INASP newsletter 49.pdf

About INASPPutting research knowledge at the heart ofdevelopmentWe are an international developmentorganisation working with a global networkof partners to improve access, productionand use of research information andknowledge, so that countries are equipped tosolve their development challenges.EditorsLiam FinnisSammy FrostDesignLiam FinnisPrinted by:Lynx DPMINASP60 St Aldates, Oxford, OX1 1STT: +44 (0)1865 249 909F: +44 (0)1865 251 060inasp@inasp.infowww.inasp.infoThe INASP Newsletter is published forinformation purposes only and no liabilityis accepted for its contents by INASP or byany contributor to it. While all reasonableefforts have been made to ensure that theinformation contained in the newsletterwas correct at the time of compilation, itshould not be regarded as definitive and noresponsibility is accepted for the inclusionor omission of any particular item or forthe views expressed therein. Opinionsexpressed are those of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the views of policies ofINASP.The International Network for theAvailability of Scientific Publications is acharity and company limited by guaranteeand registered in England and Wales.Working with institutions with a remit to train is an important aspect ofsustainability. Very early in the programme we realised that to make capacitybuilding sustainable you need more than subject knowledge – you also needpedagogical skills, in other words, skills in how to teach. To be sustainablewe needed trainers with these skills in the countries we work with. Workingwith colleagues in the sector we developed a pedagogy training of trainersprogramme for partners with a remit to train policy makers and influencers.This programme has been delivered in Kenya (for the SSA region), Malaysia(for the Asia region) and Colombia (for Latin America). Regina Macalandag, aparticipant at the Malaysian workshop contributes an excellent piece reflectingon learning, unlearning and relearning! The process of developing anddelivering these workshops was a great period of learning and reflection for theEIPM programme. It was also an exciting time for the programme as it allowedus to spread our wings, work in new global regions and meet new friends andpartners.Following this, we have an article by Leandro Echt of CIPPEC looking at theimpact of internal and external factors on defining a research agenda. Then ourDirector of Impact and Learning provides an overview of the recently publishedevaluation of our Programme for the Enhancement of Research Information.The last article is an interview with Clara Richards. Clara is a developmentprofessional who has worked for CIPPEC and the Overseas DevelopmentInstitute. Earlier this year, Clara was involved in an evaluation of INASP’sprogramme to teach pedagogy skills to those who train African policy makers inthe use of evidence. Following the evaluation, she took part as a participant in asimilar training programme in Kuala Lumpur and was a co-facilitator at a similarworkshop in Latin America. Having been involved in all aspects of this type ofevent, Clara shares her thoughts on the INASP approach. This interview wasoriginally posted on the INASP blog, Practising Development.Finally I want to say a big thank you to all our partners around the world whohave worked with us over the last three years to grow this programme. We arevery excited about the years ahead and look forward to collaborating with manymore. Please contact us or the authors if you want to follow up on any of thearticles, otherwise, enjoy!Alex AdemokunActing Head, Evidence-Informed Policy Making at INASPaademokun@inasp.infoCompany registration: 04919576Registered charity number: 1106349© International Network for the Availabilityof Scientific Publications (INASP), 2012The Evidence-Informed Policy Making (EIPM) team at the INASP symposium in June.From left to right — Fran Deans, Antonio Capillo, Alex Ademokun, Sammy Frost andKirsty Newman (former Head of EIPM).2

On course for information literacyDeveloping an information literacy course at the Tanzania Public Services CollegeDr Evans WemaInformation literacy has increasingly been recognised asa skill that benefits everyone. However, it has becomeparticularly important for researchers and policy makers.Because of this, the Tanzania Public Services College (TPSC)has recently undertaken the development of an informationliteracy course.This project was intended to design, implement and evaluatean information literacy programme for public serviceemployees undertaking long-term courses at the TPSC.This came about because most public services institutionsin Tanzania need to equip employees with the necessaryskills to make evidence-based decisions — which makesinformation literacy very important.The TPSC is a government agency whose mandate is toprovide training to public servants (such as records managers,personnel administrators, secretaries, etc.) from variouscentral and local governments, parastatal organisations,agencies and other institutions that support governmentactivities. As they provide information to decision-makersat higher levels, it is important that they can