|
A Workshop for Researchers, at the 10th
Annual ERF Conference, Marrakech,
December 2003
|
|
Below is a brief report of the one day workshop. Click on the links
below for further information:
Introduction
This is a brief report on the Bridging Research and Policy
Workshop in Marrakech on 15 December 2003, held just prior to the
Economics Research Forum for Arab Countries, Iran and Turkey (ERF)
Annual Conference in December 2003. The purpose was to improve participants'
capacity to analyse the context within which they work, develop
strategies, and use some simple approaches and tools to improve
the policy impact of their work.
The workshop was designed for researchers from government research
departments, universities or research institutes, think tanks or
NGOs. There were 12 participants selected by ERF - see Appendix
1 (pdf 96kb). Most were researchers but with some experience
of influencing policy.
The aims were that participants':
- Share experiences about policy-research processes
in the MENA Region;
- Learn about the GDN Bridging Research and Policy
Project;
- Learn about the "Context, Evidence, Links"
framework for analysing the context within which they work, and
apply it to selected case studies;
- Share experiences about approaches to strengthen
research-policy links which work in the MENA Region;
- Learn about other tools and approaches which have
been used elsewhere, and about where to access further information
and resources;
- Develop a strategy to improve the policy impact
of their own work.
Prior to the workshop, some of the participants had (i) completed
a policy entrepreneur questionnaire
(or see Appendix
3 (pdf 25kb)); and (ii) provided some information based on their
own work - see Appendix
4 (pdf 68kb).
The programme included the following sessions:
- Opening address and introductions
- Discussion about research-policy links in the MENA Region
- Presentation of the lessons from the GDN BR&P Project
- How to put these lessons into practice:
- A framework for action
- Policy entrepreneurship
- Teaching case studies
- Other tools
- Policy context questionnaire
- Conclusions and evaluation of the workshop
- Comments after the plenary presentation
Opening Address and Introductions
John Young opened the workshop and invited participants to introduce
themselves and describe why they were interested in the workshop.
A list of participants is provided in Appendix
1 (pdf 96kb) and some information about their work in Appendix
4 (pdf 68kb).
Research-Policy Links in
the MENA Region
The first session focused on the participants' own examples of
where research has influenced policy and where it has not. This
was followed by group work to discuss and generate lists of the
key factors they think affect research-policy linkages in their
regions, and then feedback.
The discussion generated the following map of the topic:
It was noted that the different groups (researchers and policy-makers)
have different incentives and culture. It seemed that there were
gaps in priorities.
From Researchers' perspectives, issues were discussed around:
- Challenges with peer review / research quality
- Incentives / funding / knowledge gaps (what incentive
do researchers have to do policy relevant research?)
- Research methodology
- Data available
- Independence
- Weak research infrastructure
- Possibility of publications
- Critical mass
- Training for policy entrepreneurship should be encouraged
while remembering that it is not just a technical issue. Context
matters and effort should be made towards creating a culture conducive
to policy entrepreneurship.
From Policy-makers' perspectives, issues were discussed around:
- Research is not seen as relevant (not policy oriented)
- Institutional vs. individual research
- More attention was given to foreign experts over
local experts
- Simplification of issues and outcome
The session also generated discussion around a number of other
interesting issues:
- Politics / Policy processes
- Personal agendas on the part of policy-makers interested
in research
- Certain results of research are not encouraged by government
- Issues of political risk / lack of legitimacy
- Policy-makers were seen as conservative and not bold
- Specificity / case by case
- External influences
- Donors may influence agendas, or maybe not
- Communication
- Academic
- Civil Society
- Policy-maker
- Media role as multiplier
- There are communication challenges in the region
- People
- It is noticeable that researchers often become policy-makers
in the region
- Individuals often have multiple roles
- Institutions vs. Groups vs. Individuals - and issues of
credibility and legitimacy
- Timing / Crises / Moments
- Importance of Comparing to and Learning from other
contexts
Some indications into the challenges to Bridging Research and Policy
in the MENA region are suggested by the findings of the Political
context assessment questionnaire - see Appendix
11 (pdf 71kb) and the information some participants provided
beforehand (see Influencing Policy Through Research: Experiences,
Difficulties and Hopes by Brahim Mansour; and some examples
of recent policy related work by Marwan A. Kardoosh in Appendix
4 (pdf 96kb)).
