recipients/month 53 31 53 23 30 19 49 68 58 34 46 47 42.58 Total researcher profiles 11,759 11,797 11,854 11,880 11,916 11,938 11,996 12,081 12,147 12,190 12,243 12,300 No. of new researcher profiles/month 94 38 57 26 36 22 58 85 66 43 53 57 52.92 % researchers with research papers 13.25% 13.21% 13.17% 13.15% 13.11% 13.08% 13.02% 12.93% 12.86% 12.81% 12.76% 12.71% Total organisation profiles 4616 4633 4655 4661 4693 4707 4709 4742 4744 4750 4754 4794 No. of new organisation profiles/month 0 17 22 6 32 14 2 33 2 6 4 40 14.83 Total no of online research papers 16,786 16,886 17,024 17,099 17,197 17,234 17,264 17,438 17,468 17,563 17,634 17,764 No. of new online research papers/month 16 100 138 75 98 37 30 174 30 95 71 130 82.83 Number of researchers accessing online journals 121 118 142 144 139 98 58 81 95 97 88 73 104.50 Total document downloads from KB 3,781 3,403 11,673 10,927 23,493 7,697 21,009 23,352 12,723 8,415 7,457 9,739 11,972 Access to online journals - No. of JSTOR sessions/month Document Downloads from Knowledgebase Research in Focus newsletter Funding Opportunities newsletter Researcher Profiles Organisation Profiles Online research papers Level of use – The level of use of GDNet’s research-orientated online services has significantly increased in Year 1 compared to the figures established at the baseline. At the headline level GDNet receives an average of 29,416 visitors per month with 39% coming from the Global South 1 . This represents a noticeable increase on the baseline figures of 23,617 visitors per month with 33% from the Global South. The recipients of GDN Newsletters continue to steadily increase: an average of 51 new recipients per month receive the Research into Focus newsletter (16, 159 total recipients in December 2011), and an average of 42 new recipients receive the Funding Opportunities newsletter (8,649 total recipients in December 2011). 1 Established from users’ IP addresses.
  • 13. 12 The webstats also highlight a number of potentially positive increases in the level of use – most noticeably the increase (with considerable fluctuation) in the number of document downloads from the KnowledgeBase. Document downloads averaged approximately 4,000 per month at the baseline. Smoothing the data over the 12 months in Year 1, the average monthly total document download figure has increased to a 11,900 per month. This is very positive for GDNet but may require close monitoring in order to explain and attribute any sudden increases in downloads throughout the year. Further insights into the level of use of GDNet’s online services are provided from the web survey. Interestingly and positively for GDNet, almost a fifth (19%) of survey respondents indicated that they had registered with GDNet during 2011 (Year 1). This represents a significant proportion of GDNet’s expanding user base as new users. However, the story is nuanced in that 18% of respondents stated that they access GDNet on average once a week. This is down from 26.9% accessing the site once a week for the baseline. In line with the baseline findings, there does not seem to be a single stand out service that attracts GDNet’s users. Rather, accessing the KnowledgeBase online papers, accessing online journals, and receiving the GDN Newsletters remain the three main and evenly split motivations. Quality of use (developing a core of ‘involved’ users and focussing on their uptake of knowledge) is harder to assess although it remains a priority of GDNet under the Year 1 strategy. Rather like the web survey findings on the level of use, the picturing on quality is nuanced. Behaviour that may be considered reflective of involved, quality use of GDNet, such as researchers regularly updating their profiles, seems to have dropped since the baseline – where as 36.7% of respondents had never updated their profiles in the baseline user base survey, this figure has risen to 51.3% in Year 1. However, much more positively for GDNet, and perhaps more significant in terms of quality of use, almost a third of respondents (30.1%) now have their research featured on GDNet. This represents a 10% increase under Year 1 compared to the baseline figure of 20%. GDNet will continue to focus attention on quality as well as level of use and during the next year. The M&E and Social Marketing experts will work with the GDNet team to develop a small set of indicators for users who attain key ‘quality’ usage goals such as the % of users who:  view a profile (researcher or organisation);  click on ‘featured’ content;  download a document;  and/or conduct a search on the site. Level of satisfaction – Satisfaction with GDNet’s research orientated online services is assessed based on the web survey findings. In line with the baseline findings, GDNet users seem satisfied with the services provided by GDNet. The KnowledgeBase online papers rated extremely useful by 36.2% and moderately useful by 28.2% - this represents a very slight decrease in satisfaction on the baseline but still represents a high level of satisfaction. The most useful services and the level of user satisfaction remains broadly in line with the results generated for the baseline. Other services rated as extremely useful include:  Funding Opportunities newsletter (37%)  Accessing the online journals (42%) The web survey results also highlight two further issues where GDNet may want to dedicate further attention. First, a number of services were less highly rated by survey respondents. Amongst GDNet’s ‘core’ services, the KnowledgeBase researcher and organisational profiles and Regional Window portals are deemed to be moderately and somewhat useful by the majority of users. Similarly, the majority of GDNet’s newer ‘Web 2.0’ tools (GDNet’s feeds, YouTube channel, Twitter, and Community Groups) are considered only somewhat useful by between a fifth and a quarter or respondents. There are two likely explanations for this:  The services are target at specific groups of Southern researchers with particular knowledge needs rather than the broad group of GDNet’s Registered Researchers who are invited to respond to the survey.  As recently introduced services (the GDNet’s feeds, YouTube channel, Twitter, and Community Groups were all rolled out and piloted during Year 1), existing users may not yet be aware of the services and consequently haven’t yet had the chance to appreciate them.
  • 14. 13 Second, GDNet may wish to dedicate resources during Year 2 to marketing and increasing the ‘visibility’ of a range of its newly launched core services. The web survey revealed that there are 6 core services for which at least a quarter of users are unaware, and two services where the unawareness rate is over 40%:  GDNet Regional Window Portals – 25.2% unaware of service  Thematic Windows – 26.9% unaware of service  GDNet Feeds (RSS or email) – 26.1% unaware of service  GDNet YouTube channel – 42.3% unaware of service  GDNet Twitter – 43.3% unaware of service  GDNet Community Groups – 23.4% unaware of service There are a small number of anomalies between the webstats and the web survey, highlighting some issues that require further interrogation and explanation by GDNet:  For example, the webstats for July indicate a very low number of researchers accessing online journals (58 visitors) despite researchers’ expression of interest in accessing online journals as a key incentive. It would be useful to get more details of number of downloads from these services in comparison to the total of 21,000 document downloads from GDNet KnowledgeBase (KB) to identify means of extending research outreach and uptake. One possible explanation for this apparent anomaly may be that GDNet users may not distinguish between accessing documents through free access to online journals and accessing documents through the KB. GDNet should further investigate the total downloads from online journal access in comparison to the 21,000 document downloads from the KB if this distinction on source of downloads is feasible.  Since the programme was conceived there has been a big change in policies on open access (most recently the World Bank and the Welcome Trust both launched open access policies; JSTOR has opened free access to Africa, but now restricts some access to India and Pakistan). Visitors to GDNet from the Global South are just less than 40%, yet the main target audience for GDNet is the Global South audience. This has a number of implications: o GDNet should be more explicit about how the web stats identifying visitors from the Global South are defined and generated. o In terms of increasing visitors and users from the Global South, which the Connect South campaign is looking to do, some further triangulation between the web stats and web survey is required. The next round of the web survey scheduled for December 2012 should include some specific Global South user profiling and needs questions get a better understanding of the user profiles and requirements to tailor knowledge products such as ‘how to guides’ or ‘search skills’ to facilitate access to journals. o Finally, the apparent low usage of access to the online journals may be attributable to lack awareness of the service and low visibility on the GDNet site. It may prove useful to provide enhanced sign posting to facilitate access to free online journals and to guide researchers through further development of information literacy guides. M&E approach The M&E of the level of use of, and satisfaction with research-orientated online services will combines GDNet’s monthly web statistics with data generated from the annual GDNet user base web survey. Data management plan Karim Sohr  Design, testing and monthly production of standardised GDNet web statistics report. Shahira Emara  Monthly collection and quality assurance of web statistics Robbie Gregorowski  On an annual basis – assess level of use of research-orientated online services over previous 12 months through analysis of web statistics and through the annual GDNet users web survey, and report on findings against baseline and lesson learnt to GDNet. Evidence base
  • 15. 14 A detailed explanation of the process used to generate the web statistics and GDNet user base web survey can be found in the Baseline and M&E Framework report.  Annex 4 provides an analysis of the web statistics generated in Year 1. Indicator 2 - Level of use of and satisfaction with themed services Year 1 summary – GDNet piloted a beta version of 11 themed services on 13 July 2011, over half way through the Year 1 period under review, and launched the full set of 23 themed services on 11 November 2011. It is therefore too early to fully assess the level of use and satisfaction with the services. GDNet piloted a beta version of 11 themed services on 13 July 2011, over half way through the Year 1 period under review, and launched the full set of 23 themed services on 11 November 2011. It is therefore too early to fully assess the level of use and satisfaction with the services, particularly as to ‘Launch and pilot test themed services’ is a key GDNet milestone to achieve during 2012. As mentioned above, the web survey highlights the need for GDNet to proactively market the themed services as a new service as 26.9% of the web survey respondents were unaware of the service. M&E approach Level of use themed services will be properly monitored and assessed in Year 2 using web usage statistics. Web statistics are likely to include:  Number of RSS sign-ups to each thematic micro-site (feasibility to be further discussed with GDNet)  Frequency of micro-site usage – likely to be defined in terms of the number of micro-site hits and proportion of hits from the Global South  Numbers of recipients of thematic bulletin emails  Quality of micro-site usage – Participants entering into online discussion, submitting content to micro- site (feasibility to be further discussed with GDNet following first micro-site launch anticipated by the end of 2012) Satisfaction with themed services will be assessed through the annual GDNet users web survey, also in Year 2. This will assess overall satisfaction with themed services from the general population of GDNet users. Data management plan Shahira Emara  Day-to-day – management and facilitation of themed services including generating web statistics on the level of use (reporting monthly but analysed quarterly). Robbie Gregorowski  On an annual basis - assess thematic service satisfaction through the annual GDNet users web survey as well as designing short web survey targeted at thematic micro-site users Evidence base To be defined in the Year 2 round of M&E activities.