understandand interpret research evidence. To support this, a series ofsurveys was carried out by TPSC library over several yearsshowing the need and desire to undertake this course.Therefore, with funding support from INASP, we set aboutdeveloping and delivering an information literacy course forone semester to learners at the TPSC. The ultimate aim wasinclusion of information literacy training in teaching curriculafor civil servants.We set about developing and delivering aninformation literacy course for one semesterto learners at Tanzania Public Services College(TPSC). The ultimate aim was inclusion ofinformation literacy training in teachingcurricula for civil servants.In addition to being the host institution, the TPSC authoritiesagreed to provide support for the course development.They agreed to allocate a cohort of 60 students finishingtheir studies in the second semester of January 2013. It isexpected that upon completing their courses, these studentswill go back to their respective employees to make use oftheir newly acquired information literacy skills at a timewhen decision-makers and influencers are preparing budgetestimates and presentations for their respective ministries.To evaluate the impact and application of these skills,the TPSC agreed to assist by following up with students.Additionally, to make the training more meaningful andsustainable, TPSC provided seven teaching staff to pilot thestudy and determine the best ways to integrate it into thecurriculum.Our first step was to carry out an information literacy needsassessment for public servants studying at TPSC. This showedus that there were a range of information literacy needs tobe met. These included: articulating information problems;familiarisation with sources and background information;search and retrieval skills; and analysing, synthesisingand evaluating information. Based on these findings, acourse programme was designed. In addition to the userrequirements and training materials, the needs assessmentalso helped to determine the choice of teaching methods forthe different sections of the course.Our first step was to carry out an informationliteracy needs assessment. This showed us thatthere were a range of information literacy needsto be met [and] also helped to determine thechoice of teaching methods for the differentsections of the courseThe pilot course was carried out in July with seven tutorsteaching various Certificate and Diploma courses in ComputerScience, Public Administration, Records Management andSecretarial Services. These tutors were taken through thecourse programme via a two week Training of Trainersprogramme which mainly focused on teaching the contentand delivery methods. Following this, when the coursecommences in January 2013, they will each take on a cohortof selected students.After the ToT, rather than wait until January, it was decidedthat the tutors should practise what they learned with asmall group of students for one month, two hours each day.This has helped not only by allowing the tutors to practise,but it has also enabled some fine tuning of the delivery andmaterials for the upcoming course.The tutors who attended the ToT believe that this coursewill be important and relevant in students’ future careers,enabling them to support decisions at various levels.Furthermore the practice period proved that the teachingmethods — using hands-on activities — and less lecturesmotivated learners who were keen to explore ways in whichthey could solve the information-related problems at hand.The teaching in January 2013 will be followed by a courseevaluation in July to understand the level of effectiveness ofthis training to TPSC students.Dr Evans WemaInformation Studies ProgrammeUniversity of Dar es Salaamwemaf@libis.udsm.ac.tz4 INASP Newsletter 49 December 2012

An empowering exerciseTraining the trainers of policy makers and influencers in Kuala LumpurProf. Regina Estorba MacalandagThe Asia training of trainers’ workshop for trainers of policymakers and influencers was an opportune time for me towallow in learning, unlearning and re-learning. A colleaguefrom the International Institute of Social Studies back in TheHague, The Netherlands had forwarded me the invitation.As is usually the case when I participate in similar training, Ihad this knotted feeling in my stomach thinking of the heavycourse I shall immerse myself into. Nevertheless, I keptan open mind and found myself in the company of variousnationalities and backgrounds (27 participants consisting ofacademic librarians, staff of policy making institutions, andstaff of civil society organisations) which for me presenteda fresh wave of keen interest in getting a variety of takes oncommon issues we, people around the world, are facing.I was a glass half-full as I took in all learning during thedifferent sessions. Indeed, it was a special training aseveryone agreed and built on top training tips while thecourse went on — something like “learning how to learnwhile on the actual process of learning itself”; a far cry fromother training where the approach is rigid and imposed onparticipants. The exercise of inclusivity (ideas of traineesare solicited, listened