pre-chea policy training_ concept note€¦ · web viewtraining workshop report. dates: 13&14...
TRANSCRIPT
MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON HIGHER EDUCATION IN AGRICULTURE IN AFRICA
(CHEA)
VENUE: Speke Resort and Conference Center, Munyonyo Kampala, Uganda
PRE-CONFERENCE EVENT (THEME 5):
STRENGTHENING UNIVERSITY COMPETENCE AND PRACTICE FOR ENGAGEMENT WITH
POLICY
TRAINING WORKSHOP REPORT
Dates: 13&14 November, 2010
Strengthening University Competence and Practice for Engagement with Policy, 13&14 November, 2010
PRE-CONFERENCE EVENT TITLE
Strengthening University Competence and Practice for Engagement with Policy
RELATED CONFERENCE
Ministerial Conference on Higher Education in Africa Policy Side Event;Speke Resort & Conference Centre Munyonyo, Kampala, Uganda16 November 2010
DATE/ HALL 13&14 November 2010 / ROYAL HALL, SPEKE RESORT AND CONFERENCE CENTER, MUNYONYO
BACKGROUND Higher education and research is increasingly being recognised globally as a key ingredient for achieving sustainable development, even if current funding from the international community as well as from many developing county governments remains low. This is underpinned by the assumption that human resource constraints pose a severe limitation for implementation of national economic development strategies, and by investing in knowledge for development, national economic development can be stimulated.
However, many countries have been slow to support their higher education sectors and are failing to back rhetoric with action (Harvard University Review, 2005). There are several barriers to making higher education work for development in Africa, including inadequate quality of graduates produced due to poor infrastructure, inadequate capacity for training, weak curriculums, the high cost of higher education, overcrowding and weak university management. At the heart of this problem is the limited funding that is channelled to higher education institutions and the sector as a whole. Higher Education institutions have thus been criticised for failing to justify their contributions. University staff have not adequately communicated their current and future impacts of their output, including research, in a way that breaks down the barriers between research, policy and practice. What is lacking is a proper understanding of research communication and knowledge translation so as to facilitate the use of research evidence to influence policies and effect change. This can be addressed through systematic interactions and capacity building amongst key stakeholders including researchers, policymakers, and the practitioners.
Clearly there is need to ensure that policy makers understand the contribution that Universities are making and could potentially make towards enhancing national economic development; and towards strengthening Africa’s capacity to build capacity in agriculture and natural resources, through their mandated role of training students and generating knowledge.
Universities are well placed to support development processes by instilling in the development workforce the desired values, attitudes
2 | P a g e
and skills required to spur and sustain development. However, universities in many African countries have in the past and still continue to be detached as institutions from direct linkages with policy making. This process will require universities themselves to become more proactive in engaging with policy by improving research priority setting, information flow and direct contribution to political aims of governments through science and technology and training. As a first step, there is need to provide the necessary capacities and competencies in key staff within universities for this role to enable the available knowledge to be communicated to policy.
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The main purpose of the two day training workshop for University staff was to strengthen knowledge and competencies of universities in skills required to better engage with policy. The specific objectives of the training workshop were to:
1. Identify guiding policy objectives related to the strengthening of the relationships between universities and development policy and practice;
2. Train 25 selected staff from African universities on engaging with policymakers;
3. Identify and share university success stories (best practice) as a way of contributing to the development of a coherent argument on the contribution of universities to development;
4. Identify strategies for improving the engagement and increasing relevance of universities to development practice;
5. Contribute towards the strengthening of the capacity of universities for engaging with policy makers; and,
6. Provide recommendations for universities and policy for enhancing the relevance of universities to national development strategies, including Poverty Reduction Support Papers (PRSPs), Development Strategies and Investment Plans/ CAADP country compacts, and share these with policy makers at the Ministerial Conference on Higher in Education in Agriculture in Africa.
Approach RUFORUM together with the Association of African Universities (AAU), The African Technology and Policy Studies Institute (ATPS) and the Danish Development Research Network (DDRN) organised a two day training workshop for African Universities (public relations officers; Deans and identified staff) and others to strengthen their knowledge and competencies in skills required to better engage with policy. Staff were identified through invitation to the Vice Chancellors of 25 African Universities to nominate one person for the training event. Funding for the event was provided by AAU, DDRN, RUFORUM and ATPS. The Oversees Development Institute’s Research and Policy in Development (RAPID) Programme facilitated the event.
RUFORUM, DDRN and ATPS coordinated the pre-conference organisation. For RUFORUM, the local contact person at RUFORUM is
3 | P a g e
Moses Osiru ([email protected]) while the DDRN contact person is Dr. Anne Sørensen ([email protected]). The ATPS contact person is Dr. Nicholas Ozor ([email protected]). Prof. P.J.M. Ssebuwufu from the Association of African Universities was not able to make it to the event.
