This is the presentation delivered as part of a two day workshop held in Nepal in 2014 aimed at communications professionals or the point person for communication within fifteen South Asian think tanks. Participants explored how they could adopt a systematic approach to planning research or knowledge outputs for policy engagement and influence. They explored the types of influencing outcomes they are focused on and their individual and institutional capacities to deliver strategic communication and policy engagement work. By the end of the workshop it was hoped that each participating institution would have identified a clear set of steps towards the development of a strategic approach to policy engagement and research communication at an institutional or programmatic level. This workshop formed part of the IDRC funded Think Tanks Initiative South Asia programme. http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Programs/Social_and_Economic_Policy/Think_Tank_Initiative/Pages/About.aspx

1. Developing a strategic approach to Policy
Engagement and Communication
Lead facilitators:
James Georgalakis, IDS Head of Communications
Hannah Corbett, IDS Public Affairs Officer

2. How the workshop will be run
• We want you to learn
• Not too much lecturing from facilitators
• Lots of thinking discussing and working in
groups
• Success depends on participation
• Mood Monitor
Follow Twitter: @PECSAP @IDS_UK
Tweet: #PECNepal

3. Working groups for PEC planning




Participants divided into TT teams for some
exercises
Workshop divided into two working groups for
some sessions
Each TT supported by their facilitator
Groups record their work on flip charts and
worksheets throughout:
- Keep them safe
- Remember label each sheet with Session and group

4. Ground Rules
As a courtesy to your colleagues, please:
Be quiet and listen
when others are
speaking, respecting
each other and their
views
Contribute fully,
speak loud and
clear

5. Session 1:
Introduction to PEC concepts

6. Factors affecting research uptake
Political context
and power
relationships
Gaps between
researchers and
research users
Effective
research
communication
Research
uptake and
changes in
people’s lives
Research capacity
Character and
credibility of evidence

7. Self perceived roles of research generators
Pielke (2007)
Pure scientists:
Only interested in doing research
Science arbiters:
Respond to specific questions from policy makers
but do not express preferences
Issue advocates:
Aim to influence policy in a particular direction
Honest brokers:
Clarify and potentially expand the policy options
available to decision makers

8. Reasons to engage
Primary Goals (substantive):
To improve policy making processes
To influence policy in a particular direction
To improve quality of policy discourse
To empower marginalised stakeholders
Secondary Goals (instrumental):
To grow research communication capacity
To enhance institutional position and profile
To build partnerships and attract funding

9. Evidence/Science based
Advising
Advocacy
Cooperation
/inside
Confrontation/
outside
Lobbying
Activism
Interest/Values based

10. What is a PEC goal?
A brief vision statement that describes a change you hope
to contribute to through your policy engagement work. This
could include:
A change in a specific area of policy.
A change in how evidence informs a particular policy.
A change in how particular policy actors engage with
research knowledge.
A change in the prominence of a specific research theme on
the public policy agenda.
A change in the nature of the policy discourse.

11. PEC goal ingredients
1. What aspirational change do you seek?
External - not just change within your TT
2. Who must change?
Be as specific as you can
3. How must they change?
Behaviour, attitudes, policy
4. What is the time frame?
By date xx

12. What will success look like?
A great PEC goal is expressed as an outcome
not an activity or plan. Write it as if the change
has happened.
The long term outcome you seek is likely to be
something you hope to contribute to rather
than achieve entirely on your own.

13. Making your PEC goal more strategic
Our PEC goal is…
Before:
“To understand a changing India and to engage in and
inform public debate.”
After:
“Processes and structures to understand the
governance of Indian cities will be better informed by
a more transparent, rigorous and diverse evidence
base.”

14. Our PEC goal is…
Before:
“By 2014, XX will be positioned a key influencer and
source of rigorous evidence within the UK, EU and UN
policy spheres in relation to the post 2015 decision
making process.”
After:
“By 2015, debates within the UK, EU and UN policy
spheres around the post 2015 decision making
process will be better informed by the realities and
experiences of the poorest and most marginalised.”

