In today’s world, evidence-based approaches to policy process and practices have become prominent and critical in improving policy process and development. The importance of research utilisation in policy-process and decision making is increasingly becoming a challenge.
The Gove ...Click here to read more

In today’s world, evidence-based approaches to policy process and practices have become prominent and critical in improving policy process and development. The importance of research utilisation in policy-process and decision making is increasingly becoming a challenge.
The Government and Development partners have been putting a lot of resouces on research. In Tanzania a good number of researches relevant to policy and practices have been carried out, but many of them are underutilised and they don’t inform policy-making, practice or influence decisions.The utilisation of evidence based research in policy-making can contribute to policies that may eventually lead to desired outcomes and promote change and evidence-based policy.

However, researchers wishing to increase the impact of their research need to make their findings accessible and relevant to policy-makers and other professionals. There is a need to bridge the gap between researchers, policy makers and practioners and understand the current needs and improve research packaging, communication and implementations. Policy makers should always be informed about ongoing researches and researchers should have knowledge of the most pressing policy issues.

The main objective of this topic is to discuss how research utilization can contribute to evidence based policy process and practices; what are strategies to strengthen interface and bridge the gap between researchers and policy makers.For a systematic flow of ideas, kindly make your contributions by responding to the following questions:

1. What strategies and interventions should be employed to improve the use of research evidence in the policy process and practices?

2. What are obstacles to evidence-based policy-making?

3.How can we encourage more effective research communication?

4.What sort of research advice do politicians and policy-makers want?

5. What are the best practices?

The Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF) in collaboration with President’s Office Planning Commission (POPC) and other stakeholders will organize a one-day national conference on “Unleashing Growth Potentials: Lessons and Way Forward in Creating an inclusive Growth” on 24th May, 2012, in Dar es Salaam, from 08:30 am to 18:00 pm. His Excellency, the President of The United Republic of Tanzania, Dr. Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete will be the guest of honor.

The main purpose of convening this conference is to provide a forum for stakeholders to exchange views and experiences for Tanzania’s growth potentials as it has been revealed in the implementation of a number of national development frameworks.

The conference will have two Key Note Papers (one from national and one international expert) and other 4 thematic papers, which will be discussed in parallel session. The themes were selected basing on the Medium Term Plan (MTP) and the MKUKUTA II, whereby four potential areas have been identified for discussion. These include:

Thematic Topic 1: Industrialization, Mining and Tourism Potential, Thematic Topic 2: Land Management and Agriculture Growth, Thematic Topic 3: Leadership and Governance, Thematic Topic 4: Infrastructure and Human Resource Development

ESRF is cordially inviting you to participate and share with us your opinion during the conference. Please confirm your participation through conference email address: conference@esrf.or.tz or call Ms Goreth Kashasha on +255 22 2760751/2

We thank for your cooperation to make this conference successful.

ESRF in collaboration with COSTECH would like to take this discussion further by organising a face to face dialogue on "Use of Research-Based Evidence in Policy Process and Practices" on 22nd November 2011 from 2.00 pm to 5.00 pm. The dialogue will involve renowned researchers and policy makers from Academic, Research, Civil Society and high profile officials from the Government. The dialogue will provide a forum to deliberate further on the subject and suggest the way forward.

We therefore invite interested TAKNET members who are based in Dar es Salaam, to attend this dialogue. Please confirm your attendance to Ms. J. Mwijage through the following email: Mwijage@esrf.or.tz

I can see the discussion on Promoting Change through Research is picking up and creates the attention of a number of researchers, policy actors and so many others. I am one of them.

I do agree with most of the members that research is an important tool in promoting change to policy process and practice. In Tanzania, we have now moved to a step by having our own research and development policy since last year (2010). However, its implementation needs a good strategy and involvement of R&D to implement it. Let me share with you my thoughts as a way to respond to the below discussion questions:

1. What strategies and interventions should be employed to improve the use of research evidence in the policy process and practices?

