Webinar recorded on 23 Sept. 2020, co-organized by the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), the CGIAR Research Program on Fish Agri-Food Systems, and Collaborating for Resilience (CoRe). Too often, research aiming to inform public policies or strengthen institutions for effective policy implementation remains disconnected from the real political economy of policy and institutional reform. This webinar introduces a new rubric to assess opportunities for research partnerships that navigate this complex terrain of power and leverage sometimes unexpected spaces of engagement. Full recording at https://bit.ly/2GFIdx1.

2. Improving research
engagement to support
policy and institutional
change
September 2020
Blake Ratner, Mark Dubois, Tiffany Morrison,
Xavier Tezzo, Andrew Song, Emmanuel Mbaru,
Sloans Chimatiro, Pip Cohen

3. A structured approach
to a messy process
Key questions:
• How does policy and institutional
change happen?
• Where are the opportunities for
research to most constructively
contribute?
• What role(s) do we, as
researchers, seek to play?
We offer:
• A rubric to assess opportunities for
research engagement in the policy
process
• Cases illustrating the rubric at
national and regional levels
• Principles for successful
engagement in policy and
institutional change

4. What
influences
policy
change?
The
Kaleidoscope
Model
(Resnick et al. 2015)
How can research
engagement affect
these?
Problem analysis
and convening
Assessment of
alternative optionsExchange of
experience &
dialogue
Institutional
capacity building
Outcome
evaluation

5. Where are the spaces for engagement?
Source: Gaventa (2006)
Need to consider modes of engagement that recognize this diversity
Forms of power Spaces of engagement
Visible: making and
setting the rules
Closed: behind-doors
negotiations
Hidden: setting the
agenda
Invited: formal policy
dialogue or
consultation
Invisible: shaping
meaning and value
Claimed or created:
social movements,
public demonstrations
Power Cube

6. A rubric to assess
opportunities for
research
engagement in the
policy process

8. Note: Examples in the table are illustrative of possible modes of engagement.

9. Case: Myanmar Fisheries Partnership
Modes of engagement Key outcomes
Multi-stakeholder
coordination platform
supporting dialogue on
policy priorities.
Policy problem identification
through jointly produced
issue briefs.
Distilling lessons through
assessment of the leasable
fishery domain.
Improved multiscale and
multilevel stakeholder
coordination.
Inland fishery policy
experiments assessing the
performance of community-
based management,
contributing to management
options introduced in the
Ayeyarwady Delta regional
fisheries law (2018).

10. Myanmar
Fisheries
Partnership

11. Case: Pacific “New Song” Policy
Modes of engagement Key outcomes
Assessment of “fit” between
global, regional and national
policy frameworks and
barriers to implementation.
Dialogue and reflection
engaging potential policy
champions and veto players.
Interviews and discussions
with key policy makers to
validate diverse perspectives
and interpretations.
Increased political
commitment to regional
coordination in policy design
and implementation.
Improved capacity to
interpret and adapt global
and regional policy
frameworks at national
level.

12. Pacific Islands regional
“New Song” Policy

13. Case: Africa Regional Fish Trade
Modes of engagement Key outcomes
Policy impact assessment.
Regional and national policy
dialogue.
Evidence on trade patterns
to support policy champions.
Identification of barriers to
policy implementation.
Documenting evidence from
local innovation.
Media outreach.
Increased recognition of the
importance of cross-border
fish trade for nutrition,
revenue and GDP.
Harmonized regional fish
standards to formalize the
informal fish trade and
increase women’s access.
Capacity built for recognition
of the standards at national
and subnational levels.

14. Africa Regional
Fish Trade

15. Principles
3. Embed ongoing
research
communications
to support
dialogue
4. Employ
evaluation in a
cycle of action and
learning
1. Nurture
multistakeholder
coalitions – across
scales, at different
points in policy
process
2. Engage alternative
forms of power
and spaces of
engagement

16. Questions for discussion in research teams
1. What are the main policy
processes where you aim
to see your research
evidence applied?
2. What are the key forums in
which you aim for this
evidence to have influence –
at global, regional, and/or
national levels?
3. What does this imply for the partnerships that
need to be built, strengthened or adapted to
achieve your intended influence?

17. Q&A
Recoding of this webinar will be
available on the PIM website
shortly after the live event. All
registrants will receive a follow-
up email with the link to the
webinar materials (video,
presentation, podcast).
Previous PIM Webinars:
http://bit.ly/PIMwebinars
If you want to receive alerts about
future PIM Webinars, sign up here:
https://pim.cgiar.org/subscribe/
@PIM_CGIAR
@PIM.CGIAR