Promoting impact through research and engagement
In the global development sector, funders might consider funding research and engagement as a means to bring about change. Based on recent work to evaluate research impact I suggest funders pause and ask themselves five questions before deciding to do so.
Where and how does change happen?
The first step in undertaking research and engagement is usually to consider one’s audience. But where are they located? On universally important issues such as health and education, one might be tempted to take a top-down approach and target a global audience, especially stakeholders in international organisations, INGOs and transnational companies.
This is in line with a view of the world as global, where the authority of institutions of global governance, such as the UN system and International Financial Institutions has expanded, where Transnational Corporations (TNCs) account amongst the top economies in the world and where the capacity of nation states to control political, economic, social and cultural processes and relationships within their territories has eroded in the face of globalisation.
However, global spaces can be ambiguous and exclusionary with actors tending to be professional and well-organised who use language and concepts familiar to their funders. Moreover, in some policy areas, the ‘global’ is characterised by a fragmented actor landscape where some global governance institutions have limited influence and where private actors such as foundations dominate the discourse.
Against this backdrop, nation states remain relevant, where policy changes are ultimately made in national and local spaces, but where some nation states dominate over others, dynamics of which are mirrored in international organisations and where large transnational companies have come to have significant influence. On this basis, national and local spaces are therefore a key site for action (as well as relations between nation states) but where tools and approaches developed in more global spaces can prove helpful.
What role for experts and knowledge?
Paul Cairney in his work on policymaking processes suggests that even if there is consensus about what research knowledge says on a particular issue, it rarely tells you what to do, it does not ever speak for itself nor does it settle matters on its own. Instead research is used as a resource by key actors to engage in political and policy processes characterised by debate, competition and persuasion.
The question then is who uses the research to engage key audiences? Ideally the same people who generated it. But the role they play can vary. Roger Pielke in his book the Honest Broker describes four roles that experts could take in relation to policy:
The pure scientist: this is defined by a desire not to engage at all
Science arbiters: respond to specific questions from policymakers but do not express policy preferences; this might mean being part of an expert advisory committee
Honest brokers: clarify and potentially expand the policy options available to decision-makers
Finally issue advocates aim to influence policy in a particular direction.
If funders prefer research to be communicated using a more direct approach but researchers are unwilling to come along, they may want to work with knowledge brokers or advocacy specialists, which might take the form of an NGO, consultancy, think tank and/or media organisation.
In any case, research impact is rarely direct. Research is more likely to have indirect impacts over the longer term, which Carol Weiss calls the enlightening function of research. She says that the use of research is not the application of specific data to specific decisions but rather that research acts as a source of ideas, information and orientations to the world. She goes on to say that although the process is not easily discernible, over time it may have profound effects on policy.
In this way, research can be used to reduce ambiguity, reduce uncertainty about an issue and establish a dominant way to frame a problem. But new research about a topic is only gradually accepted within a political system, if at all. And while research (and effective engagement strategies) can increase awareness, on their own they cannot make decision makers more interested in an issue or change the sorts of pressures they are under to act (or not) in certain ways.
Whose knowledge counts?
Many research producers, especially in the public (and medical) health sector, believe in a hierarchy of knowledge based on the methods used. At the top would be the systematic review of randomised controlled trials, and nearer the bottom would be expertise, practitioner knowledge and stakeholder feedback.
Knowledge brokers and advocates on the other hand may favour co-production in policymaking where decisions are made through conversations between a wide range of policymakers and stakeholders where research is considered alongside experiential knowledge, community voices, and normative values.
In practice, policy processes involve conversations with a wide range of stakeholders (decision makers, citizens, lobby groups, academics, businesses, NGOs and others) whilst decision makers tend to draw on knowledge that is in line with their own values.
On occasion, governments may deploy a mix of methods to produce different instruments (which might be part of the same policy process), or e.g. use RCT evidence to identify an initial solution, then encourage localism and the co-production of policy in practice.
How can differences be negotiated?
Funders may well commission different actors to work together to undertake research and engagement as a consortium. Bringing together a diverse group of expressive, feeling, emotional and thinking human beings to work towards a shared task can be generative but can also generate anxiety and lead to conflict.
Conflict between individuals may be due to the differences in the personal views of those involved. But those views might be representative of broader, more systemic issues. These might be to do with support for a particular type of knowledge (as discussed above) together with competition over territory and resources, where actors operate in a context of insecurity and fear about what the future holds.
To address these issues, consortia can establish spaces where key actors can meet on a regular basis to bring to the surface work related feelings, where they can be discussed and processed. This requires time and patience so that people develop the courage and feel safe enough to think and share their thoughts freely.
Through such a process, people can be helped to alter their (mis) perceptions about people and identify choices about how they wish to proceed. Experienced managers can facilitate such meetings. However, bringing in an external consultant to manage meetings can help ensure that conversations do not become bogged down by defensiveness, something we discuss in the final section below.
What role for funders and intermediaries?
What roles do funders play during the delivery process? Some might take a relatively hands-off approach wary of a history of donors using their power to interfere in delivery and getting in the way of grant recipients and their work.
But what happens when the strategy that actors are supposed to follow gets pulled apart once the project gets going - as we’ve discussed above? In this case, funders may want to take a more active approach where it uses its power to be in service of the strategy it is supporting. This might mean supporting a brokering and facilitating role to help different actors to work together more coherently.
This is a more labour-intensive approach which can be politically sensitive. Funders may not have the capacity or inclination to undertake this role, in which case they may want to hire a third party who can undertake the brokering and facilitation function at arm’s length.
By considering these five questions, funders can make better choices about whether or not, and how, to fund research and engagement to bring about sustainable change.