How do you persuade policy makers that communication plays a vital role in development? How do you show them that communication processes need to be embedded in policy and practice?
These questions - and the answers - are being explored by the Information and Communication for Development Knowledge Sharing and Learning programme (ICD Knowledge Sharing and Learning programme), which in October 2006 published its interim findings.
The programme started at the end of 2005, runs for 18 months, and is funded by the UK Department for International Development (DfID). Led by Gamos, its consortium includes Healthlink Worldwide and the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM).
Why is communication an issue?
The role of communication and information, and in particular the communication
of research, in relation to policy making, has been discussed considerably
in recent years. The importance of providing evidence to demonstrate
its impact has been established, but is this alone enough to inform
policy? How does dialogue – where the communication is multi-directional,
iterative and within context – fit in?
Findings from the programme so far conclude that policy making is “a messy process” and often depends on “windows of opportunity”. This raises significant challenges when demonstrating the impact of information and communication and putting it in front of decision makers. For example, if evidence contradicts political expediency it may be sidelined, or if it is perceived to come from the wrong source it may be ignored, or the professional language used by the researcher may not match that of the decision maker.
Evidence…and more
The ICD Knowledge Sharing and Learning Programme focuses on processes
that engage policy makers. The initial stages of the programme, which
included a scoping study, have shown that information and communication
needs of policy makers go beyond the provision of evidence. There is a
need to engage policy makers and enable them to use the evidence to inform
policy.
The scoping study sought the views of over 150 policy makers, it helped to map out their needs and find out about resources. Methods included an email survey, an invitation-only online discussion, and face-to-face and telephone interviews. Although the respondents included ICD specialists and academics with an interest in communication for development, many of the policy makers felt they were not engaged with the subject.
The right kind of communication – and in the right place?
The email survey findings showed there was a split in opinion regarding
awareness of the importance of communication. Some thought that policy
makers had little understanding of the subject, while others believed
there was a small but growing awareness of the need for communication.
Where there was high awareness of the impact of communication it tended
to be one-way - used to get a message across, for example Public Relations
(PR), concerned with image, or about promoting compliance.
The online discussion found that the integration of communication and information into policy was of low importance to policy makers. Even when its value was recognised it was not translated into viable policies. Explanations for the gap between policy and implementation included lack of budget, experience, and understanding. In effect, there is a clear role for communication which remains to be exploited.
This led to some participants calling for new evaluation methods. This is in recognition of the difficulty of quantifying the effect yhat communication has . Respondents felt that so far there has not been much satisfactory evidence that demonstrates the need for including communication as part of development policy.
Influencing how policy is made
Respondents to the email survey noted:
The power of stories
When evidence of the impact of communication for development is generated it
needs to enter and become part of the communication flow of the network in
order to reach the policy manager. Senior level decision makers emphasised
that different types of evidence are valued for different purposes, for example
stories are a powerful way to get a message across, academic research can be
used to justify decisions and donors want to see data.
Stories are important as they offer ‘hooks’ by which policy makers can get hold of an issue; this does not negate the need for the background base of evidence but shows how the evidence can be formatted to reach an audience.
Do websites work?
There is much debate on the usefulness of websites as a way of gaining
access to policy makers. In theory if the evidence is online then the
policy maker could access the evidence directly. However, many of the
respondents felt that policy makers rarely had the time or the inclination
to search for evidence themselves. They rely on evidence being pushed
to them by their close network3. This is not the case for lobbyists, influencers
and researchers, who have more time for gathering evidence and synthesising
it into formats useful to policy makers.
The ICD Knowledge Sharing and Learning programme, in recognition of the complex factors relating to website usage, is developing a web presence geared towards the networks of policy makers; to make the most of the communities of interest that exist and find entry points to those networks which do not normally discuss communication (and become part of the flow). It will offer key material on development and be one way by which policy makers might begin to value the integration of communication in mainstream development sectors.
Conclusions
The following points have been gathered from the programme so far:
Activities for the next phase of the programme include; synthesis papers, cooperation with significant players in the area and continued engagement with stakeholders including further online discussion groups, exchange events and the development of an appropriate web presence.
Download the summary paper (PDF 4 pages, 91 KB)
References
DFID Communication of research: Guidance notes for research programme
consortia www.dfid.gov.uk/research/communication-research.pdf
Background papers drew on valuable resources such as: RAPID, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), International Development Research Centre (IDRC), ID21, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Communication Information Management Resource Centre (CIMRC), (DFID CRD) and Natural Resources Research commissioned by DFID among others
Theory of Change for the Knowledge and Sharing Report, June 2006 Gamos