Case Study 2

Research, Relevance and Stress-testing Recommendations

Richard Darlington 
Head of Strategic Advocacy, Nairobi, Kenya, Well Told Story 
Founder of WonkComms

Think Tank researchers sometimes complain that policy-makers do not engage with their research when they publish it. They argue that ‘demand’ for evidence from policy-makers must to be stimulated. They despair that policy-makers ignore their evidence and instead make ‘political’ decisions. And when you ask them what the most important aspect of their work is, they say it is to strive for an ever high standard of research quality. 

My view is that research will only change policy if it is relevant to the challenges that policy-makers are grappling with. The ‘supply’ of research needs to be underpinned by policy engagement, in the same way that market-testing underpins successful sales. I think that every decision a policy-maker takes is ultimately a political choice and that research without realistic recommendations is best left to academia. Research quality is a hygiene factor for Think Tanks: you would not eat at a dirty restaurant just as you would not be influenced by poor quality research. But research quality, while being a necessary pre-requisite, is not enough to make your research influential. 

I have spent the last decade in a UK Think Tank which now has a twenty five year track record of influencing policy but even there, we still needed to remind our researchers (and socialise our new recruits). We discussed it, we reflected on it and we produced this handy guide:

Making research relevant, is key to the ultimate influence that you can have on policy Before even embarking on a research project, ask your researchers to consider the relevance of their work. Ask them to identify who the key actors in the policy area are (and therefore the key audience for their recommendations). 

Ask them to consider: 

• Who can make the change you want?
• Who can stop the change you want?
• Who can influence those who can make the change you want?
• Who can influence those who can stop the change you want?
• Who would win/benefit from the change you want?
• Who would lose out from the change you want?

Having identified the key audiences, ask them to engage with them. It is worth considering at the division of time and resources going into research and policy influence. Investing all your time and resource into research can be a false economy. Without time and resource for policy engagement, your research report may simply be left on the shelf.

Engagement is a two-way process. Engagement is not like pouring water from a cup to a jug. Engagement is a conversation where researchers can gain empathy from policy-makers about the constraints they are operating in, about the timescales they are working towards and, ultimately, what they are ‘in the market’ for. Engagement needs to start right at the beginning of a project and should not end until long after research is published. If your goal is policy change, then your research report is just one tool to be used in the pursuit of that goal. For example,  at CRES were able to reform tobacco taxation, not just in Senegal but across West Africa, because they engaged policy makers with their ongoing research.  

Research quality must be upheld: your credibility depends on it. But just as important is the stress-testing of recommendations. Can researchers defend their recommendations? Can they explain the validity of their methodology? Does their ‘pitch’ for policy change stand up to scrutiny, break-through scepticism and ultimately, engage with the politics of the possible?

The politics of possible is the intersection between three things: a problem, a policy and a capable political actor. Research needs to clearly identify and build a consensus around an agreed problem. But research also needs to propose, validate and advocate for a policy solution. Finally, a policy actor must be able to act, and that usually cannot happen unless politics aligns. A perfect solution to a widely acknowledged problem may have political barriers at one time but not at another. This is known as a ‘policy window’ and it is central to leveraging the politics of the possible.

Finally, are you communicating with clarity? Have you framed the argument and refined your message to influence the right change-makers? And are you making both a rational and an emotional case for change? The strongest cases for change include both a rational and emotional proposition. While a policy maker may justify the change they have made based on your rational evidence, their actions may only be inspired when you appeal to both their head and their heart.

Interview 1

John Parker
Beijing Bureau Chief, The Economist

How do you seek out information that is research based and make public policy-based arguments in your articles? Do you frequent Think Tanks often for this kind of information?

Marshalling evidence and understanding public-policy choices is at the core of what The Economist magazine does. Most of our articles use research and policy analysis, even straightforward news reports since these form the background to the news, and should help readers (and writers!) understand what is going on. And yes, we use Think Tanks both because they conduct a good deal of this sort of research and also because (usually) they try to be impartial. Governments, in contrast, sometimes keep their own research out of the public domain and universities tend to pursue academic agendas, rather than a public-policy one.

