Open data and increasing the impact of research? It's a piece of cake!

By Duncan Edwards

I talk to a lot of friends and colleagues who work in research, knowledge intermediary, and development organisations about some of the open data work I’ve been doing in relation research communications. Their usual response is “so it’s about technology?” or “open data is about governance and transparency, right?”. Well no, it’s not just about technology and it’s broader than governance and transparency.

I believe that there is real potential for open data approaches in increasing the impact of research knowledge for poverty reduction and social justice. In this post I outline how I see Open Data fitting within a theory of change of how research knowledge can influence development.

Every year thousands of datasets, reports and articles are generated about development issues. Yet much of this knowledge is kept in ‘information silos’ and remains unreachable and underused by broader development actors. Material is either not available or difficult to find online. There can be upfront fees, concerns regarding intellectual property rights, fears that institutions/practitioners don’t have the knowhow, means or time to share, or political issues within an organisation that can mean this material is not used.

What is “Open data”? What is “Linked Open Data”? 

The Open Knowledge Foundation says “a piece of content or data is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike.”

The Wikipedia entry for Linked Data describes it as“a method of publishing structured data so that it can be interlinked and become more useful. It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP and URIs, but rather than using them to serve web pages for human readers, it extends them to share information in a way that can be read automatically by computers. This enables data from different sources to be connected and queried…. the idea is very old and is closely related to concepts including database network models, citations between scholarly articles, and controlled headings in library catalogs.”

So Linked Open Data can be described as Open Data which is published in a way that can be interlinked with other datasets. Think about two data sets with country categorisation – if you publish these as linked data, you can then make the link between related content between different datasets for any given country.

For more definitions and discussion on data see Tim Davies post "Untangling the data debate: definitions and implications".

Why should Open Data be of interest to research producers? 

The way in which the Internet and technology has evolved means that instead of simply producing a website from which people can consume your content, you can open up your content so that others can make use of, and link it in new and exciting ways.

There are many theories of change which look to articulate how research evidence can affect development policy and practice. The Knowledge Services department at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) works with a theory of change which views access to, and demand for, research knowledge, along with the capacity to engage effectively with it, as critical elements to research evidence uptake and use in relation to decision-making within development. Open Data has significant potential in relation to the ‘access to’ element of this theory of change.

Contextualisation and new spaces 

When we think about access to research knowledge – we should go beyond simply having access to a research document. Instead we must look at whether research knowledge is available in a suitable format and language, and whether it has been contextualised in a way which makes sense to an audience within a given environment.

I like to use a Data cake metaphor developed by Mark Johnstone to illustrate this - if we consider research outputs to be the data/ingredients for the cake, then we organise, summarise and catalogue this (i.e. add meta-data) to ‘bake’ into our information cake. We then present this information in a way in which we feel is most useful and “palatable” to our intended audiences with the intention they will consume it and be able to make use of new knowledge. It’s in this area that Open Data approaches can really increase the potential uptake of research – if you make your information/ content open it creates the possibility that other intermediaries can easily make use of this content to contextualise and present it to their own users in a way that is more likely to be consumed.

Essentially by opening up datasets of research materials you can reduce duplication, allow people to reuse, repurpose, remix this content in many more spaces thereby increasing the potential for research findings to be taken up and influencing change in the world.

While I see significant benefits in researchers making their outputs available and accessible in an open manner we must redress the dominance of knowledge generated in the global North. We need to continue to invest in the strengthening of intermediaries at local, national, and international levels to make use of research material and Open Data to influence positive change.

Duncan Edwards is the ICT Innovations Manager at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) - you can follow him on Twitter: @duncan_ids

NOTE: an admission on Open Access - The original article this post is based on, “Davies, T. and Edwards, D. (2012) 'Emerging Implications of Open and Linked Data for Knowledge Sharing in Development', IDS Bulletin 43 (5) 117-127”, published in the IDS Bulletin: “New Roles for Communication in Development?”. Ironically, considering it’s subject matter, is only partially open access (two free articles per issue). But you can access this article as green open access in Open Docs - http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/123456789/2247

Research does not automatically generate knowledge - rethinking product and process

By Catherine Fisher

The overwhelming conclusion I have drawn from my involvement as a contributor to the IDS Bulletin, New Roles for Communication in Development?, is the need for research communication to place a greater focus on process rather than product. I draw this insight from both the process (what I've learned from being involved) and the product itself (what I've learned from some of the great articles in the Bulletin). I'm not arguing that there is no role for product, far from it, but that there is value in re-examining the relationship between the two.

Product v Process? Baking Czech bread
Image credit: Chmee2 (Own work) CC-BY 3.0

Overall I would argue that articles in the Bulletin collectively encouraged us to challenge our assumptions around three related areas:

• What is research? 
• What is knowledge?
• How does change happen?  

And to explore  links between these areas: how does research generate knowledge, whose knowledge produces the research, how does research or even knowledge lead to change?  All speak to a greater focus on process. I explore a couple of examples below.

