Lessons Learned on promoting better links between research and policy in Latin America

7/30/2019 Lessons Learned on promoting better links between research and policy in Latin America

1/59

Lessons learnedon promoting better links between

research and policy in Latin America

A collaborative reection on Spaces for engagement: usingknowledge to improve public decisions, a 6 year programmeconducted by CIPPEC with the support of GDNet

by Vanesa Weyrauch


2/59


3/59

| 3Lessons learned on promoting better links between research and policy in Latin America

Index

Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Why write this paper? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Structure of the paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

2. Background of the programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

SFE in numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3. Lessons learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Background on our work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

A. Lessons on research production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

B. Lessons on research communications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

C. Lessons on capacity building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Background on our work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

D. Lessons on building networks, communities and partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4. The way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Annex 1 - List of interviewees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Annex 2 Members of Capacity Building Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Annex 3 Spaces for engagements resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Annex 4 Lessons learned on online courses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Annex 5 - Peer assistance: list of participating organisations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59


4/59

4 | Lessons learned on promoting better links between research and policy in Latin America

Acronyms

CEPR Centre for Economic Policy Research

CIPPEC Center for the Implementation of Public Policies promoting Equity and Growth

DEAL Executive Directors of Latin America

GDN Global Development Network

IDRC International Development Research Centre

IDS Institute of Development Studies

INASP InternationalNetworkfortheAvailabilityofScienticPublications

ODI Overseas Development Studies

SFE Spaces for engagement: using knowledge to improve public decisions

VIPPAL Bridging research and Policy in Latin America


5/59


1. Introduction

Why write this paper?

How oen do we stop to reect on how we are doing what we are doing? Not re-

quently in todays hectic and ast-pace development world. We usually jump rom

one project to the other, rom one activity to another, trying to strengthen links

between them and take valuable inormation and people along. However, we alsoeel rustrated i we eel that we are just ollowing the ow o the river (the ow being

demand rom users o what we do, unders, the latest topic in trend, organizational

pressures and priorities, business models, etc.).

Tus, stopping to reect and systematize what we have learned has become a luxu-

ry. O course we inormally and tacitly learn and apply lessons to improve how we

work. However, we seldom open this learning process to others, both in terms o re-

ceiving their eedback and thoughts to co-construct new knowledge and in sharing

this new knowledge with them.

Moreover, in an environment where multiple initiatives are competing or relevance

and attention and many bringing value in similar ways, rather than re-creating the

wheel there is a need to very well understand what works and what not so as to ocus

eorts and ensure value or money.

Fortunately, aer six years o working in the link between research and policy

through a very diverse set o activities, under the Spaces or Engagementprogramme,

the time has come to more systematically reect on what we have learned so as to

improve our uture work, as well as empower others who are walking or aspire to

walk in the same path.

Te programme was conducted rom 2008 to 2013 byCIPPEC with the support o

GDNet to strengthen the link between research and policy in Latin America, main-

ly through diverse capacity building interventions.

Briey, the reasons to write this paper are:

o better reect on what has worked and what has not in terms o the key

activities o the programme: research production, capacity development and

networking and partnerships.
http://www.cippec.org/http://www.gdnet.org/http://www.gdnet.org/http://www.cippec.org/


6/59


o produce valuable evidence that can guide strategic design o uture work

by the diverse partners o the programme

o share this knowledge with organisations/persons working in this eld.

Finally, it is important to highlight that the most valuable lessons contained in thesepages have derived rom interaction with others. Tis paper is a product o contin-

uous collective thinking: it is not what we have learned just by ourselves but what

we have reected upon, digested, discussed and discovered by talking with other

colleagues and experts, asking or their eedback, encouraging them to question and

challenge us, asking about what could be dierent or improved in the uture.

Tus, I am especially thankul to the whole team (Julia D Agostino, Leandro Echt,

Clara Richards and Gala Daz Langou rom CIPPEC and Sherine Ghoneim, Shahi-

ra Emara and Zeinab Sabet rom GDNet) as well as every person who has partic-

ipated in the activities conducted under the programme. Trough their questions,observations, suggestions, ideas, proposals, etc. they have continuously weaved this

knowledge that now will be more widely shared and hopeully enriched by others

so as to co-construct better ways o working to improve the link between research

and policy.

Methodology

o produce this paper, a set o diverse methodologies was applied, including:

1. Desk review o:

Project proposals (2007-2012)

Annual and hal-year reports o the Programme (2007-2012)

Written evaluations o activities by participants (online courses, regional

events, peer assistance, etc.)

2. In depth interviews with key persons participating at the programme (both

members o team and relevant external stakeholders such as participants o re-gional conerences, researchers who produced papers/case studies or the pro-

gramme and participants o online courses1)

3. Creation o online group with diverse experts to discuss on lessons on capacity

building2

1 For detail o interviewees, please see Annex 1, page 45.2 For complete list o members o CB group please see Annex 2, page 46.


7/59


As mentioned above, these methodologies imply that the knowledge produced by

this initiative is the result o a collaborative eort o all the individuals and or-

ganisations that have participated in the management o the project, its activities

and/or evaluations and reections on related topics.

Structure of the paper

Tis paper begins with a brie and overall background on the programme Spaces

or engagement conducted by CIPPEC with the support o GDNet rom which the

lessons learned emerge (Section 2). It continues with an analysis o what we have

learned in each o its main pillars: 1) research production and communications; 2)

capacity building; and 3) building networks, communities and partnerships (Sec-

tion 3). Finally, and based on what we have learned, it draws some general conclu-

sions and recommendations or uture initiatives aiming at strengthening the linkbetween research and policy (Section 4).


8/59


2. Background of the programme

Te programme Spaces or Engagement: using knowledge to improve public deci-

sions is a six-year joint initiative between GDNet and the Center or the Implemen-

tation o Public Polices promoting Equity and Growth (CIPPEC).

CIPPEC is an independent and non-prot organization that works to create a just,

democratic and ecient State that improves the quality o lie or all Argentine citi-

zens. Tus, it concentrates its eorts in analyzing and promoting public policies thatoster equity and growth in Argentina.

GDNet is a knowledge hub that brings together and communicates policy-relevant

research rom the Global South. It aims to be an internationally recognized ocal

point/ knowledge broker or development research to inorm policy debate. GDNet

is a partnership with regional networks and leading experts in the eld.

Spaces or Engagement: using knowledge to improve public decisions encompass-

es six years o intense work (2008-2013) that aimed at creating diverse spaces o

engagement with the participation o researchers rom policy research institutions(PRIs) that conduct or use investigations to inuence policy, policymakers, and/or

decision making processes. For that purpose, it sought to work with a Community

o Practice (CoP) composed by select researchers rom think tanks and research

institutes as well as policymakers who are strongly committed to improving the use

o development research in policymaking in Latin America.

Takeadvantageoftheexistenceofthe(existingbythen)CSPP-ALnetwork

focused on how to use research and evidence to promote pro poor publicpolicies in Latin America.Capacitybuildingactivitiesshoulddierentiatewhatcanbechangedintheshort term through specic and adhoc activities frommid and long termchanges that require sustainable intervention and interaction with its bene-ciaries.

Prioritize face tofaceactivities that can becomplemented throughvirtualcommunications to avoid stand-alone actions.

Promotegeographicdiversityintermsofparticipationinactivitiestodetectbothsimilaritiesanddierencesintheregionandsubregions.

Incorporatelessonslearntbysimilarinitiatives.Balanceindividualwithorganizationalinterventions.