Enrique Mendizabal, Head of the RAPID Programme at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI- UK; [email protected]), who has experience with conducting policy research and training, was the main facilitator of the training workshop, including preparing the necessary training materials. He was supported by Fletcher Tembo, a RAPID Research Fellow based in Malawi. Prof. Osita Ogbu, formerly Executive Director of the African Technology Policy Studies Network and former Minister in the Nigerian Government was invited to share his experiences on linking research to policy and provide context to the participants. Also present from the Danish Research Institute was Dr. Carl Larsen, who supported the training facilitation team.
The meeting designed to facilitate interaction amongst participants. Following official opening by Dr. Judith Ann Francis, The Senior Programme Coordinator, Science and Technology Strategies, CTA, participants introduced themselves and shared their expectations from the Policy Training Workshop. The two day Programme (Annex 1) consisted of group works, plenary discussions, background presentations, re-caps and presentation of group work outputs.
Over 25 participants attended the training workshop representing universities in Botswana, DRC, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda. Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe.
At the end of the Workshop, participants were requested to evaluate the workshop proceedings and delivery. Participants were requested to be as honest as possible in the assessment and had option of keeping their evaluation comments anonymous.
WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS
DAY 1
Dr. Moses Osiru, Networking, Advocacy and Grants Manager of RUFORUM, welcomed participants to the meeting on behalf of Prof. Adipala Ekwamu (Executive Secretary and CEO of RUFORUM) and the RUFORUM Secretariat. He thanked the Association of African Universities who supported the training through the Millennium Challenge Research Initiative (MCRI) Programme. Dr. Osiru noted that the training was much in line with RUFORUM’s mission of enhancing the role of universities in national development processes. This was followed by remarks from Dr. Anne Sorensen on behalf of the Danish Development Research Network (DDRN). Anne pointed out that DDRN are glad to be working with RUFORUM and that they were present at the training as facilitators. She also informed the participants that DDRN is a knowledge and development network for researchers and practitioners comprising more than 2000 members
4 | P a g e
in Denmark and the South, mainly from Africa. Dr. Nicholas Ozor welcomed participants to the training on behalf of the African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) and urged them share any lessons learned at the workshop with their colleagues. Nick noted the important of engagement with policy, as a means of catalysing change in African countries.
Dr. Judith Anne Francis, Senior Programme Coordinator, Science and Technology Strategies at CTA, made a brief presentation about the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP-EU (CTA). She informed participants that CTA currently covers seventy nine (79) countries in the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) with collaborations and partnerships in European countries with the aim to develop agricultural research and improve the livelihoods of communities in their areas of operation. She asked participants, somewhat rhetorically, why it is that if policy makers, communication specialists, researchers and academicians had the same objectives, perceive the same set of problems and having the same commitment to development- that there are no significant changes in our institutions? She also informed participants that last year CTA commissioned a study, where young researchers in Africa were asked to assess the health of their institutions in terms of courses taught, relevance of curricula and teaching approaches. Students felt that they were being cheated by their mentors (University trainers) as they had often been found incompetent with few job opportunities to absorb them. They felt there was need for institutions and policy makers to become more relevant in what they were doing for national development. CTA is trying to respond to this through the ASTI programme that is being piloted in various African countries where researchers and university managers are being trained on how to influence policy and ensuring that these policies are evidence based. She hinted that there are a number good policies among the ACP countries that have been well designed, but what is problematic is that these policies are not well implemented and sometimes, this is due to poor knowledge on the policies. She mentioned that in cases where these policies are known and exist they are not being implemented and the question to ask again, was why? She concluded her opening remarks by urging universities to work together to increase their visibility in community actions and engaging in policy development and implementation. She thanked RUFORUM, DDRN and ATPS for the organisation, her Director at CTA for being supportive to such initiatives and all the participants that made it to the meeting.
After brief introductions by the participants, Enrique Mendizabal, took participants through the planned two day programme. The first day focused on the introduction of the RAPID Outcome Mapping Approach (ROMA) as a way of systematically planning policy influencing interventions. ROMA follows a rational and well
5 | P a g e
recognized planning narrative to support policy entrepreneurs to take advantage of the often limited information they posses and to develop the most appropriate influencing strategies. The approach encourages the entrepreneur to take particular attention of his/her vision of change, the context and how change actually happens in their sector, their own circumstances, mandate, competencies and skills, and the roles played by all relevant actors.
The approach is not prescriptive and instead encourages critical thinking –ideally among peers and allies.
After the necessary introductions, the participants were asked to work in groups –usually country groups, but where representation from the different countries did not allow- these included participants from different countries- to, based on their experiences, address two key questions:
1. Why are universities important for the development of policy, practice and outcomes?
2. How can universities strengthen policy, practice and outcomes?
The participants presented these in plenary and a number of issues emerged:
On the importance and roles of universities, participants expressed that they:
Are centers of knowledge production and generation. They undertake research to generate knowledge, usually through students;
Are centres for research to inform policies Research can help to clarify underlying policy assumptions; Research will also:
o help in solving practical problems, say through providing improved materials(Improved crop varieties);
o Address societal needs through conducting research along value chains;
o Help us understand the social economic and cultural aspects of our country;
Serve as main actors in national development Conduct research to improve the livelihoods of people Assess and evaluate policy implementation Enrich policy making processes think tanks that drive the country forward Generate knowledge via research and teaching Dissemination knowledge say through outreach activities
On how can universities strengthen policy, they can do this by:
6 | P a g e
Changing their own roles and briefs i.e. teaching, research and engage communities;
Influencing policies at various levels including scaling-up their practices to national level;
Offering policy training and education; Enhancing the general understanding of policies i.e.
