ILAC Brief25 Partnership

8/6/2019 ILAC Brief25 Partnership

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ilac-brief25-partnership 1/4

IntroductionIn the international development community, 'partnership'is currently the preferred, fashionable, term used todescribe a host of different ways in which organisationswork together. Working in partnership is increasingly

common both for research organisations and for thoseengaged in rural development activities. Partnershipstrategies figure prominently in the recent InternationalAssessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and

Technology for Development (IAASTD)(www.agassessment.org) and in the reform processesunderway in the global agricultural research system, whichincludes the Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research (CGIAR) (www.cgiar.org;www.egfar.org/egfar).

The terms partner or partnership appear more than100 times in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness andmore than 200 times in the version of the CGIAR’s newStrategy and Results Framework presented at the recent

Global Conference on Agricultural Research forDevelopment

Partnership is viewed as central to the interactivelearning processes that promote agricultural innovation. Ithas become a central modus operandi in agriculturalresearch for development, where different skill sets andapproaches need to be combined to achieve significantresults.

Over the past two decades, the number of partnerships the CGIAR centres have engaged in hasexpanded sharply and broadened from links among researchcentres to more extensive networks involving the publicsector, non-governmental organisations, producer groups

and private firms. This evolution reflects changing views on

the role of international agricultural research centres vis-à- vis others engaged in research and development,broadening research goals and the increasing demands of donors and others for visible, short-term returns on theirinvestments.

Approaches to partnership and to their evaluationhave often been ad hoc and partial – reflecting the short-term interests of specific partners. This makes it difficult forresearchers, managers and policy makers to assess theperformance of partnerships and to plan and implementones that respond to the particular needs.

This ILAC Brief presents highlights of a wide-ranging review of literature on partnership in diversesectors carried out by CIP to help clarify and systematisekey issues. The review is part of a broader effort to improvethe centre's use of partnership. The Brief summarises majorthemes, issues and insights that cut across the differentliteratures. It identifies gaps in knowledge that emerge fromthe review and high-potential areas for future study.

Detailed results of the review are reported in Horton, Prainand Thiele (2009).

Partnership literaturesKnowledge about partnership has been generated andcodified in many different ways in different sectors andcontexts for different purposes and audiences. There is nosingle 'partnership literature'. Many distinct literatures dealwith partnership from the perspective of particulardisciplines and fields of practice. The academic roots andwork experiences of the authors influence their perspectiveson partnership and the issues they focus on.

Writings on partnership include analytical studiesthat explore how partnerships are set up and operate, as

I L A

C

B r i e f 2

5

A p r i l 2 0 1

0

1

Perspectives on Partnership:

Highlights of a Literature Review 1

Douglas Horton, Gordon Prain, and Graham Thiele

Abstract Working in partnership has become central in efforts to address complex environmental, socio-economic,and technological problems. The terms partner or partnership appear more than 100 times in the ParisDeclaration on Aid Effectiveness and more than 200 times in the version of the CGIAR's new Strategy andResults Framework presented at the recent Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development. Itis promoted as an effective means to mobilise the resources and capacities needed to generate knowledge,stimulate innovation and influence decision-making. Nevertheless, partnering is often experienced as time-consuming and frustrating, and it has proved difficult to demonstrate its 'value added'. To improve partneringat the International Potato Center (CIP), we reviewed publications, evaluations and reports dealing withpartnership. Rather than a single 'partnership literature' we found several different literatures that approachthe subject from different perspectives. Several themes – relating to partnering processes vs. partnershipstructures, partnership dynamics, types of partnership, incentives for partnering, the key role of trust, powerand equity issues, success factors and evaluation – cut across the distinct literatures. This ILAC Brief presents findings in each of these areas, notes some prominent knowledge gaps and identifies areas forfuture study.

1 This ILAC Brief presents highlights of an extensive literature review authored by Douglas Horton, Gordon Prain and Graham Thiele. 2009. Perspectives on

Partnership: a Literature Review. International Potato Center (CIP), Lima, Peru. Social Sciences Working Paper No. 2009-3

(www.cipotato.org/publications/publication.asp?cod=005251).



ILAC Brief 25

well as normative guidelines that promote partnerships or indicatehow they should function. There has been little communicationbetween those doing research and those producing guidelines; fewguidelines draw on previous research and few studies offer practicalguidelines for action. The Partnering Initiative(http://thepartneringinitiative.org), which does applied research andalso produces guidelines, is exceptional in this regard.