Lessons from the Bridging
Research and Policy project so far
The presentation of the "Context, Evidence, Links" framework
(see full presentation slide show
or slide summary in Appendix
5 (pdf 376kb) and some of the theory behind it, as well as the
findings from Phase 1 of the GDN project provoked a lively discussion
on a number of issues. Key points included:
- How to operationalise capacity or measure it?
- How to measure the gap between policy and research:
are there any indicators? Have we quantified any of these issues?
- Every situation is unique. Different organisations
have different objectives. Most are looking for ideas they can
operationalise. Government policy research units find research
which will have a high policy impact.
- Should all research be policy-relevant? Probably
not all, or we will just all become consultants.
- Is it the bridge that causes the problem or is there
a lack of supply or a lack of demand? In Morocco there is little
practically useful research going on.
- Some basic research leads to policy-relevant research
by challenging existing narratives. Research vs. Policy - Demand
vs. Supply. Comparative research is needed.
- The quality of supply and demand are both lacking
but so is the quality of the research itself. Also researchers
do not make sufficient efforts to communicate the results to policy-makers.
There is a tendency to produce too theoretical models. A cultural
gap exists between researchers and policy-makers- they live in
different worlds. There are a wide range of factors which influence
the uptake of knowledge and there are interest groups which influence
the policy process. Policy-makers in Morocco are very conservative
and very reluctant to shift from existing paradigms.
- Academics sometimes become Ministers. They are often
well-respected academics, but when they get into politics they
are neither politicians nor academics. Most policy is set by the
Head of State, who likes to have academics as Ministers to validate
his policy initiatives. This needs to be studied more. Who makes
policy - Ministers or the Head of State?
- It is very difficult to characterise Coalitions
and Networks. Arabs are excellent networkers - how does this translate
into policy impact?
- Language is extremely important. A lot of academic
work is not translated from English into French, and even less
into Arabic, so it is not available to policy-makers. Researchers
don't have the time to do this.
- It is not just a language issue, it's also a discourse
issue. Academics and policy-makers use different sorts of language.
Policy-makers need simpler, shorter material. They do not have
time for complicated models.
- There is also need to consider the role of research
at different stages in the policy cycle. More research is needed
into policy implementation. There is a need to know how to influence
the street-level bureaucrats - what are the obstacles to implementation?
- Academics have low social status in this part of
the world. They are also too focused on academia rather than practical
issues. There is a need to get policy-makers, practitioners and
academics together to find solutions to problems.
- In many countries, Ministries have their own research
departments which play an important role translating research
results into policy relevant materials. Many are staffed by part-time
academics.
- However, often their advice is ignored, or they
are co-opted to produce evidence that supports the policies that
have already been chosen. Advisers often become frustrated.
- People may be employed for the wrong reason. For
example, an Iraqi was employed to head up a think tank in Jordan
because the Board felt that an Iraqi would be more impervious
to government pressure.
- Articles in the media are useful for raising issues
more generally.
- The media has an important role to play.
- Many participants were interested in comparisons
- how the MENA region compared to others.
How to put it into Practice
How researchers can achieve greater policy impact - a framework
for action
The next presentation (see full
presentation slide show or slide summary in Appendix
6 pdf 289kb) focused on how these lessons can be put
into practice. Discussion focused on whether these suggestions make
sense in MENA:
- Theoretical perfection is important for academics.
- How long does it take for a think tank to influence
a policy?