Does the work of Think Tanks trigger your interest or catch your attention? Which Think Tank according to you are successful in packaging their research work in a manner that is conducive for uptake by the media?

I think the leaders in the field are probably the large American Think Tanks, such as the Brookings Institution. They have an especially good track record of holding short (2 hour) panel discussions on current topics and inviting journalists like me along to them. Among Indian institutions, I am impressed by the research of institutions working in the field of energy, the environment and development, such as the Centre for Policy Research, the Council on Energy, Environment and Water - and yourselves.

Given the short attention span of most readers, including policy makers, what challenges do you foresee Think Tanks will face in catching and holding the attention of policy makers?

Yes, this is hard because policy makers (like journalists) respond to the ever-shifting news cycle, which changes by the minute, whereas Think Tanks deal in longer term trends. I think the best way to deal with the mismatch is for Think Tanks to be careful about the timing and selection of their public outreach: concentrate on those news events where you really have expertise and where your research has close relevance. 

Interview 2

Ibrahima Wade
Secretary General to the Strategy of Accelerated Growth 

Interviewed by Doudou Ndiaye
Director of Communications, CRES




During the time of the interview Ibrahim Wade was Secretary General to the Strategy of Accelerated Growth (SCA), a structure created by the public authorities to support the dynamic growth in order to achieve the growth rate of 7% on long years. He became Director General of the Office of operational monitoring of the Senegal's Emerging Plan (BOS). 

Can you describe SCA briefly?

SCA is an orientation of economic policy that Senegal thought after a long process of reflection, mutations of the Senegalese economy, for which, if we may say, is the part of the post-devaluation years to see how a little influence reverse the trend that was taking the trajectory of the Senegalese economy. These reflections led at the time, in 2000, "the strategy of the development of the private sector," which has helped to put in place a certain number of milestones and structures, including all structures accompanying in the private sector: SME development, support to operations, support or investment.

In 2008, a law of orientation was passed after the definition of what was called at the level of the SCA “the approach of competitiveness clusters". It was just a missing element in the development approach. It was to see how instituting maps of private dialogs at the sectorial level, how to ensure that the potential for diversification of sources of economic growth that was there, it is not operated or insufficiently operated at all, and how to put the conditions in any case so that these productive sectors more play their part in the growth of the economy.

So this was the basis of the approach for the CLUSTER we developed and started from 5 CLUSTERS growth: 

• Industrial tourism 
• Artisanal art 
• Textile-clothing 
• Agriculture-agro-business, 
• TIC –teleservices-products of the sea-aquaculture 

That's the core business of SCA, a business who puts a lot in before the private sector and reinforces its leading position, on the one hand, lead the reforms, and initiate the reflection on the day on industries and sectors, but also to invest and produce. Similarly, it will lead us to a number of projects at competitiveness level, as it brought to produce the national activity report and also all that is a scientific thinking in the ecosystem of economic development.

We noticed that lately, the contacts between the world of research and SCA have intensified. What does that mean that research is also a niche for growth?

So the research, if I say to you quite recently it is because there's a fault somewhere. But research and innovation must be at the core of any process of economic development and emergence. First the academic world is still present in the work of the clusters, they are members of clusters, universities, research centres, specialized agencies and their contribution is important.

I’d like to give you a very simple example not at the conceptual basis but on the practical level. There are in the case of TIC-teleservices cluster which is part of the achievements, I forgot to note, the incubator CETIC-Dakar. This incubator that we set up in 2010, today we are in the process of working to set up it at the University of Ziguinchor and the University of St. Louis. This is  the contours of the university and academic executives. I am Vice President of the Board of Directors of incubator INODE V including, the Rector of the UCAD is the President and the private sector through the National Council of Employers is Vice President.