Research changes those involved 

Patta Scott Villier's article, This research does not influence policy, explores how participation in a research process brought change for both the researchers and the ‘researchees’,  even if the resulting output didn't shape high level policy processes  So the process generated more change than the product. But maybe the product (or its story as described in Patta's article) will inspire someone somewhere else to undergo a similar process, that might itself generate change...

Research doesn’t necessarily build knowledge

In our article, Kirsty, Louise and I explore the factors that shape whether actors engage with research and are willing and able to draw on research.  In doing so, we challenge ideas that research, even if it is shared at the right time and packaged in the right way, will somehow automatically generate “knowledge” in target audiences.  Research does not automatically generate knowledge. This happens through a process of sense-making in which the “knower” is an active participant not a passive recipient, who may deliberately or inadvertently choose to reject the intended message of the product. As Penelope Beynon’s et al's article illustrated, even carefully constructed outputs such as a policy brief, often seen as the silver bullet of research communication, can lead to the creation of different knowledge than was intended.

Growing importance of “process architects”

One implication of this greater focus on process is a greater role for intermediaries, knowledge brokers or innovation brokers within the broad spectrum of research communication. The focus on process over product helps us to see a greater role for these actors which is not just about turning research outputs into attractive products but about seeing research  and research-based products as part of the processes of knowledge creation and change, and supporting the design of these processes. These processes will often draw on products from multiple sources, current or historical, local or from far away. Often these processes themselves produce products which then go on to inform other processes. This speaks to some of the points I make in the Introduction, Is Development Research Communication Coming of Age? (PDF).  

The value and opportunity for exposing the process behind the product

One final reflection is that I doubt anyone will learn as much from the papers that appear in the journal  as I have learned from writing them. The process of writing a paper with a colleague forced us both to reexamine our assumptions and beliefs. An early version of our paper included a box outlining the differences in position about research and knowledge, and how it contributes to change that attempted to share some of the discussions we had  Yet journal articles require a compelling single narrative, an authoritative position and do not allow for divergence and discussion. They also have a strict word count. So this was dropped. While journal articles play an important role in communicating ideas and indeed validating the rigour of those ideas, particularly those from more formal research processes, perhaps there is also space – particularly in the social sciences for us to be more open in our workings, less authoritative in our positions. New media such as blogs like this, or even tweets enable “work in progress/emerging thinking” type products to be shared more widely that can  trigger thinking and knowledge generation processes for others. 

I hope that both this blog series and the Bulletin itself has prompted you to think and re-examine your ideas as it has done for me.

Catherine Fisher contributed to the Introduction in the IDS Bulletin, entitled Is Development Research Coming of Age? (PDF) and to the Bulletin article entitled Stimulating Demand for Research Evidence: what role for capacity building?. Catherine is International Capacity Building Co-ordinator at Amnesty International. She was formally Capacity Support Coordinator with the Impact and Learning Team at IDS.   

More blogs on the IDS Bulletin New Roles for Communication in Development?

• Evolution of new roles: from researcher, to activist, to knowledge intermediary (By Simon Batchelor)
• How researchers can learn to stop worrying and love communicators (By Nicholas Benequista)
• Trying to get research into use? Start by making users an integral part of the research design process (By Abby Mulhall)
• Supply and demand in evidence-informed policy - in pictures! (By Kirsty Newman)
• Three things that stop development organisations being agents of change (By Liz Carlile)
• Why researchers should consider a new model for engagement (By Ajoy Datta)
• An interview with Blane Harvey, co-editor of New Roles for Communication in Development?
• Redefining the researcher, and the research (By Zachary Patterson)
• Challenges in communicating co-constructed knowledge to influence policy (By Fran Seballos)
• How are the roles of researchers and research communicators changing? (By Tessa Lewin)

Evolution of new roles: from researcher, to activist, to knowledge intermediary

By Simon Batchelor

The IDS Bulletin that this series of blogs is associated with was titled New Roles for Communication in Development?  My own article, Changing the Financial Landscape of Africa... was about a ten year journey for a small group of researchers and certainly over the decade (gosh that’s a long time!) our own roles evolved and changed.  

Researcher: In the article I start with some basic research. Commissioned through a competitive bid, we started researching how people were using mobile phones in Africa (and Asia).  This led to an insight about exchanging airtime, where people in three different countries (even in 2001) had worked out that they could do a sort of money transfer using mobile phones and airtime.

Lobbyist/Activist: It is at this point that our role begins to change. We started to move beyond our research responsibilities (as stated on the research proposal) and evolve into ‘research communicators’, even becoming advocates and lobbyists.  The article goes on to describe how conversations occurred with donors, private sector, senior government, central banks – presenting the idea of mobile phone money transfer (and the evidence that there was demand within Africa) and trying to get interest and buy-in to the idea. 

Knowledge Intermediary:  Moving on a year or so our role evolves further.  From lobbying about an idea, we begin to get involved with the details of implementing that idea - legislation, policy environments and private sector development.  Alongside this detail work, we also get involved with creating discussion space for the emerging players.  We start brokering meetings between people, undertaking social network analysis to identify who should talk to who, creating international conferences to create the space for donors, private sector, and legislators to come together, and for bankers and telecommunication to find each other in a new digital converging space.  We were (as Blane et al say in their introduction to the Bulletin (PDF)) “seeking to strengthen the linkages and flows of information between disciplines, areas of practice or sources of knowledge”  So from being a researcher investigating how communities use mobile phones we seem to have evolved into knowledge intermediaries.  