• On the policy level, we now have the research and development policy since last year (2010). However, its implementation will needs the national research and development strategy, which I am not sure whether it is already out or still prepared. If not, then the national research and development strategy should be prepared and is expected to improve the use of research evidence in the policy process and practices

• In addition, I normally believe that research can only be successful if it reaches to the target audience and used as expected, being policy/decision makers or ther groups. Therefore in order to improve the use of research evidence in the policy process and practices, there should be strategic ways to be applied. This include

o Preparing a summary of research findings through a Policy briefs of 3-4pages

o The use of media to write research articles

o Involvement of policy makers from the concept note preparation up to dissemination of research

o A good network with activists who can use the research to influence Policy Process and Practice etc

2. What are obstacles to evidence-based policy-making?

There are many obstacles. This include

• Difficulties to use research reports which are full of technical jargons,

• Weak network or poor relationship between policy makers and researchers

• Lack of the National research agenda (this year I have noted that COSTECH and Planning Commission are compiling it but in the past every researcher was doing his/her area of interest)

3. How can we encourage more effective research communication?

This can be done by having a research communication personnel within R&D who ensures that research done is basically well communicated to policy makers, therefore learning the best tools for communicating research is encouraged. The other way is to strengthen relationship between R&D and policy makers who expect research findings to influence policy process and practice. And involvement of media house and activists from different NGOs will ensure that we feedback them and they do report for us, just to make sure we promote change through our research.

4. What sort of research advice do politicians and policy-makers want?

This depends on national priorities. I think researchers need to work very close with politicians and policy makers in order to know their demand and give them what they do expect from research. This will help them to have research findings on hand while making policy decisions

5. What are the best practices?

Well, we can learn from other countries like South Korea and China whose R&D is well recognized by the government and even budget allocation to R&D as a proportion of GDP is bigger than ours (Ours is expected to reach 1% by 2015) and many other countries. In South Korea, the R&D expenditure as a proportion of GDP is 3.5. This shows high recognition to research, researchers and output of research. It also implies that if the allocation of research is bigger, the government really expect researchers to feed them with well evidence based research to policy process and practice.

Finally, there is a working paper written by the central bank of Chile in 2008 suggesting that, on average, those countries making the most effort in the R&D sector will be more productive in the future. See the attachment.

Regards,

Vivian Kazi

Researcher

Economic and Social research Foundation (ESRF)

Dsm.

suggestion number two the prospecting buyers has to see benefits in advance so that they own the process and need of paricular research and even financing the project.

the challenge for researchers or whatvdo they what to achieve is to see their research completed not seen the results are taken into policies and decuision which at the end create multiplier effects to the economy of households and nation at large.

Implementers has to implement things whch are evedence based and has to see their plan are monitored and evaluated from now and then, they are to see value for research as we statisticians believe no research no right to speak ,talk and speak and implement statistics

The supply side has to see the need for demand side and vice versa

there is need to have forums and networking so that each side will appreciate the role of the other .

this discnnect you have mentioned was observed during world finacial crisis we witnessed the financial crunch has never before due to no

linkage betwen research academic world and real world are living

pependicular to each other while they were to be in paralllel where each complement the other due to research and development(R&D)

when there will be forward and bacward linkage between supply side of the research and demand side this will minimise the duplication of efforts betwwen and among researchers and there will be well calculated uses of rare resources available in particular field of immediate attention Thirdly researchers has to form a forum to address issues of why researches done are not taken into practice by identifying decision makers to buy thier products and who is likely will be the right customer or who can finance /sponsor the research/ service

Tanzania has embassy in Denmark a country that world expert in generating electricity from Wind Mills. Why can’t Tanzania send students to Denmark to study this technology so that the country can use it to ease the electricity problem? What prevents us to do so and celebrate our 50 years independence in darkness while in 1961 we had no electricity problem? Are we actually proud of mismanaging our country for 50 years?