academicians are more listened to than politicians; Enhancing the capacity of their own staff. For example, at
Mekelle University there is a short course training on better ways of conducting research;
Creating an enabling environment to do research; Entering into agreements with policy making bodies (MoUs); Engaging policy makers in workshops and conferences; Establishing centers for excellence which are housing think
tank groups; Having representatives from universities in policy making
organs (parliaments); Engaging them in open days, workshops, etc; Establishing centers for policy making and review in the
universities; Conducting outreach activities and doing research along the
value chains; Increasing the visibility of universities in national development; Identifying themselves as change agents -solution providers to
development;
In summary: Universities play a number of roles in their context, namely:
teaching, research and policy/community outreach Universities can influence policy change through their teaching
role –moulding future policymakers Universities provide research based evidence to policymakers
and this informs their decisions Universities can provide innovations and solutions to farmers
and other users of research findings Universities already undertake a number of activities that
influence reach policymakers; Universities need to engage with policymakers (as well as
other stakeholders) throughout the whole research cycle. It is not enough to engage only when the findings are ready
After a brief discussion, Enrique Mendizabal gave a presentation on ‘How to develop and effective message?’ The presentation stressed three main components of an effective message: the message itself, the audience of the message, and the channels or messengers through which the message is communicated. The participants stressed a fourth component- feedback.
Enrique made a number of important points:
7 | P a g e
Understanding the audience is critical –but this understanding must go well beyond information that is publicly available. Researchers must seek to understand policymakers own personal influences and the factors that affect their value and interpretation of evidence.
They must know their networks of trust and their political, economic and personal allegiances –to people, organisations and ideas.
Researchers must understand why an issue may or may not be of interest or relevance to their audiences.
The message must be seen less as an ‘ask’ than as an argument. The more complete and coherent the argument the more effective and memorable it will be.
An effective message is all about prioritising -not dumping down. Researchers must decide what is worth communicating to their various audiences, and at different moments –not everyone is interested in the same things all the time.
When developing a message, researchers need to try to answer the following question:
o What background information is required to understand the issue?
o Why is this issue important or urgent?o How does this affect your target audience? Why should
they care?o What action can they take based on the situation?
A good message attempts to establish a personal relationship between the messenger and the audience: referring to events where both might have been in attendance, common acquaintances, etc. can be an effective tactic.
Researchers must be confident. People tend to do what those they trust –or those who act with confidence- say.
Finally, Enrique highlighted that there are a number of communication channels that researchers must keep in mind. ODI tends to focus on:
o Publicationso Eventso Online communicationso The mediao And, do not forget, personal communications.
After the presentation, participants were asked to work in groups and think about their own messages. What would they tell a minister or MP is they met them during the CHEA event? After a few minutes some participants volunteered to share their messages. Some of the feedback provided includes:
Create a personal relation with the audience –mention a meeting you both attended, or refer to a presentation or TV interview they gave
Given them enough background so that they know who they
8 | P a g e
are talking to and what about Give them something they need: votes, good news,
reassurance that they are not doing everything wrong, etc. Provide them with a clear action for them to follow up on. If it
feels too daunting, they won’t know what to do. Leave them with some information (or give it to their aids): a 1
pager, a business card, etc.
After lunch, Professor Osita Ogbu (Ph.D., FNAE) presented a background paper on ‘University research-policy linkage: why problems persist in Africa’. He asked participants to consider what roles African universities are currently playing? Why are they being continually referred to as ‘ivory towers’? Why higher education funding has remained low over the years? From his presentation he also clarified the overall objective meeting: to strengthen the knowledge and competencies of academicians, researchers and development practitioners in skills required to better engage with policy.
Prof. Osita provided helpful context for African research policy linkage issues with focus both on the research and policy perspectives. He, for example, noted that researchers are often ‘out of touch’ and did not recognising their roles in society and how best to ensure that they fullfil these mandates. As a further example, he noted that scientists are not willing to stake their reputations on strategic positions and to make these known in the mainstream media say through opinion columns etc. He informed participants that it is important to understand the African policy maker. For example, in some African countries there are reshuffles up to four of five times in within a presidential term of five years. This does not allow the politicians to think long term, but rather to ensure they survive within the current terms. Secondly, he reminded participants that budgeting is usually done on an annual budgeting cycle and this also limits the long term strategies required to support development processes. Prof. Osita’s presentation can be accessed at www.ruforum.org.