From researcher, to research communicator, to lobbyist, to knowledge intermediary.   Interesting. 

Recently I was working on Theories of Change and Impact pathways for the CGIAR centres, and their proposals really raised the question – where do the responsibilities of a researcher finish?  Do researchers have a duty to change the world, or do they produce their findings and leave it at that?  Do they have a duty to communicate their findings to those who might use them?  Do they have a duty to follow through and make sure that their research does more than sit on a shelf?  What are the boundaries of their and our responsibility?

As a final thought can I just add that the paper is constructed around a framework for policy influence first proposed by David Steven (PDF).  Steven talks about changing the framing of a discourse and creating spaces for dialogue within his five point frame.  I wrote the ‘story’ of the article as a narrative before finding the Steven framework; and then when I found it I realised that the story fits his framing.  I don’t know if all research to policy activism can be mapped onto his frame but I was amazed at how closely he captured our journey – I recommend it.


Simon Batchelor wrote the Bulletin article Changing the Financial Landscape of Africa: An Unusual Story of Evidence-informed Innovation, Intentional Policy Influence and Private Sector Engagement.
Simon is managing director at Gamos Ltd, and formally interim manager of the Impact and Learning Team at IDS. 

 
More blogs on the IDS Bulletin New Roles for Communication in Development?

• How researchers can learn to stop worrying and love communicators (By Nicholas Benequista)
• Trying to get research into use? Start by making users an integral part of the research design process (By Abby Mulhall)
• Supply and demand in evidence-informed policy - in pictures! (By Kirsty Newman)
• Three things that stop development organisations being agents of change (By Liz Carlile)
• Why researchers should consider a new model for engagement (By Ajoy Datta)
• An interview with Blane Harvey, co-editor of New Roles for Communication in Development?
• Redefining the researcher, and the research (By Zachary Patterson)
• Challenges in communicating co-constructed knowledge to influence policy (By Fran Seballos)
• How are the roles of researchers and research communicators changing? (By Tessa Lewin)

How researchers can learn to stop worrying and love communicators

By Nicholas Benequista

Let’s be frank. Researchers don’t really like us research communicators.

They have good reason not to like us, but this doesn’t necessarily need to be so. To explain why, however, I have to go back thirty years or so.

The Development Research Centre on Citizenship, Participation and Accountability (www.drc-citizenship.org) taught us a lot about how researchers connect with political and social actors in distinct ways. Understanding of how individual researchers and their institutions view themselves as agents of change is a good way to begin thinking about a communication strategy, rather than the other way around.  Image credit: N.Benequista

When it was finally acknowledged that policy-makers mostly ignore research, Nathan Caplan postulated the "two communities theory" to explain this shocking phenomenon. He said that there was a "culture gap" between researchers and policy-makers demarcated by their different values, language, professional practices and institutional contexts.

In a sense, those of us who work in research communication are supposed to be the bridges between these two communities, but if you look critically at the literature on research communication, you’ll see that we’ve recreated that culture gap.

On the one side, various academic disciplines - including communication studies, political science and cultural theory - continue to examine research communication for insights into the relationship between knowledge and social change.

This body of mid-range theory, however, has often ignored the politics of the research field, including the increasing pressure imposed on "applied" areas such as development studies or health to deliver "influence." Consequently, these theories are blind to how research communication transforms researchers personally and to how the mainstreaming of research communication is actually a political force. Researchers resent political communicators because we represent an effort change the way they work, and we have to be willing to accept that we have sometimes (though not always) done so for the worse.

On the other side of this divide are the practice-minded guidebooks and handbooks for research communication. These certainly draw on the theory. Some guidebook authors are simultaneously publishing on the topic of research communication in peer-reviewed journals. The majority of them, however, are penned by the agencies - such as the UK Department for International Development or US Agency for International Development - who are mandating that the research they fund shows results. They tend to be bureaucratic and procedural, with long checklists and only the most cursory mention of theory. In my experience, when these “lessons” are delivered to researchers in this format, they are often met with either complete disinterest or with bristling contempt.

And here’s the irony. They are meant to close the culture gap, but they recreate it, because they make no attempt to understand researchers.

The biggest practical challenge of good research communication is a political challenge
Policy network maps and policy briefs are indeed useful skills that need to be learned, but the biggest practical challenge of good research communication is a political challenge of connecting researchers with other actors. The "two communities" theory was later dismissed as it was revealed that many researchers actually inhabit both communities quite well. Indeed, we (Joanna Wheeler and I) would add that researchers occupy an array of different communities - sometimes including high-level policy-makers and other times including local activist groups. But there are, nonetheless, still serious challenges to getting researchers to embrace research communication. This first challenge owes to the very diversity just mentioned. Many are not connected to high-level policy-makers, though perhaps highly influential in other ways: as teachers or as intellectual advisors for social movements. The current best practice for research communication almost completely ignores this diversity.