Dr.Khamis

Sweden

Yes, I think this is a point that need to be taken into account by researchers rather than approaching research dissemination in a ‘wait-and-see’ mode, i.e. to wait only for the demand side to take initiative. Thanks Kahwa for that remark. To break through the dilemma of weak uptake of research findings in a situation we are facing innovation in results’ dissemination would give a big impetus to its utility, just as it applies to other commodity marketing (market research, production, marketing/promotion, collecting and analyzing feedback, etc). My feeling is that a good number of researchers have cocooned themselves in the research activities with little attention to ‘forward and backward linkages’ of the process and results of the research. Efforts in the later would already make the research responding to a particular development problem/challenge (power, traffic jams, service delivery, etc) with end users (policy makers, strategists, executives, etc) connected, inspired, and in an active ‘waiting mode’ for the outputs, with a big hope to plough back the findings into their work. How far do researchers actively and strategically connect to the ‘would be end users’ from the very beginning, through the process, and in the sharing of the outputs? How many researchers (and associated partners) aggressively market or promote their research findings? Few, I would say!

The most vulnerable areas are those to be targeted, worst of our country perfomance we center and consentrate on areas already better off if not the areas with no reputable returns!! We have every thing we need to move ahead to great economy, but we leave the resources for someone external who shows interest... We have uranium but we still complain of electricity problem, we have Tanzanite, Gold and other potentioal minerals but we sell very poorly

Amazing of all we have very many people with great ideas, and those possing challenges that are worth acting and resheduling strategy but no one see"s value in them.....

I have been thinking we here contribute very valuable things but then how do we take them to real practice for the better o ourselves and those who will live after us??

Lets think of a way to reshape the destiny of our country, i speak not politics but a strategic policy that will move us to a different high level of thinking perspective, motive and we set attainable goals, thus we have knowledge and an open mind to broad issues, then how to use the knoledge we have to help our nation out..... and its not a matter of starting oneself but join together and we convey message to more individuals to have one voice to those we put into power.....

Thanks.. say's Denis M. Silayo

Our problem we always involve who have given us money for the research but not who might facilitate us on technology/knowledge transfer after results may be as the conditions of the funder or different interest as also mentioned by others.

Researchers need to be more innovative to influence policy makers to be the champion of the results they produce and also when we show the changes influenced by the research results to the community.

For the case of the research results on shelf, who put it and why? did the researcher thought about the dissemination from the beginning? did the researcher took any initiative to take it further? what about the IPR issue in relation to the researcher career path?

You will find the IPR issue is even not known by the reseachers in a particular institution or the IPR document is not existing.

The way forward is to take the audit of the results (on shelves) in relation to their needs in the society and identify the key stakeholders who have the mandate to facilitate the dissemination and transfer of technologies and see how you can work together to take further the results.

Lets strenghten our National Innovation System which will results into information society and knowledge economy.

It is responsiblity of everyone in the country.

The key challenges we have at the moment such as power, traffic jam, improving quality of our services like education, health, decent affordable housing etc. can be greatly achieved if the development is targeted to rural areas and specially in uplifting the production capacity of the peasant farmers.

The most important thing is for the researchers to understand the need to collaborate with this institution particularly to make sure the research results are disseminated particularly to the beneficiaries. But also there are different plaforms in this institution like Renewable Energy Platform whereby private sector, academia, government and associations met to dicuss key issues in the country and recommend the way forward. Just an example through this platform tax exemptions for some solar energy products was the output.

What we actually need in Tanzania is a National Research Council comprising of Professors from different institutions, people from various industries as well as ministries. This council should be able to give views on research subjects that could be beneficial to the development of Tanzania. Energy, is a topic that requires research indeed especially at this moment when TENESCO can’t deliver electricity to all Tanzanians. We can’t rely on rain and hydro-electric power for ever.

Dr.Khamis

Sweden

Dear contributors to the agenda in question

Based on the contributions from members, I have no doubt that we all have a common understanding on the impact of research on evidence based policy process. And we all agree on the need to change the current practices. The structures and institutions to make research and policy marry each other are in place but could be improved, determination to see change is now evident base on the current dialogue. Perhaps what we need nos is to push this debate into the open....more than the few exchanging notes on taknet. Can esrf and Costech convene a serious and broader consultative forum (even on media-Makwaia, kiti moto etc) at some point so that we can benefit from the public support? We need few and focused leading questions for the debate. what is the current status, why is the status like this and what each actor need to seriouly change?