His presentation raised a number of important issues related to (some issues are highlighted):
The orientation and attitudes of researchers:o The isolation of the researchero The lack of entrepreneurial spirit to market his/her ideaso Does not understand how decisions are madeo Is arrogant (snubs people it is supposed to influence)
and naïve (thinks that research will speak for itself and that policymaker must want his/her research)
The construction of research & the research process o The design of research often ignores the potential usero Research-problem defined & executed by the researcher
9 | P a g e
– hence little chance of buy-in by the policymakero Initial buy-in is important but not enough; the research
process lacks constant interaction and feed backo Fails to take advantage of emerging policy concerns
The Research-Policy environmento Serious political trade-offs take place: not every demand
can be meto Cost benefit analysis and options are necessary for
decision makingo Access often demands trust –policymakers are unlikely
to trust anyone’s advice, they are pre-programmed to be cautious.
o Knowledge dependence in Africa is high –often thought that someone else has the money and the ideas and these need to be imported;
o African governments are shortsighted to they do not set long term goals –that would signal and drive research; e.g. say that you will reach the moon and research to figure it out will come.
The role of the government:o Research is not a priority as they see Africa as a
consumer of knowledge –so why fund it?o Foreign advice attracts a premium –there is self-doubt o Lack of capacity to broker knowledge –poor advisory
cadreso Maybe anti-intellectualo Not ideologically driven so no need to use evidence to
develop/support a view point or approach.o Preoccupied with regime survival
Incentives and a platform to promote research-policy linkage:o No incentive to encourage or reward policy influence by
researcherso Including incentives to build the appropriate multi-
disciplinary skills required for effective policy researcho Perverse incentives -reward for those who publish in
academic journals outside Africa – those whose work may lack applicability in the continent
o Universities have not organised themselves to ‘sell’ their expertise to the public and private sector well enough
o Consultancy arms are managed by researchers rather than policy entrepreneurs
o The university is not yet seen as an arbiter or culture and a pace setter –it seems satisfied to reflect society (even its ills).
o Ethnicity and sub-national interests influence access to resources and audience rather than merit …becoming the ebony tower of corruption
10 | P a g e
He then offered a number of recommendations: Capacity building and skills acquisition to bridge the
knowledge gap on both sides The platform to support research in the universities [university
consults] must go beyond their current preoccupation for revenue generation to policy influence; innovations and patents as measures of their performance
Build trust and avoid self-doubt Researchers must be able and willing to compete with the
private sector for research and other policy-related research consultancies advertised by the government
It calls for humility on the part of the university lecturers and an understanding on the part of government that the universities can equally deliver – quality and on-time
Nature of incentives have to change University collaboration and coordination need to be enhanced
– need to create big projects and create a pool of skills Universities must acquire reputation in certain fields and make
themselves indispensable authority in given fields Researchers must become risk takers & acquire a persevering
attitude If the consults cannot be made to re-orient and take on this
new role of policy interface, and alternative can be created This concern led to the idea of creating an Intellectual
property transfer office in some universities in Nigeria {to encourage patenting and to link scientific research to industry]
Under the Office of the VC, a similar unit can be used to organize research and intellectual discourse that are targeted to policymakers
One outcome of a workshop like this is to design training programs that will build the capacity of selected university researchers and administrators and government officials on how the three can meet i.e. on how a productive relationship that serves the interest of the parties can be constructed.
But we should not expect too much and not too soon
After the break, Enrique Mendizabal presented the lessons learned by the RAPID programme and the ROMA. He highlighted that the lessons presented had already been highlighted by Professor Osita Ogbu and that the participants should consider his summary of conformation that the literature, case studies and the experience of policy research centres across the world, confirmed his views.
The main lessons presented are: Policy processes and social realities are complex –but avoid
oversimplifying:o Complexity refers to the degree of uncertainty that
exists about the context, about the possible course of
11 | P a g e
action available to the policy entrepreneur and the expected outcomes of those actions.
o Complexity requires the use of analytical tools designed to better understand the context, find patters, guidelines, recommendations, etc.
o Often we try to oversimplify this complexity by thinking of the research-policy interface in terms of two completely separate communities: with a gap in the middle that needs to be bridged. This interpretation of reality leads us to think of impersonal but direct influencing strategies: media, publications, campaigning, etc.
o In fact, upon closer examination, there are a number of actors and spaces that link policy and research: researchers who are also policymakers, think tanks, regulatory bodies, expert editors in the media, political party research centres, etc. If we think of the space in this way, then the response should be to map rather than to bridge. And the options to influence (or reach those who have power) open up to the possibility of influencing through others.
Research plays a minor role in policy and practice:o As Professor Ogbu explained, policymakers are
influenced by a number of factors. Evidence is viewed through various lenses, including: experience, judgment, resource constraints, values, political and economic interests, habit and tradition, pressure group influences, pragmatism or ideology, etc.
o Personal experience plays an important role.o Also, policymakers and researchers, due to the nature of
their work, tend to see evidence in different ways: Researchers think of context free evidence,
theoretically driven, empirically proven, long term enterprises, etc.
Policymakers think of evidence as context dependent, policy driven, whatever proves common sense, timely, etc.
But it is possible for research to play a role and in particular influence the value for money and outcome of a policy once it’s implemented.