Principles of SFE
http://www.vippal.org/brochure/http://www.gdnet.org/http://www.cippec.org/http://www.cippec.org/http://www.cippec.org/http://www.cippec.org/http://www.gdnet.org/http://www.vippal.org/brochure/


9/59


Tis programme is clearly linked to GD-

Nets theory o change: supporting bet-

ter research in developing and transition

countries and communicating that re-

search within the research communityand hence to policy makers, will lead to

betterpolicymaking in those countries.

For this to happen, GDNet established

as some o its objectives that research-

ers are better able to communicate their

research to policy and that knowledge

networking between researchers and

with policy actors increased.

For these purposes, and throughoutthe years, the programme started to in-

volve a broader spectrum o key players

strongly committed to improving the

use o evidence in policymaking: rom

policy makers to civil society organi-

zations and universities. Furthermore,

the programme increasingly started to

promote South-South collaboration by

sharing knowledge and lessons learned

with similar institutions in Arica andAsia.

Te programme built on the initiative

Civil society partnerships Programme

conducted globally by the RAPID team

at ODI, in which CIPPEC also took

part as a regional coordinator in Latin

America, rom 2004 to 2011. It contin-

uously sought ways to complement this

initiative by supporting and developingactivities that emerged as potentially

valuable or members o the ormer ini-

tiative (or example, capacity building

workshops and courses), by ostering

local production o research which the

ormer had detected as very scarce, and

by urthering its reach by enabling more

individuals and organisations partic-

ipate in joint activities and using new

knowledge.

6 years in Latin AmericaMorethan40 countries around

the world involved4 regional workshopsMorethan8 presentations in

workshops in Africa, Asia andLatin America

9 online courses for LA reaching135 researchers, policy researchinstitutes, civil society organisa-tions, policy makers and univer-sities trained on critical issuesforpolicyinuence,M&Eandcommunications

5 online courses for Africa and

Asia reaching 75 members ofpolicy research institutions andcivil society organisations

1 online course for policy makersworking on childhood polices inLatin America: 15 policy makerstrained on childhood policiesand the use of evidence in policymaking

5 peer assistance exercises in LAwith 7 countries involved, and 1

peer assistance between LA andAfrica

1 peer assistance between athink tank in Africa and a thinktank in Latin America

5 technical assistances byCIPPEC to peer think tanks onmonitoring and evaluating poli-cyinuence

1 web site on bridging researchand policy, and 3 associated

platforms 2 newsletters, with 109 and 17editions

1 book 1 handbook4workingpapers 3bibliographicalreviews 3toolkitswith23guides 8casestudies 3Backgroundnotes 10interviews 12Videos

SFE in numbers
http://www.odi.org.uk/projects/2601-civil-society-partnerships-programmehttp://www.vippal.org/http://www.vippal.org/http://www.vippal.org/http://www.vippal.org/http://www.odi.org.uk/projects/2601-civil-society-partnerships-programme


10/59

10| Lessons learned on promoting better links between research and policy in Latin America

Tereore, throughout the past six years CIPPEC and GDNet have deployed a va-

riety o complementary methodologies to engage stakeholders in the eld: an e-

ective combination o cutting edge research production, development o training

materials, coordination o networks and debates and capacity building (both online

and ofine) allowed the programme to work with more than 300 researchers, prac-titioners and policy makers rom more than 40 countries in Latin America, Asia

and Arica.

Some o the activities promoted include: een online trainings on critical issues

or policy inuence; our regional meetings; one book, one handbook and more

than twenty how to guides, case studies and bibliographical reviews; the coordi-

nation o virtual communities o practice (Bridging research and Public Policies

in Latin America - VIPPAL and Executive Directors o Latin America); six peer

assistances; national workshops; and technical assistance on policy inuence plan-

ning; and conerences and workshops in dierent countries around the world.

Tese various activities were interrelated through a continuous ertilization be-

tween theory and practice, building a holistic approach to address the link between

research and policy in developing countries.
http://www.vippal.org/http://www.vippal.org/http://www.vippal.org/http://www.vippal.org/


11/59


3. Lessons learned

Background on our work

When SFE started most o the knowledge on the link between research and policy had

been produced by Northern researchers and organisations (individuals and institu-

tions based in developed countries), especially in the UK and USA. Tis implied that

existing research was partially useul to developing countries contexts, mainly be-cause the general ramework to analyze the link between research and policy emerged

rom a Northern way o conceptualizing and organizing these issues. Probably most

o researchers and practitioners in developing countries have a mental image o the

policy process that is quite dierent rom the mental image o traditional researchers

o Northern institutions (this goes well beyond the traditional critique to the linear

model o the policymaking processes such as Suttons3 one and even beyond recent

papers highlighting complexity such as Ramalingam and Jones4) Te way a researcher

in a developing country observe, analyzes and makes decisions related to how research

can inorm a policy process is quite dierent rom the structured and organized ac-

tors that try to explain this process within mainstream literature.

Also, other actors such as culture, language, ormat (usually academic and long pa-

pers) and methodologies to produce the existing knowledge (i.e. case studies com-

missioned to developing country authors but with no participation o them in the

ramework and structure o these) also account when trying to understand why

most o this literature was neither well known nor used in our region.

Te lack o local knowledge and commitment to produce it that we ound at the

beginning o our initiative has also been acknowledged by the programme RAPID

at ODI, our partner o the during the rst years o work in this eld (and at thebeginning o SFE one o the main producers o existing knowledge and promot-

er o engaging developing countries in this through its PPA project). In their Les-

sons learned Background Note5 Mendizabal, Datta and Young share that... we have

ound that research capacity itsel is very limited in some contexts, and especially

3 Sutton, R. (1999) Te Policy Process. ODI Working Paper 118. London: ODI.4 Ramalingam, B. and Jones, H. with Reba, . and Young, J. (2008) Exploring the science o com-

plexity: Ideas and implications or development and humanitarian eorts. ODI Working Paper285. London: ODI.

5 Mendizabal, Datta and Young. Developing capacities or better research uptake: the experience oODIs Research and Policy in Development programme. ODI Background Note, December 2011.
http://www.odi.org.uk/programmes/rapidhttp://www.odi.org.uk/http://www.odi.org.uk/http://www.odi.org.uk/programmes/rapid


12/59


capacity to research the interace between research and policy. Organisations oen

struggle to access long-term unding to invest in a uture cadre o researchers and

long-term research programmes to do this, or have little incentives to do so.

Aer detecting this gap, we decided to invest in producing knowledge by providingsome seed unding to support authors in developing countries. Tus, research pro-

duction under SFE sought the two ollowing main objectives:

Encourage local production o relevant knowledge on the link between research

and policy: rom its inception we considered that supporting Latin American

researchers to produce new knowledge was key to understand and tackle the

main challenges in terms o promoting the use o research in policymaking in

Latin America and regions acing similar problems and contexts

Generate new action-oriented knowledge on critical issues related to the links

between research and policy, with an emphasis on systematizing lessons learnedon the eld and using practical ormats that easily conveyed what has been

learned

As a consequence to this commitment to generating research rom the South we

produced rom 2008 to 2012: one book, one handbook, 4 working papers, 3 bibli-

ographical reviews, 3 toolkits with 23 guides, 8 case studies, 3 background notes,

10 in-depth interviews and 10 videos (please see Annex 3, in page 47 or details o

resources).