  • 16. 15 Output 2 - Researchers better able to communicate their research to policy Indicator 1 – Researchers’ confidence and ability to communicate their research – immediately following capacity building effort Year 1 summary – On a ‘before and after’ self-assessment scale where 0 = not at all confident and 5 = very confident to communicate their research to policy, the average capacity building participant increases from 2.6 before to 3.9 after a GDNet capacity building effort. Similarly in terms of ability, the average participant increases in ability from 1.8 before to 3.4 afterwards. A summary of the ‘before and after’ confidence and ability scores generated across the four research communications capacity building events conducted by GDNet during Year 1 is provided below: Workshop 3 GDNet-AERC Research Communications Policy Workshop 24-26 May 2011 Nairobi, Kenya Average before Average after Average increase Confidence 2.9 4.3 1.4 Ability 3.0 4.2 1.2 Workshop 4 GDNet-TrustAfrica Policy Workshop 7-8 June, 2011 Kampala, Uganda Average before Average after Average increase Confidence 3.2 4.3 1.2 Ability 2.5 3.5 1.0 Workshop 5 PEM Research Communications Workshop 10-11 October, 2011 New-Delhi, India Average before Average after Average increase Confidence 2.4 3.4 1.1 Ability 1.8 2.8 1.0 Workshop 6 GDNet-AERC Policy Brief Training Workshop December 1-2, 2011 Nairobi, Kenya Average before Average after Average increase Confidence 2.1 3.5 1.4 Ability 1.7 3.1 1.4 Overall these results produce average before and after confidence and ability figure as follows:  Average before confidence score 2.6  Average after confidence score 3.9  Average increase in confidence 1.3 (50%)  Baseline – average increase in confidence 1.2 (39%)  Average before ability score 1.8  Average after ability score 3.4  Average increase in ability 1.6 (89%)  Baseline – average increase in ability 1.1 (38%) Confidence – across the 4 GDNet events from May – December 2011, the average GDNet researcher is moderately confident (2.6 out of 5) to communicate their research to policy before any training/capacity building has been provided by GDNet. This average confidence figure rises to 3.9 immediately following a training / capacity building event. This equates to an average 50% increase in confidence immediately following a capacity building event.
  • 17. 16 Ability – Across the 4 GDNet events from May – December 2011, the average GDNet researcher is not able (1.8 out of 5) to communicate their research to policy before any training/capacity building has been provided by GDNet. This average ability figure rises to 3.4 immediately following a training / capacity building event. This equates to an average 89% increase in ability immediately following a capacity building event. These results imply a number of broad conclusions:  The magnitude of the increase in both confidence and ability is significantly greater than the increase defined at the baseline. Two factors may go some way to explaining this: o The baseline figures were established based on only two workshops so may not have reflected a true average. o GDNet have themselves increased in both confidence and ability when it comes to planning and delivering effective training and capacity building events perhaps through a better understanding of participants’ needs and the most appropriate and successful training methods. This reflects the ‘journey’ that GDNet itself has made as an increasingly effective knowledge broker for the Global South.  GDNet’s capacity building efforts are successful – across all four workshops held in Year 1 there has been a significant increase in both researchers’ confidence and ability as a result of interaction with GDNet.  The scale of the increase tends to be of the same magnitude across each workshop and is consistent with the scale of the increase established for the baseline.  Although challenging to demonstrate given a range of external factors, it may be possible for GDNet to demonstrate an increase in the scale of researchers’ confidence and ability over time, from event to event, as GDNet and their facilitators enhance their research communications capacity building skills and learn lessons on how best to engage researchers on this topic. However, it should not be assumed that this effect will be obvious given the widely varying nature of workshop participants between events.  That, immediately following a capacity building event, the confidence and ability of researchers to communicate their research is increased is not particularly eye-opening. Rather what is more important is a long term and sustainable increase in confidence and ability, and what this means for how these researchers do their jobs. This is assesses using the ‘pledge’ under output 2 indicator 2. M&E approach for Indicator 1 and Indicator 2 GDNet activities under Output 2 revolve around a series of region-specific and thematic mentoring, capacity building and training workshops for a range of researchers / GDNet stakeholders on research communications and writing for policy relevance. Participants’ confidence and ability before, immediately after and 3-months after the workshop are assessed through a questionnaire and follow up email survey. This provides both an immediate before and after rating as well as a more rich, qualitative assessment of the ‘impact’ of the training 3-months later.
  • 18. 17 Indicator 2 – Researchers’ confidence and ability to communicate their research – sustainability of capacity building effort Year 1 summary – First set of nine ‘pledge’ cases developed from GDNet workshops 3-6 held during Year 1 indicating the sustainability and application of GDNet’s capacity building effort. The long term sustainability and impact of GDNet’s capacity building efforts are assesses 3-months after each workshop through a ‘pledge’. Each participant is asked to respond to the following: Question – What will you do differently as a result of attending this workshop? Pledge – ‘Within the next 3 months I will…’ A sample of the most informative ‘pledge’ statements is presented below. GDNet-AERC Research Communications Policy Workshop Pledge : Write a policy brief for my current research 3-month follow up: Task executed. An improved version of the policy brief has been circulated and presented at a workshop on poverty in Lomé. The Nairobi workshop was obviously very useful as it taught us to say the essential and more importantly to say it in the simplest and clearest way. The training allowed me to produce a policy brief destined for policymakers on each research paper I finalise. In other words, a policy brief is always finalised and sent to the sponsoring organisation. GDNet-TrustAfrica Policy Workshop Pledge : Finalise my policy brief within a month 3-month follow up: My expectations were perfectly met as I managed to send the policy brief to TrustAfrica on time. Thanks to the workshop, I now know how to communicate my results to decision makers. We are planning to organize by end of January 2011 a Conference gathering members of the Government, Company Managers and researchers to communicate to them the results of our research. We will be using the techniques we learned at the workshop. PEM Research Communications Workshop Pledge : As mentioned, I will focus on research communication alongside with actual research 3-month follow up: The workshop was really helpful. We are now better equipped while preparing the dissemination materials. At the moment we are in the process of preparing the working papers and the policy briefs based on the project outputs where the learning from the workshop is being utilized. Moreover, we are also planning to organize seminars to disseminate the working papers and policy briefs. Pledge : Redo the policy brief and contact media on communicating the results 3-month follow up: We have redone the policy brief on water sector a couple of months after the workshop. We have communicated some of our recent results to donors and other stakeholders, however, as the on-going products are not yet finalized we have not prepared anything that can be disseminated to media. As indicated in Delhi workshop, we do plan to communicate some of our results to media institutions. So, half of the promise is done.