Policy entrepreneurs must attempt to understand external and internal landscape as much as possible.
o This includes thinking about the nature of their organisation and its position in the policy space. For example, universities as policy research centres ‘compete’ or collaborate with other organizations –private think tanks, consultancies, the media, etc.
o Similarly, they must understand how change actually happens in the context in which they work. For example,
12 | P a g e
in some cases change can be explained as a coincidence of a number of factors –tipping point- that leads to great shifts in policy; or as the consequence of the concerted action of coalitions; or as the decisions of political, economic and intellectual elites; or as a result of changes in the way that ideas or messages are framed and understood by the public, etc. These are just examples, but researchers should seek to understand the nature of change and the roles of key actors and drivers.
o There are a number of analytical frameworks that can be used. These, and the discussion that emanates from them, can direct the researcher towards the course of action that may be possible for him or her.
Policy and social entrepreneurs (but most likely, teams) need a set of skills, including:
o Storytellingo Networkingo Managingo Fixing or political negotiationo And of course research
Intent is necessary!
After some questions Enrique proceeded to present the RAPID Outcome Mapping Approach (ROMA). He explained that the approach is based on a number of models and what is accepted as good practice in planning. To illustrate this, Enrique asked the participants to think of the steps THEY would take to develop a strategy to influence policy. The steps that they came up with almost the same as the ones suggested by the ROMA.
The approach, Enrique mentioned, should help the policy entrepreneur to collect more and more information to assist in developing the most appropriate strategy. These may include a number of influencing approaches, for instance: more research, academic publications, online communications, media engagement, networking and coalition building, capacity building and teaching, etc. Influence is not just about communications.
The ROMA is described in detail in the Briefing Paper: Helping Researchers become Policy Entrepreneurs: http://bit.ly/c3PUXk.
Enrique Mendizabal introduced a new step –Step 0. This step was thought as a way of kicks-starting the ROMA process while avoiding the usual tendency of its users to jump straight to filling boxes or suggesting tactics. During its 2010 retreat, the RAPID Programme team discussed the possibility of encouraging an discussion based on three components (the fourth was added by Enrique Mendizabal for this workshop, after testing it in a meeting of European think tanks in
13 | P a g e
ODI):
The idea is that teams should start the planning process by establishing a vision (how the future looks like and the particular role that they play in this future world and in relation to other relevant actors), considering the way change takes place (using theories or examples to ilustrate this and highlighting the role various actors), and reflecting on their organisations’ own nature and competencies (and their relation to others).
The teams were encouraged to discuss these issues along side each other, allowing the answers for each to influence and revise the others.
This process reflects the nature of policy change and infleunce –slightly chaotic and iterative, strengthened by feebback loops. Out of this discussion, policy objectives, details of the context, key actors, possible approaches to influence, risks and opportunities, etc. should emerge.
The ROMA process then can kick in: define the policy objectives, study the context, identify and assess the position of key actors, establish specific policy objectives for them, develop a strategy, consider the resources and capacities necessary to implement the strategy and develop a monitoring, learning and evaluation framework.
The ROMA presentation highlighted some key issues: There are a number of tools that can be used in each step.
RAPID suggests some tools the programme finds useful –but others can be used as well.
Not all steps are mandatory. The first few steps are designed to provide more detailed information about the context, the actors involved and how they are expected to change. This information should make decision making easier and better informed. It is possible, though, that an initial assessment of
14 | P a g e
the context provides the policy entrepreneur with the necessary information to decide what to do –no more analysis is needed (expect, maybe to confirm this decision).
The same tools used for planning can be used for monitoring progress.
On specific steps:o Setting the policy objective can be a difficult task. It is
possible to begin with a broad objective (improve education policy) and then, through a deeper analysis of the context and the current situation of the education sector and the policies to address it, refine the objective until it is ‘smarter’. The more specific the objective the easier it is to identify actions to achieve it.
o For understanding the context there are many tools and levels of analysis: political economy analysis to uderstand the institutional framework and incentive structure that promote or hinder change, social network analysis or organisational assessments to addresss intra and inter organisation relations and the causes of their support or opposition to change, and even behavioral economics or sicology to better understand the motivations of individuals.
o The analysis of the actors involves requires a careful consideration of the various (and different) causes for their support/opposition and interest/lack of interest on a particular issue or policy objective. Actors may be mapped onto the same position in the Alignment, Interest and Influence Matrix, for instance, for different reasons –and therefore the policy entrepreneur will have to attempt to influence them in different ways. Also of great importance is the need to prioritise the focus of the intervention: maybe on those who have the most influence over the outcome of a policy process and that the researcher has direct access to.
o Policy objectives can also be analyised in greater detail: for example, they can be described as changes in discourse, attitudes, processes, content and behaviours. Or they could refer to changes in the policy making environment, the policies themselves or the policy makers. This greater detail, again, helps the policy entrepreneur to decide how to bring about change –it is not the same to change the discourse (maybe through a media campaign) than to change the content of a policy (maybe through drafting new legislation).
Enrique Mendizabal closed the first day by describing the AIIM and the Force Field Analysis tools (described in greater detail in the presentation power point).
15 | P a g e
WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS
DAY 2
The second day started with a brief re-cap from the participants who were asked to consider and share what they found interesting, new or important about the previous day. Some highlights include:
The importance of breaking down ‘policy change’ into more detailed components: discourse, attitude, content, etc.