In terms o communicating this research, we disseminated publications throughour own channels (including the web sites www.vippal.org and www.gdnet.org),

our monthly e-newsletter and the online communities (DEAL, climate change and

childhood) coordinated under SFE. Furthermore, we shared most o them in every

related event, both those organized by us and those to which we were invited, rang-

ing rom conerences to workshops and meetings or projects6.

A. Lessons on research production

6 Knowledge, experiences and lessons learned within SFE were shared in conerences, workshops

and meetings in Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, Peru, South Arica, an-zania, Uganda, among other countries.

Lesson 1Local production implies dierent strategies according to levelof expertise of researchers to ensure relevance and quality
http://www.vippal.org/http://www.gdnet.org/http://www.gdnet.org/http://www.vippal.org/


13/59


Even though the programme has ound many advantages in producing local knowl-

edge, we have also encountered several challenges in this direction. Our strategy

was in general to launch open calls or the production o papers and case studies as-

suming that by this mechanism we would be able to detect new or nurture talented

researchers interested in producing knowledge in this relatively new eld.

However, we had very dierent results in terms o quality, relevance and consequent

value o produced research.

When recurring to well-known researchers with high reputation in research on policy

and politics, in general the results were very satisying. However, most o them have

not continued to do research on these specic topics and took the work as an ad hoc

opportunity o unding. Very ew o them have continued to be engaged in the eld;

or these one o the main drivers to produce knowledge on related topics has been the

practical approach provided by the programme. Tis has allowed experienced aca-demic researchers to learn rom those who are in the kitchen, people who stand in

the action end and that can really apply and use knowledge in their practice.

On the other hand, working with less experienced researchers has requently im-

plied that we had to invest additional time and resources (and in one case we even

had cancel the contract or not meeting the minimum requirements) to pre-detect

potential problems, ensure consistent ocus on the main questions, etc. We also had

to work hard to polish language (so that researchers o every Latin American coun-

try could understand it due to variations in Spanish) and to avoid that the publica-

tions became too academic, so that dierent proles and audiences could use it.

In consequence, we know now that i you are planning to develop a new cohort o

researchers in emerging topics, it is advisable that you:

Ensure you have enough time, skills and resources to provide continuous

coaching and quality supervision

Select young people that are genuinely committed to the academic track and

that can be endorsed and/or supported by a senior researcher (universities are

the ideal setting or this to happen)

Avoid using open and wide calls in the hope o receiving proposals rom un-tapped talents. Tese calls require a lot o time in answering questions and

emails, processing proposals that are not aligned with the ORs, and have not

yielded the expected results.

Prioritize individuals who are ocused on public policies and politics in gen-

eral instead o vertical topics such as childhood or climate change since the

latter will tend to seek or knowledge about the policy topics more thanhow

research can inorm the policy process

Partner with existing and recognized organisations and initiatives so as to

build on their existing networks and knowledge o experts on this eld. It is

better to enter into existing and ongoing spaces than creating new ones.


14/59


We started to commission the rst round o research by using traditional methods

in selecting issues, authors and processes, mostly along the mainstream lines o dis-

cussion in spaces related to the link between research and policy. We then decided

to present and discuss this rst batch o research within ace to ace interactions,

both in capacity building and networking events and spaces. Tis became a very

eective way to design a relevant and promising research agenda: conclusions andreections rom the rst set o case studies and papers were intensely discussed

throughout an important regional conerence in which Executive Directors o lead-

ing think tanks in Latin America participated. Using this space as a platorm to

detect emerging topics that were in need and o interest or them we were able to and

identiy more concrete aspects and sub-topics to be addressed in uture research as

well as in capacity development activities.

Tis strategy was applied again and again when producing research. We translated

papers, case studies, handbooks, etc. into shorter presentations in dierent events,

concrete sessions in workshops, modules in online courses, etc. By converting tradi-tional research ormats into concrete and brie interventions in networking and ca-

pacity building activities we were able to rene arguments and key messages, detect

specic and new examples or our main conclusions, identiy concerns and interests

in the near uture, etc.

Tus, participation and continuous eedback rom potential users allowed us to

have a research agenda that guided the generation o new action-oriented and cut-

ting edge knowledge including how policy research institutes (PRIs) are currently

operating and their main challenges in terms o incorporating evidence into poli-

cymaking processes.

Spaces where knowledge is presented and discussed in a live manner enable the

permanent detection o critical conceptual and practical challenges aced by policy

research institutes when trying to generate research that is relevant and useul or

policy. Tey also lead to a regional perspective in the provision o conclusions and

recommendations in terms o advancing in these elds to improve the impact o

research in public policies.

For example, the Regional Conerence in 2009 shed light into the broad eld o u-

ture work that could be addressed by the programme in Latin America: interaction

Lesson 2Build your research agenda in collaboration with potential usersof knowledge (ideally face to face) to ensure that what you

produce will be demanded and used and permanently adjustyour agenda to address relevant questions and real needs


15/59


and consultations revealed that there was a recognized need to contribute to the

institutional strengthening o policy research institutions in areas such as commu-

nications, knowledge management, assessment o policy inuence capacity, mon-

itoring and evaluation o inuence, and undraising models, among others. As a

consequence, in 2012 CIPPEC launched open calls or the production o two paperson knowledge management (KM) and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) o poli-

cy inuence. Tese papers provided a basis to develop a handbook that linked the

two topics (Learners, practitioners and teachers: Handbook on monitoring, evalu-

ating and managing knowledge or policy inuence) while providing practical tools

and methodologies to strengthen these practices; and later SFE launched an online

course on how to monitor and evaluate policy inuence. We trained 66 participants

among 4 editions o this course, and CIPPEC was asked to provide technical assis-

tance to develop M&E systems and products by organisations like Save the Children

UK and was also invited to share lessons learned at events on the topic (Lima 2013,

organized by IDRC).

B. Lessons on research communications

Share your main ndings in dierent ormats, spaces and with dierent groups o

people. I you want your knowledge to be used by practitioners and not only discussed

by academics or experts, you should take it with you everywhere you go and be alert

in terms on how to link what you have learned/produced with the interests, needs

and questions that are continuously shared in networking spaces. Specic knowledge

is more used when shared in ace to ace events -both capacity building ones whereindividuals attend expecting to learn something as well as those mainly centered in

acilitating networking among colleagues where knowledge circulates in a less ormal

manner. Why are such events a more eective way to communicate research? Quite

simple: by talking and interacting with people around issues that are really relevant

or them (they are interested and thus are talking about these things or reecting upon

them in this type o events) one has the clear opportunity to convey knowledge in a

way that relates to an ongoing conversation and a real need/interest. iming is perect:

instead o trying to be heard or seen among myriad o other messages and stimuli

research arrives to answer a question that is already there.

Lesson 3Traditional research formats and your own communicationschannels allow you to build and strengthen your reputationon the eld but continuously reformat your research ndingsaccording to where you are and with whom- if you really wantit to be used
http://www.vippal.org/brochure/archivos/learners_practitioners_and_teachers.pdfhttp://www.vippal.org/brochure/archivos/learners_practitioners_and_teachers.pdfhttp://www.vippal.org/brochure/archivos/learners_practitioners_and_teachers.pdfhttp://www.vippal.org/brochure/archivos/learners_practitioners_and_teachers.pdf


16/59


Tis does not mean that one should completely dismiss traditional channels. On the

contrary, communications through usual channels such as web site/blogs, e-mail-

ing, and newsletters is usually very eective or institutional purposes, in terms

o building your reputation and generating awareness about your work. Constant

communication o relevant knowledge in a very cluttered space allows you to alwaysbe in the radar o the most important players. Tey might not pay attention to your

research today but they are aware o what you know that could become relevant or

useul when the need arises.