  • 19. 18 We will be communicating the progress (including our communication outputs) to GDN. Pledge : Set up a network among stakeholders related to policymaking process 3-month follow up: The process to set up the network is still going. However, there are several obstacles to implement the idea. Based on the plan, we will start the network creation process through an FDG that involves stakeholders related to education, health and water sector. The purpose of this FGD is to explore and gather information about any development issues related to education, health and water sector, particularly the issues that happen recently. Also this FGD process will try to set up a strategy on how each stakeholder can take role in policy changing. This FGD is not happened yet, since it is quite difficult to find a time to gather all those people. Besides that it is quite hard to find some people who have the same concern or interest with CEDS, mainly for this project. So far, the effort that I have done to start this network is by identifying the stakeholders and make a list of them. This process is done by conducting some informal meeting with some people. I hope the FGD can be held quite soon. I plan to set up te FGD in the middle of March. Pledge : Prepare a press release and a policy brief 3-month follow up: Following your guidelines during the October PEM Communications Workshop in New Delhi, we have prepared three policy briefs for each of the three sectors on education, health and water services. Policy briefs have not been disseminated because we are in the midst of preparation for a major conference to present these policy briefs to our target audience composed mostly of policy makers and sectoral stakeholders. The Conference will be held on March 13 of this year. A press release will come shortly prior to the Conference. We are also at the thick of preparation in launching our website to be able to disseminate the results of our study on Strengthening Institutions in Public Expenditures Accountability. The PEM Asia Workshop has significantly helped us in crafting the requirements of GDN especially in the formulation of policy briefs and technical presentations. GDNet-AERC Policy Brief Training Workshop Pledge : Write policy briefs for all my recent papers; communicate with others on my results; identify tactics to communicate my findings . 3-month follow up: I was able to make an intervention on Cameroonian TV for another piece of work on human development. If I didn’t participate in the workshop, I am sure my intervention would have never been that successful. All my friends called me to congratulate after my intervention. As for my future research, I will produce policy briefs for it. I still haven't had the chance to finalise policy briefs for previous research but will do it at least for the last two research papers. Pledge : Rework my policy brief on the AERC project; tell my colleagues about the GDNet-AERC policy brief meeting and pass on some of the learnings (TOT) 3-month follow up: I have told many of my colleagues about the training. Made copies of the pamphlets and circulated within colleagues in my institute. The training made my revised paper co-authored paper titled ""Towards effective research uptake and innovative communication of research projects"" more robust. I have submitted the paper and i hope it will be published soon. I am now more confident to write policy briefs targeted to the right audiences. Pledge : Review the way of writing key abstracts, presenting the results of my work to colleagues, policymakers and media
  • 20. 19 3-month follow up: I am currently at the Centre of Studies of African Economies (CSAE), Oxford University. And, today (29.02) (between 1-2.30 PM local time) I presented my paper titled "Trade liberalization, labour market reform and firm's labour demand: evidence from Cameroon" at the CSAE seminar. The feedback I received show that, relative to the past (i.e. before the workshop in Nairobi) I made a lot of progress regarding two points: (1) the abstract, and (2) policy implications of the results. You remember we had a group work on (i) the meaning of policy implications of the results, and (ii) how to present them. This shows that I made a lot of progress on writing the abstract as well as the presentation of the policy implications. However, and still from the feedback I received, I still have some problems on how to present the results, namely the background information. Any assistance from you or GDN is still welcome. The pledges provide not only an insight in to the nature of the application of the capacity building but also a very clear link from training to increased confidence / ability to direct application by the researchers – the sustainability of the capacity building effort. A number of pledges point directly to higher order outcomes and possibly even impact (all be it small scale) as a result of GDNet’s capacity building efforts: We are planning to organize by end of January 2011 a Conference gathering members of the Government, Company Managers and researchers to communicate to them the results of our research. We will be using the techniques we learned at the workshop. Following your guidelines during the October PEM Communications Workshop in New Delhi, we have prepared three policy briefs for each of the three sectors on education, health and water services. I was able to make an intervention on Cameroonian TV for another piece of work on human development. If I didn’t participate in the workshop, I am sure my intervention would have never been that successful. Data management plan Robbie Gregorowski / ITAD  Design and testing of workshop questionnaire template and results Zeinab Sabet / GDNet  On-going – defining confidence and ability statements in advance of each workshop,  Facilitating questionnaire completion by participants at each workshop,  Recording results following each workshop in the results template,  Facilitating the 3-month ‘pledge’ email and telephone follow-up with a sample of participants (approx. 25%) following each workshop and completing the pledge follow-up template,  Synthesis of pledge results into a small number of cases on an annual basis,  Follow-up on training event feedback to extract learning for GDNet and feed this back into improved training and capacity building provision. Evidence base GDNet holds the capacity building workshop questionnaire responses, including the pledge statements and the 3-month follow up response in an Excel database designed by ITAD. It is not practical to include this as an annex but GDNet is happy to share the database with interested parties.
  • 21. 20 Output 3 - Knowledge networking between researchers and with policy actors increased Indicator 1 – GDNet ‘user base’ interaction Year 1 summary – GDNet have actively engaged with their ‘user base’ throughout Year 1, employing a wide range of communications products and activities (blogging, setting up community groups, using social media such as Twitter, producing electronic newsletters etc.) to generate a range of results and lessons. GDNet user base interaction involves Southern researchers with whom GDNet has built a sustained engagement – through attendance at a capacity building event, conference, or membership of a community or thematic group. GDNet logs all its interaction with its ‘user base’ in a log template set out below. The aim of the template is to set out ‘at a glance’ the nature of the interaction, the results that this interactions produces, as well as any lessons GDNet learns as a result of this interaction. The purpose of the log is to provide a ‘living’ document which GDNet staff can interrogate periodically in order to learn lessons on the nature of their interaction with their key set of stakeholders. The log will be analysed and synthesised annually in order to establish the extent of user base interaction. Indicators of increased user base interaction will relate to sustained or even increased blog views and responses, sustained or increased subscriptions, views and ‘click throughs’ to GDNet social media such as Twitter and YouTube. It is anticipated that log will also include indicators of more strategic and in-depth user base interaction such as collaboration with specific partners to produce research communications products as well as panels and presentations at workshops and conferences. Date & Person at GDNet Aim and nature of facilitation from GDNet (event or activity) Brief level and nature of user base Specific products / results / outcomes produced Lessons for GDN / GDNet Sherine Ghoneim and Zeinab Sabet (GDNet), with the support of CommsCo nsult (Megan GDN 12th Annual Conference - Financing Development in a Post-Crisis World: The Need for a Fresh Look January 13-15, 2011 Bogotá, Colombia GDNet undertook a complete social media coverage of the event , including blog posts, video blogs, video interviews,  A broad spectrum of GDNet's user base attended the Conference, including southern and northern researchers, policymakers, Awards & Medals Finalists and donors This wide range of GDNet's user base was engaged in a range of social media tools, including blog posts, video blogs, video interviews, twitter, electronic newsletter and printed broadsheet Total of Blog posts 17 (12 in English and 5 Spanish) - http://gdnetcomms.wordpress.com/tag/gdn2011/ These generated: - 10,918 views and 5000 visits in January 2011 - 4,887 visitors (compared 1,426 in January 2010)  A big conference with such a wide user base requires a broad range of social media tools  Need to engage audience more to read and comment on the blog  Twitter being a very useful tool in terms of content spinning  Newsletter being very effective in directing user base to
  • 22. 21 Lloyd Laney, Andrew Clappison & Betty Allen) and Euforic (Pier Andrea Pirani) twitter, electronic newsletter and printed broadsheet Total of talking heads 29 - http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6D179AA6395DAB66&feature=vi ew_all) - The top video of Colombian president Santos has 67 views - Majority of other videos received between 15-40 views - Two of the video interviews were turned into short blogs on DFID's sitehttp://www.researchtoaction.org/kala-sridhar- research-communication-and-policy-implications/ ; http://www.researchtoaction.org/louise-shaxson-the- importance-of-research-communication/ One conference video trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j58oX_3kzs&list=PL6D179AA6395DA B66&index=31&feature=plpp_video - The Conference trailer received 762 views Four Electronic Newsletters sent out to 17,089 subscribers GDN Conference 2011 (Day 1): http://createsend.com/t/r- AC9EAC8C4611A620 GDN Conference 2011 (Day 2): http://createsend.com/t/r- 7E0943EDF0CEBFCA GDN Conference 2011 (Day 3): http://createsend.com/t/r- 163FFA8AB8733A32 Three broadsheets - Each sheet contained two stories from the conference (taken from the blog and e-newsletter), a selection of 6-10 images from Flickr, five tweets from @GlobalDevNet and other accounts, information on the GDNet Diray Room and an Awards and Medals section (comprehensive list of the stories, images and Tweets used on each of the three Broadsheets can be found on the overview spreadsheet) - Each day 5 copies of each sheet were printed and placed around the Universidad de los Andes conference location and the Crown Plaza Hotel during breakfast.