15. Our PEC goal is…
Before:
“XX think tank will continue to serve needs of the country by
undertaking quality research and analysis, and disseminate the
same among broader sections of the society; consolidate its
position as a leading think tank in xxx country that will focus on
national economic and governance issues and build an institution
which is comparable to its peers in terms of capacity, competence
and credibility.”
After:
“By 2015, national macroeconomic policymaking processes
have improved and have become more pro-people.”

16. Session 2:
Introduction to the strategic planning
process

17. Strategic Planning Cycle
4. Develop
strategic approach
(impact story)
3. Situational
analysis
Who?
5. Devise PEC
action plan
Revise PEC
plans?
How?
What?
6. M+E
2. Capacity
assessment
1. Setting PEC
goals

18. Key questions that your PEC strategy should answer:
1.
Goals: What are the desirable outcomes from our PEC activity?
2.
Context: How does our approach respond to the situation we are in?
3.
Primary audiences and influencers: Who do we want to influence and
inform? What do we know about them?
4.
Communications pathways: Who is best placed to communicate with
each of our audiences and what are the best ways to reach them?
5.
Timescales: When will be the best times to communicate?
6.
Resources: What do we need - what might we have?
7.
Indicators: How will we measure progress/success?

19. Do you need cross-institutional PEC strategy?
Institutional
strategy
Research
strategy
Project
research
uptake
strategies
Fundraising
strategy
Institutional
PEC
strategy??
Project
research
uptake
strategies
Marketing
& corporate
comms
strategy
Project
research
uptake
strategies

20. Institutional PEC strategy
Programmatic research uptake
Allows TTs to be greater than
the sum of their parts.
Enables tailoring of research design to
needs of users.
Supports institutional level
strategy.
Encourages ongoing stakeholder
engagement.
Provides space to strategise
outside of the immediate needs of
specific funders.
Capacity building focused on both supply
and demand of research knowledge.
Provides longer term vision of
your TT’s positioning and
influence.
Enables more effective packaging and
dissemination of results.

21. Institutional PEC strategy
Programmatic research uptake
Encourages cross-institutional
learning and collaboration.
Useful data and stories about uptake are
captured.
Maintains independence and
credibility.
Improves understanding of policy
processes in specific contexts.
Attracts new partners and
collaborations.
Increases chances of high quality research
informing policy processes.
Enables engagement in new
policy spaces.
Channels funding to research
communications.

22. Session 3.1:
Organisational and individual
capacity assessment

23. Assessing PEC capacity
Individual capacities
Personal capabilities to engage in policy processes and
communicate research
Organisational capacities
Institutional commitment to PEC and ability to engage
External capacities
Key external stakeholders’ knowledge skills and
attitudes needed to understand and/or use research
Internal
context:
Resources
Strategy
Structure
External
context:
Political
Social
Technological

24. Individual capacities
Information literacy (i.e. skills in finding and appraising
academic literature)
Internal knowledge management
Ability to communicate with non-specialists
Ability to communicate clear messages
Ability to exploit/utilise policy environment (policy
entrepreneurship)
Ability to create and support networks
Ability to carry out, monitor and evaluate PEC work.

25. Organisational capacities
Theory of change that supports policy engagement is embedded
in institutional vision and mission.
Ability to deliver high quality research and knowledge.
Ability to ensure sustainability of policy engagement activities.
Ability to plan and manage PEC work.
Ability to respond to changing policy environment.
Ability to involve stakeholders in all stages of research.

26. External capacities
Ability to understand research and skills in finding and appraising
evidence.
Strength of incentives to consider and use evidence in policy
making processes.
Ability to bring new ideas/evidence to bear on policy discourse
and decision making.

28. Weighing the risks and benefits of PEC
Depending on your approaches and the local context there may
be risks associated with PEC activities.
You need to determine:
What is the risk of carrying out policy engagement and
communications activities?
What is the potential benefit of PEC in terms of research
uptake, policy impact, changes to people’s lives?

29. Comparing risks of action or inaction
You also need to consider the risk of not growing your
capacity to engage in policy discourse and strategic
research communication.
What is the risk to the likelihood of good quality research
informing policy and practice?
What is the risk to your reputation and profile?

