Download to read offline
![Pathways Group Work Session
Group 1: Ethiopia, Ghana, Uganda [James/Eva] OTHER BUILDING
Group 2: DRC, Lesotho, Malawi, South Africa [Elizabeth/Pauline] OTHER BUILDING
Group 3: India [Hannah/Nidhi] THIS ROOM
Group 4: Bangladesh, Honduras, Pakistan [Anna/Ben] THIS ROOM](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/supportingmutuallearningaroundimpactpathwaysandresearchtopolicyprocesses-170228134925/85/Supporting-mutual-learning-around-impact-pathways-and-research-to-policy-processes-10-320.jpg)
Uploaded byThe Impact Initiative
Supporting mutual learning around impact pathways and research to policy processes
This document discusses supporting mutual learning around impact pathways and research to policy processes. It identifies several key barriers to impact, including engaging with non-academic audiences, building mutual learning, developing networks and relationships, and addressing incentives. It outlines lessons learned, such as planning engagement from the start, partnering with non-academic actors, and focusing events on relationship building. The document proposes that the Impact Lab can help by co-producing learning guides on effective engagement approaches and sharing case studies of impact strategies and lessons learned from research teams.
More Related Content
Similar to Supporting mutual learning around impact pathways and research to policy processes
More from The Impact Initiative
Supporting mutual learning around impact pathways and research to policy processes
- 1. Supporting mutual learningaround impact pathways and research to policy processes
- 2. An impact evaluation,undertaken in 2016, provided a thorough assessment of the impact of the ESRC- DFID Joint Fund for Poverty Alleviation over the ten years. What do we know about the barriers to impact? ESRC's conceptual framework for impact assessment to inform the evaluation methodology, the study recognises the complexities of the policy development process and the multifaceted nature of social science impact. The study identifies critical barriers to engagement and uptake. Learning from the REF: The non-academic impact of international development research in UK Higher Education, Kings College London, UKCDS Impact Initiative learning and outputs – events, engagement, synthesis across 150 projects
- 3. The Big Challenges 1.Engaging with non-academic audiences 2. Mutual learning for impact 3. Building networks and relationships 4. Incentives for engaging with policy and practice 5. Opportunities to respond to demand for evidence
- 4. • We willcreate dialogue by providing an outline of the issues and clear lessons for knowledge practitioners, donors and researchers. How can the Impact Lab help? • Co-produce Learning Guides: Identification of replicable approaches to effective engagement in a particular area identified as a potential barrier for impact. • Share case studies: Joint Fund and RLO impact strategy successes and learning shared by research teams in relation to increasing outreach and maximise research uptake and impact. • Support you to contextualise lessons for local conditions, time, effort or funding. “We want to support you to strengthen the efficacy of RLO research projects' pathways to impact.”
- 5. Engaging with non-academicaudiences • Research subjects • Professional groups • Community members • Political stakeholders • Policy makers • NGOs • Activists • Donors • Media • Weak existing relationships • Limited opportunities to connect • Limited understanding of audiences priorities/attitudes • Language and cultural barriers • Funding • Lack of incentives to engage
- 6. Engaging with non-academicaudiences • Plan engagement from the start – then structured and continuous • Partner with non-academic actors to co-produce research • Reach out to audiences in their own contexts • Use right tools for each audience • Identify and capitalise on policy windows • Utilise networks and informal relationships
- 7. Mutual Learning forImpact • Learning from research is a significant enabler of research impact. • Mutual learning is an iterative process which requires time and space within research activities in order to be fruitful. • Lack of planning and/or lack of flexibility to adapt the plan. • Engagement with key individuals happens too late • Weak relationships with research users • Ideology of policy actors may prevent learning.
- 8. Mutual Learning forImpact • Engage all stakeholders in learning early-on • Collaborative, interactive events, workshops are conducive to stakeholder learning • Involve intermediaries in the communication process with policymakers • Capacity building transfers valuable skills and builds confidence • Advisory groups can develop ongoing learning about context and strategy
- 9. Building networks andrelationships • Review the quality of the relationships between you, your partners, and the key stakeholders • Where relationships are weak, develop specific strategies to address • Consider demand – how can your research help others be more effective? • Focus events on building relationships to facilitate uptake and impact • Actively manage relationships
- 10. Pathways Group WorkSession Group 1: Ethiopia, Ghana, Uganda [James/Eva] OTHER BUILDING Group 2: DRC, Lesotho, Malawi, South Africa [Elizabeth/Pauline] OTHER BUILDING Group 3: India [Hannah/Nidhi] THIS ROOM Group 4: Bangladesh, Honduras, Pakistan [Anna/Ben] THIS ROOM
- 11.
Editor's Notes
- #3 See learning guides and outputs from Pretoria conference
- #4 Going to talk about the first three
- #7 Children, transport and mobility in Africa - Joint Fund 06-10 PI Gina Porter, Durham Uni : mapped pathways and identified key audiences – involved them from the start – e.g meetings with Teachers and Ghana education service in projects consultative groups - impact of this was inclusion of info about child mobility issues in the teaching training curriculum. The project directly partnered with the International Forum for Rural Transport Development - rather than treating as simply audience/users – IFRTD informed policy engagement and shared projects findings with its 4000 + members. Tools – project reached teachers and children through a book designed and written by child researchers themselves - was distributed to schools libraries across Ghana and Malawi Social networks – UNICEF Sierra Leone - child protection - connections to policy makers
- #9 Child protection, Sierra Leone – PI Mike Wessells - was successful in both range and depth of impacts. Researchers engaged stakeholders at a national level, continuously and from the outset. Improving educational evaluation and quality in China (IEEQC) (2008–10, Principal Investigator: Professor Sally Thomas, University of Bristol)in-country researchers (who were also members of the policy committees and other groups) supported the communication of research and played an ‘intermediary’ role in ensuring findings were translated to influential policymakers and practitioners in key institutions (such as the Ministry of Education and Local Education Authorities) in China. China - The advisory group (which included national educational leaders and scholars), the research team and stakeholders met to develop communication with potential user groups so that these plans would be adapted for the context. The advisory group also held a key role in monitoring dissemination and research impact.
- #10 PIPA and Net Map as part of an inception phase and reviewed regularly Widening participation in higher education in Ghana and Tanzania: developing an equity scorecard (2006–10, Principal Investigator: Professor Louise Morley, University of Sussex). Advisory groups not only increased by-in and learning but gave the research team access to wider networks and key individuals. Frame research for topicality
- #11 PIPA and Net Map as part of an inception phase and reviewed regularly Widening participation in higher education in Ghana and Tanzania: developing an equity scorecard (2006–10, Principal Investigator: Professor Louise Morley, University of Sussex). Advisory groups not only increased by-in and learning but gave the research team access to wider networks and key individuals. Frame research for topicality