Therefore we say that have taken an approach to practice with the academic world, with agro incubator that we are in the process to fit with the Ministry of the Interior in St. Louis. At the UGB level, the incubator CETIC -Dakar we assembled with the UCAD, universities, moreover, through the establishment of TIC incubators Senegal. And making way, we work. The connection between SCA and the world of research, it is not the institution of the Permanent Secretariat which is important, it is how we can lead the private sector to open in the university and vice versa. We this is our role, it is a little part which we have played so far.

However, we spent this first level as we are saying, but in this rapprochement with the academic world, CRES, are research institutions that have tremendous research themes, reflections and even solutions we said but finally there is a very strong and strict separation between the rest of the country, public or private economy and the world of research. That's what has been the basis of our rapprochement with CRES and I must say that in the first attempt only, we were extremely impressed by the striking force in terms of existing products which are in so many solutions in various fields. We discussed the following themes: agriculture, social protection, education and infrastructure, but there was much more than that.

What are the prospects especially given to the directive like Prime Minister in the direction of exploring other themes?

I believe that for the future sets of themes we have ideas rather simple good as I say we are in a partnership. That’s why I said before that move towards the next forum we will propose organization of an evaluation meeting. Meeting with which the private sector and the Administration will be associated which will tell us that they are the big major issues of the day. And that one is deal today with the advent of Senegal emergent plan. And all that can guide us;once again CRES and SCA having two to three very specific topics that will be the themes of…..

The Prime Minister had spoken about energy, the digital economy, farming, fishing etc. I think that the place where we impact together will be with  CRES which will lead to selection. This will help us when we consider two or three main areas, to go very deep and not just give scientific delivery on the table but to say the scientific action-oriented resolution.

We strongly hope to organize a meeting for the next forum. I think one of the strong messages from the Prime Minister, besides its guidelines of saying "I urge the Administration to take an interest in better research and better use of its results in the future, with the result that enormously time which has to be saved. Because we have already wasted our time in making procurement, to study, to implement what we have studied. “Especially with the intellectual decline of the academic world I think we're on the right track, that's my prospectus of looking the things.

Before collaborating with the CRES did you know of its existence?

You may find it surprising, I knew that CRES as an institution on the outskirts of university and I took part a few years ago in a seminar and this was my first contact. When I received the invitation, I read the report, went through it and I tried to be as critical as possible and I thought what is this institution that speaks to me while digital economy whereas in its acronym, it had nothing more than Digital Economy and I found the report to be excellent. So this was my first contact and met Pr. Abdoulaye Diagne as part of the national dialogue on higher education where I was the Vice-Chairman of the Steering Committee. We worked together in the group thematic financing. We really worked very close way to model the financing. That's really where we saw that there was something to do, a boost to be given to economic policy in our areas of expertise and also discuss the results with CRES. I told Professor Diagne that they deserve to be known, it deserves to be popularised and it deserves to be brought to the attention of the higher private and public authorities. It is this synergy which we can take and a step forward.

Interview 3

George Perkovich
Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

What are the unique/interesting ways in which Think Tanks have played a role in the policy making process?  

I speak from experience in the U.S. primarily.  There are many types of examples.  Much of the impetus for the U.S. to go to war with Iraq was generated by the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for a New American Century, two conservative Think Tanks.  Conversely, Think Tanks over the past 10 years helped push the objective of negotiating with Iran to resolve the nuclear crisis and injected a number of ideas that were then taken by negotiators into the process.  Think Tanks produce data on defense spending, drone strikes, and other actions that governments either may not collect and publicise, or may not do so in ways that are seen as objective.  Think Tanks also organise Track II and Track 1.5 dialogues, usually amongst representatives of countries that do not get along well at official levels and there are hundreds of examples of this.  Think Tanks have done great technical analysis of government programs, providing a check on what officials and contractors claim.  These are merely the first types of examples that come tomy  mind.

How would you assess research quality and ensure its importance when engaging with policy makers?  