  • 23. 22 Photographs: 611 photographs of the Conference and pre-meetings (e.g. Board, RNPs etc.) produced in collaboration with Victor Holguin, professional photographer (116 of which are published on Flickr) - http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdnet/sets/72157625816614218/ Twitter - Number of followers increased from 30 to 600 - 151 'click-throughs' of url links from Hootsuite from 1st -30th January 2011 A Bubble – Diary room was set-up during the Conference, thus providing a space where talking heads were conducted Zeinab Sabet (GDNet), with the support of CommsCo nsult (Megan Lloyed Laney, Andrew Clappison & Betty Allen) and Euforic (Pier Andrea Pirani) GDNet Research Communications Training for Awards & Medals Finalists January 11-12, 2011 Bogotá, Colombia  Organised in collaboration with CommsConsult, the two- day Training aimed to strengthen the capacity of the Awards & Medals Finalists to both identify the headlines of their research and make it accessible for a range of different audiences through developing principles of effective communication in the written and spoken word.  GNDet undertook the social media coverage of the workshop, and  GDNet co-delivered the training, together with CommsConsult, to a wide group of 22 academic researchers from Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America, who were selected as finalists for the GDN Awards & Medals Competition  Finalists were expected to present their research at the GDN Annual Conference  A&M Finalists were engaged in a range of social media tools, including blog posts, talking heads, recording of their mock- presentations, and a video trailer about what it means to you to win. GDN Annual Conference participants were also able to follow the A&M Finalists Training related activities through the GDNet blog, newsletters and broadsheets. Total Blog posts: 2 - http://gdnetblog.org/2011/01/12/research- communication-training-for-gdn-awards-and-medals-finalists/ ; http://gdnetblog.org/2011/01/15/which-foreigners-are-worth-wooing-a- meta-analysis-of-vertical-spillovers-from-fdi/ Video Interviews Vide Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8J2csP15qo Photographs - http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdnet/sets/72157625679293203/  A GDNet Community Group was set up specifically for the Awards & Medals Finalists of 2011, where all workshop-related material were uploaded. Facilitated by GDNet, the group provided a space for researchers to interact with each other and with workshop facilitators - http://cloud1.gdnet.org/cms.php?id=public_group_community_defa ult_landing_page&community_group_id=15  Difficult to engage academic researchers during workshop and in discussions  The challenge was to convince them of the added value that a PowerPoint presentation and data visualization could bring to their presentation  Effective use of video-critique and peer review methods to improve the styles and build the confidence of participants to present their work in different forums, including at the Conference Ceremony later in the week
  • 24. 23 facilitated the "writing for development" through its community group for the participants of the workshop that was organised in collaboration with CommsConsult.  The climax of the training sessions was the presentation of each finalist's research in a confident and engaging style to the other scholars at the conference and the judging committee  All researchers completed a questionnaire where they pledged how they would do their job differently in the future in terms of communicating their research, which was to be followed-up 3 months later (please see output 2)  Sherine Ghoneim, Zeinab Sabet, Haitham Khouly & Jermeen Baroudy (GDNet), with the support of CommsCo nsult (Andrew Clappison & Betty Allen) and Euforic (Pier Andrea Pirani) ERF 17th Annual Conference - Politics and Economic Development March 20 –22, 2011 Antalya, Turkey GDNet undertook a complete social media coverage of the event, including blog posts, video blogs, video interviews, twitter, electronic newsletter and a video trailer for the ERF Award Winners.  A broad spectrum of ERF (GDNet's Regional Network Partner)'s user base attended the Conference, including southern and northern researchers, policymakers and Economic Research Forum's staff, and were directed to GDNet's knowledge base/website and GDNet blog  This wide range of user base was engaged in a range of social media tools, including blog posts, video blogs, video interviews, twitter and electronic newsletter  Both GDNet and ERF blogs were used for the social media coverage of the events Total Blog posts: 12 on ERF Blog and 3 on GDNet Blog - 2083 views Total Video Blogs: 9 posted on ERF Blog Total of talking heads: 29 http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41FA5DFDCC3E83FB&feature=vie w_all - 516 views Photographs - http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdnet/sets/72157626306194634/ Twitter - 34 followers (ERF account- @erflatest, set up on March 9th , 2011) Video Trailer – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzfwqAyTKfM&feature=plcp&context =C48a949aVDvjVQa1PpcFOMCD_9CHm2qfAAT5Z7-nYyZOBWYlorVpc  Need to have a GDNet social media plan for regular content in order not to lose followers/audience built earlier at the first event  A good internet connection is essential to complete such an exercise  A big conference with such a wide user base requires a broad range of social media tools  Need to engage audience more to read and comment on the blog  Twitter being a very useful tool in terms of content spinning  Newsletter being very effective in directing user base to
  • 25. 24 Newsletter ERF Conference 2011 (Day 1): http://createsend.com/t/r- F29F74955F563816 ERF conference 2011 (Day 2): http://createsend.com/t/r- 1D80B36B97A5C2F0 ERF Conference 2011 (Day 3): http://createsend.com/t/r- 53D7925EE093F557 Sherine Ghoneim & Zeinab Sabet (GDNet) 1 Pier Andrea Pirani (Euforic) The 2011 Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics (ABCDE) May 30-June 1, 2011 Paris, France  The conference was co- hosted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, the French Ministry of Economy, Finance, and Industry, and the World Bank  GDNet undertook a complete social media coverage of the event, including blog posts, video blogs, video interviews and twitter  A broad spectrum of OECD's user base, among others, attended the Conference and were directed to GDNet's knowledge base/website and GDNet blog This wide range of user base was engaged in a range of social media tools, including blog posts, video blogs, video interviews and twitter Total Blog posts 5 - http://gdnetblog.org/page/8/ Total Video Blogs 4 - http://gdnetblog.org/page/8/ Talking heads 11 - http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3855B777657E256B&feature=vie w_all Photographs http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdnet/sets/72157626715023883/  Need to engage audience more to read and comment on the blog  Twitter being a very useful tool in terms of content spinning May 24- 26, 2011 Special session at the AERC Biannual Research Workshop on "Opening up to the World The session aimed to explore the barriers and potentials of the uptake of the Word Bank's  Blogging tweeting about the session would have helped content spinning
  • 26. 25 Sherine Ghoneim Bank: the World Bank’s Open data Initiative" May 24-26, 2011 Nairobi, Kenya GDNet co-organised the session with WBI and AERC Open Data Initiative. The session was conducted by Thomas Danielewitz, World Bank Sherine Ghoneim, Zeinab Sabet (GDNet), with the support of Internatio nal Food Policy Research Institute - IFPRI (Chris Addison) GDNet-AERC Research Communications Policy Workshop May 24-26, 2011 Nairobi, Kenya  The workshop was organised, designed and delivered as part of GDNet’s series of Research Communications Capacity Building Workshops, in collaboration with the African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). The workshop was specifically tailored and designed to support AERC researchers involved in the Reproductive Health, Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Collaborative  GDNet co-delivered the training, together with IFPRI, to a group of 17 academic researchers from Africa involved in the AERC Reproductive Health, Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Collaborative Research Project Total Blog posts: 1 http://gdnetblog.org/2011/06/05/gdnet-aerc-research-communications- workshop/ Photographs - http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdnet/sets/72157627161399603/  A GDNet Community Group was set up specifically for the group of researchers who attended the workshop, where all workshop related material were uploaded. The group provided a space for researchers to interact with each other and with workshop facilitators.- https://researcher.gdnet.org/cms.php?id=public_group_community_ default_landing_page&community_group_id=19  All researchers completed a questionnaire where they pledged how they would do their job differently in the future in terms of communicating their research, which was to be followed-up 3 months later (please see output 2)  Involving IFPRI was very useful, not only for the participants but also for the GDNet team – building the team capacity in terms of workshop facilitation and good practices from IFPRI's experience  Talking heads being and effective learning and practice tool