The second challenge is perhaps even more serious and brings us to the main point, which is the need to approach research communication as part and parcel of the research process. You might call it praxis, or you might just call it integration. Researchers may already be deeply involved in actions to promote political or social change on their own accord, but research communication asks them to do so within the constraints of their professional field. Deep social theory is necessary for understanding the important theoretical questions about knowledge and change raised by research communication, but the practice of research communication poses new professional demands on researchers that must be reconciled with methodological practices and the politics of research.

In other words, research communication isn’t really different from research. This is especially important in development, since it is not the 'ivory tower' that other academic disciplines would aspire to be. This is partly what we’re trying to work towards in our contribution to the IDS Bulletin on New Roles for Research Communication?

So researchers, please stop worrying about the oversimplifications of the policy briefing, and let’s instead think about how we can finally bridge that culture gap.

Nicholas Benequista co-authored the IDS Bulletin article Cartographers, Conciliators and Catalysts: Understanding the Communicative Roles of Researchers with Joanna Wheeler. He is currently carrying out an action research project in Kenya to test the possibilities offered by new communication technologies for journalists. You can follow Nicholas on Twitter at @benequista.

More blogs on the IDS Bulletin New Roles for Communication in Development?

• Trying to get research into use? Start by making users an integral part of the research design process (By Abby Mulhall)
• Supply and demand in evidence-informed policy - in pictures! (By Kirsty Newman)
• Three things that stop development organisations being agents of change (By Liz Carlile)
• Why researchers should consider a new model for engagement (By Ajoy Datta)
• An interview with Blane Harvey, co-editor of New Roles for Communication in Development?
• Redefining the researcher, and the research (By Zachary Patterson)
• Challenges in communicating co-constructed knowledge to influence policy (By Fran Seballos)
• How are the roles of researchers and research communicators changing? (By Tessa Lewin)

Trying to get research into use? Start by making users an integral part of the research design process

By Abby Mulhall

I was recently chatting to Barbara Adolph, a Principal Researcher at IIED, about 'how to get research into use' and we touched on the way that research is commissioned and designed. This led us to talk about our days at the International Centre for development-oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA), a wonderful organisation that has at its heart the concept of soft systems thinking to design and deliver client-oriented research and development programmes.

What's compelling about ICRA's approach is that it promotes the integration of stakeholder concerns, knowledge, action and learning around a theme of mutual interest. It is about defining the problem with the research users, whoever they were - not just farmers, but researchers, entrepreneurs, journalists, environmentalists - whoever is part of the 'innovation system' that affects research uptake and use.

Defining the research agenda: power and participation

A common thread running through many discussions and debates about research communication (or uptake or use or the many other seemingly interchangeable terms used to define the process of making research available, accessible, useful and useable) is power and participation. While the communication part of research use is essential, there are many other actors, processes and systems that affect the ultimate use of research. Not to mention its availability and accessibility.

Power relations and participation in the research itself, or more importantly in the initial definition of the problem and research design cannot be ignored. There are many examples of research programmes testing more innovative ways of communicating research and some that move further, by using communication as the process for achieving social change (see Nicholas Benequista's and Joanna Wheeler's article in this Bulletin; Jethro Petitt et al in Development in Practice or Sally Theobold et al in Health Research Policy and Systems).

But I think there is a need to re-think how we design development research:

• Who is it really for? 
• Who should determine the agenda? 
• Who should quality assure the results (where the intended users are quite often the poor)?

Liz Carlile's blog in this series touched on a similar point - that we supply knowledge and information on our terms in response to a global conversation rather than local demand. Too often the design of the research programme is done in isolation of the different intended users of the research. They tend to be brought in once the funder has approved the design. Too often researchers have to respond to the policies and processes set by the funder, with little or no time to really reflect, learn and engage in the process of defining the research problem and identifying a solution.

Of course there are exceptions and one of the best examples I know about is CNRS, a Bangladeshi NGO that has worked extensively on natural resources management. Its strength is in inclusive participation and giving voice to a wide range of stakeholders who also have a say in the research agenda. The concept of Citizen Jury, an approach being used to democratise agricultural research, is another excellent example. 

Towards innovation systems thinking

DFID's Research into Use programme is an example of why we need to plan for uptake. Initially designed to get promising technologies from DFID's renewable natural resources programme into use, its learning in developing processes for doing this is extremely valuable.The process is partly about 'knowledge brokering', which is currently very topical and increasingly valued as an essential part of the system (see Catherine Fisher's Spectrum of Intermediary and Brokering functions in the Bulletin's introduction (PDF).

RIU goes a step further and tests an innovation systems approach (see Putting Research into Use: Lessons from contested visions of innovations) - recognising a need for a broader range of brokering tasks to support coordinated action in networks that are connected to innovation, policy and development processes.

In the Bulletin, Klerkx et al write 'research uptake is important, and knowledge brokering is an essential function, but should be accompanied by or integrated within the function of innovation brokering, which more broadly focuses on rearranging all technical, social and institutional relationships needed for innovation and change.Such a broad focus can contribute to creating an enabling environment for effective policy formulation and implementation, development and innovation'. I am a fan of the innovations systems approach to research uptake - though some would question how it addresses power and participation.