to) and reflexivity (give-and-take ofideas and finding consensus after contestations) made it anempowering exercise. There was more drawing out ratherthan imposing in the whole process.The exercise of inclusivity (ideas of trainees aresolicited, listened to) and reflexivity (give-andtakeof ideas and finding consensus) made it anempowering exercise.I believe it is vital to permit space for adult learners to assessfor themselves their own knowledge vis-à-vis that of thetrainer and co-learners. This process sifts commonalitiesand differences of perspectives. Without being judgmentalor discriminating, it draws on the learners’ need to identifythe best means of analysis, given the context, to aid ininformed decision-making. As a sharer of knowledge, beingmyself a trainer/facilitator/teacher, I continually aspire todraw significant lessons from people’s experiences throughcreative ways, and translate such learning into practicalknowledge useful in transforming society.That the training was anchored on the notion that individualshave different learning preferences depending on the activityundertaken was affirmed with how our trainers brought indifferent kinds of training techniques and even designedvarious set-ups of the training room to suit activities andmethodologies. This supported the idea that there is no‘one-size-fits-all’ format for any training.Power relation was an essential concept which came upespecially when applied to participant behaviour. It was funRegina and participant at the INASP Training of Trainersworkshop in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysiarealizing one’s own type of participant behavior through roleplaying and true enough everyone appreciated the processsince a few were able to practise how it is to be a “quietmouse” for example when in real life they would most likelybe a dominant participant, or a saboteur or misguided expert.Recognizing and offsetting power relations in training is akey variable in drawing a dynamic and participatory processand thus is critical to its success.An important piece of learning from the training was onthe distinctiveness or novelty of the Evidence-informedPolicymaking Training. As such some were saying howevidence-informed policy differs from research-basedpolicy, or is this one and the same? What new knowledgeis particularly built or drawn in this training? These weresome questions that were thrown within the group andI was left with the thought that indeed this may not be anovel concept at all; however, getting to the goal of havingevidence-informed policy making institutionalized in variouscontexts, is perhaps the more appreciable part of thetraining. This brings me to the point that there is more needfor creativity in promoting evidence-informed policy makingand this requires alternative tools in presenting ideas to apolicymaker audience.An equally important piece of learning which was shared bymost participants, if not all, is that of policy making beinga highly political process. This is critical because we astrainers of policymakers at various levels will have to dealwith engaging them and allowing a “buy in” of this evidenceinformedpolicy making. This is quite a tall order given boththe apathy and cynicism many sectors have against lobbyingfor proactive change in policy making institutions. But I thinkmost of us left the training with optimism that somethingmore can be done with the status quo.I for one came back from the training enthusiastic andretooled, with a concept of a Policy Café, brewing in mind.With my organisation, the Asia Center for Sustainable6 INASP Newsletter 49 December 2012

Futures (ACSF) as lead convenor, Policy Café is to be a seriesof round table discussions that will gather policymakers,researchers and other concerned individuals/organisationsthat are keen on working on evidence-based policy makingfor development. The series (three rounds of discussion)shall take on three critical policy issues regarding the themegovernance and development where both demand andsupply of research on such areas shall be given a venue tocrystallize consequently into a key local policy.The training was anchored on the notion thatindividuals have different learning preferencesdepending on the activity undertaken... there isno ‘one-size-fits-all’ format for any training.Sharing this as well with my Political Science class on LocalGovernment and Administration, my students have gonethrough the exercise of generating evidence first when theyformulated policy papers on local governance issues as acourse requirement. In my consulting work at the moment oncoordinating road investments, we also use evidence-basedprogramming employing value chain analysis and otherpertinent economic data matched with updated povertydata along with a healthy set of criteria for prioritizationof roads (Connectivity and network effect, Potential socioeconomicimpact, Average daily traffic and Road importance,Road condition, Length of road) in lobbying for funding forroads development. Daunting as it may seem, I endeavor toinclude the principles from EIPM in whichever work I am in.Prof. Regina Estorba MacalandagExecutive Director, Asia