  • 27. 26 Research Project to make an impact on policy decisions with their research results  GDNet undertook the social media coverage of the workshop (including blog posts and talking heads with participants), and facilitated the "writing for development" through its community group for the participants of the workshop Zeinab Sabet & Haitham Khouly (GDNet), with the support of Farai Samhung u (CommsC onsult) and Julia D'Agostin o (CIPPEC) GDNet-TrustAfrica Policy Workshop June 7-8, 2011 Kampala, Uganda  Organized, designed and delivered as part of GDNet’s series of Research Communications Capacity Building Workshops, in collaboration with Trust Africa, CIPPEC and Com msConsult, the workshop aimed to build the capacity of a group of researchers involved in the Investment Climate and Business  GDNet co-delivered the training, together with CommsConsult and CIPPEC, to a group of 23 academic researchers from Africa involved in the Investment Climate and Business Environment Research Fund (ICBE-RF)  Participants were engaged in a range of social media tools, including talking heads and the recording of their mock-press conference. Total Blog posts: 1 http://gdnetblog.org/2011/06/20/gdnet-trustafrica-policy-workshop/ Total Video Blogs: 2 http://gdnetblog.org/page/3/ Photographs - http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdnet/sets/72157627159734831/ Talking heads: 4 http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF7B10D89E10C550F&feature=vie w_all  A GDNet Community Group was set up specifically for the group of researchers who attended the workshop, where all workshop related material were uploaded. The group provided a space for researchers to interact with each other and with workshop facilitators.  Establish contact with researchers early on  Engage researchers more through the Community Group  Useful questionnaire allowing to compare conference and ability of participants before and after the workshop  The pledge gives participants ownership and shows commitment to follow-up from GDNet's side  Talking heads and mock press conferences being and effective learning and practice tool
  • 28. 27 Environment Research Fund (ICBE-RF) in research uptake  GDNet undertook the social media coverage of the workshop, and facilitated the "writing for development" through its community group for the participants of the workshop https://researcher.gdnet.org/~community_groups/GDNet- Trust%20Africa%20Policy%20Workshop  Researchers were engaged in a mock press conference exercise that helped them practising their public speaking skills  All researchers completed a questionnaire where they pledged how they would do their job differently in the future in terms of communicating their research, which was to be followed-up 3 months later (please see output 2) Leandro Echt - CIPPEC “Using knowledge to improve policy influence” Workshop August 11-12, 2011 Lima, Peru  Organised in the framework of the GDNet-CIPPEC initiative "Spaces for Engagement: Using Knowledge to Improve Public Decisions", the main objective was to strengthen capacities of think tanks in the region to influence public policies, through the strengthening of relationships between Executive Directors and the presentation and discussion of tools, strategies and concrete  The workshop aimed at Executive Directors of the most prominent Think Tanks in Latin America, as well as professionals involved in the research- action in those institutions, interested in learning about tools for policy influence. Total Blog posts: 2 (http://gdnetblog.org/2011/08/11/using-knowledge- to-improve-policy-influence/ ; http://gdnetblog.org/2011/08/16/some- lessons-learned-by-latin-american-think-tanks/ ) Photographs - http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdnet/sets/72157627305208207/  There is a great interest from researchers and policy research institutes in learning about cutting edge initiatives and practices, i.e. from M&E of policy influence.  The workshop positioned the "Spaces for engagement programme" as a referent on M&E of the policy influence issue in LA region  Provided an excellent opportunity to showcase CIPPEC and GDNet´s joint work, and to continue enhancing a Community of Practice interested in addressing evidence based policy issues. Not only it was a very fruitful meeting with many Latin American CEOs but also many of them and other participants, such as IDRC, expressed great interest in CIPPEC and GDNet activities  Face to face meetings are great opportunities to engage new audiences in the project activities. As an example, many participants of Lima's Workshop are currently participants of the online course, new CEOs became members of DEAL and some organizations asked for CIPPEC's technical assistance  DEAL (www.vippal.org/deal as a virtual community for Executive Directors in LA) became more relevant
  • 29. 28 experiences of research communication and engagement with policy makers.  The workshop was framed by the joint efforts of the following organizations: Overseas Development Institute (ODI), the Center for the Implementation of Public Policies Promoting Equity and Growth (CIPPEC) and the Consortium for Economic and Social Research (CIES).  GDNet undertook the social media coverage of the workshop with the help of CIPPEC's team members who attended the workshop and got more visibility after Lima Workshop Zeinab Sabet & Sherine Ghoneim (GDNet), Megan Lloyed Laney (CommsC onsult) PEM Asia Research Communications Workshop October 10-11, 2011 Delhi, India  Organised and delivered in collaboration with CommsConsult as part of GDNet’s series of Research  GDNet co-delivered the training, together with CommsConsult, to a group of 12 Asian academic researchers  Participants were engaged in a range of social media tools, including talking heads and the recording of their group exercises Total Blog posts: 1 http://gdnetblog.org/2011/10/14/pem-asia-research-communications- workshop/ Photographs -  Participants benefited a lot from the Policy and Media panels which involved policy and media actors – sharing concrete experiences with participants helped them understand and realise the importance of effective communication of their research  Establish contact with researchers early on  Engage researchers more through the Community Group  Useful questionnaire allowing to compare
  • 30. 29 and Ramona Angelescu (GDN) Communications Capacity Building Workshops, the workshop was specifically designed for a group of Asian researchers involved in the GDN PEM Project “Strengthening Institutions to Improve Public Expenditure Accountability” to influence policy decisions with their research results in their respective countries  GDNet undertook the social media coverage of the workshop, and facilitated the "writing for development" through its community group for the participants of the workshop that was organised in collaboration with CommsConsult http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdnet/sets/72157627889157820/ A GDNet Community Group was set up for this workshop - https://researcher.gdnet.org/~community_groups/PEM%20Asia%20Resea rch%20Communications%20Workshop Talking heads 4 http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5B49FBFC502B06E2&feature=v iew_all  A GDNet Community Group was set up specifically for the group of researchers who attended the workshop, where all workshop related material were uploaded. The group provided a space for researchers to interact with each other and with workshop facilitators – https://researcher.gdnet.org/~community_groups/PEM%20Asia%20 Research%20Communications%20Workshop  All researchers completed a questionnaire where they pledged how they would do their job differently in the future in terms of communicating their research, which was to be followed-up 3 months later (please see output 2) conference and ability of participants before and after the workshop  The pledge gives participants ownership and shows commitment to follow-up from GDNet's side  Talking heads being an effective learning and practice tool Sherine Ghoneim & Zeinab Sabet (GDNet); Jorge Barriga LACEA 16th Annual Meeting November 10-12, 2011 Santiago, Chile  GDNet undertook the social media coverage of  A broad spectrum of LACEA (GDNet's Regional Network Partner)'s user base attended the Conference, including southern and northern researchers, policymakers  This wide range of user base was engaged in a range of social media tools, including blog posts and twitter Total Blog posts: 4 http://gdnetblog.org/page/5/ Photographs -  GDNet presence was essential – would have helped generating more content for the blog  A big conference with such a wide user base requires a broad range of social media tools – would have been useful to produce electronic newsletter and send more tweets  Need to engage audience more to read and