- If this is what we have to do and how to do it -
how can we build teams to do this?
- How does this differ with coalitions supporting
political parties? An interesting example from Morocco relates
to a research centre in Morocco that identified the need for a
new political party in the country, so they then turned themselves
into one.
- There was some discussion (and tension identified)
regarding where research ends and advocacy starts.
- People are always moving across from research to
policy, and advisers to policy-makers often "steal"
other researchers.
- It is important to use the right language and concepts
for specific policy-makers.
Policy Entrepreneurship Questionnaire
Clearly policy researchers need a broad range of skills if they
want to achieve policy impact. The policy entrepreneurship questionnaire
is designed to assess personal skills and aptitudes. The presentation
of the results of the policy entrepreneurship questionnaire filled
in by the participants (see Appendix
7 pdf 57kb) generated some interesting discussion:
- Most researchers scored well as "fixers".
- Should researchers be policy entrepreneurs and have
all the skills - or be aware of their own capacities and work
with people who may be better at other aspects?
- Does the questionnaire relate to peoples' actual
abilities or their preferences or aspirations?
- The nature of the questionnaire is relative - some
people might be better at all of them, but this would not be captured
by the questionnaire.
Teaching Case studies
For the next session, participants were divided into three groups.
Each discussed a different teaching case study developed from the
BR&P Phase I summary (see Appendix
8 pdf 83kb):
- Paravets in Kenya - how to accelerate uptake in
a trouble context;
- Rice production in Kerala - how to respond to a
new policy based on shoddy analysis;
- Fiscal policy in Chile - how to respond to a crisis
and generate legitimacy for an important development policy.
The groups focused on: (a) using the framework to analyse the situation;
(b) planning what could be done; (c) discussing what actually happened;
and (d) discussing what this tells us about the topic of bridging
research and policy. This was followed by feedback.
This exercise seemed to work very well. It was interesting how
different people thought different issues were important, but that
participants very quickly started to think about multidisciplinary
research, how to network and the political context (and what to
do). However, groups felt they could have used a little bit more
information to make the exercise work better.
Other Tools for Researchers
Some other tools developed from the BR&P project and elsewhere
that might be useful were presented (see full
presentation slide show or slide summary in Appendix
9 pdf 476kb). These included participatory workshops; how to
assessing the political context; how to map the policy process;
and managing think tanks. Discussion concentrated on:
- How academic papers and policy papers differ (more
discussion should be included in the presentation next time);
- How far should researchers move into the policy
realms (researchers vs. activists vs. politicians).
It was mentioned that the issue of "fundraising" should
be included. Participants were advised to look at the GDN Toolkit:
Proposal Writing and Fundraising on the GDNet website: www.gdnet.org/online_services/toolkits/proposal_writing/
There was also an interesting discussion about some NGOs in the
MENA region and whether the culture of immediate gratification had
led to a psychology of disillusionment. It was highlighted that
you must deal with politics through politics. It was possible to
play on the pride and ego of policy-makers.
Another discussion focused on the problem of the fluctuating interests
and opinions of the ruling elite, how they influence policy-makers,
and how to engage with this process. The conclusion was that although
there are a wide range of options to use in democratic contexts,
there are fewer options in undemocratic contexts. Possibilities
could include stimulating international advocacy efforts, engaging
in insider influencing, or just doing nothing until they change
their minds anyway (apathy).
Policy Context Questionnaire
Participants completed the political context questionnaire. This
was the first time the questionnaire had been tested and a great
deal was learnt about how to improve it. Some questions were unclear
and there was some misunderstanding about the structure. The draft
questionnaire is presented in Appendix
10 (pdf 114kb). Some aggregate findings are presented in
Appendix 11 (pdf
71kb). Even though this is not a rigorous survey, it suggests that
the political context provides major challenges regarding the uptake
of research into policy in the MENA region. Participants also noted
that:
- Policy-making processes were largely incremental
in nature - rather than fundamental or emergent.