Center for Sustainable FuturesProfessor of Political Science, Holy Name UniversityTagbilaran City, Bohol, Philippinesregina_estorba@yahoo.comPractising DevelopmentPractising Development is a blog managed by INASP.This site aims to explore ideas, discuss issues and sharelearning around research, information and development.While managed by INASP, the views and opinionsexpressed on Practising Development are those of theindividual authors and do not represent those of theorganisation.http://blog.inasp.infoWe encourage comments and discussion, but if you wouldlike to contribute a blog post, please contact Liam Finnis(lfinnis@inasp.info)More opportunity than assignmentNg’ang’a Kibandi reflects on his experienceas an INASP internNg’ang’a KibandiThe opportunity to intern with INASP came at a time whenI was longing for a new challenge. As a novice researcherand post-graduate student it is a rare occurrence to getan opportunity to explore your potential. The freedomof choice and involvement on the deliberation of matterspertaining to the internship I found intriguing.This participative warmth was taken even further whenI was awarded the freedom to choose what I desired towork on. I initially struggled with this as I felt like I had beendropped right in to the middle of the ocean and given thefreedom to swim in any direction. However, the supportand reassurance I was accorded right through made theexperience even more exciting.This internship has been an excellent resource of learningand growth for me especially on matters of research. I havealso come to appreciate the objectivity that is maintainedby the INASP team and hope to uphold it in futureendeavours. I have learnt to reach out and seek help aswell as appreciate challenges. Despite being a long distanceinternship I have never felt alone and that stood out for me.The project was enlightening and gave me a whole newoutlook on an area I found to be very unfamiliar. I amconvinced that research on this area will make a significantcontribution especially in developing nations where policymaking is concerned.In addition to the research and experience itself, theproject allowed me to present at a conference. This wasan opportunity that I didn’t expect. In fact, many of theprivileges I enjoyed as an intern with INASP I had notanticipated.Initially, I expected this internship to be solitary and focused.I thought I would be given an assignment, a deadline, anda contact person with whom to report to. My experiencehas been different as I was given the chance to choose andmanage an assignment myself. Additionally, my contactAlex has acted more as a mentor than a ‘boss’.My experience as an intern with INASP has surpassed myexpectations and the learning experience, more so theexposure to a different way of working within a team hasbeen a true joy.Ng’ang’a Kibandinkibandi@gmail.comwww.authoraid.infoINASP Newsletter 49 December 20127

Defining a research agendaBalancing internal and external influencesBy Leandro EchtThe definition of a research agenda is key for any organisationtrying to be protagonist of the policy arena. However, settinga research agenda is not an easy process for think tanks indeveloping countries. It is often influenced by many factors— both internal (from the interests of the researchers tothe ideology of the organisation) and external (such as thehistorical, political and cultural context; and characteristicsof the demand).On the other hand, the definition of a research agenda islinked to a think tank’s capacity to influence public policies.For instance, when think tanks set their own researchagenda they are often autonomous but distanced from thepolitical system. The opposite takes place when influencedby exogenous variables: think tanks lose autonomy but aremore aligned with priorities in the policy arena. An analysisof how think tanks (or similar) define their research agendawill also help to understand, among other things, theirpotential for policy influence.Many questions surround the definition of a researchagenda: What factors are most relevant for think tanks indeveloping countries? To what extent do funding and donorpractices shape national research agendas? Can southernthink tanks pursue their own research flagships? What is therole of ideology and researchers’ interests? How can thinktanks find a balance between a complete autonomy andheteronomy?External influencesThere is a consensus in literature about the influenceof contextual factors on research agendas. The nationaland regional histories along with political and culturalenvironments all have great influence in the origins,characteristics and research of think tanks.Regarding the stakeholders involved in the policy makingprocess, think tanks often interact with different actorsranging from the political system to the private sector toacademic institutions. Thus, the think tank plays a game inwhich it offers ideas and products, but at the same time itneeds to deal with demands. The key point here is to find thecorrect balance between autonomy and heteronomy.Internal characteristicsIn addition to contextual variables, internal variables — thosethat reflect the identity, management, goals