 It is hurting and dissapointing to see how we waste resources-time, money, people and opportunities, but more humiliating how we remain in the domains/hubs of donors to drive our research and policy agenda.

Makongo

----------------------------------------------
Japhet Maingu Makongo
Ubunifu Associates Ltd
P.O. Box 32971
Dar es Salaam,

TANZANIA
Website: www.ubunifu.co.tz, info@ubunifu.co.tz,
Tel:       +255 22 2762027
Mobile    +255 754 571 256

Basically deciding on what policy to follow after researching is the only way to avoid gumbling on new investiments, the qustion is,  what extent our researchers goes with time? what and for who that research is being conducted? well we have seen several biased reports favouring the interest of the financers ,what to do to make researchers free and fair!,

Supporting the current motion we need more and more free researches now than ever.

Thank you Elly

Humam reated in God's image, but are not the same though look the same.

It is from these differences we have poor and rich people, old and young people. It is babylon type;

If you are aspiring for equal human rights. it is better you went to International court ta demand compansation for the damage done by Capitalist Slave traders the Arabs. I am sure their descedants government have to pay.  We only need people like you to go to ICC and lodge the complain.

Regards

Elisha

The quest of the topic came in time to change our country paradigm of policy making. It's amazing to learn that long term and short term policies or strategies and programs [home grown] are prepared in ad hoc and clouded with political pressures. Conformity to donor's requirements completely distort the 'already defragmented' policy making process.

To rebuild the process it's important "to reexamine the basic assumption of the question, which is that policy formulation is carried out by the government and 'development partners', and the responsibility of researchers is to orient their research towards the priorities of 'the state'" by Marjorie Mbilinyi. Based on this premise I have few observations to share.
(1) By practice the government often consults services for developing long term policies or national development agenda from private/independent organization. They provide ToR and short period of time to prepare a policy or strategies which will have impact to more than 40millions people. The document might also exist for 10 or more years. I think there are imbalances here; instead of spending more time on research and less time in crafting the policy, the practice is indifferent.
(2) Donor funding dominates government and non governmental organization’s activities. In so doing they have manipulated the strategic plans of our institutions and thinking of our experts. Therefore the continuum of our institutions and experts thinking toward country's contextual development has been disrupted and unconnected. Our development is therefore dictated by Bretons wood institutions and UN based systems which largely serve their donors (US, EU countries etc). At the moment there are few scholarly/theoretical debates on Tanzania development path everyone is scrambling for short term consultancies.

(3) Politicized development and policy decisions over showed research based development and policy making. This trend has made technicians to feel their works (mainly research) are worthless and shift their careers to politics. Consequently, weakens our own research and academic institutions. Every body is aspiring to become policitician, who will be doing evidence based researches for policy making? [After all who will buy ideas?]

What should be done then? It's important the government to realize the importance of research based evidence in policy making. Structures which are created within government institutions as think tanks might note be very effective but strengthening already created research institutions to work independently is the most effective decision. In this way research based policy making will be strenthened. The budget for research has been set but it's important for politician to uptake seriously recommendations from local experts. It's also necessarily for the government to invest in long term research projects in all fields of development. Improvement of working environment to technicians to reduce turnover is equally important.

Both of you Sima and Hebron are right. I am working in a government research institute. You can imagine since last financial year we have received < 40 % of funds required for research.The only line of hope is from donors where you get some funds for work and of course to address their research needs and not ours! 

1. In the event where the evidence is there (for example in agricultural sector through input subsidy). Farmers, smallholder, women and other people know if we have to buy through commercial avenue the price will be (let us say Tz 45,000 for a 50kg bag of CAN fertiliser). However, as it has been the practice, if you qualify for the subsidized input,you have no choice - you will have to accept seeds and fertiliser. They call it a a complete package! This is condition that all producers, small,medium and large have to comply with, regardless whether you prefer using animal manure or composite. Individually people know that is not the ideal way of promoting Kilimo, or assisting production.However where is energy to mobilize them and share these issues in an analytical way?

