How research brokers and intermediaries contribute to evidence based pro-poor policy making

Framing the debate

Geoff BarnardInstitute of Development Studies, Sussex

www.ids.ac.uk

The changing context

Governments and other development actors more interested in ‘evidence based’ policy & practice

Research funders under pressure to demonstrate the poverty impact of the work they fund

More sophisticated communication thinking – the linear model is dead (nearly)

More crowded information marketplace, and a whole array of new communication channels

A new generation of brokers and intermediaries

The intermediary role is not new:

Journalists have long played this function

So too have:

– Librarians

– Extension workers

– Trade associations

– Networks

What has changed is:

Wider array of approaches and roles

Environment has become richer and more diverse

More deliberate, programmatic interventions to connect research, policy and practice

Some examples

www.ids.ac.uk/info

How does research connect to policy and practice?

Research Users

Research suppliers

Intermediary roles

Research Users

Research suppliers

Facilitating dialogue and exchange

Summarising, synthesising, creating new products

Organising research knowledge

Signposting research/acting as a repository

Providing access to research

What’s special about research intermediaries

Presenting multiple perspectives

Specialist skills and capacities

Editorial independence

Trusted brand

Continuity

Critical mass

The background paper

Emerges from recent thinking at IDS, much influenced by the 2007 workshop

Sketches out the territory

Attempts some definitions

Sets down five hypotheses to get the discussion going

Hypothesis 1:

Evidence-based policy and practice is more likely to be pro-poor if it is understood as a practice that encourages the inclusion of a wide range of evidence and perspectives in defining and understanding issues and formulating policies

Pro-poor policy requires multiple perspectives

Hypothesis 2:

Intermediaries represent a distinct, new communication structure that contributes to an enabling environment for the use of a broad range of evidence in policy and practice through multiple and hybrid communication and engagement channels.

Intermediaries have important role(s) to play

Hypothesis 3:

Intermediaries’ unique contribution lies in their commitment to highlighting multiple perspectives that draw on a broad range of evidence sources and create a rich information environment to support evidence-based policymaking.

Presenting multiple perspectives is central to that role

Hypothesis 4:

Even when research communication is happening effectively, intermediaries add value by creating ongoing platforms, spaces and places to promote the engagement of policy and practice actors with a plurality of sources and perspectives.

Intermediaries add value in a variety of ways

Hypothesis 5:

Intermediaries’ contribution is strengthened when they become aware of how their ‘power of in-between’ affects the flow of perspectives and sources of evidence into the research-policy environment.

Recognising the power dimension is important

Questions to address

These are just opening hypotheses to get the debate going – do we agree with them?

How do research brokers and intermediaries add value?

What can we learn from each other?

Do we know enough about these brokering roles?

How can we maximise their potential?

Format for the session

20 minutes discussion at tables to consider

Which hypotheses do you agree with ?

Which ones do you disagree with ?

Which ones do you just not understand ?

We will do some voting at the end to get an impression of how well these have survived

Capture comments on the graffiti boards