and activitiesof an organisation and are under the direct control of thethink tank — shape those issues on which the organisationwill work. These can include the programmatic structure,seniority of the staff and the funding model.Braun et al (2010, http://bit.ly/12vsvG4) highlight the weightof the characteristics of research management (selection ofresearch topics, process and characteristics), drawing theconclusion that the interests and motivations of the staff(linked to their expertise) are a key factor in influencing thedefinition of a research agenda.The funding modelRegarding the funding model, it can be seen as both aninternal and external variable. The definition of a researchagenda and the funding model seem to be undoubtedlylinked. Whether funding is governmental, private orphilanthropic, a think tank’s source of funding can be seenas a threat to the autonomy and objectivity of their outputs.Should think tanks diversify their sources? How do youharmonise the expectations of different funders? Are thereother types of funding models that think tanks and donorscan explore?Some ideasSo what can think tanks do to define their own researchagenda? Below I share some ideas to keep a balance betweenautonomy and heteronomy:• Set their own institutional mechanisms, spaces and/orinternal policies to evaluate projects, funding sourcesand the mission and values of the organisation• Related to the previous point, think tanks should try tokeep autonomy by learning to say ‘no’ to some projects,if they believe that it will affect its reputation• Design and carry out ‘flagship projects’ — strategic andlong term initiatives that work as umbrellas for the restof the projects, activities and products. These would alsogenerate an organisational identity and set priorities interms of fund raising and policy influence strategies• Respect staff interests and encourage them to beinnovative in their research field• Diversify funding sources. This can mean across sectorsor development of sector ‘consortia’ involving similarcompanies or funding organisations but reducing theinfluence of a single funder• Engage with political parties, national NGOs andcitizenships, to map priorities in terms of national policyand work on them• Navigate politics with a long term objective. That is tonavigate conjuncture and the short-term, but with along-term that allows the think tank to set issuesLeandro EchtCoordinator of the Influence, Monitoring and EvaluationProgramme at the Center for the Implementation ofPublic Policies Promoting Equity and Growth (CIPPEC)lecht@cippec.org8 INASP Newsletter 49 December 2012

Ambition, impact and learningPERii evaluation recommendations of interest to any organisation working in the sectorMartin BelcherAs 2012 draws to a close, the second, five-year phaseof INASP’s flagship Programme for the Enhancementof Research Information (PERii) is also approaching itsconclusion.PERii officially comes to an end in March 2013 and as partof the planning process for the next phase of our work inthis area, an external evaluation of the work under thisprogramme has been completed. The programme hasheavily dominated our work over the last five years so thatthe evaluation can in some ways be considered an evaluationof INASP as an organisation, although it is worth stating thatthere is not complete overlap.The evaluation study was wide ranging and complex inscope — matching the actual programme. It is thereforepleasing that the findings are broadly positive, with a greatdeal of learning, evidence of impact and some very usefulrecommendations — not only for INASP, but for similarorganisations as well.So how can the findings of the evaluation best be summedup? Three key words repeatedly came out of the evaluation:ambition; impact; and learning. The following are a selectionof quotes from the evaluation that highlight some broadsuccesses of PERii.“PERii’s intended outcome is ambitious. INASP has madeimpressive gains across the research communicationcycle as well as making contributions to the quality ofeducation. It has achieved much, of which INASP staffand PERii participants should be justifiably proud. It hasdone so at modest cost, with value for money (VFM)considerations at the forefront of all it does, and with astrong concern for equity and sustainability.”“PERii has undoubtedly raised levels of awareness,knowledge and skills among librarians and a range ofusers around e-resources and some other aspects ofresearch communication.“PERii is notable for two things: (1) its holistic viewof the research cycle and (2) its emphasis on theinfrastructure, resources, systems and skills whichunderpin all research, rather than focusing on specificthematic or disciplinary areas.”“INASP should certainly be ambitious – PERii hasachieved real impact – but must take care not tooverreach itself. Strengthening the research and HEsystem within a single country is a huge undertaking, letalone trying this in 23.”