  • 31. 30 (LACEA) the meeting and LACEA's staff, and were directed to GDNet's knowledge base/website and GDNet blog http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdnet/sets/72157628102435082/ comment on the blog  Twitter being a very useful tool in terms of content spinning Zeinab Sabet & Sherine Ghoneim (GDNet), Megan Lloyed Laney (CommsC onsult) and AERC team GDNet-AERC Policy Brief Training Workshop – ICT & Economic Development Project December 1-2, 2011 Nairobi, Kenya  Organised, designed and delivered in collaboration with CommsConsult, the workshop was dedicated to a specific group of researchers who produced research papers for the AERC “ICT and Economic Development” Project.  GDNet undertook the social media coverage of the workshop, and facilitated the "writing for development" through its community group for the participants of the workshop.  GDNet co-delivered the training, together with CommsConsult, to a group of 13 academic researchers involved in the the AERC “ICT and Economic Development” Project. And Through GDNet Writing for Development Communities A GDNet Community Group was set up specifically for the group of researchers who attended the workshop, where all workshop related material were uploaded. The group provided a space for researchers to interact with each other and with workshop facilitators.  Participants were engaged in a range of social media tools, including talking heads and the recording of their group exercises Total Blog posts: 2 http://gdnetblog.org/page/4/ Total Video Blogs: 5 http://gdnetblog.org/page/4/ ; http://gdnetblog.org/page/3/ Photographs - http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdnet/sets/72157628245340729/ Talking heads: 5 http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL46BA3E5770531E5A&feature=v iew_all A GDNet Community Group was set up specifically for the group of researchers who attended the workshop, where all workshop related material were uploaded. The group provided a space for researchers to interact with each other and with workshop facilitators - https://researcher.gdnet.org/~community_groups/GDNet- AERC%20Policy%20Brief%20Workshop  All researchers completed a questionnaire where they pledged how they would do their job differently in the future in terms of communicating their research, which was to be followed-up 3 months later (please see output 2)  Participants benefited a lot from the Policy and Media panels which involved policy and media actors – sharing concrete experiences with participants helped them understand and realise the importance of effective communication of their research  Establish contact with researchers early on  Engage researchers more through the Community Group  Useful questionnaire allowing to compare conference and ability of participants before and after the workshop  The pledge gives participants ownership and shows commitment to follow-up from GDNet's side  Talking heads and mock press conferences being an effective learning and practice tool
  • 32. 31 Sherine Ghoneim and Zeinab Sabet (GDNet) - 2012 “Understanding and Avoiding the Oil Curse in the Arab World” – ERF-AFESD Conference January 15-16, 2012 Kuwait, Kuwait  GDNet undertook a complete social media coverage of the event, including blog posts, video blogs, video interviews and twitter GDNet user base interaction has been improved by using social media tools, including blog posts, video blogs, video interviews and twitter. ERF Blog - 416 views GDNet & CIPPEC (Julia D'Agostin o; Leandro Echt & Vanesa Weyrauch ) GDNet-CIPPEC Online Courses – 2011  Three English online courses were delivered and facilitated – Policy influence (18, 15 & 16 participants)  One Spanish online course delivered and facilitated – Policy influence (16 participants)  One Spanish online course delivered and facilitated – M&E (16 participants)  Online courses are dedicated to a wide audience  Online training material are provided, including 6 modules per course  Courses are evaluated by participants with suggestions for improvement  One pager of lessons learned is produced per course  Online courses have proven to be a very cost- effective way to raise awareness of emerging R&P practices such as M&E of policy influence as well as to improve researchers' knowledge of how to better plan and communicate the enhancement of policy influence  It is very useful to include the methodology of “learning groups”. These groups are composed of participants who exchange their exercises and comments about each other’s work. This process of sharing opinions and thinking about different situations and contexts is a unique but useful way of learning and improving as an organization  Courses need to have an initial week that only involves introductions by participants, time to prove the platform, and the opportunity to ask technical questions. Without this week, much time is lost as the organizations get involved in the program, when they should be working on the topics proposed for the first week  Each week needs to have a debate. A chart with all the subjects to be discussed should be built before the initiation of the course. It is also very fruitful to finish weeks with a summary of these debates,
  • 33. 32 which are then shared with participants, and also work as a ‘back up’ of the discussions once the course is finished.  We have noticed that participants use to take a big part of the discussions to their own practices and countries’ contexts. So it is important that facilitators understand the general political, social and economic situations of participants’ countries. In that way, tutors will be able to understand the background of trainees’ exercises and will also have better approach to the discussions  Since many participants asked to keep in contact with others and remain informed about new courses and initiatives, we would like to create an Alumni group to ensure constant communication between representatives of the program and previous participants  The most successful strategy for giving feedback is by posting comments one-by-one so everyone can see them  When following up participants’ activity (participation, exercises), it is very fruitful to combine exchanges through the forums with particular e mails  We realized that most participants do the exercises and share contents with members of their own organizations, so we have started to encourage those kind of practices by recommending them when discussing about the exercises The log indicates that GDNet have actively engaged with their ‘user base’ throughout Year 1, employing a wide range of communications products and activities (blogging, setting up community groups, using social media such as Twitter, producing electronic newsletters etc.) to generate a range of results and lessons (the need for continual and dedicated community group facilitation in order to maintain a vibrant community, and the need for a wide range of targeted communications channels and products at larger conferences in order to meet the wide range user base knowledge needs.)
  • 34. 33 A brief analysis of the log template indicates a number of conclusions:  GDNet has developed particular expertise in the use of a suite of social media tools to support and facilitate user base interaction. For example, GDNet undertook complete social media coverage of the GDN 12 th Annual Conference including blog posts, video blogs, video interviews, twitter, electronic newsletter and printed broadsheet.  There are signs of high usage of many of the social media tools by GDNet’s user base. For example, the 17 blog posts generated during the GDN 12 th Annual Conference were viewed 10,918 times in the month of January alone, demonstrating considerable reach beyond the direct conference attendees. Similarly, the four daily Conference Newsletters were sent out to 17,089 subscribers.  There is considerable evidence that GDNet’s own capacity to better understand and facilitate user base interaction has improved considerable over time. For example, in the 12 months since the GDNet Twitter feed was established there has been a significant increase in followers from a base of approximately 30 to a peak of over 600 followers immediately following the GDN Conference. Similarly, GDNet has responded to the needs and demands of specific user base groups - A GDNet Community Group was set up specifically for the Awards & Medals Finalists of 2011, where all workshop-related material were uploaded. Facilitated by GDNet, the group provided a space for researchers to interact with each other and with workshop facilitators - http://cloud1.gdnet.org/cms.php?id=public_group_community_default_landing_page&community_group_id=15 The scale and breadth of GDNet’s user base interaction is impressive given that no user base interaction was recorded for the baseline. A key challenge for GDNet will be to maintain and perhaps even enhance the level of user base interaction over the remainder of the programme and map and analyse trends over time. For example by comparing the support provided to the GDN 12 th Annual Conference to see if it can bettered at the GDN 13 th Annual Conference in Budapest in June 2012. Similarly, as GDNet’s experience facilitating user base interaction increases then it may be possible to further tailor the services provided to specific user base needs and demands. The M&E Consultant will work with the GDNet team to develop a small set of metrics/indicators to quantify, map, and reflect on trends in user base interaction. It is anticipated that GDNet will maintain the log over the next reporting period and synthesis the lessons learned in order to produce a best practice guide (or similar) on how best to facilitate user base interaction and engagement for Southern researchers. Data management plan Robbie Gregorowski / ITAD  Annually from baseline - designing GDNet user base interaction log template Zeinab Sabet and Shahira Emara / GDNet  On-going – logging GDNet user base interaction according to log template and extracting lessons for GDNet Evidence base The latest version of the template for logging GDNet user base interaction is provided above.