Authors working in different fields define partnership indifferent ways. In the international community, partnership refers toa relationship that has more in common with an alliance in theprivate sector than with a business partnership, in which theowner-partners share in the profits or losses of the business.

We offer the following definition for use in the context of agricultural research for development:

Our review covers four main literatures, which deal withpartnership in different ways.

Re search studie s The research literature is the largest body of knowledge reviewed,and offers most insights into the potential roles of partnership inagricultural research for development. The research literature is itself highly diverse, with studies in several specialised fields such as thefollowing:

Management and organisational development studies Public policy and public management studies Studies of North–South partnerships in international

development Science and technology policy studies Studies of knowledge–action linkages Studies of public–private partnerships in agricultural

research

Research studies tend to employ the concepts and methods

of their authors' home disciplines and focus on issues currently in vogue in these disciplines.

One particularly rich source of insights is the field of management and organisational development, which identifies boththe potential benefits and the problematic aspects of collaboration.Management and organisational development studies emphasisethe roles of partnership in strategic management, learning,innovation and political influence. They identify issues of managingmulti-organisational collaboration and show how collaborationfrequently gives rise to new ways of working that may, in somecases, evolve into new institutions.

The public management and policy literature examines howalliances of public- and private-sector actors can improve publicservice delivery and contribute to the achievement of social goals.

This literature considers the interrelated issues of partnership,governance and accountability. Working in partnership can improve

accountability to the individual partners involved. However, it canalso complicate accountability, because of the diverse, sometimesconflicting, interests and accountability requirements of thedifferent partners. This can lead to what has been referred to as the'multiple accountabilities disorder'.

Both donors and advanced research and academicinstitutions engage in North–South partnership to supportinnovation and capacity development in the South. Studies of North–South partnerships highlight issues of power andaccountability. CGIAR partnerships with national programmes sharemany common features with North–South partnerships.

Science and technology policy studies emphasise theimportance of interactions among researchers, policy makers, andeconomic actors in fostering innovation, in the context of

innovation systems. The institutions that promote suchinteractions are frequently viewed as partnerships.

Studies of knowledge–action linkages have evolved from afocus on engaging researchers and farmers in participatory researchand technology development (in the 1970s and 1980s) towards afocus on building durable alliances among organisations withcomplementary mandates. Authors in the field of sustainabilityscience explore the roles of 'boundary organisations' in linkingknowledge generation and use.

There is a substantial and growing literature on public–private partnerships, which includes numerous studies byagricultural economists of partnerships in agricultural research.Issues of market failure, transactions costs and intellectual propertyrights figure prominently in this literature. One important finding isthat CGIAR centres usually partner with private enterprises not tocarry out joint processes of technological innovation, but to acquireknowledge from the private sector or to commercialise researchoutputs.

Profe s sional evaluation literatureApplied researchers and evaluators have published frameworks andmethods for evaluating partnerships in evaluation journals and onthe Internet. However, few of these appear to have been thoroughlytested and applied in partnership evaluations, and none appears tohave been mainstreamed in evaluation practice. Most of thepractical toolkits for (self-) assessment of partnerships focus onpartnering processes, rather than results, and evaluations of results

generally focus on a single partner's objectives. Very fewpartnerships have been systematically evaluated from the moreholistic perspective of their contributions to social, economic orenvironmental goals.

Practitioner-oriented literature reviews, guideline s andas se s sment tool sSeveral organisations that promote partnering have issuedguidelines for assessing and improving partnerships. Most of theseare intended for use in specific areas, such as public health,transportation or water and sanitation. There have been few studiesof the use and value of the available guidelines and assessmenttools. Some authoritative researchers encourage the use of 'off theshelf' assessment tools only in combination with more in-depthorganisational assessment methods.

Asymmetry between partners in access to resources andinfluence has been a problem in many

North-South partnerships. artnership is defined in many different ways,

leading to frequent confusion.2

2 Sidebars throughout this Brief summarize points made in the publications or reports reviewed. For sources, see Horton, Prain & Thiele (2009).

Partnership is a sustained multi-organisational relationship withmutually agreed objectives and an exchange or sharing of resources or knowledge for the purpose of generating researchoutputs (new knowledge or technology) or fostering innovation(use of new ideas or technology) for practical ends.



3

ILAC Brief 25

CGIAR-related reviews, evaluations, and policy documents.Various forms of collaboration have featured prominently in theresearch and development strategies of the CGIAR for many years.So, it is not surprising that many reviews of partnership-relatedliterature and work have been done in the CGIAR over the years.