The importance of planning and more pro-active policy entrepreneurship
The threat that knowledge dependency poses to African researchers and policy making
The importance of the ability to construct effective messages and being clear when communicating
Engaging all possible options to influence policy makers for example introducing courses on policy
Research and policy environment analysis is crucial for helping researchers and policy makers to work together
That the relationship between researchers and policy makers is not linear but rather complex and involves a number of stakeholders with diverse interests
It is important to prioritize who to work with and decide what aspect of policy one would like to influence as one approaches the policy makers
Policy entrepreneurs need to be aware of the context within which policies are being made so we have learnt that we need to be actively involved in the policy making process
Getting into agreements with policy making organs and universities is an effective mechanism for influencing policy and this evident in the Catholic University in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
Networking with local and international institutions Being able to communicate strategically is important
Participants were then asked to, in their country groups; attempt to kick-start the ROMA process with the ‘Step 0’ discussion. Enrique suggested that in each group, one person should be responsible to keeping track of the conversation in relation to one of the four components: vision, change, organisation, actors. This would ensure that the participants did not miss out any of them.
The discussion should allow the participants to begin drafting a strategy, and Enrique suggested that they write short statements about:
Vision and impact Purpose and policy objectives Approaches to influence (if they had time)
A number of things happened during the group work that is worth presenting here, including:
In some cases, participants found it difficult to tell the difference between ‘how change happens’ and ‘how they
16 | P a g e
intend to bring about change’. The objective of the question: how does change happen, is to explain the political economy of change –the forces that promote or hinder change, the roles that different actors play, etc. The suggestions about how change can be promoted by the researchers should be based on this description of how change happens. Enrique reviewed his presentation to explain this better.
It is difficult to avoid filling in the boxes. Although participants were encouraged to ‘just have a conversation’ about these issues, in no particular order and in an iterative manner, many went straight to writing things down. This reflects a culture that exists in the development sector in which people are used to complete tables and frameworks: the input-output logical chain. One of the objectives of this ‘Step 0’ is to change this form-filling culture.
After the break, Enrique gave a presentation on research communications –focusing on the development of strategies. He stressed that research communication strategies contribute to boarder influencing strategies. Communication activities are just one set of activities that can be useful for influencing policy: other are networks and partnership building, capacity development and teaching, collaborative research, etc.
A communication strategy normally has the following components:
Communication objectives are not the same as policy influencing objectives. For example, a policy objective may be to change the budget allocated to universities for research on agricultural development; but the communication objectives may be to raise the profile of the researchers so that they may be called by MPs to input into budget debates, increase the participation of a wider group of actors in the tertiary education funding debate, position an organisation’s brand in a new area of work, etc. These objectives should contribute to the achievement of the policy objective.
Audiences Contextual issues –similar to the discussion on the factors that
affect and explain policy change Messages Tools and activities. In communications there are a number of
options for researchers to use: publications (journal articles, working papers, briefing papers, policy briefs, opinion pieces, etc.), online communications (websites, blogs, online communities, updates to Wikipedia, etc.), media engagement (op-eds, press releases, features, articles, interviews, etc.), events (public, private, workshops, seminars, conferences, etc.), etc.
Resources
17 | P a g e
Timescales Evaluation and learning
After this input the participants were asked to revisit their strategies and, in light of the options presented by communication strategies, attempt to outline the approaches and specific activities for influence. At the same time, participants were asked to share good practices for engaging with policy makers and other stakeholders.
After lunch, participants were asked to present their draft strategy outlines using the following components to the right. For the issues in each presentation see Table 1 below:
The last sessions of the day focused on identifying a list of recommendations that could be conveyed to the Policy Side Event to take place during the Ministerial Conference on Higher Education in Agriculture in Africa where ministers and MPs are expected to be present and participants could attempt to influence change in their own contexts. Four participants volunteered to discuss these further and present them during the Theme 5 event: they Included, Prof. Moses Kwapata, from University of Malawi, Bunda College of Agriculture, Prof. Martin Obanda from Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture, Dr. Anslem Onyimonyi from University of Nigeria, Nsukka and Prof. Marietta Dlamini from University of Swaziland. After some debate, the final list was agreed:
Universities can be supported in a number of ways other than direct funding –e.g. they can be supported by encouraging the development of the agriculture sector which would demand more experts and professionals from universities, or through changes in the policies that govern university curricula or incentive structures, etc.
Let’s meet half way: researchers recognize that they must be more careful about their engagement with policymakers: understand their constraints and interests, improve their communications, engage with them from the start of a research project, organise trainings and workshops to support their teams, develop open days to encourage direct transfer of ideas, etc. However, policy makers need to attend these events, read the research and provide feedback, let researchers know what are their capacity needs, etc.
Promote inter and intra country collaboration and sharing of
18 | P a g e
best practices. At the regional and national level, universities can seek to specialise in areas of comparative advantage (to become known as experts in those issues) or in relation with the needs of their communities.
Encourage the use of local experts: Policy makers should be confident that African universities have expertise in key policy areas. Policy makers should try to first find experts in local universities, then in other African universities or research centres, and only then, if the right expertise is not present, in the ‘north’. To support this, universities should be more proactive in their marketing of experts to the government and the private sector.