2. The second related situation, would be where the subsidized price has very small margin compared to the commercial price for some of these inputs, and yet, councillors and other stakeholders will be boasting like - we are providing inputs at lower price with little consideration on administrative costs and other implications. This second scenerio might be difficult to address, if you anticipate the local activists and other individuals to engage. It demands complete analytical skills, on benefit cost analysis, on transactional costs as opposed to social, political and economic gains - to various social groups. This kind of intervention will demand credible institutions, to take time, understand the context (not on academic level alone....but both experience/practice and academic), not extracting data from communities, but creating space for people at their own level to start/continue engaging and challenging the status quo.

To sum up! What does this mean? Basically influencing policy change through evidence based approach is pragmatically imposible unless you take into account the attitude part. We have some policies that are goood, but practice has been the same! WHY? People involved might not know the implication, if they know they have limited time and ability to engage.

Personally I think (with all political interests aside), there is enough room to influence policy change, if we cautiously take time to engage with local councillors (understanding in agric sector for example over 75% of the national budget is spent at local level). They live with people, they are part of the community...although with limited understanding of their roles and responsibilities.

Audax

I would like to thank all who have so far contributed to this discussion. Your views are so interesting and indicate the challenges that exist in using research evidence to influence policy process and practice. I do agree with most of your views but I would like to share with you my experience as a researcher at ESRF.

1.       What strategies and interventions should be employed to improve the use of research evidence in the policy process and practices?

As was pointed out by some of contributors the strategy ESRF uses is to cooperate closely with policy-makers from the initial stage of the research. This makes them understand specific needs, relevance of topics, and helps to improve communication, dissemination and implementation of the research recommendations.

Once the problem which we think needs policy intervention is identified the next step is to introduce and discuss the problem with policy makers so that we have a common understanding of the problem and if at all there is a need for research or not. This is very important because sometimes researchers lack some information especially on what has been done by others or government to address the problem identified. Discussions with policy makers sometimes help us to know the most pressing policy questions that would make our research more relevant.

The most important thing in such discussion is to create atmosphere where all participants are free to give views otherwise you may end – up doing research that supports policy maker’s position. The researcher’s duty is to explain a-priori to policy makers the danger of such researches in the short and long run. Do not take for granted that they know the consequences of implementing policies supported by such research findings.

 NOTE:

-     Policy-makers who are consulted at the initial stages of a research project tend to be more open and participate actively in shaping the research questions, and thereby take "ownership" of the research as well

These villages are fortunate that they have primary schools

and Secondary Schools and many retired school teachers.The irony of it is that these highly educated people by Tanzania standards

are passive and not showing any interest in tracking the distribution of budget resources.In some wards the councillors live in the disrtrict town and even the MP

has no time after being elected.I remember attending a meeting several years ago where the elders were asking their MP as to why he built such a nice house in the village and yet he has no time to live in it so that he can be reached easily.So the problem is probaly not only the level of literacy but a very unfortunate culture of using communities for personal ends.

No wonder why slavery and colonialism thrived for long because there were people who sold thier own kith and kin.Those blood cells are still in our leaders today.

The problem is more deep rooted than most of us will live to realise.

My view.

Elly Kimbwereza

Cultural Tourism --South Pare Mountains

Dear members,
I think we have some platforms already in place but implementation is always our problem. Currently we have the so called the think tanks in the ministries (I am not sure  if all ministries but several of them have created this structure). My advice would be the ministries to open up the composition of members of these think tanks to include few individuals outside their ministries such as researchers, NGO, etc. to work together to bring innovations through research. I am not sure of their TORs  but I guess they cannot be think tanks without being informed by current status of affairs through research. They are probably not doers but they should suggest what could be studied and used and procure consultancy to those who do research. This structure if used  links well with what it has been reaserched and hence policy making. because it emanates from people of the sectors, the chances of implementation could be there. They will be monitoring implementation and use of the findings in policy making
 
I tend to agree with Hebron that some of our big research institutions do implement research topics as per the donors requirements not necessarily derived from the sector responsible but prescribed from donors which results into government officials being invitees to dissemination workshops of the findings. This for sure will have little impact on the use of the findings.  Greater involvement of respective sectors in such decisions is important
 
Evidence based programming and policy making is critically needed given the economies shrinking and budget cuts, the need for prioritizing what works and what does not, through research. We need high level commitment on the importance of doing and use research findings.

