In London this week, DFID is supporting the 6th world conference of science journalists.

The opening plenary looked at the opportunities and challenges of the ‘new’ media.

Krishna Bharat (Google News), Jeff Nesbit (US National Science Foundation) and Ben Hammersley (Wired Magazine) triggered a stimulating debate that covered, among other things, the differences between science journalism and science communication.

As well as the WCSJ news site, a good place to follow the discussions is on Twitter – http://twitter.com/#search?q=wcsj

See also:

Nature magazine special on science journalism

Survival of the fittest science journalists

blog post by Angela Saini

DFID research strategy View outputs of DFID-funded research

A recent trend in development research programmes is to devote more resources to communication in the hope that results and evidence will reach audiences who can use this for innovation and impact.

In a recent edition of the LINK News Bulletin (PDF), Andy Hall cautions that there is no substitute for better linking of research to innovation in the first place.

Drawing on examples from DFID-supported healthcare projects in Nepal, he concludes: “If you want research to have an impact it has to be embedded in the development contexts in which it to be used. The emerging policy content of development research makes this doubly important. It seems that both bilateral and multilateral donors are uniquely placed to help embed research in their development assistance programme and act as champions of change to better leverage research results.”

More on the LINK initiative

DFID research strategy View outputs of DFID-funded research

Scientific staff of CIAT met this week in Colombia in their annual ‘knowledge sharing week.’

Arguing that science needs impact, Louse Sperling led a discussion on what CIAT calls ‘Reaching End Users’ or REU. The main emphasis of such work is to devise innovative and effective ways to get CIAT research out, and into use. A key strategy is to form the right partnerships and collaborative relationships so that all their knowledge can be mobilized.

“Choosing which partners to join right from the beginning of a project is one of the most critical decisions in REU” – Louise Sperling

CIAT has been following such approaches in Eastern and Southern Africa, catalyzing collaboration among public and private institutions so they together achieve impact on the ground – and in the pockets of farmers!

CIAT’s Jean Claude Rubyogo explains how multiple actors in research in Africa work together in a ‘value chain approach’ to achieve improved uptake of bean varieties:

See his video on Improving research uptake through collaboration with the private sector.

DFID provides core funding to the CGIAR

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

In April 2008, DFID launched a new Research Strategy. The strategy pledged to increase spending to £1bn over five years across six thematic areas: Growth, Governance in Fragile States, Health, Agriculture, Climate Change and Forward-looking research.

An ‘implementation timetable‘ has been developed to give external stakeholders information about the likely content and timing of future research competitions and calls for proposals.

The timetable addresses new research initiatives developed in line with the strategy; so does not capture details of DFID’s on-going research programmes, where contracts or memoranda of understanding are already in place. Details of these on-going programmes are available at www.dfid.gov.uk and at DFID’s research portal www.Research4Development.info.

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

One year ago today, DFID launched its first Research Strategy. The strategy pledged to increase spending to £1bn over five years across six thematic areas: Growth, Governance in Fragile States, Health, Agriculture, Climate Change and Forward-looking research. It committed to restructure its Research and Policy teams around these themes to ensure that research and policy inform each other. And it placed greater emphasis on communicating research evidence and getting research into use.

One year after the release of the new research strategy, DFID research advisers update us on the work they are doing in the areas of health, governance, climate adaptation and agriculture. They provide insights into how research is being fed into policy, and into the new structures within DFID that are supporting this process.

For Jonathan Wadsworth, Senior Agriculture Advisor, one important element of the strategy is it’s focus on supporting capacity building in agricultural research, especially in Africa, where national capacities have “really eroded or stood still.”

He also underlined how the research strategy aims to forge better linkages between DFID research and policy, so they work more together. However, a number of challenges are on the table, such as the time horizons on which different teams work, with the policy team working in a much shorter time frame compared to the research team. He argues that it is possible to bridge this ‘time scale gap’: A concrete example is the food price crisis, where DFID brought together a single ‘food group’ comprising policy and research teams working on agriculture and natural resources. 