There is an urgent need to invest in human resources and infrastructure.
And more fundamentally, in some cases, there is a need to re-think the roles that universities play in the development process –and in African societies.
Statement from the participants:
Governments can support the enabling environments for higher education in agriculture to allow universities to meet their primary mandates to produce relevant high level human resources, promote equity, quality and accessibility in tertiary agriculture education
University managers, academicians and researchers have isolated themselves from the policy making process of government, to the extent that even when opportunities are availed to them they still remain inactive and this limits their inputs in the policy making processes. In spite of these shortfalls, we still believe that we have a critical role to play in the social and economic development of the continent, and are willing to invest in our skills to work better with other actors.
Governments could alleviate this situation by effectively utilising the existing pool of expertise (e.g. in DRC, Catholic University, the Faculty of Law is engaged in drafting and reviews of bills. In Malawi, the Ministry of Finance conducts pre budget consultations with University of Malawi)
Governments should also invest in and rationalise human resource and infrastructure development to enhance education and research in agriculture. For instance, there are many situations where resources are mis-matched, and therefore not effectively utilized
In the spirit of African unity, we urge our governments to support in country and cross-country collaborations in the interest of optimizing existing human and material resource utilization across the continent. For example, it should not be extraordinary for a faculty member from University in Nigeria
19 | P a g e
to visit Kenya for a sabbatical leave and vice-versa. In this fast changing world governments should assist faculty
members and universities to reposition themselves to meet emerging challenges and expectations and make their institutions global centres of excellence.
Table 1: Case Studies presented as a result of group activity during the second day of the Policy Training Workshop
Nigeria:
The Nigerian case offered an example of how policy had been changed in the past –illustrating how change happens. The case highlighted that change can take place if the university is able to improve its own systems and competencies –e.g. curricula, incentives for lecturers and students, etc. These changes can help secure more funding from for instance the private sector but also encourage the participation of women in the agriculture sector.
Sudan:
The Sudan case presented a strategy that focused on establishing universities in Sudan as key contributors to the development of a peace and economically stable society. They stressed the role that universities can play in building the capacity to broker and promote peace and to encourage sustainable growth through its teaching and research.
20 | P a g e
Good practices:1. Participation in the drafting of relevant policies
(Kenya)2. Promote researchers to engage in consultancies
for policy makers (Tanzania)3. Share research findings in Agricultural Shows
(Tanzania)4. Establish agreements between universities and
parliaments to review draft legislation and offer advice (DRC)
5. Establish alliances with other universities to petition the government for support (DRC)
6. Communicate research on key policy areas to political parties and the media during the electoral period.
7. Open days where policymakers, the private sector, NGOs, etc. come to the university to learn about recent research and innovations (Malawi)
8. Members of the university or department council appointed from the government and the private sector (Swaziland)
21 | P a g e
Annex 1: Programme
Programme
Day 1- 13 Nov
Notes
08:30-09:00 Welcome remarks
Opening Remarks
RUFORUM, AAU, DDRN & ATPS
Dr. Judith Francis, CTA
9:00 – 09:30 Introductions and expectationsBackground to the event and the participants
09:30-11:00 Presentation of experiences and best practices from the participants
3-4 participants need to be identified before hand to present on 1 or two things: Why are universities important for development policy, practice and outcomes?How can universities strengthen development policy, policy and outcomes?
11:00-11:15 Coffee Break11:15-11:45 How to develop an effective
message?Presentation
11:45-12:30 Group work on developing an argument/messagePlenary presentation of answers
In smaller groups, participants try to answer three questions:How does change in tertiary education policy and practice happen?How can universities make a difference (provide examples)?What do governments and universities need to do differently?
12:30-13:45 Lunch13:45-15:45 University Research – Policy
Linkage: Why the Problems Persist in Africa by Prof. Osita Ogbu, Ph.D., FNAE
Presentation
15:45-16:00 Tea16:00-17:00 Developing a strategy for policy
engagementIncluding Q and A
Presentation of RAPID Outcome Mapping Approach –with a particular focus on Theories of Policy Change to understand how policy changes in different contexts (which will help decide how to go ahead trying to influence)
Day 2- 14 Nov
22 | P a g e
08:30-09:00 RE-cap and welcome back09:00-10:30 Identify strategic guidelines for
interventionPlus presentation to the plenary
Presentation (in plenary) and use (in groups) of the Alignment, Interest and Influence Matrix (AIIM) to identify main lines of action related to specific policy audiences.
10:30-10:45 Coffee10:45-11:30 Focus on Communications Presentation on how to develop
communication strategies and what tools and channels are available (just a taste of what is available –additional materials will be referred to and provided via email)
11:30-12:30 Group work on developing draft strategies for specific national level interventions
In national teams (where relevant) participants use the ROMA approach and AIIM tool to develop specific strategic objectives and lines of action for their own context. Including:Theory of change ObjectivesKey audiencesMain messageMain approaches to influence
12:30-14:00 Lunch Flipcharts with the strategic objectives and lines of action are left in the room during lunch so that participants can have a look.