Fellow Taknet members, I wonder if my contribution will be within the context of the subject, but I think it can add a new dimension to the end result of the discussion.

Can higher learning institutions and related organizations like ESRF, REPOA, etc. put more emphasis on establishing, strengthening professional (thematic) bodies like we have in the field of Engineering,  Accountancy, etc,? These bodies should have a national context and not the current fragmented intra-university ones. I think it is an effective way to influence on the direction of, management, dissemination and use of research outputs, These bodies create economies of scale particularly in publishing and and disseminating research work which is quite expensive and has affected many higher learning institutions not being able to publish their works for feeding policy makers. NOTE I have seen REPOA research works disseminated - a good example but possibly another big donor behind?. These professional bodies are not only a "means" but also an "end" in themselves because through accumulated knowledge base, make "best possible" policy advice in times of lack of resources to undertake expensive timely research for evidence-based recommendation.  

The challenge is who should take the lead? A Government that values Research takes the lead, many contributors have so far indicated that the Govt is not doing enough hence more prevalence of least donor funded but mostly donor -driven research works. The Government need to first have a Policy that is built on the assumption that we have constraints in Evidence -based policy making and therefore the limited impact, and therefore amend/create a policy that recognizes, encourages, nourishes and taps into synergies brought about by professional bodies.

Hebron Mwakalinga

Research can be used as a tool to promote change in many aspects from social, economic, scientific etc. Research on policy process and practice based on evidence to highlight impact would definitely be a huge eye opener to a large number of stakeholders including the policy makers who sometimes think all is well as the long as the policy has been approved.

Policy formulation is largely a government undertaking. Involvement of stakeholders to what level and extent is arbitrary not statutory. The grass root stakeholders, the obvious majority are sparingly represented if at all. Policy is translated into action by the masses the majority being the rural people. The obvious risk under such circumstances is that the majority are likely to be disengaged in due process. Who else can evidently show this scenario but the unbiased researcher? How much is an illiterate farmer in a remote distant village in a huge country like Tanzania involved in the policy process and practice in any context be agriculture, education, health etc? 

Take education as an example. Has literacy level in Tanzania increased or decreased since independence fifty years ago? Quickly by numbers it has increased substantially based on the two periods at independence and now. But a real positive change should be weighed by considering all factors at both periods and be able to explicitly show the real change in terms of age groups literacy, the ratio of physical and soft infrastructure, quality of teachers and trends,ratio of teacher,student ratio, quality of graduates at  different levels etc.

Research is a complex undertaking demanding resources and positive attitude to facilitate the accomplishment of the various responsibilities that would lead to credible outputs. The Impact of Research on Evidence-based Policy Process and Practice is to close the gap in understanding the complicated development path among stakeholders simultaneously providing space for constructive debate and discussion to iron out the hiccups and move forward. 

However, the use of media in the process is very crucial. The choice of media to suit the range of stakeholders has to be critically made so that they are all well informed

Understanding the problem, what are the strategies and way forward. There is need to have strategic brokerage between policy makers and Researchers and that is what the COSTECH is doing by making sure that the evidence based recommendations are influencing policies, legislations and regulations. How this is been done is through advocacy for evidence based policies with regular dissemination of policy briefs and formulation of national research agenda which are aligned with the Five Years Development Plan and Tanzania Development Vision 2025.

However, most important is to recognize the Government efforts in funding research projects. For the first time, last financial year since Independence the Government set substantial amount of funds for research and development on competitiveness basis (about US$25M). This financial year Government has pledged to allocate also substantial amount of funds however, we are not yet reaching 1% of GDP but at least the Government commitment is been honoured. Just for you to note the Government funds for Research and Development are managed by COSTECH and are open to any researcher to apply in the response to the call for proposal. Some of the research funds are been used to support 202 postgraduates (58 PhD and 144 Masters) who are young researchers and scientists in R&D institutions.