“The evaluation found INASP as an organisation to bevery self-aware and honest, as well as consistent in itsapproaches and understanding of country contexts andsectorial changes.”RecommendationsSome of the key recommendations include:• Increase effort on partnerships with other informationfor development initiatives• Work with such initiatives to present clearerinformation on their differences — is a focus ondiscovery tools needed?• Consider and articulate the impact that PERii [accessand use of information] has on the quality of educationas well as research communication• Engage institutional leaders to ensure they understandthe meaning and implications of Open Access andencourage institutional policy changes to reflect this• Develop clear strategies and plans for advocacy workand ensure it is appropriately resourced in staffing andbudget• Develop advocacy materials for library consortia andbuild the capacity of consortia members to presentthese• Focus on pedagogy to ensure that training is effective,and work with existing academic development unitswithin universities where appropriate• Develop a cadre of skilled master trainers with accessto a dedicated body of training materials, tools andadvice• Consider additional measures to ensure equity acrosscapacity development approaches. This might meanextra support for groups with greater obstacles andmethodologies to reach those less easily accessible• Ensure sustained follow up to activities to embedchangeWhilst some of the recommendations are specific to INASPand the next phase of our work, many are of potentialinterest to any organisation or individual involved inproviding access to information or building capacity to useinformation. An executive summary and the full evaluationreport are available from the INASP website.www.inasp.info/perii-final-evaluationMartin BelcherDirector of Impact and Learningmbelcher@inasp.infoINASP Newsletter 49 December 20129

Practising DevelopmentAn interview with Clara RichardsClara Richards is a development professional who hasworked for CIPPEC and the Overseas Development Institute.She is the current coordinator of the Evidence-BasedPolicy in Development Network. Earlier this year, Clara andVanessa Weyrauch (from CIPPEC) carried out an evaluationof INASP’s programme to teach pedagogy skills to those whotrain African policy makers in the use of evidence. Followingthis evaluation, Clara took part as a participant in a similartraining programme in Kuala Lumpur — this time for trainersof Asian policy makers. To complete the cycle, she recentlytook on the role of co-facilitator at a further workshop —pedagogy for trainers of policy makers in Latin America.Since she has experienced this approach as an evaluator,a participant and an implementer, we thought it wouldbe interesting to find out Clara’s perspective on INASP’sapproach.Q1. Thanks very much to Clara for agreeing to take part inthis interview. Could you briefly describe the programmethat you and Vanessa were asked to evaluate?The programme we evaluated aimed to build the trainingabilities of a group of African trainers so that they wouldbe better able to train policy makers on the use of researchfor policy. It consisted of three phases: the pre-workshop,workshop and post-workshop.In the pre-workshop phase, participants were asked towrite a reflective essay focussing on teaching and learning.The participants were then brought together for a five-dayworkshop to build training skills. Throughout the workshop,the examples and practical activities concerned relevanttraining topics. Following the workshop, participants wereexpected to deliver training to policy makers in the skillsneeded to access and use research evidence and, wherepossible, to engage in peer mentoring relationships withother participants.The objective of carrying out an evaluation was todetermine the nature and magnitude of the impact of thistraining programme in order to help INASP and Institute ofDevelopment Studies (IDS) to understand whether this wasa cost-effective approach for building the capacity of policymakers to access and use research.Q2. Why did you decide to get involved in carrying out theevaluation? What about it interested you?What interested me the most was the approach of theprogramme. Training policymakers is a key aspect to helpthem improve different skills such as using evidence forpolicymaking and encourage the development of moreinformed policies, therefore trainers should be experts onthe topics they teach. However, there is also a great needto better engage with this (often challenging) audience.Although the expertise on different topics such asinformation literacy, writing skills, research communication,etc. is growing fast, trainers still feel they lack the skills toengage participants and they feel weak while making theirtraining interesting and appealing. Especially in Africa itwas discovered that the learning approach is usually very“lecturer centred” creating a large gap between trainer andparticipants which hinders learning.INASP and IDS have introduced a very different approachthat bridges this distance and makes training much moreeffective. Based on the constructivist theory, training takesfrom the idea that people learn best when they ‘co-construct’the knowledge. The constructivist trainer facilitates theacquisition of new knowledge by acknowledging the wealthof experience