30. Assessing risks: what sort of risks?
1.
•
•
•
•
•
Identify possible risk areas
People, reputation, relationships
Decline in research quality
Misrepresentation of research findings
Lack of demand for evidence
Conflict with funders’ priorities
2. Assess the impact/likelihood of the risk
• How severe is the possible impact?
• How likely is it to happen?

31. Assessing risks: what is the level of risk?
3. Think of how to mitigate the risk
• What can you do to mitigate the risk?
• Can you take action to make it less likely?
• Can you make it less harmful?
4. Decide on your course of action
• What level of risk remains?
• Do the benefits outweigh the risks?

32. Session 3.2
Situational Analysis
Or CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING!

33. Mapping the policy and knowledge landscapes
If you intend to build bridges between research and policy or actively
engage in policy influencing you must first understand the policy
making and knowledge environment.
Some key questions:
 How is policy made in relation to your key areas?
 What relevant policy processes are ongoing?
 What are the workings of your basic political systems?
 Hidden power – who really controls the agenda?
 Invisible power – values, norms, social hierarchy?
 What access do you have to key decision makers and
influencers?
 Whose knowledge counts?
 What knowledge systems and networks exist?
 When are the best opportunities to influence change?

34. Donors
Policy
Formulation
Agenda
Setting
Civil Society
Monitoring
and Evaluation
Private
Sector
Cabinet
Parliament
Decision
Making
Ministries
Policy
Implementation
Young, J (2004)

35. Value added in policy knowledge
Understanding of policy and knowledge landscape enables you to:
Identify and recognise engagement opportunities
Flag possible entry points in the policy process
Tailor research to user needs
Grow capacity of users to engage with and understand research
Guide selection of research communications tactics and frame
research for policy audiences.

36. Contextual analysis tools








Power mapping
Stakeholder mapping
Network mapping
Audience analysis
Market research
Influence mapping
SWOT analysis
Forcefield analysis
Theory of change
and engagement
strategy

37. Network Mapping Steps 1 to 5
Based loosely on the highly respected PIPA process
(PARTICIPATORY IMPACT PATHWAYS ANALYSIS) which was
developed for research organisations and pioneered by the
International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).
1. List stakeholders
2. Categorise them
3. Map against one another
4. Analysing policy role and attitude
5. Draft your impact story

38. The purpose of the Network Mapping exercise is to enable you to
draft your impact story:
A brief summary of your strategic approach to achieving the change
you want.
Your strategic approach should reflect what you learnt about
the policy and knowledge landscape from your mapping
exercise.

39. Network Mapping – step 1
List key stakeholders including those expected to change in
some way (behaviour, policy, attitudes) and those that can
influence the issue. They may include:
Partners
Funders
Individuals
Groups of individuals
Civil society organisations
Academics
Policy actors
Media

40. Network Mapping – step 2
Categorise your stakeholders and consider what level of
access you have to them:
Type of stakeholder
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Partners and funders
Researchers
Civil society
Policy maker
Others including
private sector, media
etc
Access
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Core partner
Good relationship
Some relationship
Distant relationship
No relationship

41. Network Mapping – step 3
Consider the relationships that your identified stakeholders have
to one another:
Do some influence others?
Are there groupings by network or policy sphere?
Are there any hidden linkages or influencing pathways?
Can you now think of any more actors - particularly those that
influence others?

42. Network Mapping - step 4
Analyse each of your stakeholders using the following
criteria:
A. What is their attitude towards the issue?
Supportive, neutral, negative
B. How influential are they in contributing to the change
you seek?
Low, medium, high

43. Network Mapping - step 5
Based on the discussion you have had about the policy and
knowledge landscape and the network map you have
produced develop a brief description of your approach to
achieving the change you want.
Your impact story (max 200 words) should sit alongside
your PEC goal or vision.
PEC goal (vision) = The change we want
PEC impact story (mission) = Our strategy for achieving it

44. Your impact story should briefly summarise your strategic
approach to achieving the change you want. It may contain the
following elements:
 How will your policy engagement and communication activities
influence key stakeholders’ behaviours and attitudes?
 Who are you going to prioritise and why?
 What are you going to have to do? (build internal capacity,
establish networks, engage media etc)
 When will it happen – is there a broad timeline?
Your approach should reflect what you learnt about the policy
and knowledge landscape from your mapping exercise.