C. Lessons on capacity building

Background on our work

During the six years o implementation,we deployed very diverse capacity devel-

opment strategies with the main goal o

building the capacity o both researchers

and policymakers to improve their bond

and generate a more evidence-based policy

culture. Te idea was to combine dierent

methodologies in order to test which are

more promising and eective in terms o

SFE s available resources, the team s exper-

tise and what organisations and individu-als need and demand.

In that direction, between 2008 and 2013 we have developed or supported:

4 Regional Conerences (some in partnership with ODI, CIES, FARO and

I), three in Argentina and one in Peru

15 online courses (one Policy Series), with the participation o 200 policy re-

search institutes, civil society organisations and policy makers rom 40 coun-

tries around the world.

5 National Workshops (organized in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peruand Uruguay), with the participation o 58 members o think tanks

5 peer assistance among 9 think tanks o Latin America (rom Argentina,

Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela) and

one o Arica (Zimbabwe)

8 peer assistances provided by CIPPEC to think tanks in Argentina, Chile,

Costa Rica, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay

As already explained in the introduction, lessons in this section have been enriched

by discussions within the online Capacity Building group.

Capacity building refersto activities that improve anorganizations ability to achieveits mission or a persons abilityto dene and realize his/her

goals or to do his/her job moreeectively.

Deborah Linnell, Evaluation ofCapacity Building_ Lessons from

theeld2003AllianceforNonprot

Management


17/59


What we learned on establishing capacity building (hereaer, CB) objectives

For CB, we usually dened very specic objectives or each activity. Tough the

latter were implicitly linked to the general goals o the programme we did not applyan overall ramework or theory o change to capacity building. Instead, we aimed

at learning rom dierent types o interventions and using them as pilots to detect

where we could bring more value.

Tis approach to objectives is consistent with what others have ound in terms o

planning, monitoring and evaluation. Horton (2002) points out that most common

techniques involved in the planning and managing o development projects and

programs usually assume that objectives are well dened and that blueprints and

logical rameworks can be developed to properly guide the implementation, mon-

itoring, and evaluation processes. However, he argues, blueprint approaches rarelywork or capacity-development eorts.

He continues suggesting that Capacity-development eorts can benet rom a solid

initial diagnosis and proper planning. But the plans developed should be viewed

as works-in-progress rather than nished blueprints. Managers involved in capaci-

ty-development eorts need the exibility to be able to modiy planning targets and

implementation procedures as conditions change and lessons are learned (Mosse,

Farrington, and Rew 1998).

On another hand, capacity building or us was both a means and an end since it wasa way to achieve the larger goal o SFE: to support concrete links by creating spaces

o engagement with the participation o representatives o policy research institu-

tions (PRIs) that conduct or use investigations to inuence policy, policymakers, or

decision making processes. Tis purpose became the underlying theme and glue

among the diverse CB activities. In consequence, each CB activity was a concrete

space o engagement where knowledge was shared among experts and members o

PRIs. At the same time, each created space was an end in itsel since we had specic

objectives to achieve through its development. Furthermore, some o these spaces

were linked, i.e. several participants o regional conerences or online courses were

selected to conduct peer assistance activities.

Lesson 4For CB objectives to be of value, it is important to think about,discuss and agree on a set of key aspects: Is it a means or an end, or both?

Our identity and expertise Desired level of intervention Funding and sustainability Timeframe


18/59


Te selection o considering CB as a means or an end is not irrelevant at all. We

need to know and be clear about why we are doing this. As one participant o the

CB group stated, some organisations might approach it as an end to avoid being

prescriptive in terms o principles and just ocus on a transversal knowledge that

can be applied towards dierent means. Yet, in our eld, it is not very likely that aninstitution will want to operate with such a neutral position. Even worse, the risk

is that a CB leader is not even aware o its belies and position in many issues so as

to convey apparent neutrality and attract more demand.

Te end o the CB eorts is tightly linked to the identity and expertise o who oers

it. Tat is why it is crucial to have a clear view and assumptions on the intended and

unintended eects o the eort. In this case, CIPPEC is itsel a think tank that be-

lieves in the value o inorming policymaking with research and works to encourage

this in Argentina; also, we had already conducted research on bridging research and

policy, we had local experience on the interaction between civil society leaders andpolicymakers and organizational action-based experience on bridging research and

policy in a set o diverse policy areas. On another hand, GDNet has ample experience

in helping southern researchers communicate their work more eectively through its

series o research communications capacity building training events and its range o

learning materials. It also brought to the table a recognized trajectory in building and

sustaining regional partnerships, a key pillar or the success o the programme.

In this direction, a member o the CB group suggested that any organization (and

one may add any individual) interested in participating in processes o strengthen-

ing the link between research and policy, mainly through diverse capacity buildinginterventions must master the methodology o Public Policy Analysis, and must

provide processes o capacity building to its associates (both internal and external)

depending upon their nature and the nature o the problems to be tackled.

A second main aspect linked with how we established CB objectives was the level o

intervention. According to Mendizabal, Datta and Young (2011) CB levels are com-

monly divided into: 1) individual skills and abilities (Costello and Zumla, 2000);

2) institutional structures, processes, resources, management and governance

(Struyk, 2006); and 3) system-level approaches coherent policies, strategies and

eective coordination across sectors and among governmental, non-governmental

and international actors (Nuyens, 2005).

In our case, and due to the limited budget in the initial phase, we decided to mainly

ocus on individuals. We knew well that this would not directly lead to organiza-

tional change. Literature on CB is clear about this point: as Horton (2002) argues

It is oen assumed that developing individual capacities will automatically lead to

improved organizational capacity and perormance. Tis is not the case. For exam-

ple, there are many cases where individuals have developed skills in participatory

research, but very ew cases where participatory research has become institutional-

ized in the standard operating procedures o research or development organizations

(Blackburn and Holland 1998).


19/59


However, when selecting individuals we asked or institutional commitment and

support. Moreover, during the courses and workshops we permanently sought to

contribute as well to the organizational level, or example by asking participants o

online courses to develop certain practical exercises with other sta members thus

ostering institutional learning and engagement.

For us, dening the adequate level clearly depended on both our expertise and the

nancial resources we had to develop capacity. It is important to very well measure

the scope o the possible intervention and to compare this with the available re-

sources. For example, a think tank based in Per that needs to continuously seek or

undingin an environment where nancial support or Latin America is decreas-

ing might probably decide a dierent level or its CB strategy rom the Tink ank

Initiative who works in Arica, Asia and Latin America with secured long term

unding or Ausaid investing 100 million AU$ in developing the knowledge sector

in Indonesia.

In this sense, one participant o the CB group coincided in the importance o think-

ing about the role o unding in setting objectives. Although acknowledging that

core unding is usually scarce, she pointed out that still there are organisations work

in very dierent manners to tackle this challenge, or example by looking or alter-

native ways to develop CB even i there is no specic budget or this such as collabo-

rating with an existing university. On the contrary, lack o clarity o goals may make

it easier to jump to ad hoc and short term unding opportunities.

Related to this point it is worth emphasizing the importance osustainability; an-other member o the CB group expressed that the problem with CB (however de-

ned) is that we all recognise that it is important but no one has cracked the best

way o delivering it in ways that are systemic and sustainable.