On this very topical issue of research communication, uptake and brokering - a new call for abstracts has just been launched - Driving Research Uptake through research brokering.

Abby Mulhall is Research Uptake Manager at the UK Department for International Development (DFID). We are grateful for her contribution to the Bulletin as a peer reviewer. This blog represents the author's views - not those of DFID.

More blogs on the IDS Bulletin New Roles for Communication in Development? 

Supply and demand in evidence-informed policy - in pictures! (By Kirsty Newman)

Three things that stop development organisations being agents of change (By Liz Carlile)

Why researchers should consider a new model for engagement (By Ajoy Datta)

An interview with Blane Harvey, co-editor of New Roles for Communication in Development?

Redefining the researcher, and the research (By Zachary Patterson)

Challenges in communicating co-constructed knowledge to influence policy (By Fran Seballos)

How are the roles of researchers and research communicators changing? (By Tessa Lewin)

Supply and demand in evidence-informed policy – in pictures!

By Kirsty Newman

I have talked before about supply and demand in evidence-informed policy but I decided to revisit the topic with some sophisticated visual aids. I am aware that using the using the model of supply/demand has been criticised as over-simplifying the topic – but I still think it is a useful way to think about the connections between research evidence and policy/practice (plus, to be honest, I am fairly simple!).

You can distinguish between supply and demand by considering ‘what is the starting point?’. If you are starting with the research (whether its a single piece of research or a body of research on a given topic) and considering how it may achieve policy influence, you are on the supply side…

In contrast, those on the demand side, typically start with a decision (or a decision-making process) and consider how research can feed into this decision…

This distinction may seem obvious, but I think it is often missed. What this means in practice is an explosion of approaches to evidence-informed policy/practice which attempt to push more and more evidence out there in expectation that more supply will lead to a better world…

One problem with this is that if your supply approaches focus on just one research project – or one side of a debate – they risk going against evidence-informed policy…

Some supply approaches do aim to increase access to a range of research and to synthesise and communicate where the weight of evidence lies. However, even these approaches are destined to fail if there is not a corresponding increase in demand…

I think we should continue to support supply-side activities but I  think we also need to get better at supporting the demand. So what would this look like in practice?

For me the two components of demand are the motivation (whether intrinsic or extrinsic) and the capacity (i.e. the knowledge, skills, attitudes, structures, systems etc) to use research. In other words, you need to want to use research and you need to be able to do so.

Motivation can be improved by enhancing the organisational  culture of evidence use – but also by putting systems in place which mandate and/or reward evidence use…

Achieving this in practice needs the support of senior decision makers within a policy making institution. So for example the UK Department for International Development has transformed the incentives to use research evidence since Prof Chris Whitty came in as the Chief Scientific Advisor and Head of Research.

But incentives on their own are not enough. There also needs to be capacity and it needs to exist at multiple levels; at an organisational level, there needs to be structural capacity such as adequate internet bandwidth, access to relevant academic journals etc etc. At an individual level, those involved in the policy making process need to be ‘evidence-literate’ – i.e. they need to know whaat research evidence is, where they can find it, how they can appraise it, how to draw lessons from evidence for policy decisions etc etc…

Achieving this may require a new recruitment strategy – selecting people for employment who already have a good understanding of research evidence. But continuing professional development courses can also be used to ‘upskill’ existing staff.

Anyway, the above is basically a pictural summary of this paper in the IDS bulletin so if you would like to read about the same topic in more academic terms (and without the pictures!) please do check it out. Its not open access I’m afraid so if you want a copy please tweet me @kirstyevidence or leave a comment below.

Hope you liked the pictures!

Kirsty Newman co-authored the Bulletin article entitled "Stimulating Demand for Research Evidence: what role for capacity-building?" Many thanks to Kirsty for allowing us to republish this blog, which was originally published on her own blog, KirstyEvidence. You can also follow Kirsty on Twitter. 

More blogs on the IDS Bulletin New Roles for Communication in Development? 

Three things that stop development organisations being agents of change (By Liz Carlile)

Why researchers should consider a new model for engagement (By Ajoy Datta)

An interview with Blane Harvey, co-editor of New Roles for Communication in Development?

Redefining the researcher, and the research (By Zachary Patterson)

Challenges in communicating co-constructed knowledge to influence policy (By Fran Seballos)

How are the roles of researchers and research communicators changing? (By Tessa Lewin)

 

Three things that stop development organisations being agents of change

By Liz Carlile

Last week in Nairobi I met up with partners Julius Mwanga and Busiinge Amooti from the Kabarole Research and Resource Centre (KRC) in Uganda. We talked about how to get robust, relevant research evidence into the hands of farmers. KRC believes in “putting the people first”. This means taking quality research that focuses on their communities’ needs and interpreting it in ways that give farmers quick answers to their pressing questions. The dialogue is fast, so demand for information about best practices grows.

