INASP newsletter 49.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 2: About INASPPutting research knowled
Page 6 and 7: An empowering exerciseTraining the
Page 10 and 11: Practising DevelopmentAn interview
Page 12: News, events and publicationsOpen A

INASP newsletter 49.pdf

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?