At a recent meeting in South Africa someone mentioned the concept of ‘Use inspired research’. I like that. Its better the narrow ‘demand led research’ that assumes the policymaker knows best (and has all the right questions -we know this is not true).

But not all research needs to be immediately practical. Theories need to be developed, and tested. Some databases need to be played with. New research methods explored. Etc. Without these all the ‘practical research’ that funders want is not possible. Or, if it done, will be based on secondary (or worse) research.

A good old ethnographic study; a historical account of a country, city or culture; a sociological reflection on the social changes a society endures over decades; etc are invaluable inputs for any serious ‘practical research’.

That not more of this done is quite simply a shame.

The Justice and Security Research Programme at the London School of Economics and Political Science and The Asia Foundation are currently collaborating in a two year research project exploring ToC approaches to international development practice. The research and outputs from the collaboration aim to provide a basis for development organisations to produce more empirically-grounded theories of how change happens, leading to improved development programming. The collaboration between a research consortium and an NGO should also allow for better integration of wider social science research findings into tangible meanings for field practitioners.

We are only really just getting under way, but our first publication ‘Understanding Theory of Change in International Development: A review of existing knowledge’ is now available online here:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/internationalDevelopment/research/JSRP/The%20Asia%20Foundation%20collaboration.aspx

Hopefully this and forthcoming work will be of interest to yourself and others thinking about ToCs.

We need to get away from thinking of the policy maker as an audience for knowledge, and rather see them as actors in their own right. In this sense knowledge intermediation is about building relationships between policy makers and researchers, and also those who implement policies and those affected by them. This is important to be able to bring in the different perspectives on an issue so that researchers can also understand what kind of knowledge is useful to policy makers and how the policy making process works, and also to bring together the different types of knowledge that come both from scientific research, and from experience of implementing and being affected by policy decisions (or to put a human face on scientific information).

This is also important to build trust between researchers and policy makers. While intangible, trust and mutual understanding is an important factor in whether a particular voice is listened to (especially since policy makers don’t have the time or means to verify the technical merits of the research they encounter). Building and nurturing these relationships over time (i.e. not only focusing on the content of the exchange) is a key yet under-emphasized role of the knowledge intermediary.

Here’s the full post: http://kmonadollaraday.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/k-k-what/

@enrique not sure I agree that a researcher’s focus should be on good research first then communication afterwards. I think this depends on why you want to do research. If you want to research because you are seeking the truth (only) then that’s fine, but if you want to do research to improve practical implementation of policy or programmes I think you need to think of it from the outset – and if I were in an aid agency funding research I think I’d also want to know from the outset what the practical questions the research might at least potentially help me with).

Purely academic research is great – but its not much use to aid workers apart from as a nice intellectual distraction from our day to day work.

I like the idea that higher density (more information better disseminated) will inevitably lead to a more informed decision making community: http://wp.me/pYCOD-ch

This density includes organisations like Oxfam and others that can use good research to advocate. Sure they will be some researchers who keen to do so too but we still need a critical mass of researchers who are just good researchers (being a good researcher, by the way includes being out of the office and finding out about the real world and engaging with others).

The problem with the TOC approach that DFID and its advocates use is that it is not interested in the complexities you describe, Duncan (and that David Booth and Emma Broadbent illustrate: http://wp.me/pYCOD-sQ), but on getting THEIR research to affect policy.

Not research in general to inform policy but THEIR research in particular. This is the problem. This is why they come up with A theory of change that is nicely fitted into the LogFrame format and the then the Business Case. See my latest post on frameworks: http://wp.me/pYCOD-ya

A tiny final comment on ToCs. I remember using this term 3 or 4 years ago on a short note on M&E for DFID. I used it to refer to theories of change (elites, social movements, tipping points, etc.). I was asked to remove the word ‘theory’ because is sounded too academic and this would put people off. Now the word Theory has been shorted to T put next to o and C and it has lost all meaning.