Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Flagship 4 Brussels Workshop: Gaps and Methods for analyzing Governance and Institutions for Climate Resilient Food Systems by Working Group 1

294 views

Published on

Presentation held by Working Group 1 at the Governance & Institutions Across Scales in Climate Resilient Food Systems Brussels Workshop 9-11 Sept 2014 for the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) Flagship 4.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Flagship 4 Brussels Workshop: Gaps and Methods for analyzing Governance and Institutions for Climate Resilient Food Systems by Working Group 1

  1. 1. Group 1 Gaps and Methods for analyzing Governance and Institutions for Climate Resilient Food Systems
  2. 2. Key Research Gaps and Questions 1) Regional level appears to be a “blackbox” in this field of analysis 2) Using non-climate entry points for getting climate issues on government agendas, particularly at the regional level 3) Integration of actions across levels, vertically (e.g. agricultural knowledge management systems; global to national-level) 4) Analyzing mechanisms of accountability for national implementation of regional/global agreements 5) Reviewing horizontal coordination mechanisms and identifying what has worked and what has not
  3. 3. Methodological Approaches • Deriving conceptual frameworks with operational indicators (taking into account interests, ideas, institutions, actors) • Comparative cross-country analysis for external validity • Qualitative comparative analysis and equifinality • Mapping relationships and causal linkages o Fuzzy cognitive maps o Cognitive maps and system dynamics o Netmapping • Data mining (from social media, texting, etc.) to uncover informal networks • Regional scenario analyses
  4. 4. Methodological Challenges • Integrating interdisciplinary approaches and other actors with legitimate knowledge (e.g. critical systems heuristics) • Recognizing that if we want implementation impact, involving other non-traditional actors, particularly at the local level • Reconciling tensions in this research arena and within the CG system: • Balancing academic pressures versus wanting to produce relevant and useful outputs for the communities with which we’re engaging • Needing to show impact through indicators versus needing to understand governance processes, mechanisms, and power structures • Determining whether we achieve impact most effectively through the methodological process versus the methodological product
  5. 5. Partners • Boundary partners • Civil society groups • Governmental groups • Epistemic communities * Partners should be viewed not just as end users but also co-users

×