Downloaded 11 times
Research to policy processes
The document outlines the agenda for a three-day workshop on communicating research to policymakers through policy briefs. The workshop aims to increase understanding of research to policy processes, build skills in communicating research to maximize impact, and produce an outline policy brief for each research project. It provides background on why communicating research matters, noting that donors spend billions on development research annually and want to know it provides value. The document reviews models of research to policy processes and challenges of getting research into use. It discusses what researchers need to know about the political context and evidence around an issue, and what they need to do to influence policies, like establishing credibility and providing practical solutions.
More Related Content
![Public Policy Advocacy For Social Change[1]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/publicpolicyadvocacyforsocialchange1-090722061239-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Similar to Research to policy processes
More from GDNet - Global Development Network, Cairo Office
Research to policy processes
- 1. AERC Policy Briefs Workshop SAFARIPARK HOTEL NAIROBI December 6-8th 2013
- 2. TO INCREASE UNDERSTANDING of researchto policy processes, and the role of Policy Briefs in this process TO BUILD CAPACITY AND SKILLS in communicating research to maximise uptake and impact TO PRODUCE an outline Policy Brief for each research project, to be finalised after the workshop
- 3. WHY COMMUNICATING RESEARCHMATTERS “Success depends on knowing what works” Bill Gates, (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ($33.5bn 2009) “In development research, to get a new discovery into policy and practice is just as important as the discovery itself.” Maureen O’Neil, President and CEO International Development Research Centre Donor countries spend over US$2bn annually on development research and are increasingly asking the question: “Is this value for money?” RAPID Programme, 2003
- 4. • • • • • • MOBILE PHONES TURNEDOFF KEEP TO TIME RESPECT EACHOTHERS’ CONTRIBUTIONS NO EMAILING DURING SESSIONS ….. …..
- 5.
- 6. THE ONGOING MYSTERYOF GETTING RESEARCH INTO USE
- 7. THE LINEAR MODEL Researchreport on results of clinical trials Summary research report sent out to clinicians and health policymakers Fig 1: A linear model of evidence into policy Health policy is changed reflecting research results Clinician practice is changed
- 8. A SYSTEMS MODEL Local traditional authorities Agriculture CSO Health CSO International healthNGO National think tank Local government Ministry of Health International agricultural NGO WHO National Agricultural Research System International think tank Ministry of Women’s Affairs Ministry of Agriculture Fig 3: a systems model of evidence and policy Ministry of Environment and Water
- 9. POLICY PROCESSES ARE... Cabinet Donors Policy Formulation Agenda Setting Parliament Decision Making CivilSociety Monitoring and Evaluation Private Sector Ministries Policy Implementation Thanks ODI for this slide
- 10. Political Expediency Costs & Benefits Effectiveness EVIDENCE Sideeffects Choice of Goals From Cartright and Hardie; ‘Evidence-Based Policy: a Guide to doing it better’, 2012 Resources Values and Policy Context
- 11. contested Do you thinkthe policy outcome is... contested established Cause and effect can only be Issues are ‘knowable’ and can be seen in retrospect and do not researched: cause and effect can repeat. Nobody is ‘the be established. Domain of expert’: we’re not even sure expert knowledge, questions can we have the right question, be answered with the right never mind the answer. information. Complex, emergent Knowable - researchable Multiple interpretations established ...do you think the knowledge is... Structuring policy issues Chaotic Issues are chaotic – new evidence causes confusion rather than clarifies. No cause and effect can be seen. Known - simple Cause and effect is known: best practice guidance can be issued. Domain of yes / no answers to questions Clearly adapted from the Cynefin knowledge management framework. See Shaxson, L (2009) Structuring policy problems for plastics, the environment and human health: reflections from the UK. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 2141-2151. doi: 10.1098/rstb. 2008.0283
- 12. Discursive changes 1. Discursive changes:These refer to changes in the labels or narratives of policy actors. They reflect a new or improved understanding of a subject -- even if it does not imply an effective change of policy or practice. Procedural changes 2. Procedural changes: changes in the way certain processes are undertaken e.g. the incorporation of consultations to closed processes, or small changes in the way that national policies are implemented in the field. Content changes 3. Content changes: changes in the content of policies including strategy papers, legislation and budgets. These are formal changes in the policy framework. Attitudinal changes Behavioural changes 4. Attitudinal changes: changes in the way policy actors think about a given issue. This is important where key stakeholders have high influence but lack interest in a policy area or are not necessarily aligned with the policy objectives of the programme. 5. Behavioural changes: These refer to more durable changes in the way that policy actors behave (act or relate to others) as a consequence of formal and informal changes in discourse, process and content.