  • 35. 34 Indicator 2 - Researchers interactions with the policy domain Year 1 summary – During Year 1 GDNet have facilitated four distinct interactions between Southern researchers and the policy domain. This experience has generated a small number of valid lessons including the requirement for GDNet to actively ‘host’ any researcher – policy domain interaction in order to introduce both parties and encourage interaction based on common interest. Similar to Output 3 indicator 1 GDNet also endeavours to support and facilitate a smaller number of interactions between Southern researchers and the policy domain. As with Output 3 indicator 1, GDNet activities under this output are logged using the template below. The rationale supporting the template is for GDNet to both record activities as well as identify results and lessons from facilitating the interaction between Southern researchers and the policy domain. Date & Person at GDNet Aim and nature of facilitation from GDNet (event or activity) Nature of researcher – policy domain interaction Specific products / results / outcomes Lessons for GDN / GDNet January 13- 15, 2011 Sherine Ghoneim “Research Shaping Policy – Latin America’s Experiences” January 13-15, 2011 Bogotá, Colombia GDNet organised this special session in collaboration with CIPPEC at the GDN 12th Annual Conference. Moderated by a journalist and an Egyptian policymaker, the session brought together the Executive Directors of three Latin American think tanks from Colombia, Ecuador and Chile to draw similarities and contrasts from their different approaches to influencing policy. Suggestions as to how to behave as a researcher if you want to be policy influential were made by the three Executive Directors. They also shared two significant organizational decisions they had made to improve their influence.   Blogging tweeting about the session would have helped content spinning August 11- 12, 2011 LACEA (Jorge Barriga) “Lessons learned by think tanks of the region” August 11-12, 2011 Lima, Peru GDNet organised this session in collaboration with CIPPEC at its workshop “Using knowledge to improve policy influence”. The session addressed Think thanks and the challenges they face when influencing policy. Four Executive Directors and one Director of an Economic Program from Latin American institutes presented and discussed their experiences, organizational structures and lessons learned in the field of policy influence.  A blog story about the session was posted on GDNet blog http://gdnetblog.org/2011/08/16/som e-lessons-learned-by-latin-american- think-tanks/#more-1410  Tweets were sent live during the session  GDNet presence was essential – would have helped generating more content for the blog
  • 36. 35 The session addressed Think thanks and the challenges they face when influencing policy were addressed in the opening session of the workshop “Using knowledge to improve policy influence”, which was held in Lima, Peru, on August 11th and 12th . November, 2011 LACEA (Jorge Barriga) GDNet-LACEA Session “Researchers and policymakers: Bridging the gap” The session aimed at launching a debate around the factors that promote or hinder the transfer of knowledge from the academic/research field to the policy arena and what concrete actions could be implemented to further the interaction between both. The session allowed for an interactive debate between researchers and policymakers on the following issues:  The main facilitators and barriers to improving the transfer of knowledge from research to policymaking, and to the generation of awareness and interest among decision makers on the importance of academic input into public policies  Concrete actions that both researchers and policymakers can implement to promote agenda-harmonization between them  Specific steps that organizations, such as GDN, could carry out to support the incorporation of policy research into policymaking  Tweets were sent live during the session  GDNet presence was essential – would have helped generating more content for the blog March, 2011 CIPPEC (Julia D'Agostino; Leandro Echt & Vanesa Weyrauch) Executive Directors of Latin America (DEAL) DEAL is a community of practice that brings together executive directors from the more prominent PRIs in Latin America interested in improving the impact of policy research. www.vippal.org/deal  DEAL is a space allowing the search of answers, sharing knowledge, best practices and lessons learned, discussing challenges and dilemmas, and receiving materials and skills regarding the complex world of directors leading institutes that seek to influence public policies  26 CEOs and 13 countries are involved  One “Ask the expert” document: “How to attract, hold and motivate think tanks’ staff”  Two debates about “Different fundraising models in think tanks” and “Promotion of debates during election campaigns experiences”  “Promotion of debates during election campaigns experiences”: three videos on the experiences of the Executive Directors from Fedesarrollo  Difficult to engage Executive Directors in exchanging ideas, resources and experiences. Even though they welcome information and knowledge posted by CIPPEC and experts, their level of spontaneous participation is low  Difficult to promote effective participation among CEOs members of DEAL (Executive Directors of Latin America) due to their lack of time and their skills to manage technological aspects of the platform  In November 2011, CIPPEC launched a process in which specialists in think tanks would analyse and share experiences of how think tanks deal with a set of crucial
  • 37. 36 (Colombia), CIES (Peru), and CIPPEC (Argentina) were uploaded challenges selected by Executive Directors in the Lima meeting (see previous template) such as human resources management and monitoring and evaluating policy influence. We tested whether this is more appropriate methodology to attract their attention and respond to their needs, but we didn’t get any feedback  CEOs of less developed think tanks have more incentives to participate in the discussions than the ones of more developed institutes CIPPEC (Julia D'Agostino; Leandro Echt & Vanesa Weyrauch) Evidence Based Policy Development Network (EBPDN) - Latin American Chapter EBPDN is a worldwide community of practice for think tanks, policy research institutes and similar organizations working in international development to promote more evidence-based pro-poor development policies. The program helps members to support each other through training, exchange visits, and sharing of information, and collaborate on projects to generate and use research-based evidence to improve development policy at national, regional and global level  In the Latin American chapter, CIPPEC (under the supervision of GDNet and EBPDN) has contributed to improve the way in which researchers and policy makers engage in a virtual platform. This platform is a space to exchange knowledge, debates, share lessons and experiences on bridging research and policy.  250 members and 35 countries involved  20 bimonthly newsletters  Virtual library - LA audience does not participate in debates as it happens with general EBPDN  During Year 1 GDNet have facilitated four distinct interactions between Southern researchers and the policy domain. This facilitation has mainly been event-focussed and based around organising and facilitating special sessions at workshops and conferences where researchers and policy actors are encouraged to interact and engage with each other. This experience has generated a small number of valid lessons including the requirement for GDNet to actively ‘host’ any researcher – policy domain interaction in order to introduce both parties and encourage interaction based on common interest. It is not anticipated that GDNet will actively facilitate researcher-policy domain interaction with a high frequency. Rather GDNet will focus on taking advantage of opportunities where researchers and policy stakeholders come together and will use these opportunities to facilitate interaction. It is anticipated that GDNet will maintain
  • 38. 37 the log over the next reporting period and synthesis the lessons learned in order to produce a set of lessons on how researcher – policy domain interaction can best be facilitated. Data management plan Zeinab Sabet and Shahira Emara / GDNet  On-going – logging researcher – policy domain interaction according to log template and extracting lessons for GDNet Evidence base The latest version of the template for logging researcher – policy domain interaction is provided above.
  • 39. 38 Important note: Output 4 ‘GDN Fellows’ research better communicated to different, identified audiences’ was dropped following the2012 DFID Annual Review and the GDNet logframe revised and re-numbered accordingly. Although the term GDN Fellows had yet to be defined when the output was dropped, the small set of existing activities that GDNet were conducting under the Output have been subsumed into other Outputs. For example, GDNet has published GDN Grantee research on the knowledge base which can be found at http://cloud2.gdnet.org/cms.php?id=gdnet, relating to Output 1 indicator 1.
  • 40. 39 Output 4 - Lessons about knowledge brokering best practice in the global south learnt and communicated Indicator 1 - Generation of best practice lessons Year 1 summary – GDNet routinely log and reflect on knowledge brokering best practice in order to generate lessons. Knowledge brokers such as GDNet generate, interpret, synthesize and communicate research-based information from diverse perspectives. They also foster links, interaction, understanding and collaboration between researchers and decision makers. GDNet and its partners have acquired and continue to develop significant experience and expertise on knowledge brokering best practice in the Global South. Output 4 focuses on the expertise and experience generated by the GDNet team as experts in facilitating, convening and, knowledge brokering in the Global South. GDNet have established a process to routinely log and reflect on knowledge brokering best practice in order to generate lessons. The template below presents a ‘living’ summary of the key knowledge brokering activities GDNet has undertaken during Year 1 as well as the best practice lessons to emerge from them. These include:  An expert blog post by Cheryl Brown entitled “Will not use them. Cannot use them. Web 2 what?” Why aren’t web 2.0 tools being used more for research collaboration?” which explains why researchers shy away from social media.  The use of a blog as an effective tool to support conference communications coverage as it can engage both delegates attending the conference who are short of time, as well as present a synthesised and condensed overview of key discussions for wider audiences who may be interested but unable to reach the conference in person.  A critical examination of the usefulness and appropriateness of social media as a tool for engaging Southern academics and researchers - Are southern academics virtually connected? – which finds a low level of take up of social media amongst these groups generally. It is anticipated that during Year 2 GDNet will routinely meet to discuss and synthesis the lessons with the aim of producing a short document setting out the key lessons learned when operating as a knowledge broker supporting researchers in the Global South. This document is expected to cover:  The knowledge needs of Southern researchers as GDNet’s primary stakeholders  Appropriate communications methods and channels to meet these knowledge needs  A set of grounded and practical tips on how to support knowledge brokering for Southern researchers  And perhaps, a small set of ‘How to’ guides relating to training and capacity building for Southern researchers, using appropriate web 2.0 communications tools and channels, and providing innovative conference communications coverage for diverse audience of Southern researchers and policy makers.