We at COSTECH have established expert database system that will enable researchers and scientists to register so that we know who is where, and who is doing what with what areas of experts so that when we will be issuing the call for research proposals we could have easy way of communicating and getting researchers getting access to the Government research funds. You can get more info through: www.costech.or.tz

Through this discussion, I believe we could come up with more practical strategies to enable us to move ahead in making sure that the research evidence are used in policy making process.

Cheers

The concept of animation or participatory action research calls for the democratisation of decision-making processes about policies, strategies and resources. Researchers find out what are the key priorities of the marginalised and oppressed segments of society, including marginalised women, and carry out analysis and research using a variety of methods. However their first audience or 'clientele' are the marginalised groups with whom they are working. In this approach, the research becomes part of an advocacy or activist strategy, linked in many cases to media strategies, to ensure that the public is informed about the results of the studies and can use the information to demand change in the area of concern. Individual allies in government are part of the process, and indeed, engagement with policy and budget processes at local and national [and regional level] may well be part of the overall advocacy strategy.

The information produced by animation will therefore be packaged in many different ways in order to reach different kinds of 'target' groups, including mass communications on social media [blogs, sms messages, etc] as well as policy briefs in English and Kiswahili and even wall murals.

I think we can learn from the experience with performance tracking - one means of social accountability -- which has found that performance tracking alone does not lead to policy or social change. Only when it is linked to media campaigns do policy makers and top implementers pay attention to the results of the tracking [research].

The challenges also go beyond the institution/government linkages. For example, in instances where the proposed policy change demands internalization by the local audience - who are primarily affected by policies, little time is allocated to ensure during policy formulation process, there is enough engagement and collection of people's views.

I am also forced to say, depending on how the research findings and proposals are made, various fora are important.The question here is when and how should we involve the government? When and how should we involve the policy makers? When and how should we involve the development partners,so that the government does not assume it to be 'the donors' agenda!

In terms of parkaging the information (evidence), one would also need to understand the needs for various audiences! In certain circumstances it might be more feasible to work very closely with people primarily affected by malpractices through the current policy/practices than assuming the 'researcher/research would speak for the affected group'!

Audax

let me join other friends and over my comments by addressing some of leaing questions herewith.

1. What strategies and interventions should be employed to improve the use of research evidence in the policy process and practices?

o Let me start by differing with your opening statement that “The Government and Development partners have been putting a lot of resources on research.” On the contrary the government has neither given an observable commitment nor resources in terms of budget allocation to research work. If you are not committed to research work you can’t have the incentive to you it. If I am not wrong most of the researches are either donor driven/funded or simply for academic proficiency.

o Get research to be visible in budgets and get the right people to oversee changes. Some of guys/leaders in research drivers like TIRDO and Research user like SIDO have over-stayed and out-grown to the current changes and demands.

o Repacking the messages to policy makers so that evidence from research is delivered to policy makers in the way that is practical.

 Apart from disseminating research reports…. There is an urgent need to prepare 1-2 pages “policy research findings briefs” outlining concrete findings and recommendations in simple and straightforward language (in both English and Kiswahili)

 The policy briefs should also propose responsible actors within decision-making hierarchy to take action, as well as indicating possible implications when the recommendations have to be taken on board within a minimum timeframe. If for any reason the timeframe has elapsed without action, the responsible authority may issue another ultimatum or reminder more broadly instead of commission another research

o Getting policy and decision makers to be part of the research process? NO! This is going too much into the kitchen. Let the researchers do their work and decision making do their jobs at their respective levels and mandate. For some of us (field practitioners) who are committed to see changes on the ground, we observe two scenarios related to research. One is the increasing disconnect between the research agenda and the real needs of the community….in terms of priority, timeliness, practicability and realistic capacity for operationalizing. I do not believe that decision makers do not know what need to be researched and when, or that researchers do not know what decision requires to be informed by evidence based research. Here we Are dealing with issues of lack of “COMMITMENT AND ATTITUDE CHANGE”

. How can we encourage more effective research communication?

o We should no encourage but “enforce” effective research communication and feedback.

o Do we have an effective legal framework which guides and protects the work of researchers? If not let us strive to improve so that our resources are effectively used.

o Make occasional audits or inventory to compare which sectors/ministries have used research advice to make decisions.