Unfortunately, few of these have been formally published and someappear to be ignored in subsequent work. Few policy documents inthe CGIAR refer explicitly to partnership, but this topic is receivingconsiderable attention in the on-going CGIAR reform process(CGIAR Working Group 2, 2008).

Cross-cutting themes and issues The literatures reviewed all grapple in one way or another withconceptual, methodological and ethical concerns associated withpartnership. In this section, we discuss eight sets of issues relatedto the purpose, establishment, operation and performance of

partnerships.

Partnering v s. partnershipMost of the studies, reports and evaluations reviewed focus onissues of partnerships as organisational structures, with definedobjectives, resources and accountabilities. Others, however,emphasise the process of partnering , or working in partnership as abehaviour. The first group of studies emphasises issues of organisational structure, clarity of (mutual) goals, managementprocedures and costs and benefits. The second group emphasisesissues of values, mutual respect and reciprocity, organisationalculture, leadership style and incentives.

Incentive s and other drivers f or partnering Guidelines for successful partnerships often emphasise theimportance of establishing clear, shared goals and of sharing in thebenefits produced by the partnership. However, studies of real-world partnerships often find that different partners have strikinglydifferent reasons for participating in the partnership and drawdifferent benefits from it. For example, a CGIAR centre may partnerto expand its reach in a particular region while nationalorganisations may partner with the centre to gain access toknowledge or other resources needed for day-to-day operations.Different partners may have different goals as long as the benefitseach one derives from the partnership exceed what they couldachieve working alone. Other common drivers for partnering includeexternal pressures from donors and the need to 'translate' or 'link'

between research results and development outcomes in order toreach high-level goals.

Partnership dynamic sPartnerships are dynamic. At one point a partnership may be a loosenetwork; at another point it may be a highly structured operation.

There is a tendency for partnerships to evolve from less formal tomore formal arrangements, but not all partnerships do so. Somemeet relatively stable needs in stable environments with a singletype of structure. Others dissolve after a short time, after they

achieve their initial objective (or fail to do so!). Surprisingly littleattention has been devoted to the drivers of partnerships – the keyforces that influence their formation and evolution. Externalpressures are often important in the formation of partnerships,

especially in the non-profit sector. But partnerships can also emergefrom needs and incentives within the partnering organisations. Forexample, the desire to link research to action is an importantincentive for many research organisations to form partnerships withNGOs or other development-oriented organisations.

Ty pe s of partnership The studies and reports reviewed present many different partnershiptypologies. An especially useful one for research partnerships isbuilt on two main variables: (1) the partners involved and (2) theorganisational structure. In the context of international agriculturalresearch for development, early partnerships, which focused onresearch per se, generally involved only researchers and theirorganisations; more recently, as the emphasis has shifted towardresearch for development, a broader array of partners has beeninvolved, including NGOs, farmers' organisations and a range of agricultural service providers. Organisational structures also varygreatly, ranging from informal ones (which serve, for example, tofoster the exchange of knowledge or other resources) to highly

structured, long-term agreements for research or capacitystrengthening.

Succe s s factors: no single recipeMany lists of success factors are available, including, for example: A common, shared vision and purpose and realistically

defined goals Support for the partnership from participating organisations Equitable sharing of resources, responsibilities, and benefits Transparent governance and decision-making Creation of genuine respect and trust between the partners Pursuit and achievement of higher level outcomes beyond

the partnership itself

However, authoritative authors argue that inter-organisational relations depend so much on local context that thereis no set of universally applicable success factors.

Key role of trust The concept of trust figures prominently in lists of partnership

principles and key success factors – the 'glue' that bindsrelationships. Trust may not be present at the beginning, but needsto be cultivated over time. If trust cannot be established or is lostthe partnership is unlikely to be sustainable.

Power and equit y: the 'ele phant in the room' The role of power in partnerships is often ignored, hidden or dealtwith indirectly. A major equity issue concerns the sharing of benefits, gains or profits of partnership. Power and equity issues areespecially problematic in North–South partnerships, where thenorthern partner controls the lion's share of the resources anddecision making. Partnerships between local organisations andCGIAR centres have much in common with North–Southpartnerships. 'Empowering' local partners is a common objective,but empowerment is usually vaguely defined and rarely evaluated. If trust is the 'glue' of partnerships, unacknowledged powerimbalances can often be the corrosive element breaking them apart.