45. Session 4:
Analysing audiences and
appropriate communication
pathways

46. Why does research communication matter?

47. What is research communications?
 Research communication is defined as the ability to interpret
or translate complex research findings into language, format
and context that non experts can understand.
 It is not just about dissemination of research results and is
unlike marketing that simply promotes a product. Research
communications must address the needs of those who will
use the research or benefit from it.

48. Communication not as Dissemination…
but as engagement

49. Effective research communications





Distillation of research findings
Use of plain language
Making information accessible
Tailored communications for different audiences
Identification of the needs of the target groups
Consider technical barriers, language and cultural
factors etc

50. Three ingredients of effective communication

51. Main delivery channels

52. Research Programmes
Communications throughout research project that
may inform:
Research agenda
Methodological choices
Communications strategy

53. Communications Pathways
1. Who is best placed to communicate with each of your target
audiences? Who has the skills, knowledge, contacts,
legitimacy, networks?
2. How do your audiences access information and what/who
influences them?
3. What kind of tactics will help you engage with specific
audiences?
4. What kind of communication outputs/activities will be most
effective in reaching your audiences? Tweets, blog, policy
brief, workshop, report, media, journal?

54. Timescale
 When will be the best time to influence policy or
practice?
 What are the planned events and processes where you
could present your research?
 Particular opportunities to collaborate with others?
 Are you tracking policy environment to support
planning?

55. Resources
 Have you already mapped out the activities you plan to
undertake?
 What are the major resource implications – time, materials,
skills?
 Will resource limitations or capability issues mean making
any hard choices – how will you prioritise between
desirable communications activities?

56. When
Launch
of
project
Outputs and
pathways
•Press release to
national media and
networks
Resources
Audience(s)
Project comms officer
Policy makers, Civil
society orgs
•Launch Website
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Researchers,
funders
•Launch Blog
• Launch Facebook
page + Twitter
account
•Project e-newsletter
•Working Papers
online
Researchers time and
support from comms
officer
•Workshops
•Policy briefings
$$$
•Working papers
High level roundtable
Policy briefings
Final report
Press conference
Journal articles
Expected
outcomes
Awareness of
project and
interest in
collaboration
All
Inform policy
debate
Academics
Grow credibility of
project
Policy makers, civil
society orgs
Research design
and uptake
academics
$$
$
Comms officer
Researcher’s time
Policy makers
NGOs, funders,
decision makers
Practitioners
academics
Policy/practice
changes
Influence
research agendas

57. Session 5:
Next steps in developing
your PEC strategy

58. What we covered in this workshop
4. Develop
strategic approach
(impact story)
3. Situational
analysis
Who?
5. Devise PEC
action plan
Revise PEC
plans?
How?
What?
6. M+E
2. Capacity
assessment
1. Setting PEC
goals

59. Template for institutional policy engagement strategy
Strategy preamble - providing context – why is this strategy needed and how does it relate to other strategic planning
frameworks such as a wider institutional strategy. Who owns it? How was it developed, who was consulted and who is it
reviewed by?
Version – date last reviewed
Timeframe – all strategic planning documents need to be time bound. 18 months/2 years/5 years?
Strategic goals – Broad outcomes that this strategy and the work associated with it is designed to bring about (or contribute
to). A series of brief vision statements making it clear what success will look like in year x.
Situational analysis – this may be organised by theme, policy area, or relate to specific goals. It will briefly set out the context
in which you are engaging in policy and delivering research communication. It should reflect both elements of internal and
external analysis.
Theory of change – You strategic approach/impact narrative
Strategic framework
Goal 1.
State any links to how
this relates to broader
institutional strategy
Goal 2.
Goal 3.
Specific objectives
(steps towards
achieving your goal)
These should be
SMART and identify
key stakeholders
Activities/Outputs
Engagement
activities/plans
Indicators
Milestones
KPIs
Resources
People/Who?
Networks
Budgets