Tis is related to the timerame used to establish goals: we can set up long term

goals or preer to have very short ones tied to specic activities. For example, work-

ing with universities to enhance both sides o research suppliers and users implies

a much longer intervention than i we want to conduct an initial workshop that

prompts the interest rom the university to take up a change in curricula.

Another relevant consideration is linked to purpose and principles: many players

in this eld explicitly indicate the intent or direction o their capacity building e-

orts. Tere are many who emphasize that capacity is or perormance (i.e. strength-

en nancial stability); others promote eciency, eectiveness, sustainability, etc. (i.e

PEPFAR considers CB as the ability o individuals and organisations or organiza-

tional units to perorm unctions eectively, efciently and sustainably). Hence, we

should think whether we just want to develop a specic capacity in itsel, i we want

to improve perormance based on that capacity and/or i we also want to change the

way things are done).


20/59


Finally, one should also regard how to deal with the participation o those whose

CB will be built in the denition o the objectives: there are several ways o engag-

ing participants in dening expected outcomes o a CB eort. INASP and IDS, or

example, in their Training Programme: Pedagogy Skills or Trainers o Policy Makers

asked participants on the rst day o the training to write down in post-it notes whatwere their own objectives. Tese were then matched to the acilitators objectives

and most o them coincided. Furthermore, two new objectives identied by partic-

ipants but not included in the acilitators` original objectives were added to the list.

Tis is especially relevant when CB is organized as a response to the demand o a

under/client. As a member o the CB group highlighted, the needs o dierent cli-

ents are not comparable, the CB needs o a university interested in developing Public

Policy Analysis capabilities are dierent rom those o a Parliamentary Committee

interested in perorming echnological Assessments prior to budgetary approval, as

well as there are not identical cultures in dierent environments.

Tis is a crucial point to analyze i we want to be successul: the role o the partici-

pants, which leads us to the next section.

What we learned on incentives and selection of participants

Reections in this section are centered in what some consider the center stage o

capacity building: participants (students, workshop attendants, mentees, etc.). As

stated in the section above, there are organisations that make them part o the estab-

lishment o goals, right rom the beginning. Te view o the role o the participantthroughout the entire initiative will clearly impact in how they are selected (in case,

o course, that a selection needs to be done, i.e. or limited availability o spots) and

the incentives that will enable active participation and engagement.

Troughout SFE, special relevance was put in detecting the right people to partic-

ipate in each activity: regional conerences, online courses, peer assistance, etc. In

most o the cases, we launched an open call and conducted a careully designed

selection process according to previously decided criteria. Open calls or a com-

petitive selection allowed us the opportunity to reach a wider group o potential

participants.

Lesson 5Criteria for selecting participants (or for deciding whether andhow to conduct training for a specic organization that hasrequired it) should be very well linked to its scope and nature,your general CB goals and your guiding purpose and principles
http://www.ukcds.org.uk/news-INASP___Pedagogy_skills_for_trainers_of_policy_makers-1010.htmlhttp://www.ukcds.org.uk/news-INASP___Pedagogy_skills_for_trainers_of_policy_makers-1010.html


21/59


As Julie Brittain rom INASP pointed out: Te importance o making selection

competitive is to start building commitment rom the very beginning, which helps

build engagement. Depending on the nature o the course, we oen ask or a senior

manager to sign o involvement o the participant in the course.

Naturally, the concrete methodology or running this type o selection processes

should vary according to the scope o the training. For instance, INASP had a proj-

ect run in Vietnam where the selection was a great deal more involved each appli-

cant was interviewed in person beore becoming involved in the programme which

aimed at building trainers in health inormation. Julie Bittain alerted that Tis was

quite an expensive way o doing things though, plus time-consuming, so is only

worth it i you are expecting long-term engagement.

Our lessons derive rom CB activities in which the programme covered the total oexpenses so some additional considerations should be made when thinking about

selection and incentives or participants who pay or the CB. Under SFE participa-

tion in conerences, courses and peer assistance exercises was ree; and ortunately

we always had more interested individuals in joining them than available spaces.

Tus, we applied a diverse set o criteria without a very ormal process (i.e. we did

not score applications according to these criteria nor had an external panel mak-

ing the decision). Also, reasons to select individuals have varied according to our

knowledge o the region (in the case o Latin America, we personally know many o

the applicants or at least their organisations but we did not know most o Aricans

and Asians candidates), the topic o the course, etc.

Selection is usually more related to the trainers expectations in terms o what

participants can achieve throughout the capacity building process.Possible criteria

or selection (that we have used) are:

Proessional experience and knowledge they could share with others, espe-

cially i we had had personal contact with candidates

Personal and organizational commitment ( or example, requiring a ormal

letter signed by the Executive Director so as to oster organizational buy-in, or

asking or a personal essay to unravel motivations). However, even though we

Lesson 6There are many dierent incentives that work to promoteactive engagement by participants; to select those that willbe eective in your specic CB endeavor you need to very wellunderstand the context of the activity and the main drivers forindividuals/organisations to participate


22/59


sought mechanisms to assess organizational commitment, letters rom Exec-

utive Directors have not proven very eective. Participants have le the course

even when there was an institutional endorsement to it and or no reasonable

grounds sometimes. A better mechanism shared by one member o the CB

group is to work with senior participants at the beginning o a project lie toachieve more buy in, strategy development and awareness building and then

move to individuals or more junior members as time goes on.

Diversity: especially in terms o genre, region/country/subnational/local, type

o experience (communicator, policy maker, researcher, M&E expert, etc.) and

type o organization (CSO, university, think tank,, etc.) due to the richness

this gives to the exchanges among participants (including acilitators). Di-

erent experiences, emerging rom diverse contexts usually make participants

think about other possibilities o doing what they are used to do. Diversity

also entails more interesting and balanced debates and a more ample knowl-

edge exchange. Seniority and/or level o understandingo the topic to ensure similar quality

levels. In this sense, one decision that has proven to be eective is involving two

or three senior proles, who can encourage discussions and exchanges, and also

start the game by being more extroverts and animating the others to partici-

pate with questions or controversial comments that trigger reections.

Potential or uture work, we were interested in individuals and institutions

with which we shared goals, interests, etc.

Potential or organizational spill-o, or example i the CB is aligned with

pre-existing projects o participants so as to strengthen application o knowl-

edge and sustainability. In this sense, timing has proven a very eective in-dicator o how a participant will engage throughout a course: when he/she is

dealing with questions, challenges, needs that are directly related to the topics

o the course, participation is higher and more ocused, practical exercises are

conducted thoroughly and are very down to earth and they usually directly

apply some o the contents to their current work.

Another possible criterion that was not applied in SFE is to assess the willingness to

contribute in some way to the course, especially bypayingat least part o it. In this

direction, in his blog Goran Buldiosky has argued that donors should charge a par-

ticipation ee almost as a rule! Te ee could be a percentage o the total cost (10% or

more o the total costs to beneciaries). () Deciding to invest in the capacity build-

ing rom the scarce unds think tanks [or similar organisations/individuals] possess

Lesson 7

CB works better if participants directly demand it and arewilling to commit some type of resources to it (funds, time,sharing materials, producing case studies, etc.)
http://goranspolicy.com/capacity-building-for-think-tanks/http://goranspolicy.com/capacity-building-for-think-tanks/


23/59


means they will not approach the possibilities as getting a ree lunch. Instead, it is

more likely that they will think through and decide i they really need it. Tis is a

very eective way to avoid that the sole incentive to participate in a CB activity is to

make a donor happy.