Malcolm McNeil, Senior Health Advisor, described the benefits of the research strategy for policy making and how research messages can be tailored to reach policy audiences.

See more on DFID Research Strategy: One Year On

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

Izabella Koziell, DFID advisor for climate adaptation research, reviews some of the lessons learnt from the research and capacity development program Climate Change Adaptation in Africa – CCAA – which DFID manages together with IDRC in Canada.

There are some interesting conclusions to draw from this programme. Climate change is a relatively new issue at the institutional level in Africa : the impact of climate change remains largely unknown for Africa as a whole. This means that doing research at a country level and determining the links with national planners, agriculturalists and environmentalists is rather difficult.

One of the projects in central Tanzania demonstrates that innovation is driven by adapting to climate variability. The participatory action research carried out by researchers is coming up with creative solutions. In the face of negative messages around climate change, this is a positive programme that produces innovative solutions. Farmers, faced with weather patterns too dry to grow their usual crop, maize, are switching to grow sunflowers and even grapes as a solution.

Ms. Koziell also talks about some of the challenges that the programme has faced in reaching policy makers and some of the approaches that have been taken to ensure policymaking is more informed by the results of research. Communication is also a key element to ensure that adaptation to climate change is possible, the use of rural radio is one example within the CCAA program.

See more on DFID Research Strategy: One Year On

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

DFID’s Research Strategy promised to spend up to 30% of its overall £1bn funding in ‘making research available, accessible and useable through a range of means’. This week sees the launch of R4D’s revamped Communications Corner. Its purpose? To provide practical support and guidance to anyone wanting their research to be communicated effectively.

A weekly CommsCorner Blog aims to inspire with examples of innovative communications, both from within the DFID research community and from further afield. A companion blog R4D Podium Posts invites DFID researchers to share communications approaches, tactics, successes and challenges with other researchers. Take a look!

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

A recent post on this blog introduced the importance of ‘knowledge translation‘ that helps get research into use.

A new ‘knowledge translation toolkit‘ from IDRC and SDC gives concrete guidance to researchers how they can link their research with action.

With a focus on health, contents include:

Chapter 1 - Knowledge Translation: An Introduction

Chapter 2 - Bringing in the Demand: Towards the Harmony of Push and Pull – demystifies the “demand side” of research, how decisions are made, what we mean by “evidence”, strategies for promoting linkage and exchange, as well as knowledge brokering.

Chapter 3 - Knowledge Management – a starter’s kit to KM, examining the people, processes and technology that can maximize the utility and impact of both tacit and explicit knowledge.

Chapter 4 - Context Mapping

Chapter 5 - Evaluative Thinking

Chapter 6 - Designing a Communications Strategy – ten Essential Elements that any strategy must answer to get a better picture of where we are, what we have to say to the world, and how we intend to say that.

Chapter 7 - Communicating Research: Print Media – discusses peer-reviewed articles, newspaper articles, press releases, policy briefs, and newsletters.

Chapter 8 - The Two-Pager: Writing a Policy Brief

Chapter 9 - Systematic Reviews

Chapter 10 - Open Access – outlines the logic, the history, the various “routes” to OA, and how researchers can both access and contribute to it.

Chapter 11 - The Conference 2.0: Better Presentations, Better Conferences – discusses oral presentations, poster presentations, and conference presentations.

Chapter 12 - Tapping Technology: Integrating Technologies – focuses on the three major applications that we all use every day – email, the internet, and word processing.

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

As part of the activities before the Global Development Network meeting on “Natural Resources and Development” a series of workshops were held discussing the issue of bridging research and policy. The workshops heard from a number of organizations active in this area and of proposed initiatives to build capacities.

Some of the lessons learnt from the session were summarized by Stephen Yeo of the Centre for Economic Policy Research, London and raised in subsequent comments.