While distinct, this chimes with the “triple loop” approach to climate change communication and social learning that we — IDS, IIED and friends — are exploring with CCAFS, the Climate Change and Agricultural Food Security research programme of the CGIAR. We have been thinking about ways the CGIAR centres could help bring hard science and local knowledge together to provide better solutions at the community level.

‘Development communications’, ‘research communications’ and all the related communications family has a well-established theory, and we continue to have new learning. But in my experience, what challenges many development organisations from being true agents of change is not so much about understanding the theory. It is about three other things:

1. We focus on delivery not change For 50 years, development organisations have striven to give assistance, solve problems and provide answers through research and action. But we have focused on the collective challenge and not on individual end users. This orientation is at odds with the way effective organisations mobilise, change or drive consumer demand. We can learn from business here and reorient our organisations to listen for answers, take risks, be flexible, make quick decisions and change course. Our incentive structures, our need for consensus, and demands for over-meticulous accountability hamper fast action and therefore learning “on the job” or together. Our strategic objectives focus on implementation and delivery, but not on change.

2. We talk more than we listen – and on our terms Even if we increasingly hear what our partners and stakeholders need, our approaches are still based on supplying knowledge and information on our terms— and in response to a global conversation rather than local demand. Kirsty Newman’s recent blog pushes us to explore this supply and demand in building research agendas. But even if we build a research agenda based on people’s needs, its power remains with the researcher and their team, who decide when and how to share findings.

3. Underinvestment means underachievement We have yet to convince donors to support the communication skills and time required to get development information and research into use – whether by the policy community or local communities. To get this right – to really understand how change happens and predict potential tipping points – we need to invest. It is ironic that while great communication campaigns are applauded for their success, the praise rarely translates into money that development organisations can earmark for communication. We are trapped in a vicious cycle of underinvestment and therefore continued underachievement.

Two organisations we met in Nairobi share traits that illustrate how to combat these challenges. They know how to tell stories, and they listen hard to what users need or care about. Their audiences are all-important.


Well Told Story (WTS) produces Shujaaz a multi-media campaign targeted at Kenyan youth.

Its director, Rob Burnett, reminded us he was in the business of making change – not just communicating messages. WTS spends up to a fifth of its budget and a considerable proportion of its time talking with its audience and monitoring change against tightly defined and agreed indicators. How often do development organisations like ours work out the detail of the change we need and then decide the communications strategy required? Too often we must submit proposals for funding well in advance of that becoming a detailed reality.


The Mediae Trust has also spent years influencing behaviour through targeted multi-media communications, with a strong emphasis on local radio and TV. Most of us in the development and communications know and respect its TV show, Makutano Junction. Indeed my Ugandan colleagues were delighted to meet the trust’s founder, David Campbell, as the show is now also a favourite in Uganda. The trust’s success is based on understanding its audience’s needs and providing support on issues that represent a daily challenge.

The change we need But few development organisations are structured to prioritise and listen to our audiences and respond to their needs quickly. Our funding structures and targets rarely allow that. We tend to work on global challenges that we believe have local realities, rather than taking learning from local priorities to inform global agendas.

At Rio+20, many of us questioned the status quo. Our work with CCAFS shows how. Our studies show that unless all partners in a shared learning process see change, the result is disempowerment and paralysis. We need to be agents in our own change processes rather than just talking about what others should do. I worry that we can end up theorising for too long when real change is in the practice.


Liz Carlile is Director of Communications at the Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and co-authored the IDS Bulletin article, Understanding context in learning-centre approaches to climate change communication.


More blogs on the IDS Bulletin New Roles for Communication in Development? 

Why researchers should consider a new model for engagement (By Ajoy Datta)

An interview with Blane Harvey, co-editor of New Roles for Communication in Development?

Redefining the researcher, and the research (By Zachary Patterson)

Challenges in communicating co-constructed knowledge to influence policy (By Fran Seballos)

How are the roles of researchers and research communicators changing? (By Tessa Lewin)

Why researchers should consider a new model for engagement

Hurricane Sandy from space Accessed from www.wikimedia.org

By Ajoy Datta 

As George Monbiot argues in the Guardian, there are several ways in which the impact of the recent hurricane Sandy is likely to have been exacerbated by man-made climate change.

Although there’s little doubt that our climate is changing, understanding precisely how and what we do to prepare for it is far from straightforward.  


It might at first seem a matter for environmental and meteorological scientists (PDF).

But experts need to be engaged from areas such as food security and agriculture, natural resource management, ecosystems and biodiversity, infrastructure and human health. Expertise is also required to help map out adaptation options, including disaster risk reduction (DRR) measures to manage hydro-meteorological risks, such as dykes and dams to mitigate flooding, or to assess the feasibility of introducing different crop varieties.

However, discussions shouldn’t be limited to scientists and other experts. Communities have for centuries developed their own ways of coping with climactic variability and extreme weather events. Often, non-governmental organisations, community groups and social movements are better at self-organising and working coherently and quickly towards a common goal than government authorities. This may be because these smaller, local organisations and groups often have a stronger understanding of local context and are more likely to take ownership over solutions.