Even when some individuals/organisations

may experience diculties in contributing

nancially or the CB, there are other inno-

vative ways to ensure their willingness to

invest resources, or example, by requiring

those who have not paid to produce a case

study or video, or other training material

with examples or uture CB activities.

On another hand, while selecting the rightmix o persons is a very important actor to

enable a ruitul exchange o knowledge, we

are also convinced about the power o in-

centives, not only in terms o attracting a promising group o participants but also to

keep them engaged and satised with what we can oer. Possible incentives include:

Links to reckoned practitioners/researchers, and/or to well-known organisa-

tions both in terms o trainers/speakers and other participants

Identiy potential partners in their region or other developing countries

Participate in upcoming and related courses Development o concrete products (i.e a policy inuence plan) that they can

do with or share with other members o the organization

Qualied acilitators and ocused ollow up (i.e. by giving them personal eed-

back on the mandatory exercises)

Access to relevant and high quality practical tools and literature

Funding implementation by providing nancial support to conduct a specic

change related to what they have learned in

their organisations.

Internships as a ollow up to the training in an

institution with high reputation Empowerment due to the seniority/authority

o the capacity building event

Support or a peer exchange/assistance by a

colleague/peer organisation

Funding to share what they have learned in

diverse ormats (blogging, creating a work-

shop, etc.)

Doing a concrete project with the coaching

o senior experts rom dierent parts o the

world

Tips provided by AusAid forcapacity building:Gettoknowthelocal

context both the internaland external environment.

Putyourselfinyourcounterparts shoes.

Bepreparedtotakerisks.

AusAIDs Capacity Building Lessons Learned

Sometimes I found myselfbeing able to apply the

theoretical frameworks andconceptual support to mypractice and my daily thoughtsand opinions. I was also ableto perform my daily taskswith new conceptual tools,broadening the way I thoughtabout a concrete situations orchallenge.

(AnalaCrosta,NationalCouncilforthe

CoordinationofSocialPolicies,Argentina)


24/59


Fulll a requirement made by the donor (this happens too requently and as

stated above and argued by Buldiosky, it is advised to avoid this type o sin-

gle-purposed participation)

Te list is extensive and there are probably other incentives related to diverse types

o CBs and proles o participants. In act, Hans Gutbord, rom the CB group em-

phasized that establishing mechanisms or selection and incentives is very contex-

tual: I oen approached these things, initially, thinking that it would be useul to

apply an overarching principle, and then ound that I tinkered with the design, be-

cause dierent aspects needed to come together, and because you oen had dierent

degrees o reach into a commu-

nity that you wanted to connect

with.

Indeed, one eective way o

ne-tuning incentives is to un-

derstand the motives and drivers

or participation. As Luis Or-

doez rom the CB group clear-

ly explained: It is very dierent

when you were asked to partic-

ipate by your superior at the government oce than i you are interested because

you have to write a paper on the topic at your university! Tereore, the selection

must include some previous thinking about what kind o involvement aer the CByou expect. I have taught courses in collaboration, with very good participants and

excellent projects being produced that came ended right exactly aer the course

because the motivation o the participants was mainly to get credits or graduates

courses.

What we learned on approaches and methodologiesOur particular approach

Our overall approach to CB has allowed us to continuously learn and enrich each

CB activity. Briey, it can be described as ollows:

To think about: the power of incentives

However capable the public or privateinstitution, the success of any projectdepends almost completely on themotivation, capabilities and capacities oftheindividualstaworkingintheprojects.

Lesson 8It is worth investing time in designing an integrated approachto CB which reects your main principles in terms of proleof teachers, methodologies, type and origins of trainingmaterials, and how to build a relationship with those whobenet from the CB


25/59


It prioritizes motivated trainers rom developing countries who have worked

in the eld o bridging research and policy and understand the practical chal-

lenges this implies in regions such as Latin America and Arica.

Te value this decision brought to the programme is consistent with what Dattaand others (2012) have ound as lessons learned on capacitu building projects in this

area: Large-scale capacity development work tends to be overseen by Northern/

oreign-based experts. While they may have excellent technical skills, they may, or

instance, lack an in-depth understanding o the local context and may subsequently

not be able to stimulate proessional rigour and innovation among actors within the

client organisation. Capacity development work could be improved considerably by

working closely with local providers. I they lack expertise on content, they could

have their knowledge and skills on this improved. Tere are several advantages in

deploying local capacity developers either on their own or in collaboration with

international/Northern organisations.

For instance, they may understand the local context and cultural sensitivities; speak

the local languages; know the proessional, ormal and inormal networks; enjoy le-

gitimacy and recognition among peers; have knowledge o national institutions; be

amiliar with the work environment and able to command lower costs; and nally

have a better rapport with national decision-makers who preer to see their com-

patriots employed in-country rather than losing people to better-paid jobs abroad

(Acquaye-Baddoo, 2010).

It implies a mix o diverse CB activities that nurture each other: acilitating on-line courses, coordinating regional events with dierent types o workshops,

producing our own CB materials, providing technical assistance post-activity

to select participants, etc.

It combines global views and debates with regional and local experiences

It promotes the participation o a very diverse group o individuals and or-

ganisations (in terms o geography, proessional background and job position,

expertise and specialization, etc.) to ensure an integral understanding o the

link between research and policy in the region

It balances theory and practice, which has been very well received by partici-

pants, and is based on a strong know how rom CIPPEC

Lesson 9Opening up the eld of work to a large and diverse universeof individuals and organisations enables the co-productionof knowledge that is relevant and useful, fosters a deepunderstanding of the complexity of applying knowledge on theeld and enlarges the scale and scope of your CB eorts


26/59


It translates high quality knowledge (mostly academic) produced in devel-

oped countries such as UK and USA into practical materials that respond to

the needs and realities o local contexts in developing countries

It continuously builds on what we learned through research production and

communication, using this as platorms to re-ormat knowledge so as to eec-tively share it in a workshop or course

It stresses the importance o personal relationships, providing one to one

mentoring or practical exercises, promoting peer reviews, etc.

It emphasizes the value o horizontal learning by constantly deploying mech-

anisms and methodologies that enable sharing o experiences, peer review o

exercises, giving space to active trainees so that they can play a leading role in

certain moments, etc.

Based on participants written evaluations, this approach partially explains

the general high degree o overall satisaction with our conerences, work-

shops and courses. However, this has worked or SFE due to CIPPECs andGDNets previous expertise and the available resources or the programme. It

is certainly not a ormula or every CB activity.

Even knowing that the overall approach has worked we still have some questions

about the most eective ways to develop capacity in a sustainable manner. As one

member o the CB group remarked, we need to talk about ways plural as I believe

there is no single approach that works across the board o understanding capacity

needs and delivering that capacity so that it sticks.

Methodologies: the potential of online training

While sustainability and better measuring our impact are still a challenge (we will

come back to the latter in the section on Monitoring, evaluating and Learning, page

35), when thinking about methodologies to maintain and enhance in the near u-

ture, online training comes immediately to our minds. So ar, through 15 courses

we have been able to train more than 200 researchers and policy makers rom 40

countries, including Latin America, Asia and Arica. Advantages o this methodol-

ogy are many:

Lesson 10Online courses have enabled us to eciently reach a widerand more diverse audience, ensure longer processes to shareknowledge in a more horizontal and collaborative way, usedebates and exercises as a strategy to continuously adapt andupdate training materials with developing countries examples,

and detect emerging trends and themes for the future.