These can be presented as much as questions rather than answers.
• How much bridging should you do as a researcher?
• Supply and demand, at which end of the bridge should we start?
• When supporting researchers and thinktanks in bridging research and policy, should the interventions focus on individuals or institutions?
• Are thinktanks really sustainable? are there any real business models for thinktanks.
• What about the other actors in the policy process?

On the first question, there appeared to be quite polarized answers with some arguing that researchers should be more involved in policy making through close and continuous engagement with the policy process and others stating that with a sound communications and dissemination strategy the researcher could rely on the media to ensure good research made its way to the policy makers.

Most presentations of initiatives focused on the researchers rather than the policy makers, with the exception of the work presented by CIPPEC. the
Center for the Implementation of Public Policies Promoting Equity and Growth and RAPID, Overseas Development Institute in the UK. Smita Singh of the William and Flora Hewitt foundation stressed that the issue of whether the problem was addressed from supply or demand was not so clear.

Demand may be created by presenting materials in the right form to policy makers. In effect there may be a need for research where there is no initial demand from policy makers.

There was a continuing debate on the question of whether individuals or institutions should be members of any network attempting to bridge researchers and policy. A network of individuals was perhaps easier to maintain as institutes would be more likely to change their interest in specific issues.The danger with this approach was that if the link was only individuals you would miss public policy. It is perhaps better to target individuals within institutions and in particular to target bridging champions.

If the current thinking on bridging research and policy revolved around thinktanks, how could such bodies be sustainable. There were questions over how a sound business model for such organizations could be developed and still ensure their independence. It was suggested that with them relying heavily on projects and funding from donors, and with income from publications failing, their only options were to rely on philanthropic institutions. Whilst some raised the idea of independent income from endowments and assets such as buildings, others were skeptical.

Mark Suzman of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation stressed that other actors in the policy process, particularly civil society, become new clients for thinktanks. John Young from the Overseas Development Institute mentioned how the UK Department for International Development (DFID) supported “coalitions for change” that link different actors from government, civil society and the private sector to develop policy in Nigeria.(coalitions4change.org)

A final word was said on how this forum could be improved in the future. Several participants stressed the need to involve more policy makers, (perhaps from the host country of the next meeting) and to mix researchers and policy makers. In particular it would be invaluable to hear more from the benefiting organisations of some of the projects discussed.

This workshop was held in Kuwait at the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development on the 1st February 2009 before the Global Development Network Conference “Natural Resources and Development”. The Global Development Network emphasises the role it plays in bridging research and policy in the president’s video address.

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

In Maputo on 30 November, ILAC, the Research Into Use Programme (RIU), and RMIT University organized a meeting on impact evaluation for institutional learning and change. The focus was on impact evaluation approaches for collaborative R&D in a ‘new’ CGIAR, developing activities in this area.

The starting point was that scientists cannot afford to work alone with their own knowledge, they need to effectively connect and partner with ‘end-users’ of all kinds.

Sheelagh O’Reilly, Senior Operations Manager at RIU, presented a typology of forms of collaboration, including ‘conventional’ research – where scientists ‘decide’ without organized participation by end users; ‘consultative’ research, in which scientists decide, but with organized communication with end users; ‘collaborative’ research where decision making is shared between end users and scientists; through to ‘end user experimentation’ in which the farmers decide without organized involvement of scientists.

She also summarized arguments in favour of engaging the end users (farmers, policy-makers, etc): This increases researchers’ understanding of local issues; it increases uptake and appropriate adaptation of research outputs; it incorporates local knowledge; it facilitates ‘co-production of knowledge; and it develops end-user capacities to build and use knowledge.

She particularly elaborated on the challenges in knowledge adaptation, noting that researchers are sometimes reluctant to ‘let go’ of their outputs for others to adapt and re-use.

Sheelagh on the challenges of letting go:

Patricia Rogers, Professor in Public Sector Evaluation at RMIT University introduced an approach from health research called ‘translational research’ and elaborated on its potential for agriculture. This approach can be seen as a way to bridge the “valley of death” between scientists and consumers/users – helping get research into use. It can also be seen as more of a cycle in which scientists and users interact with one another and where there is learning all along the cycle.

