research brokers & intermediaries
DESCRIPTION
How research brokers and intermediaries contribute to evidence based pro-poor policy making: framing the debate Preseantation by Geoff Barnard, Head of Information Department (IDS) at Locating the Power of the In-between conference July 08TRANSCRIPT
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