27/59


28/59


the permanent assistance and en-

gagement o tutors, who provide

written eedback to practical ex-

ercises, respond to questions in

orums, etc.

6) Detection o emerging trends

and themes on which CB is most-

ly required by direct interaction

with participants and written

evaluations to assess interest in

uture similar activities.

7) Participants can accommodate participation according to their own agendas

since modules are sent at the beginning o the week, they can read, participate inorums and do exercises when easible or them. Tis is important i we think about

how dicult is to nd time to invest in this type o activities

8) Continuous and personal assistance by tutors has helped trainees better under-

stand topics as well as how to eect changes in their daily work.

Another act that has been constantly remarked by participants in written evalua-

tions is the practical useulness o the tools that are presented in modules and the

appropriate equilibrium between theory and concepts and tools that could be used

to work in the eld. Most o the trainees expressed that they had shared contents andexercises o the course with their teams and their organisations (a suggestion made

by tutors who insist on the benets o doing so), while some o them made presen-

tations within their institutions to share knowledge and raise awareness about the

importance o advocacy.

However, even though satisaction rates have been high (average 90%), we cannot

ensure that these courses have eectively built lasting capacity in individuals and

their organisations. We will return to this point in the Monitoring, evaluating and

learning section, page 35. One o the ways we think we could improve sustainability

o capacity development is to select a group o the most committed and promis-

ing participants to: 1) provide them with technical assistance/mentoring to develop

A course with clear pedagogic elements,tutors with broad vision, always willing to

make contributions in a timely manner. Thetutor demonstrated clear answers for each

particular case: the individual responsesto each participant demonstrates not onlyresponsibility, but a real concern in terms ofenabling learning for all

(Mara Elena Quilodrn Haase, Secretariat of SocialDevelopment, Honduras)

Lesson 11Longer CB processes provide with more opportunity to assesshow capacities and skills are built; capacity developed through

online courses could be strengthened by continuing to engagewith trainees in some specic and practical way


29/59


some specic change/s related to what has been learned aer the course has ended,

and/or 2) provide them with co-unding (some unds should come rom the indi-

vidual/organization to promote buy in and sustainability) to develop this change.

Another aspect to urther consider is whether this methodology would be strength-ened icombining distance learning and ace to ace interactions, a point raised

by some members o the CB group. Actually, one o them shared that some uni-

versities who have been oering online courses or nearly a decade have opted to

have one or more residential sessions lasting a week or two or their more substan-

tial courses lasting a year. In these sessions all the students come together with a

tutor or intensive sessions. Tese are usually held on university campuses during

vacations when there are halls o residence and other acilities available. Based on

this experience, he continues to reect: My own conjecture (not based on any real

evidence, I admit) is that online learning needs to be supplemented by ace to ace

encounters, and projects that orce the students to apply what they have learned intheir real job.

For more detailed lessons on Online courses, please reer to Annex 4, page 56.

Kennedy Odhiambo Oulu, formerProgramme Quality and Learning Managerat Restless Development (Tanzania) tookpart of two courses on policy inuenceplanning and M&E. He was able to massivelyinvolve the organisation in M&E activities,

not only the sta but also the managementcommittee. They have managed to reviewtheir current practice for reporting onadvocacy and policy, where responsiblesta now submits a narrative of theirpolicy inuencing actions for monitoringand learning. He believes that the coursehelped to change the organisations overallattitude towards M&E and knowledgemanagement in respect of advocacy and

policy inuencing.

Elsa rsula from UNICEF Peruwas one of the participantsof the three-courses seriesImproving policy inuencein Latin America. Beyondengaging her team in theexercises to be conductedafter each module, they jointlydeveloped documents withinput from the training, thatwere then presented to otherUnited Nations agencies andthe European Unions

Banessa Echeverra from Analistas Inpedendientes (Guatemala) recognized thatafter being part of the series Improving policy inuence in Latin America, theorganisation started to make a better use of social networks for communicatingtheir studies and activities.


30/59


Methods: Face to face interaction through regional Conferences

Connected with the point above,

our programme departed rom a

deep conviction about the valueo creating opportunities or ace

to ace interaction, especially in

terms o building a regional com-

munity o practice to share knowl-

edge on research and policy.

In consequence, we organized

(sometimes together with other

Latin American policy research

institutions such as FARO romEcuador and CIES rom Peru and

also with the support o ODI) our regional Conerences with the participation o an

average o een members o leading policy research institutions (mostly executive

Directors), academics, and experts o specic topics. We also provided support or

producers o case studies under the research line and participants o an M&E con-

erence to organize national workshops to share knowledge.

Conerences usually eectively combined instances o horizontal knowledge sharing

and discussion with workshops provided by experts to strengthen BRP capacity on

key elds such as strategic planning, media relationships and links with policymakers.

Te dilemmas, challenges and tensions that emerged throughout conerences shed

light into the broad eld o uture work that could be addressed by the programme.

Tey also enabled us to better dene the ocus o eorts since the challenges implied

The workshop in Buenos Aires wasvery useful and I would like to highlight

the job done in the months before theworkshop (diagnosis of the M&E in ourown organization) which allowed thesystematization of the experiences wealready had. The workshop itself was a very

good opportunity to get in touch with otherorganizations of Latin America which havesimilar interests

(Luis Carrizo, CLAEH, Uruguay)

Lesson 12Face to face CB activities are ideal spaces for organizers to:

Detect potential partners with some level of interest andcommitment to the eld

Identify topics and materials for future CB activities Assess the degree of available but non-systematized

knowledge within the policy research organisations thatcould be seized for CB

Detect future trainees with high potential of applying whathas been learned

Improve knowledge produced by presenting it for discussionbefore nal dissemination

Make strategic decisions on how to invest the resources ofthe programme
http://www.grupofaro.org/http://www.cies.org.pe/http://www.cies.org.pe/http://www.grupofaro.org/


31/59


in the improvement o the use o evidence in public policy in the region were too

large and complex compared with the resources available to deal with them.

Conerences were successul

in terms o high level o atten-dance and quality o partic-

ipation, as well as to identiy

participants that were more

interested in engaging in uture

actions.

In act, they allowed us to

sharpen identication o par-

ticipants and training contents

and materials or post CB activ-ities. Personal relationships en-

abled in this type o events are

a key strategy to assess demand or CB as well as sources or developing concrete

examples and case studies as training materials.

However, they were not an eective mech-

anism to create an ongoing and engaged

community even though in some cases wehad secured commitment rom them to

share what had been learned with peer or-

ganisations or to produce a specic prod-

uct. Several ullled or partially ullled the

commitment but did not continue to engage

in the topics aer that. Main reason or this

was the lack o resources on their behal to

sustain engagement and allocate time to

systematizing and sharing knowledge.

An example: Regional Workshop Use

of knowledge for a better public policy

infuence (Lima 2011)

The workshop highlighted a critical mass ofexperience and evidence that has identieda Latin American technology on the thinktank role during electoral processes withexamples from Argentina, Colombia andPeru that could be exported within a South South cooperation scheme.