- Participants tended to work with government officials
more than any other policy-maker group.
- They tended mostly to be involved with the Agenda
Setting and Policy Formulations aspects of the policy process;
rather than Implementation or Evaluation.
- There was a lack of quality evidence to inform policy-making.
- That policy-makers tended to be convinced by their
own experiences rather than empirical data or moral values.
While very preliminary, the exercise suggests that it would be
possible to generate systematic information for countries and sectors
(and some types of projects) - if a balanced group of relevant respondents
could be identified and were willing to complete the questionnaire.
It also indicates that such an analysis could also be helpful -
in association with other tools - for identifying what types of
strategy to pursue in terms of influencing policy.
Conclusions and Evaluation
of the workshop
During the final concluding session participants suggested that
some of these tools and approaches would be very helpful and that
the ERF should do more on these issues. John Young then thanked
the participants for all of their hard work during the workshop,
invited them to contact the GDN Bridging Research and Policy Project
or ODI if they would like any further information and asked them
to fill a workshop evaluation form. The results of the evaluation
forms are presented in Appendix
12 (pdf 56kb).
Comments/Questions after
Plenary Presentation
The ERF Annual Meeting had a strong bridging research and policy
flavour. Two of the opening keynote speakers were former researchers
who were now Ministers (from Egypt and Sudan). ERFs new Director,
Samir Radwan, sees bridging research and policy as a critical strategic
direction for its work - as demonstrated by the latest ERF newsletter.
The GDN Bridging Research and Policy presentation in a Plenary
Session during the main ERF conference (see full
presentation slide show or
Appendix 13 for slide summary pdf 734) stimulated many comments
and questions:
- There are problems with both the demand and supply
of research in Morocco, and with its quality. There are few researchers
in Ministries, so policy-makers lack the capacity to process research-based
evidence. Most researchers focus on high-level policy formulation.
There is a need to focus more attention on the role of research
at different stages in the policy cycle, especially with street-level
bureaucrats.
- IFPRI has done quite a lot of work on these issues
over the last few years and has come up with conclusions very
similar to these. IFPRI is decentralising - moving researchers
closer to the policy-makers who will be involved in uptake. There
are conflicting incentives in the policy and academic worlds.
There is a need to think more about building research teams with
the right combination of skills and/or work more with other intermediaries.
- There was some concern about the definition of policy
as "a course of action". One commentator responsible
for coordinating macro-economic policy in Egypt felt there is
a need to develop clear, high-level policies within a framework
so they can operate together.
- There is a problem with conflicting evidence - policy-makers
need better skills to be able to choose between them. Is the project
planning to work with policy-makers to help them with this? Also,
in many developing countries many highly skilled people leave
the country. If external expertise is required it would be better
to use them than foreigners and expatriates who do not understand
the country.
- How will the project take into account the often
conflicting interests of policy-makers and interest groups? Will
the project be looking at the phenomenon of importing experience
from abroad?
- It is vital that researchers understand the political
and policy structure and mechanisms in a country if they hope
to be able to influence policy.
Click on the links below to view pdf versions
of the Appendices:
- Appendix
1 - Participants and Contact Details
- Appendix
2 - Programme in Detail
- Appendix
3 - What kind of Policy Entrepreneur are you?
- Appendix
4 - Information about participants
- Appendix
5 - The Bridging Research and Policy Project so far (presentation
slides)
- Appendix 6 -
What researchers can do to increase policy impact (presentation
slides)
- Appendix
7 - Policy Entrepreneur Questionnaire results
- Appendix
8 - Teaching Case Studies
- Appendix 9
- Other tools (presentation slides)
- Appendix 10
- Draft Political Context Questionnaire
- Appendix
11 - Political Context Questionnaire results
- Appendix
12 - Workshop Evaluation Results
- Appendix 13
- ERF Conference Plenary presentation (presentation slides)
|