It begins with hiring.  You want to hire people who've demonstrated that they know how to do first-rate research, publish in peer-reviewed publications, etc.  You also often send publications in draft to leading experts from various countries to seek their critiques before you promote results with policy-makers.  Then, to engage with policy-makers, it often helps to set up face-to-face meetings.  Many policy-makers are too busy to read more than very short texts, and it is a challenge to help them choose to read "yours."  So, face-to-face contacts are invaluable.

Interview 4

Peter Taylor 
Program Leader, Think Tank Initiative, IDRC

How has IDRC evolved over the years in its role of communicating new research ideas or opinions and also informing to public debate? How does TTI’s work reflect this evolution?

The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) has, since its foundation in 1970, always placed an emphasis on communicating new research ideas and informing public debate. This goes back to IDRC’s mandate, as outlined in The International Development Research Centre Act : “to initiate, encourage, support, and conduct research into the problems of the developing regions of the world and into the means for applying and adapting scientific, technical, and other knowledge to the economic and social advancement of those regions.” As a result, IDRC encourages researchers who receive its support to build resources (time, people, funds) into effective communication of the research findings. This goes beyond simply disseminating findings of the research; it also includes active engagement with diverse audiences at various stages of the research, from concept development right through to the sharing of results and outcomes. IDRC aims to promote ways of ensuring the widest possible access to research ideas, findings, and recommendations, and one example of this is its new open access policy for all IDRC-funded research outputs. With the emergence of new information technologies, IDRC is also paying more attention to different forms of social media and emerging mechanisms for public engagement, some of which are supported by new technologies. This will continue to be a key focus for IDRC in the future. 

Just as IDRC views this as very important, so does the Think Tank Initiative (TTI). We provide ongoing support to institutions wishing to develop their communications and engagement efforts and, over the course of the Initiative, we have seen many TTI-supported institutions make significant improvements to their use of social media as well as their communication of publications and research outputs. There is also growing interest in data visualisation, which TTI encourages as a means for Think Tanks to get their work into the hands of wider audiences. And of course, the core funding that TTI provides is being used by all grantee institutions to strengthen their communication and engagement work as part of their pathway towards institutional sustainability.

Science and Technology enables most of modern development. How do you envisage IDRC taking this to a different level, in providing a platform for a discussion on the role of S&T on a nation’s growth? What is happening within the TTI program in this regard?
IDRC has a strong focus on science and technology within its overall programming. One of its three program areas is “Technology and Innovation “, the aim of which is to leverage science and innovation for development. The rationale for this, as the Technology and Innovation program explains, is that sscience, technology and innovation (STI) can drive economic growth, help solve social and environmental problems, and reduce poverty. All countries need to develop their capacity to produce and use science and technology themselves, and adapt knowledge to their needs and contexts. Societies also need to understand both the benefits and risks of emerging technologies, such as digital ones, in order to maximise their benefits. IDRC’s Technology and Innovation program supports research and capacity building to help developing countries produce, adapt, and use STI for development. Taking a recent example, IDRC was the co-host of the 2015 Open Data Conference, held in Ottawa, Canada. This platform brought together 1000 participants with a strong desire to engage around the important issue of access to data. The emphasis on STI will continue within IDRC’s recently established strategic objectives for the period 2015-2020.

Within TTI, several institutions are working on science and technology issues, for example CSTEP in India, and STIPRO in Tanzania. Examples of their work on science and technology can be found here. Although science and technology are not generally central to the work of TTI-supported institutions, the broader social and economic agendas that Think Tanks work on often do relate to science and technology issues, and we imagine this could be a growing area for many institutions engaging in public policy debates.

What is one of the most compelling stories you have seen on a generative engagement between research and policy-makers? What was the outcome of this engagement? What do you think created the shift in engagement?

We have seen many exciting and compelling stories emerge from institutions that TTI supports over the last 5 years. Actually, it is difficult to pick out one story as there are many. 

In Ghana, for example, we have seen the Institute of Economic Affairs create a convening space to which policy actors from across the political spectrum were invited to discuss political transitions following Presidential elections. The Institute then worked to turn these recommendations into concrete legislation. As a result of this engagement, a Presidential Transition Bill was passed in 2012 which helped secure more peaceful and effective processes following national elections. 