Patricia explains what translational research is:

By Peter Ballantyne

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

This was the question at the workshop “Assessing and evaluating communication activities: Tools for improving communication of research and knowledge for development addressed“, organised by the Danish Development Research Network (DDR), the Danish Water Forum (DWF) and the Danish Research Network for International Health (ENRECAHEALTH).

The presentations covered two areas, one stressing the recognition by Development ministries of the importance of research communication and their approach to evaluating the outcomes; the other focusing on approaches and tools and how these work in practice.

Darriann Riber of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark stressed that research communication needs to have clear objectives and, as a result, involve the relevant people in the research and the appropriate channels to reach out to the target audience. Packaging of the product is a key element of this but for assessing the impact of products you will need a baseline. Communication has to be planned from the beginning. The question is if communication shouldn’t happen throughout the research. For 2009 the Danish development research budget adds up to 10% for communication. The current focus is on effective utilization of results. Project descriptions need to have a strategy for dissemination, communication and application of research findings.

Megan Lloyd Laney of DFID explained how 30% of its research budget is dedicated to communication. The research strategy focuses on the following main areas: growth, sustainable agriculture, climate change, future challenges and opportunities, and governance in a challenging environment.

Communication of this research is focused on four areas: to generate new policy knowledge for North and South, to obtain new evidence for policy, to strengthen new technologies and the capability to do research, and to use the findings.

While introducing a higher budget support for research communication, she noted that from the start there had been strong engagement from research bodies. Advisory stakeholder groups had been formed and there was a noticeable increase in demand from the intended audiences. She had found that there is some evidence that research is more demand driven.

However, the new approach has not been without challenges. Monitoring and evaluation of research communication is problematic, there can be organisational tensions between research and communication, there is still a lack of incentives for researchers to see their results communicated as communication is still not necessarily an integrated part of development research methodologies.

Margrethe Holm Andersen of the evaluation department of the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs discussed the communication of evaluations of Danish development aid. She explained how evaluations held for accountability and learning are widely shared through the website http://www.evaluation.dk. They ensure that certain evaluations are repackaged to make them more accessible to different audiences, for example as short summaries for policy makers or through public meetings and products such as films.

To measure the impact of the evaluations, there are pilot studies on follow up to evaluations and how they are being used. These examine whether recommendations are acted upon or result in a change of behaviour. They can also indicate changes in perception of development work among the general public at large, or among students in particular.

The studies primarily examine qualitative indicators through interviews but also draw on statistics from hits to websites, participation in meetings, coverage by press, requests from universities and elsewhere, and feedback from key target groups (board, embassies etc).

The findings show that some products are expensive and ill used, that websites could be better linked, and that there are specific problems with joint evaluations that are difficult to sell to the Danish media.

The products which have proved successful are videos and more recently a book by Peter Tygesens which followed a development project and was written in the form of a novel, raising awareness among a broader public of the issues surrounding a Danish development project.

Margrethe Holm Andersen ended by stressing that a review of their activities had shown a need to focus on topics which are more suitable for debate in a public context, and to single out the human interest stories from some key evaluations to attract media attention.

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

Anna Downie of the Strategic Learning Initiative (Institute of Development Studies) presented a range of issues surrounding evaluating research communication as part of the recent Danish Development Research Network workshop “Assessing and evaluating communication activities: Tools for improving communication of research and knowledge for development”.

She discussed the complexity of the issue, especially regarding excessive time lags in impact (in one case a book resulted in actions 15 years after publishing!). Even where influence could be claimed by a researcher, it may often not be politically wise to make such claims.

She stressed that there needs to be a conceptual communication framework for particular research. This was illustrated by what she called the two types of research: ‘just in time’ and ‘just in case’. The first being research answering to a specific topical question and being immediately communicated, and the other being a source of reference which adds to the knowledge pool.

The essential element of evaluating a communication activity is that research communication must be seen as part of the process of research and social change and not just measured as an end impact.