Resonating with findings from a recent report by David Booth (who argues that governance challenges in Africa are not fundamentally about one set of people getting another set of people to behave better but about both sets of people finding ways to act collectively in their own best interests), in my article for the IDS Bulletin, entitled Deliberation, Dialogue and Debate: why researchers need to engage with others to address complex issues, I have argued that traditional linear approaches to communicating research to policymakers are inadequate. Researchers now share the field of knowledge production and communication with many others. Where appropriate, those who view their role in relation to policy should be prepared to engage with stakeholders affected by policy issues and expose their findings to review and discussion.

If researchers aim to engage in dialogue through structured processes, experience has shown that careful planning is required to clarify intentions, select who to engage with, when to engage, and how best to do so.

Skilled intermediaries can be adept at facilitating engagement processes by, for instance, providing information to participants, developing their capacities, and thus making efforts to redress power asymmetries. But in doing so, some researchers will need to alter their own mind-sets. This may mean working in inter-, multi- and/or trans-disciplinary research teams, admitting to being part of a value-based system, and disempowering themselves in relation to other stakeholders such as members of the public.

And research institutions need to provide researchers with the right incentives to engage effectively, enable them to contribute to policy and political processes and develop realistic expectations as to what they can collectively achieve.

Ajoy Datta is a Research Fellow at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI)  and wrote the IDS Bulletin article Deliberation, Dialogue and Debate: why researchers need to engage with others to address complex issues (PDF).

More blogs on the IDS Bulletin New Roles for Communication in Development? 

An interview with Blane Harvey, co-editor of New Roles for Communication in Development?

Redefining the researcher, and the research (By Zachary Patterson)

Challenges in communicating co-constructed knowledge to influence policy (By Fran Seballos)

How are the roles of researchers and research communicators changing? (By Tessa Lewin)

 

Listen to an interview with Blane Harvey, one of the editors of New Roles for Communication in Development?

In this interview, Blane Harvey, one of the editors for the IDS Bulletin New Role for Communication in Development? discusses three key thematic areas under discussion in the Bulletin:

• Context and the political economy of knowledge
• Networks, partnerships and knowledge-sharing
• Role of new and emerging technologies

Blane Harvey: New IDS Bulletin 'New Roles for Communication in Development?' from Research to Action on Vimeo. Read the Introduction to the Bulletin (PDF), by Blane Harvey, Tessa Lewin and Catherine Fisher. 


More blogs on the IDS Bulletin New Roles for Communication in Development? 

Redefining the researcher, and the research (By Zachary Patterson)

Challenges in communicating co-constructed knowledge to influence policy (By Fran Seballos)

How are the roles of researchers and research communicators changing? (By Tessa Lewin)

Redefining the Researcher, and the Research

By Zachary Patterson

Tessa Lewin and I wrote an article entitled “Approaches to Development Research Communication” for the recent IDS Bulletin on New Roles for Communication in Development? We looked at the evolution of development research communications alongside the evolution of different development paradigms. The article points to a scattered and shifting communication field, which draws from a diverse range of development paradigms often in a way that is both incoherent and contradictory. Alongside the plurality of communication approaches, innovations in technology have contributed to changes in how researchers and practitioners both access and communicate research. However, despite the growth in platforms that allow open access to information, we remain limited by what many regard as anachronistic power structures.

Slide from Tessa Lewin's presentation at the Institute of Development Studies. The whole presentation can be viewed at: http://www.slideshare.net/idsuk/evidence-influence-agency-what-new-roles-for-communication-in-development-research

New technologies are transforming the field of development research communication and this process raises new ethical dilemmas. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the tensions around intellectual property. There is an inherent tension between the academic system, which relies on sole authorship and a profitable publication model, and the idea of development research serving the communal, public good. Much development research is practice and policy-based, further augmenting these complications. While development research positions itself as a public good that strives to be altruistic and value-free, the power dynamics of capital continue to disrupt the public availability of its findings. The current tug-of-war occurring within the arena of academic publishing can offer a useful lens to unmask and illuminate broader dynamics within the field.

Are new technologies helping Open Access campaigning gather momentum?

A confrontation over the access to academic research has played out in the UK over the past few months, as academics continue to heavily criticize the publishers of scientific journals. Scientific and medical academic journals, that publish work largely funded by taxpayers, have charged UK universities around £200m annually for access in recent years. Supporters of what has become known as the ‘academic spring’ have argued that the findings of publicly-funded research should be made openly available to academic institutions and the general public, for whatever purpose.  Since the initial arguments of those involved in the ‘academic spring’, more than 12,000 academic researchers have signed a boycott of the Dutch publisher Elsevier, in an attempt to broaden the campaign against the pro-market model of academic research and publication. The campaign has since influenced the UK government to approve a plan to make all publicly funded scientific research immediately available for anyone to read. Meanwhile, the public availability of many academic publications that could aid the effectiveness and efficiency of development approaches and outcomes remains limited.