In Peru, research by Grupo de Análisis para el Desarrollo (GRADE), helped the Government of Peru make strategic investments in infrastructure to benefit rural Peruvians. Seeing a window of opportunity, GRADE provided the Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion with research to support the design of a new infrastructure investment program. GRADE demonstrated that making two infrastructure investments in one area leads to a greater total increase in income for beneficiaries, and helped the Ministry identify those households most in need of access to infrastructure. As a result, the Ministry used GRADE’s findings to design its Infrastructure Combo program, which is expected to invest USD $225 million per year in basic rural infrastructure between 2013 and 2016. 

And in India, research on market-based mechanisms by the Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP) is helping India meet its increasing demand for energy more efficiently. CSTEP worked with India’s Bureau of Energy Efficiency to design the Perform, Achieve and Trade (PAT) mechanism, which promotes energy efficiency among large energy-intensive industries by allowing trade in Energy Saving Certificates. CSTEP reached out directly to a multitude of stakeholders, augmenting its research by facilitating meetings to raise awareness about the PAT mechanism and to improve the proposed methodology for it. These meetings, discussions and the briefs CSTEP prepared were crucial in establishing some of the goals set forth in the PAT framework. The organization also played an important role in communicating industry concerns to the government and in helping to address them. As a result, CSTEP’s research enabled the Government of India to design and implement PAT, the first market-based mechanism of its kind in India.

In engaging with policy-makers, what according to you are the blind-spots among Southern Think Tanks? What do these Think Tanks need to see and do differently?

There is no doubt that southern Think Tanks are becoming ever more aware of the value of engaging with policy makers – and indeed, with a diverse range of policy actors. Fortunately, evidence suggests that policy makers are also more interested in accessing the research results, data, and analysis produced by Think Tanks. For TTI, policy actors include not only government, but also public service; civil society and non-governmental organisations; other types of knowledge producing institutions such as universities; the media; and of course different supporters of the work of Think Tanks such as funders, both national and international. It is interesting to observe, however, that this wider group of institutions is not always considered an audience by Think Tanks. Failing to identify the range of key stakeholders and audiences for a specific research issue can lead to missed opportunities for engagement, as well as the insufficient targeting of information, outputs, or ideas to the particular interests of an audience. Conducting some form of environmental scan, or stakeholder analysis, can be a very effective means for a Think Tank to identify those with whom they can engage in relation to a particular policy issue. 

Another “blind spot” is perhaps not always recognising that policy engagement is crucial throughout the overall research process. It is often left to the end, as a means of sharing results rather than getting conversations started early on, despite the fact that it can help shape the design and approach of the research. And of course, fundamental communication skills are important. Many Think Tanks now are creating Communications and Engagement Units within the organisation, which bring the skills of communication specialists in-house. However, for a Think Tank, communications and engagement are really the responsibility of all researchers; a communications unit or specialist can bring excellent experience and skills to help support researchers, but ultimately it is a shared endeavour. 

Finally, it is worth highlighting a point that we often hear made by policy makers – the ways in which researchers present their results do not always resonate with the interests and needs of policy makers. Engaging with policy makers can help researchers better understand how to make their findings and analyses accessible and practically useful. On the Results page of the TTI website, there are a range of Stories of Influence which showcase ways in which Think Tanks around the world have influenced policy makers through effective engagement and communication. We hope these will prove useful to all Think Tanks who are interested in in strengthening the way they engage with different policy audiences.