Werner Hernani Limarino,Executive Director of Fundacin

ARU (Bolivia) took part of anonline course on M&E of policyinuence in 2010. One year later,and largely due to knowledgeshared in the training, hepresented ARUs M&E eorts inan M&E session at the RegionalWorkshop Use of knowledgefor a better public policyinuence (Lima 2011)

Lesson 13The eects of relationships and networking forged throughface to face events are very dicult to track. It is very unlikely

that participants will continue engaged after the event as acommunity even when they have expressed commitment orinterest on continuing to work together. It is more probablethat specic bilateral exchanges take place after this type ofCB activities based on very concrete needs and motivations ofparticipants.


32/59


Methodologies: Seed support and peer assistance by CIPPEC

As part o the third regional Conerence centered in how to monitor and evalu-

ate policy inuence and, to complement our long-term commitment, we provided

participants with unds to hold national seminars to share what they had learnt onM&E with similar organisations.

In consequence ve workshops were organized in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay,

Uruguay and Peru.

We also oered technical assistance by CIPPEC to develop an M&E plan. Based

on the diverse capacities o participant organisations regarding M&E, o those or-

ganisations that originally committed to developing an M&E plan, more than hal

produced them and positively received and processed our eedback, thus benetingrom our guidance.

However, we learnt that although several organisations perceived this process as

the beginning o an eective and long term partnership, the lack o specic resourc-

es or M&E aects the organizational capacity to make real and short term changes.

Moreover, this eort was not integrated into the organisations original annual

plans so a lesson learned is to either invite them to join such processes with enough

anticipation, or allow more time or them to nd the time and resources to imple-

ment changes.

Methodologies: Peer assistance by other PRIs

In 2011 and as a response to the demand rom participants on acilitating more

horizontal exchange o knowledge, SFE supported peer assistance between skilled

regional PRIs centered on crucial issues related to research and policy such as strate-

gic planning, strategic communications, undraising, etc. We considered this meth-

odology o CB as an interesting mechanism to promote South-South learning since

besides supporting a specic exchange between two institutions, peers assisted sys-

tematized what they learned to share with peer organisations.

Lesson 14Providing support to conduct activities after the mainCB intervention so as to sustain engagement and fosterimplementation is a dicult challenge. Usually, onlyparticipants with a higher previous commitment or interestin the topic will continue engaging and mostly only as long

as the support is provided and does not imply too much timecommitment, if the eort was not originally planned.


33/59


Te experience was very ruitul. First o

all, although we had originally planned to

support 2 experiences due to the generos-

ity and engagement with the development

o capacities in the region by 4 PRIs

7

whodecided to receive a visitor organization

without being paid or it (Foco rom Ar-

gentina, CINEP rom Colombia, Grupo

Faro rom Ecuador and CIPPEC rom Ar-

gentina) we were able to support 5 experi-

ences in Latin America.

All o the assisted PRIs sent a report o the experience and some o the main conclu-

sions are as ollows:

Peer assistance is useul not onlyto learn about successul strategies

but also to avoid some mistakes

that a peer has already made.

Tese experiences contribute to

making better decisions regarding

strategies or institutional changes

to implement in order to strength-

en policy inuence.

Peer assistance is also a great op-

portunity or the host organization to learn rom his/her own organizationexperience. It also provides an opportunity to raise awareness o its own

strengths and to better promote its work among PRIS o the region

It is a great opportunity to develop stronger links between organisations and

build uture connections.

Defning content: topics and skills

Identiying the skills to be developed and craing the adequate content or that pur-

pose are two signicant challenges to develop an eective CB eort.

7 For a list o participating organisations, please see Annex 5, page 59.

Lesson 15Deciding focus of content and skills starting with anassessment of real needs and interests of potential CBparticipants is a very eective way to ensure activeparticipation and increase possibilities of eective application

Besides learning aboutmonitoring tools andsystematization of informationand communication strategies,

working together was a greatopportunity to develop closer linksbetween both organisations andthink about future joint actions

(Rosibel Kreinmann, Nitlapan, Nicaragua)

Learning from good practicesand mistakes of an organization

with larger expertise has beenvery helpful to reinforce or rethinkstrategies to implement in mywork area and my organization

(Liseth Estvez, Grupo FARO, Ecuador)


34/59


As stated above, under SFE ace to ace interactions were used as a strategy to ur-

ther assess demand both in terms o general topics o interest (such as policy in-

uence, how to monitor and evaluate it, communications, etc.) and which skills to

develop or strengthen. Tis was done based on the conviction that we needed to

choose topics and skills that were relevant to those whom we wanted to engage inCB activities and that were promising in terms o the value the can bring to uture

actions and interactions around the link between research and policy.

We began by seizing networking opportunities such as regional conerences with

members o think tanks rom Latin America to ask others about the topics they

were interested in this eld. We simply asked them to list them and prioritize them.

Notwithstanding, as many

who work in the CB eld alert,

asking others to identiy theirneeds has shortcomes. Alex

Ademokun, rom the CB group,

shared how INASP deals with

this challenge: Te problem

with asking people to identiy

their own skills gaps is that as

individuals we are not always

aware o skills we are lacking.

Tis may also apply to organisa-

tional capacity.

At INASP when we work with

organisations we work together

to dene what these needs are.

When working with individ-

uals we try to get participants

to produce some output relat-

ed to the skills that we are try-

ing to develop (or instance i it

is a training session on policybrie writing we look at previ-

ous output rom the individual

or team). Tis may orm part o

the selection process to ensure

the activity meets the needs o

participants and sometimes it is

a step between selection and the actual activity. It gives us something extra to work

with beyond just sel-reporting and helps to tackle the issues o over or underesti-

mating ability which occurs with sel-reporting.

An interesting approach: DECI-2 project

At the DECI-2 project we provide capacity toresearchers in both evaluation and researchcommunication. The pillar of the approach is afocus on utilization. As simple as this sounds,the contribution is profound. DECI mentors areseasoned practitioners in the evaluation andcommunication elds, yet we have been learningour way into utilization-focused evaluation(UFE) and research communication (ResCom) byworking with the partners. This means that we

coach as co-learners, not as experts. We mentorat the pace and schedule that the partnersestablish, so that the learning happens whenthey are ready (hungry) for it. We have foundthis more eective than the workshop format.During DECI-1 we witnessed how partners gainedownership over their evaluations; this felt like aturning point. UFE places a lot of attention on thenotion of readiness; this ensures that we clarifyexpectations from the start and that they take

on the learning journey with open eyes.

SharedbyRicardoRamrez,memberoftheCBgroupand

freelance consultant and researcher based in Canada

(http://evaluationandcommunicationinpractice.ca)/


35/59


In our case, as a consequence o several consultations, we decided to ocus on pol-

icy inuence planning, monitoring and evaluating policy inuence and research

communications. Tis decision was based mainly on what potential trainees had re-

vealed but also in our sel-assessment on our capacity to generate and share valuable

knowledge on these topics (in the case o M&E o policy inuence we thought therewas a need to adapt existing papers and handbooks to Latin American contexts).

apping into what we know best or are best at has usually worked as a very eective

strategy to decide what we can oer. Finally, we also tried to provide an integral ap-

proach that linked the dierent courses, thus the topics selected allowed us to also

oer participation in the whole serie o courses, which could in the uture become a

longer integrated program on policy inuence.

Furthermore, some other potential mechanisms to select topics/skills or CB and

that were used partially in our decision making process are:

What donors are talking about/concerned about

What donors are currently unding

Delving deeply into current general concerns and challenges o those we will

participate in CB

Looking at what those we admire or respect are currently doing in terms o CB

Filling in gaps (i.e. what almost no one is oering, or where local

Documents

Lessons Learned on promoting better links between research and policy in Latin America