in the room, encouraging participants to reflecton previous experiences and through questioning elicits thegaps in their knowledge. The trainer co-constructs the ‘new’knowledge by filling in the gaps in participants’ knowledgeand asks them to consider how the new theory alters theirperception or approaches to their current life experiences.I think this approach should be used more often in capacitybuilding activities in general. This evaluation was an excellentopportunity to detect how this can be applied and the typeof results that it yields.Q3. What would you say were the main lessons from theevaluation? Are there lessons which are of relevance toothers working in this field?I think the main lesson was to realise that although immediateresults were very positive (in the sense that the participants’reaction to the programme was optimistic and they feltthey had acquired new skills and improved their trainingabilities), as an evaluator we need to understand that theseimmediate reactions are not enough to assess long-termchange. For example, although some participants said theyacquired new skills during the workshop and [as mentionedby trainers] they had performed very well during theteaching sessions, they performed less well when observedafter the workshop. This shows that knowing how to delivergood training may not be enough to effect behaviour changein real world settings. There is a need to keep supportingthem through diverse channels (for example an e-platformwhere they can share progress) and monitoring the longtermprogress (or regression) in order to address attitudinaland behavioural change.10 INASP Newsletter 49 December 2012

Therefore an important aspect to consider within suchprogrammes is the development of an explicit Theory ofChange that clearly represents an overall vision of success,including its preconditions and the link between differentinterventions that could strengthen evaluation and learning.However, this should not be an overly structured, preprogrammedapproach that would have been doomed tofailure in the dynamic and complex environments wheretraining usually takes place.Q4. After carrying out the evaluation, you took part in asimilar programme as a participant. Did your perspectiveof the programme change once you had experienced it foryourself?No, not really. After I carried out the evaluation I was veryintrigued and enthusiastic to participate as a trainee sinceall the African participants had been very excited about thetraining. It helped me to tie things together and completelyunderstand why the reaction of the interviewees was sopositive. To start by acknowledging what participants alreadyknew and brought to the workshop was a key element tomake the learning process more interesting, appealingand worthwhile. Furthermore, I have participated in othertraining and also delivered some but I learned on this onemany tactics to make the most of time, to use every singlesecond available and still keep participants engaged – whichis not easy in such an intense workshop.Another outstanding aspect was that the training wasexplanatory; the way it was delivered was a way of teachinghow we should deliver our own training. Consequently, itis not surprising that participants feel they have learnedand acquired new skills. However, I am concerned aboutthe sustainability of this knowledge and the achievementof behavioural change. One of the conclusions andrecommendations we arrived at in the evaluation was theimportance of having some kind of follow-up system withtrainees. Mentoring or continuous learning are neededin order to develop and ground this type of change.Notwithstanding, I am aware this is what people workingin capacity building usually struggle with, unfortunatelyresources are scarce!Q5. What (if anything!) did you learn by participating inthe programme? Do you think it will change how you willapproach training in the future?It is very common to believe that if someone dominatesa topic there is a high chance they will deliver trainingsuccessfully. In some way, I believed that before participatingin the training. However, I have to say that by the way theprogramme was designed it shows that INASP and IDS havethought of the many things that an “expert” has to dealwith while carrying out training and I completely changedmy opinion about expertise and training! Among the thingsthat can go wrong include facing questions trainers don’treally know how to answer and/or dealing with difficultparticipants. These specific examples made us realise that itdoesn’t matter how much we know about a topic, the waywe relate and communicate with our audience will bringdifferent outcomes.Another aspect I think was key, was the fact that when wetrain people it is fundamental to first acknowledge whatparticipants bring to the table, give them a chance to saywhat they already know and build up the training fromthere. If trainers working in capacity building are able toincorporate this last aspect in their programmes I believecapacity development would improve considerably! I thinkwe need to really invest in training our trainers in effective,learner-centred pedagogical approaches.Q6. Now that you