Jackie Davies of C4D Consulting introduced different evaluation approaches, taking the three dimensions of communication assessment: process, audience and results.

• Process: Here the questions are focused on the aims of the activity, how it was delivered, what was learnt and who was involved?
• Audience: For the audience reception – who did you want to reach, and what did they think about your communication?
• Results: The results and attribution to impact, what change did you want and what change has your communication influenced?

She gave a summary of key M&E approaches in communication for each dimension:

• How communication is delivered – Formative approaches, content analysis
• How communication is received – Audience research, user surveys, web studies
• What impact communication has – behavioural change, network analysis, outcome mapping, ethnographic action research, storytelling (e.g. most significant change), participatory approaches and experimental impact studies

In illustrating the methods and tools, she took the example of a case study in Uganda where researchers, civil society, the media and policy makers were interviewed. The study, part of the Panos Relay project looked at how research is presented to policy makers and, by using the media, whether it did reach the target and what was the impact. While few of the researchers involved considered that their work communicated the research findings, civil society drew heavily on the research to make their case to the media. Policy makers admitted to being influenced by the media and had not read the research reports, showing the value of all the actors in communicating the issue.

Following the presentations, a case study was developed in groups to determine which approaches and tools could be used in different research communication scenarios. This appeared to succeed in the goal of raising awareness of approaches and tools and demonstrating the complexity of the issue and the need for consideration of M&E principles throughout research communication activities.

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

In Maputo last week, the Alliance of CGIAR Centers, the Global Forum for Agricultural Research (GFAR) and the CGIAR Science Council organized a technical workshop on ‘International Public Goods (IPGs) in agricultural research for development’.

For the Science Council, Derek Byerlee introduced the basic notions: “public goods have high social benefits that the private sector has no intention to deliver … the international part is that public goods will have products or impacts across borders.”

The cross-border benefits of these public goods depends, among other things, on their “spillover potential — how well does the PG travel?” This ‘potential to travel’ of research outputs was also the focus of a presentation by the ICT-KM Program of the CGIAR.

Following Byerlee’s argument that “we [the CGIAR] just can’t produce IPGs and put them up on the shelf,” the thrust of the ICT-KM presentation was that the high quality of outputs, based on peer review for example, is not sufficient in itself to ensure wide access to the outputs, across borders. Extra efforts are needed.

By Peter Ballantyne

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

Last week’s workshop to discuss how improved communication can help maximize the impact of agricultural research in Africa brought together some 50 participants from across the continent.

What were some of the topics covered? Read five blog stories:

Enhancing the impact of research

Communication the key to agricultural research with impact

Agricultural research communication challenges in Africa

Innovation, information, communication – maximising research impact

CGIAR knowledge sharing in research project aims to enhance research impact

We also interviewed many of the participants, catching their views in a series of short videos:

• Innovation works – communication can help research lead to actions
• Innovation works – increasing the probability that research leads to actions
• Knowledge sharing in research – bridging individuals essential to sustain impact
• Knowledge sharing in research – ways to achieve research objectives more effectively
• Knowledge sharing in research – not an add-on!
• Communication can improve quality at every stage of the research cycle
• Research communicators need to understand their audiences
• The innovation systems approach in agriculture
• How an IFPRI scientist disseminates his research
• Entrepreneurial services need to reinforce meaningful links between knowledge users and producers
• Communication the key to research utilization
• Communication a prerequisite for policy impact
• Communication the only way to maximise research impact
• Communicating research on insects at ICIPE, Africa
• Researchers need to see the benefits of communication
• Getting agricultural research off the shelf
• Maximising the impact of research on policy or practice
• Organizing research to impact on policy or practice
• IFPRI research communication excellence recognized

Also, during the Addis Ababa workshop, Louise Clark, Knowledge Transfer manager at the DFID-funded Research Into Use Programme launched a new blog with the name: RIU: An Innovation System Story!