- 13. OUR CURRENT POLICYMAKINGCYCLE…AND WHERE ARE WHERE IT DRAWS ON EVIDENCE YOU BEING HEARD? Monitoring & evaluation Horizon scanning WHERE DOES YOUR RESEARCH COME IN? MOUs, formal agreements Legislation, regulation, expenditure Target-setting (incl MCDM) Stakeholder analysis Impact assessments Risk assessments ? Codes of conduct From: http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/workbook1.pdf ? Standards, benchmarking ? ? ? Informal consultation Research Formal written consultation Citizens juries, focus groups, wikis
- 14. THE ODI RAPIDFRAMEWORK •ENCOURAGES structured questions about the context, actors, prevailing narratives and extent of evidence use •EMPASISES importance of ‘policy windows’ and building up influence within the policy process •HIGHLIGHTS all the other factors besides quality of research
- 15. PUTTING IT INTOPRACTICE What researchers need to know What researchers need to do How to do it Political Context: • Get to know the policymakers. • Identify friends and foes. • Prepare for policy opportunities. • Look out for policy windows. • Work with them – seek commissions • Strategic opportunism – prepare for known events + resources for others • Who are the policymakers? • Is there demand for ideas? • What is the policy process? Evidence • What is the current theory? • What are the narratives? • How divergent is it? Links • Who are the stakeholders? • What networks exist? • Who are the connectors, mavens and salesmen? • • • • • Establish credibility Provide practical solutions Establish legitimacy. Present clear options Use familiar narratives. • Build a reputation • Action-research • Pilot projects to generate legitimacy • Good communication • Get to know the others • Work through existing networks. • Build coalitions. • Build new policy networks. • Build partnerships. • Identify key networkers, mavens and salesmen. • Use informal contacts
- 16. BE CLEAR ABOUTWHAT YOU’RE TRYING TO INFLENCE/INFORM FOR EXAMPLE, INFUENCING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES… • OR INFORMING PUBLIC POLICIES • Discursive changes: reflect a new or improved understanding of a subject • Procedural changes: changes in the way certain processes are undertaken. Practitioners are aware of findings from research • Practitioners accept the research findings • Practitioners view the research findings as • locally applicable • Practitioners view the research findings as doable within the local context • Practitioners adopt the research findings • Practitioners adhere to the research • Attitudinal changes: changes in the way policy actors think about a given issue. • Behavioural changes: more durable changes in the way that policy actors behave (act or relate to others) as a consequence of formal and informal changes in discourse, process and content. Practitioners act on the research findings • Content changes: changes in the content of policies including strategy papers, legislation and budgets. findings
- 17. START WITH WHATYOUR AUDIENCE NEEDS TO KNOW….NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO TELL THEM.. “But this is the simplified version for the general public….” • What is simple to the researcher is not always clear to the audience.. • What your audience NEEDS TO KNOW IS AS IMPORTANT as what you want to say to them
- 18. BE PRACTICAL ABOUTWHAT YOU CAN ACHIEVE.. RECEPTION reception means that research has been received by an individual lands on the desk, but the findings might never be read. COGNITION The next stage occurs when research is read and understood. REFERENCE When research changes way of thinking – provokes a shift in an individual’s“frame of reference”, for example in terms of defining key problems and priorities. EFFORT Research has shaped action: some effort has been made to get the findings adopted, even if this is ultimately unsuccessful. ADOPTION Adoption means that research has had a direct influence on the actual policy IMPLEMENTATION While research may have been used to develop policy, at this stage it has also been translated into practice on the ground. IMPACT Utilisation of research when the implemented policy is successful in producing tangible benefits to the citizens.
Editor's Notes
- #11 From Evidence Based Policy: a practical guide to doing it better, Nancy Cartright and Jeremy Hardie, 2012 Oxford University Press
- #13 Discursive changes: These refer to changes in the labels or narratives of policy actors. They reflect a new or improved understanding of a subject -- even if it does not imply an effective change of policy or practice. Procedural changes: These refer to changes in the way certain processes are undertaken. For example, the incorporation of consultations to otherwise closed processes, or small changes in the way that national policies are implemented in the field. Content changes: These refer to changes in the content of policies including strategy papers, legislation and budgets. These are formal changes in the policy framework. Attitudinal changes: These refer to changes in the way policy actors think about a given issue. This might be an important change to target in the event that key stakeholders have high influence but lack interest in a policy area or are not necessarily aligned with the policy objectives of the programme.Behavioural changes: These refer to more durable changes in the way that policy actors behave (act or relate to others) as a consequence of formal and informal changes in discourse, process and content.
- #17 Discursive changes: These refer to changes in the labels or narratives of policy actors. They reflect a new or improved understanding of a subject -- even if it does not imply an effective change of policy or practice. Procedural changes: These refer to changes in the way certain processes are undertaken. For example, the incorporation of consultations to otherwise closed processes, or small changes in the way that national policies are implemented in the field. Content changes: These refer to changes in the content of policies including strategy papers, legislation and budgets. These are formal changes in the policy framework. Attitudinal changes: These refer to changes in the way policy actors think about a given issue. This might be an important change to target in the event that key stakeholders have high influence but lack interest in a policy area or are not necessarily aligned with the policy objectives of the programme.Behavioural changes: These refer to more durable changes in the way that policy actors behave (act or relate to others) as a consequence of formal and informal changes in discourse, process and content.
- #18 IFPRI food policy guide 2005