have evaluated one programme andparticipated in another, do you have any particularconcerns or anxieties about delivering the sameprogramme in Latin America? What do you imagine will bethe biggest challenges?The importance of working directly with the “demandside” is growing enormously in Latin America but it is still achallenge. Up until now training has been delivered mainlyto members of organisations that wanted to influencepolicy. Consequently, there has been significant changein the way researchers approach their investigations andpublic policies, the consciousness of the use of evidence inpolicymaking has risen considerably. However, in the last fewyears the “demand side” has been targeted as an audiencethat should also receive training for better policymaking.Therefore, training on pedagogical skills comes at a perfecttime and it will be very much appreciated since dealing withpolicymakers in Latin America is a tussle and trainers needto improve their skills to deal with this type of audience.Moreover, we know context is fundamental, therefore aconstructivist approach will be key to implement this training,our challenge is to recognise what is the previous knowledgeparticipants have and incorporate it in the workshop. I think(and I hope!) this kind of workshop will boost local trainingand make engagement with policymakers a more commonpractice in the region.This interview was originally posted on our blog,Practising Development, on 20 July, 2012.http://bit.ly/VCM5uiINASP Newsletter 49 December 201211

News, events and publicationsOpen Access 2012We are pleased to announce the winners of our 2012 OpenAccess Competition. The competition, jointly sponsored byUNESCO and INASP, is an annual event that runs prior toOpen Access Week and invites applicants to outline theirplans for the event. There are 10 awards of $500 (US) givento the best applications to aid in their Open Access Weekactivities. The winners from this year are listed below.• Bangladesh — Bangladesh Agricultural University• Ethiopia — Addis Ababa University• Ghana — Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping TrainingCenter• India — Allama Iqbal Library, University of Kashmir• Kenya — Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture andTechnology• Kenya — Medical Students’ Association of Kenya(MSAKE)• Kenya — University of Nairobi• Uganda — Consortium of Uganda University Libraries• Zimbabwe — Lupane University• Zimbabwe — National University of Science andTechnologyFor more information on the activities, visit our 2012 winnerspage (http://bit.ly/TJspHV). There is also information on theprevious winners available.INASP 20th Anniversary videosAt our 20th Anniversary Symposium in June, we tookthe opportunity to interview some of the panellists andparticipants about the content of the day and their thoughtsabout the impact INASP has had over the past two decades.The video is broken into two parts - one discussing thesymposium itself and another looking specifically atfeedback about INASP. A full length video is also availablethat combines both sections.INASP 20th Anniversary: http://bit.ly/WLk84lINASP Symposium: http://bit.ly/YDUHIKFull video: http://bit.ly/RafyAjPERii evaluation publishedINASP recently commissioned an external evaluation of theProgramme for the Enhancement of Research Information(PERii). ITAD, a recognised market leader in monitoringand evaluation, multi-stakeholder M&E systems, and theevaluation of projects, programmes and organisations,was commissioned to undertake this work. The evaluationcombined a mixed quantitative and qualitative approachand included country visits to Bangladesh, Nepal, Kenyaand Uganda, plus interviews with representatives from anadditional six countries actively engaged in the programmeand survey engagement with representatives from theremaining 13 countries with which the programme works.The evaluation took place over September-October 2012.PERii Evaluation Report (http://bit.ly/RQF2PQ)PERii Evaluation summary (http://bit.ly/QGsRIq)Latin America Journals OnlineThe first issue of the Latin America Journals Online(LAMJOL) Newsletter has been published. This newslettercovers August 2010 to June 2012.English (http://bit.ly/TeI5zH)Spanish (http://bit.ly/TeIemB)Publishers for Development Newsletter Vol. 3 Issue 2We are pleased to announce the publication of ourlatest newsletter. This issue focuses on the discussionsand outcomes of the 2012 Publishers for Developmentconference held on the 19th of June in Oxford.The theme of the conference, Networks: The buildingblocks for sustainable development, explored ways inwhich research and higher education capacity can bestrengthened in developing countries, emphasisingthere were no perfect models or ‘magic bullet’ solutions.Ensuring strong national Higher Education and researchsystems means that a matrix of different institutions isneeded and support needs to extend beyond ‘flagship’universities.PfD Newsletter 3-2 (http://bit.ly/U7suDp)Follow us on Twitter@INASPinfoWatch us on YouTubeINASPinfoFind us on Facebookinasp.infoJoin our mailing listhttp://eepurl.com/cBoaoInternational Networkfor the Availability of Scientific Publications