The Addis Ababa workshop was organized with support from DFID by the Global Development Network (GDN) in partnership with the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), the World Bank Institute (WBI), the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), and from the Information and Communications Technology – Knowledge Management (ICT-KM) program of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

Photos from the workshop
Video interviews at the workshop
More stories on Euforic blog / on IAALD blog

The April 2008 DFID research strategy promised to pay attention to the uptake of research findings.

Subscribe to email alerts on this topic / see more feeds and alerts / View video interviews from R4D.

By Peter Ballantyne

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

The April 2008 DFID research strategy promised to pay attention to the uptake of research findings.

Earlier postings on this blog illustrate some of the plans and initiatives.

In July, R4D contributed to a workshop to discuss ways to extend the communication and uptake of development research in Southern Africa. The session helped identify 10 key ingredients for a better take up of research. The workshop was held alongside a larger conference ‘the power of in-between‘ that explored how research brokers and intermediaries support evidence based pro poor policy and practice.

The valuable role of such ‘intermediary organisations’ in bringing scientific and policy-making communities closer together was recently highlighted in a SciDev.net report published by ODI.

Also in July, DFID convened a meeting of its research programme consortia to discuss communication issues – several powerpoint presentations from this and other sessions are available on slideshare.

Next on the agenda: a research communication workshop on ‘maximizing the impact of agricultural research in Africa, organised by GDNet, ODI, WBI and IFPRI.

Subscribe to email alerts on this topic / see more feeds and alerts / View video interviews from R4D.

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

Research findings may be widely published in scientific journals, peer-reviewed and academically admired — but are they filtering through to the public, and bringing about tangible improvements to everyday life?

In partnership with www.research4development.info, IPS is seeking to answer these questions, enliven the debate about research, and help to ensure that it does indeed change lives.

Led by IPS Africa, the project seeks to connect the worlds of research and media, bringing often hidden research stories to the mainstream media and general public.

Read the stories ; subscribe to the newsfeed.

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

At the recent World Food Summit in Rome, Douglas Alexander, Secretary of State for International Development, announced that DFID will provide £150 million to support international agricultural research over the next five years. £130 million of this is allocated to the Consultative Group for International Agricultural research (CGIAR) and the balance to other international agricultural research organisations which complement the work of the CGIAR.

This major increase in funding to the CGIAR is because the “CGIAR is delivering good research.” It is also dependent upon “significant reform in the CGIAR.” Read more…

CGIAR Science Council Executive Director Ruben Echeverría comments on the additional funding for the CGIAR:

See also short interviews with Adel El-Beltagy and Mark Holderness of the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR)

See DFID’s Research Strategy on Sustainable Agriculture

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

According to Tag (Mary) McEntegart of INASP, the new DFID research strategy has responded well to the issues raised in the consultation.

She highlights three main issues: the emphasis on horizon scanning, recognition of the key role of research communication, and a willingness to support more risky research.

Share your comments on the strategy

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

A new DFID working paper explores the process of ’state-building’ – the process through which states enhance their ability to function – in development.

This paper provides a way for readers to understand states, and the processes that drive their development. It outlines language and key concepts for state-building; it examines those factors that are likely to influence the direction of state-building, including issues that are shaped by policy decisions; and it concludes with some implications of this work for donors.

Download the working paper
See more on DFID’s Research Strategy on Governance in Challenging Environments

The new research strategy More on the consultation process View outputs of DFID-funded research

In April, Paolo Sarfati of DG Development explained the current approach of the European Commission towards research for development. He explains that it goes in three main directions:

1. to carry out, in Europe, more and more research on MDG related issues;
2. to strengthen research capacities in developing countries;
3. to act on the issue of brain drain … through ‘brain circulation’ that encourages collaboration and movement among researchers.

According to Sarfati, the overall strategy is to improve the coherence of internal European research strategies with research for development strategies.

He also comments on the Commission’s support for agricultural research where it seeks to link agricultural research with development, particularly in Africa. The policy provides support through international centers such as the CGIAR, also at the regional level, through for example FARA, and to national research, mostly through the European Development Fund.