Surprisingly few CGIAR policy documents

deal with partnership.

Research institutes often partner with development

organisations to promote the use of research products.

In public–private partnerships, informal arrangements

are often more effective than formal ones.

The Partnering Initiative has found issues of equity,

transparency and benefit sharing crucial to

effective partnering.



ILAC Brief 25

4

Need to improve evaluationA common thread running through many of the documentsreviewed is the need to improve the evaluation of partnerships, bothfor accountability and as a tool for learning and improvement.Although it is widely assumed that partnership is an effective way

to address sustainable development goals, there is little systematicevidence to support this claim. Improved evaluation is needed:

To provide evidence of the value of partnering To identify the factors which influence the performance of

different types of partnership under different conditions To draw lessons that practitioners can use to improve their

partnership work

Knowledge gaps

There are very few empirical studies and systematic evaluations of partnership. This is particularly the case in international agriculturalresearch for development. Most research on partnership is based onsecondary data, questionnaire surveys or personal impressions.

There are few detailed and theoretically grounded case studies. Thelimited empirical research on partnership in other sectors suggeststhe value of applying case-study methods to the study of complexand dynamic partnership arrangements. Better understanding of partnership structures and dynamics could assist organisations toformulate and implement partnership strategies.

Much of the existing knowledge on partnerships is tacit – inthe minds of partnership practitioners – and much of the rest is inthe form of unpublished reports and evaluations. This inhibits

efficient knowledge accumulation, dissemination, and utilisation.Knowledge of partnership processes and outcomes urgently needsto be converted into explicit knowledge that is easily accessible inquality-assured form, in peer-reviewed international journals. High-priority areas for the evaluation of partnerships include evaluation of partnering processes, evaluation of the contribution of partnershipsto the (often distinct) objectives of individual partners and morecomprehensive evaluation of the 'value added' or contributions of partnerships to sustainable development goals.

At the level of individual partnerships, while most studieshave targeted this level, there is little systematic information on thetypes of partnership that operate in the sphere of agriculturalresearch for development, the costs and benefits of the differenttypes and the factors that influence the performance of different

types of partnership in different contexts. At the organisational level, there is also little information on

the types of partnership operating at different system levels andextremely limited information on the policies and managementpractices that guide partnership establishment and operation andthe results of such policies and practices.

Knowledge gaps and priorities for future study are greatestat the level of the research or innovation domain, where very fewstudies have been conducted to date. There is much to be done tounderstand and develop partnerships in a particular research-for-development domain. It would be useful to develop maps of 'research partnerships' and 'innovation networks' that illustrateinter-organisational relations that together support the productionand application of new knowledge for different commodities (thecassava, rice, coarse grains sectors, etc) or for key subject-matterareas (integrated pest management, market chain development,crop genetic conservation, etc). Better mapping of inter-organisational relationships among all the partners in a domaincould help to promote synergies and avoid needless duplication.

Conclusions

We live in an increasingly complex and connected world, wheresharing skills, knowledge, resources and perspectives is the norm.Increasingly, we work across organisational boundaries inpartnerships, alliances and similar relationships. But we still have,and apply, little systematic knowledge in the design andmanagement of collaborative arrangements. We hope that, bypulling together knowledge and clarifying concepts related topartnership, this Brief will contribute to the ongoing discussionsabout restructuring international agricultural research andimproving the use of partnership in agricultural research fordevelopment.

About the authorsDouglas Horton is an independent consultant ([email protected]),Gordon Prain is a Senior Scientist at the International Potato Center(CIP) ([email protected]), and Graham Thiele is the Leader of theImpact Enhancement Division of CIP ([email protected]).

The Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative (www.cgiar-ilac.org), hosted by Bioversity

International, seeks to increase the contributions of agricultural research to sustainable reductions in

poverty. The ILAC Initiative is currently supported by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

ILAC Briefs aim to stimulate dialogue and to disseminate ideas and experiences that

researchers and managers can use to strengthen organizational learning and performance. An ILAC brief

may introduce a concept, approach or tool; it may summarize results of a study; or it may highlight an

event and its significance. To request copies, write to [email protected]. The ILAC Initiative encourages fair

use of the information in its Briefs and requests feedback from readers on how and by whom thepublications were used.

Layout: www.scriptoria.co.uk

Participants have little incentive for comprehensive

evaluation of partnerships.

ILAC Brief25 Partnership

Documents

Transcript of ILAC Brief25 Partnership