14:00-15:00 Presentation of proposed actions Presentations from the countries –using flipcharts
15:00-15:15 Tea 15:15-16:15 Planning for CHEA Participants decide what do to during
the event: who they will target, who to talk to, how to share information about what is going on, how to share information about what happened
16:15-16:45 Next steps –what would be useful next?
16:45-17:00 Closing Speech17:15 Post workshop meeting for
‘leadership’ team
Version 14.11.10
23 | P a g e
Annex 2: Participants
No. First Name Sir Name Country Position Email1 Mohamed Elgali Sudan Head International Relations Unit [email protected] 2 Christophe Kayumba Rwanda NUR's Spokesperson [email protected] Amon Maerere Tanzania [email protected];maerere
@yahoo.co.uk 4 Ricks Chabo Botswana Principal [email protected] 5 Susan Chebet Kenya Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor, Research and
6 Ellen Gwaradzimba Zimbabwe Dean of Students [email protected]; [email protected]
7 Marietta Dlamini Swaziland Director , UNISA Research Centre [email protected] 8 William Epeju Uganda Dean [email protected] 9 Malaika Lukuitshi DRC Administrator [email protected] 10 Nampota T.I Malawi Deputy University Registrar [email protected] 11 Salebona Simelane Swaziland [email protected]. 12 Frehiwot Tilahun Ethiopia University's Promotion and Marketing Director in
the External Relations [email protected]
13 Charles Sikulu Kenya The Public Relations Manager [email protected] 14 Martin Obanda Kenya Chief Production,research and extension officer [email protected] 15 Anwar Abdalla Sudan Acting head unit of information and public relations C/o
16 Dereje Abera Ethiopia Director of University-Industry-Community-Linkage Office
17 Babatunde Nuga Nigeria [email protected] Agnes Mwangombe Kenya Principal [email protected] Nnanyelugo Okoro Nigeria PRO [email protected] Anselm Onyimonyi Nigeria Associate Dean [email protected] Issa Agaba Uganda [email protected] Monica Karuhanga Uganda [email protected] Joyce Lymo Tanzania Chairperson [email protected] 24 Ali Eissa Sudan Socio-Economist
Deputy Dean [email protected]
25 Engr. John Okuonzi
ATPS Kenya [email protected]
26 Moses Kwapata Malawi Principal
27 Richard Batte Uganda Ass. Project Coordinator, ARIS Project [email protected]
28 Moses Osiru RUFORUM Uganda Programme Manager, Networking, Advocacy and Grants, RUFORUM
29 Claire Ntwali RUFORUM Uganda Programme Assistant, Networking Advocacy and Grants
30 Elizabeth Nambi
RUFORUM Uganda Research Assistant, NAG [email protected]
31 Dr. Anne Sorenson
DDRN Denmark Coordinator [email protected] ;[email protected]
32 Dr. Carl Larson DDRN Denmark Board Member, DDRN 33 Enrique
MendizabalRAPID, ODI UK Facilitator [email protected]
34 Prof. Osita Ogbu
ATPS Nigeria Lead Presenter
35 Dr Nicholas Ozor
ATPS Kenya [email protected]
36 Mr Fletcher Tembo
RAPID, ODI Malawi Facilitator c/o [email protected]
37 Dr. Judith Ann Francis
CTA Netherlands Senior Coordinator, Science and Technology Strategies
25 | P a g e
Annex 3: Workshop evaluation
What worked well? What did not go well? What do you want more of?
What would you do differently?
What recommendations do you have for the facilitator?
What recommendations to you have for the organizers?
1. The presentations opened my mind to the need for policy makers and universities to meet regularly
2. Interfacing (sic) presentations with group presentations
3. Good arrangement4. I found the workshop so far
very interesting 5. Interactive nature of the
workshop6. New knowledge shared7. So far so good 8. Innovative ideas on
strengthening universities for policy with policy (sic)
9. Everything specifically the case of experiences shared from various countries
10. None (sic)11. Thought provoking
presentations on how universities should perceive themselves as agents for influencing policy
12. Group discussions
1. Presentation materials should have been shared well in advance
2. Did not change seating location
3. Too many activities4. Nothing5. I can not put a finger
on what did not go well
6. The material wag (sic)
7. Lack of control on people who derail discussions
8. Reporting group work
1. More group presentations
2. Need more training with policy framework more to practical site
3. Energetic facilitator4. Information on the
tools to use and the tools available
5. Reports or feedback from the organizers –success stories, challenges
6. Communication strategy should have been elaborated more
7. Group discussion
1. Have test for individuals to concentrate
2. Participants were overwhelmed
3. Have more (representation) from the category of policy makers from each country (to get the other side of the coin)
4. Less group work5. It would be nice
to have more than one facilitator for purposes of cross-cutting facilitation of ideas
1. Have less information to impart
2. Keep it up
1. Have a team of young and mature facilitators
2. Have more of these in country
3. Could have used 1.5 days instead of 2 days
4. Organise such meetings at least 2 per year
5. Where do we go from here? Follow-up
6. Sustain the tempo
26 | P a g e