Paul Mason, Newsnight's economics editor, has argued that our current political landscape is shaped by a combination of innovations in contemporary communication technologies, shifts in global demographics, and the public realization of the power of networks over hierarchies.  In particular, technological developments have helped to consolidate local citizen awareness and action, while placing researchers in positions where they are doing more than collecting and sharing knowledge. However, while the new age of research communication technology has opened the way for unprecedented availability and distribution of knowledge, and the blurring of divisions  between academic, professional, and amateur researchers, the availability of development research remains varied.  Access to academic and scientific development research through ICTs and informative virtual spaces continues to be surrounded by conflict and tension in terms of ownership (or privatization) and openness.

In article earlier this year for the London Review of Books, Slavoj Žižek suggests that the current communications and virtual space tug-of-war between global citizens and government and private interests began with an attempt by the powerful to ‘privatize general intellect’.  He warns that because the academic research and publication model is rooted in the capitalist market, there is a strong pull to continue the privatization of research – including that which serves the 'public good'. While the academic system struggles to survive in an increasingly market-driven environment, new communications approaches are creating more layered and complex options for accessing and sharing knowledge. Despite the hopes that we may have for information and communication technologies in development research communications, it is not yet clear how this current chapter of opportunities and challenges will play out.

Interested in reading more around this topic? Try..
The Internet and Democratic Citizenship by Stephen Coleman and Jay G. Blulmer
Radical media: rebellious communication and social movements by John D.H. Downing

With many thanks to Tessa Lewin for her support in the writing of this blog post. 


More blogs on the IDS Bulletin New Roles for Communication in Development? 

Challenges in communicating co-constructed knowledge to influence policy (By Fran Seballos)

How are the roles of researchers and research communicators changing? (By Tessa Lewin)

Challenges in communicating co-constructed knowledge to influence policy

By Fran Seballos

Fran Seballos is Partnership Officer at the Institute of Development Studies. She served as moderator and discussant in the recent IDS Seminar on New roles for communication in development research which coincided with launch of the IDS Bulletin on the same topic. She shares her thoughts on how this seminar has influenced her thinking in this role.

I have spent the past few months getting to grips with the idea of "partnering for knowledge co-construction" - specifically for generating knowledge that can influence policy. The emphasis on influence led me to an exploration of ways in which co-constructed knowledge is adapted for and communicated to specific (and sometimes imagined) audiences. For me, what emerged from the seminar on Communications for Development (and from reading the Bulletin!) was a re-framing of development communication as an inherent and ongoing part of the research process - which fits quite neatly with the idea of co-constructing knowledge.

What do I mean by co-construction knowledge?

My understanding of co-construction is as a 'social learning process premised on interaction between diverse actors and rooted in human relationships'. Partnering is an essential part of co-construction and ultimately the continuous communication of ideas, experiences and knowledge between partners and other collaborators is the basis of a ‘learning-to-know’ process.

But the notion of co-construction for policy influencing reveals some of the tensions described in the Bulletin – around legitimacy of knowledge, where expertise lies, and to whom (and how) it should be made relevant or ‘serviceable’. One of the primary risks of taking a co-construction approach to generating knowledge for policy influencing is that a traditional reduction of knowledge into a set of implications for policy (Abstracted Adaptation) means that much of the back-stage learning becomes invisible (See Nowotny, 2007).

It also exposes the process to a set of parameters handed down from the policy sphere about what counts as evidence. This creates an immediate tension of accountability in the communication process between - on the one hand - the demand for a policy-relevant output that must have salience and legitimacy for its pre-determined target audience, and, on the other, the need to be accountable to the knowledge holders participating in the process, meeting their needs and expectations.

Slide from Tessa Lewin's presentation at the Institute of Development Studies. The whole presentation can be viewed at: http://www.slideshare.net/idsuk/evidence-influence-agency-what-new-roles-for-communication-in-development-research

From a partnerships perspective - where all partners’ goals and objectives should be recognised in a common process - co-construction should provide opportunity for those engaged to benefit their own social change and knowledge development agenda. Therefore communicating knowledge must be explicitly designed into the process in ways that are sensitive to the needs and knowledges of those engaged in it, and in ways that support the intended knowledge users to engage with and learn from the different framings inherent in a co-construction process.

Where co-construction can be aligned with communication for development, what implications does this have for partnerships?

A partnership needs to share its expectations on why it is conducting the research or co-constructing knowledge; which spaces it hopes to influence; where they would like to see change happen; and who the critical actors are that can support or enable change: these may be diverse.

Secondly they need to understand which partner has the skills to communicate in which space and with which actor; what methodology is appropriate and relevant to whom; and how they intend to maximise the opportunities for communication and/or engagement throughout the process.

Thirdly they need to consider how a process of co-construction enables learning and knowledge development for those they intend to engage in the process. This means thinking about which methods of communicating knowledge can: support the intended knowledge exchange and co-construction processes;  and support participants to communicate with their specific networks

Finally, by conceiving of co-construction as a communication process, partners can draw on a much larger method box - not only to enable, capture and share learning in multiple ways but also to introduce innovation into a co-construction process

Ref: NOWOTNY, H. 2007. How Many Policy Rooms are There? : Evidence-Based and Other Kinds of Science Policies. Science Technology & Human Values, 32, 479-490. 

Fran Seballos is Partnerships Officer at the Institute of Development Studies.  


More blogs on the IDS Bulletin New Roles for Communication in Development?