4. What sort of research advice do politicians and policy-makers want?

o Ask them…. Let us find a practical way of engaging to find out what they are missing now from our researches. Just as Rupia Banda the outgoing President of Zambia has clearly retaliated in his defeat speech….quote “labda hatukuwasiliza na labda hatukuwalewa walichokitaka wananchi” end of quote (Mwana halisi 28th Septemeber to 4th October 2011)

o I guess we tend t o take for granted that any policy maker cum decision maker has the capacity and interest to understand and use research findings for making decisions. I am underlining the term interest here to show that lack of capacity alone is not to blame. We are increasingly seeing some of our distinguished and respected fellow researchers entering the policy and decision making arena (as members of parliaments or councilors) and some given critical decision making posts……but what changes do we see?

5. What are the best practices?

o I am afraid we may not have many of what you call “best practices…..Best in comparison to what? We see very few charismatic but also pushy leaders like Dr. John Pombe Maguguli, Edward Lowasa and the like. They get consumed by the overflowing hardships on the life of people and tend to take shortcuts for short lived of what may look like positive decisions, but later give adverse negative impact to the people and the nation. (refer to Richmond saga and the uvuvi haramu strategies)

1. There is lack of national research agenda. Most african countries donot have a focus on research. Most of it is donor driven hence not prioritizing nation interest.

2. Conducting Research and Development without D. Most research done is done not to solve a developmental problem but because money has been made available.

3. Lack of a central platform for dissemination and uptake of research. the National Commission for Science and Technology mostly donot have capacity to coordinate dissemination and coordinate uptake of reaserch output by relevant stakeholders

Governments need to commit themselves for Research for Developemnt.

Karibu

Ms Martha Khungwa

Program Officer

Malawi Knowledge Network(MAKNET)

The Malawi Polytechnic

Private Bag 303

Chichiri Blantyre 3

Dear all

I agree with Mr. Chipfupa's contribution. Research work is only good if put to real use. otherwise we have lots of research done put into shelves.

thanks

Elisha

Evidence based policy ,in my view, means that the policy is tested and seen to meet the needs of the people for whom it is made. It means that the people concerned/ beneficiaries if you like, are the centre of the policy research and production on which basis the technical people working on policy production operate to write the policy. Outside this process, we have lots of policies which simply are provisions, difficulty to cost and bring about budgets to realistically meet the needs of people/beneficiaries hence very good intentions on paper but meaningless to the people/beneficiaries.

In my view, to communicate policy if strategically carried out enhances the policy practice. Government officials implementing/practicing the policy would lead the dissemination hence connecting to people and in a way saying ‘support us to deliver this policy which is for you.’ Stakeholders in development would come in support of the government leadership in communicating practice of the policy. There are situations where stakeholders such as CSO have taken lead to disseminate policy within their project work and then after the project period everything comes to a halt and government is not there to continue the practice of policy.

Policy influencing and practicing is best done together with government at all levels.

Chipfupa

Dear TAKNET Members

We have introduced a new topic on Promoting Change through Research: The Impact of Research on Evidence-based Policy Process and Practice

Evidence-based approaches to policy process and practices have become prominent and critical in improving policy process and development.

The Government and Development partners have been putting a lot of resources on research. In Tanzania a good number of researches relevant to policy and practices have been carried out, but many of them are underutilized and they don’t inform policy-making, practice or influence decisions. However, researchers need to make their findings accessible and relevant to policy-makers and other professionals.

The main objective of this topic is to discuss how research utilization can contribute to evidence based policy process and practices

For a systematic flow of ideas, kindly make your contributions by responding to the following questions:

1. What strategies and interventions should be employed to improve the use of research evidence in the policy process and practices?

2. What are obstacles to evidence-based policy-making?

3. How can we encourage more effective research communication?

4.What sort of research advice do politicians and policy-makers want?

5. What are the best practices?

Moderators; Margareth Nzuki, Abdallah Hassan and Apronius Mbilinyi