  • 41. 40 Date &Person At GDNet Title, date and location of reflective event / product Event / product objective Participants involved Brief summary of best practice lessons generated Continuous effort cross 2011  Zeinab Sabet GDNet Blog  A collection of blog articles reflection on main events attended and experiences shared  (http://gdnetblog.org/ )  Free Public domain  Outreach and space to reflect away from website  Provides flexibility and informality  Presents information in a simple way  Encourages interaction  The GDNet blog represents an online station where a regular content posting plan is maintained  Blog is one of the suite of tools to meet GDNet stakeholders needs  Audience manage to put a face behind the blog, not the case with the website  Need to engage researchers more to read and respond with comments.  Cross post into the GDNet website to reflect on wealth of blog stories  Enrich the content posting plan to tally with thematic calendar Sept 2011 Sherine Ghoneim and Cheryl Brown 2  A GDNet paper- Are southern academics virtually connected?  Include reference  A study commissioned by GDNet into supporting the use of web tools for research collaboration, by researchers in the South  (http://depot.gdnet.org/cms/files//GDNet_study_of_ad option_of_web_2_tools_v2.pdf)  Southern Researches  Academia  Communications groups working in development  GDNet community  Why researchers shy away from social media  Understand Southern Academic behavior online  Lessons and best practice on southern Academics using social media  Level of take-up of web tools among academics are relatively low May 2011 Sherine  KM Impact challenge conference  Session on “Connecting  A collaborative learning process sponsored by USAID  Discussion about GDNet OPR experience  Describe and share GDNet experiences in assessing their  Information and Knowledge Management intermediaries working in  Lessons on linking purpose level to outcomes, and activities  Understand and reflect the logic behind 2 Cheryl Brown is Outreach & Uptake Consultant for GDNet
  • 42. 41 Ghoneim researchers from the Global South to those with the power to make a difference.”  GDNet case story on measuring impact knowledge and learning initiatives  (http://kdid.org/kmic/connecting-researchers-global- south-those-power-make-difference ) development knowledge field logframe and how to assess its activity  Showcasing GDNet as a case, and maintain a GDNet brand  Sharing the experience of GDNet program Nov 2011 Cheryl Brown, Sherine Ghoneim, Clare Gorman 3  Blog post “Will not use them. Cannot use them. Web 2 what?” Why aren’t web 2.0 tools being used more for research collaboration?”  A blog post on the paper” Are southern academics virtually connected?  Picked up by guardian  (http://gdnetblog.org/?s=Will+not+use+them.+Cannot+ use+them.+Web+2+what%3F%E2%80%9D+Why+aren% E2%80%99t+web+2.0+tools+being+used+more+for+res earch+collaboration )  Public domain  Comms people  Knowledge brokers  Spread out outputs produced using multiple tools including the blog  Use more tools, like tweet about the paper, and refer to the blog  Focus on key messages to use later for further building blocks of GDNet activities ie, understand why researchers shy away from social media, and address this in capacity building efforts. March 2011 Sherine Ghoneim and Cheryl Brown  A Reflective paper on “Capacity building of knowledge management among research Institutes: reflections from The GDNet experience”  Picked up World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development  Presented at the WASD conference  Aims to use findings from the prior workshops as a foundation for sharing and examining lessons learned with a wider audience  (http://www.worldsustainable.org/index.php/compone nt/docman/doc_download/109-article-06-227-240- capacity-building-of-knowledge-management-among- research-institutes)   Challenges to Knowledge sharing  Value of presenting products amongst organizations in the same field, even if northern, great exposure  Examine Creating synergy between technological and social approaches to knowledge management M&E approach Monitoring Output 4 indicator 1 activities involves GDNet staff completing the log of reflective activities above in order to contribute to a ‘living’ document of GDNet’s learning and best practice. In order to capture the new knowledge generated across GDNet’s portfolio of activities, GDNet staff will need to ensure those people engaged 3 Clare Gorman, GDNet’s Marketing Consultant
  • 43. 42 to support and facilitate these activities (including external experts) are required to produce a short reflection on their input. GDNet will organise periodic (perhaps bi- annual) reflective events, such as team retreats, in order to extract and synthesise this knowledge and produce best practice lessons. Reflective events will be complemented by occasional distinct learning products. Data management plan All GDNet staff and external service providers  Completion of a short reflective summary following each input, activity or event. All staff led by Sherine Ghoneim / Shahira Emara  On-going completion of log of reflective activities based on reflective summaries  Bi-annually – organisation of reflective events and products in order to produce best practice lessons Evidence base The best practice lessons generated by GDNet throughout Year 1 are provided in the Output 5 indicator 1 log template above. Indicator 2 - Communication of lessons Year 1 summary – GDNet has undertaken four distinct best practice communications activities during Year 1. Of particular note was a combined paper and blog entry on Are southern academics virtually connected? which was picked up by The Guardian newspaper in the UK. GDNet is responsible for communicating the best practice lessons generated through the reflective activities detailed above in order to share the knowledge and expertise they have developed with a wider audience. Audiences are likely to include other knowledge brokers such as DFID Research Uptake Team, the IDS Impact and Learning Team, as well as the wider interested public. Communications channels may include emailing the best practice note to relevant stakeholder groups such as the Knowledge Brokers Forum, presenting the findings at relevant seminars and conferences such as the GDN Annual Conference, as well as the use of more broad appeal social media channels such as blog posting. GDNet is also expected to highlight the best practice lessons through its website. The log indicates that GDNet has undertaken four distinct best practice communications activities during Year 1. This includes an on-going effort to communicate best practice using the GDNet blog as well as more distinct and targeted communications activities such as:  The GDNet study of use of web 2.0 tools by southern researchers was quoted in a Guardian online expert panel discussion about using new tools to communicate research - http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/14830270  A reflective paper on ‘Capacity Building of Knowledge Management among research institutes: reflections from the GDNet experience’, was published in the World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development’
  • 44. 43 Year 2 M&E activities will need to reflect changes to the GDNet logframe (version 10) following the DFID Annual Review in April 2011 which suggested that GDNet should ‘Revise this output to reflect GDNet as a learning institution (a ‘think net’? e.g. CEPR) and differentiate between 1. lessons learnt by GDNet and communicated 2. how GDNet learns from others and uses this learning in its development.’ In response to this recommendation the logframe has been revised to include a third indicator on ‘Instances of GDNet incorporating new thinking or innovation into its practices as a result of participation in knowledge brokering fora.’ Person at GDNet Nature of product Communications Channel Participants targeted Response/ outcomes from comments if any Continuous effort cross 2011- Zeinab Sabet  GDNet Blog  Blog platform  http://gdnetblog.org/  Posted on GDNet website  Broad GDNet user base  Public good  No of followers increase around events Sept 2011 Sherine Ghoneim and Cheryl Brown  A GDNet paper- Are southern academics virtually connected?  Blog post communicating results of the paper  Paper posted on GDNet website  Information and Knowledge Management intermediaries working in development knowledge field  Public Internet audience  Picked up The Guardian Newspaper in the UK May 2011 Sherine Ghoneim  Share experience on OPR, logframe and M&E framework  Session on “Connecting researchers from the Global South to those with the power to make a difference”  Face to face meeting to exchange experience  KM Impact challenge conference, sponsored by USAID  (http://kdid.org/kmic/connecting-researchers-global-south- those-power-make-difference )  Information and Knowledge Management intermediaries working in development knowledge field March 2011 Sherine  A Reflective paper  Presented at the WASD conference  Knowledge Brokers and intermediaries  Picked up World Journal
  • 45. 44 Ghoneim and Cheryl Brown on “Capacity building of knowledge management among research Institutes: reflections from The GDNet experience”  (http://www.worldsustainable.org/index.php/component/docm an/doc_download/109-article-06-227-240-capacity-building-of- knowledge-management-among-research-institutes)  Knowledge management experts of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development M&E approach Monitoring GDNet’s communications of the best practice lessons is managed through the log template above. Data management plan All staff led by Sherine Ghoneim / Shahira Emara  On-going completion of the communications activities log Evidence base GDNet’s best practice lessons communications activities during Year 1 are set out in the Output 5 indicator 2 log template above.