Aditi Bulletin Issue 2

Note from Managing Editor
The launch of the 2nd edition of Aditi at the Think Tank Initiative Exchange 2015 in Istanbul was a momentous event. Not only was the process of publishing Aditi presented in one of the session, Aditi (Issue 1) was launched and well-received. While the 1st issue focused on domestic funding, the current issue focusses on the Importance of Communication. We have attempted to bring in experiences of various stakeholders-policy makers, researchers and media to name a few. What is interesting is that contributions have come from several members of Think Tanks and non-Think Tank organisations from across the globe. Some of the articles cover experiences, musings, case studies etc. I would like to thank all the contributors for providing enriching articles and the reviewers for taking time to provide feedback and useful comments. Hope you enjoy reading this issue. You can send your queries to bulletin.aditi@cstep.in

Regards,

Managing Editor, Aditi

Launch of Aditi at Istanbul

Editorial

Vanesa Weyrauch
Co-founder, Politics&Ideas

Research communications has driven the attention of many of us in the past years, as Think Tanks try out innovative and attractive ways to get their research out to diverse stakeholders. In fact, significant progress has been made in terms of raising awareness on how good communications plays a pivotal role for Think Tanks to better engage in policymaking, and hopefully even to promote some type of change in the process, to those who participate in it and also on its results.

This edition of Aditi brings in very different but complementing experiences and perspectives on how Think Tanks can become compelling storytellers by translating their research findings into meaningful messages for different stakeholders. Moreover, as included here too, this is something that policymakers themselves need help with. So why not weave more stories together? Which are the metaphors, images, graphics, messengers, etc. that can provide interested parties with a clearer view on why change is needed in terms of policy?

Several contributors highlight the importance of thinking about citizens and their role in this complex and ever changing communications process. I find this reflection very relevant and an invitation to further think about enlarging the current communications framework. In fact, even when a Think Tank could find the ideal policymaker who is willing to pay full attention to its recommendations or analysis based on key factors analysed such as, reputation, credibility and high quality of research, he/she would probably ask him/herself: what will this mean for the voters? How will I be perceived and regarded? Will this help me gain political power? Or vice versa: what would happen to me if I do not regard this knowledge?

Yes, Think Tanks need to create new stories, use innovative technologies that facilitate communication in terms of synthesis and reach, and promote an internal culture that embraces opportunities to engage in dialogues with others. But to make strategic decisions in communications, we should not lose sight of the context. 

Indeed, it is important to invest time and energy in understanding how good research communication may help us to make a contribution to policy discussions, as several examples of this issue convene. The key word here is ‘contribution’; we need to acknowledge that what Think Tanks bring about to the discussion is only one of many elements that will come into play - as opposed to a readily deployable solution to a self-contained problem. In other words, policy discussions and the politics surrounding them cannot be preempted by a research piece, no matter how groundbreaking, innovative, conclusive or well-communicated it may be. Hence, it can only be meaningful insofar as we manage to successfully engage with a variety of actors with diverse legitimacies and roles who may use and interpret different types of knowledge-produced by us and others.

There are some inspiring examples of effective understanding of context and how to interact with its variety of actors in this issue. Hope they keep coming in and help us re-create communications, constantly.

Articles
Communications & Policy : Two Sides of a Coin

Dr. Ajay Mathur, Director General, Bureau of Energy Efficiency

Communicating Policy Research: Perspectives from Vernacular Media

Vaqar Ahmed, Deputy Executive Director and Saleem Khilji, Senior Editor (English)

Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Islamabad

Influencing Policymaking: Framing Recommendations Beyond Evidence

Valerie G. Traore, Executive Director, Niyel

Case Study
Creating Consumer Interest on Sustainable Energy

Karin Fernando, Senior Research Professional, Centre for Poverty Analysis, Sri Lanka

Communicating with Policymakers: The Issue of Reputation

Nadhiya Najab, Junior Research Professional, Centre for Poverty Analysis, Sri Lanka

Experience

Reclaiming one Solid Communications Source

Rene Hernandez Gonzalez, Communications Director, FUSADES

Audience, Audience, Audience!

Jonathan Louis Stead, Head: Strategic Partnerships and Special Projects, South African Institute of International Affairs

So, What's the Story?

Will Paxton and Guy Lodge, Kivu International

Humour

Concept - Dr. Jai Asundi, Principal Research Scientist, CSTEP
Illustration - Bhawna Welturkar, Graphic Designer, CSTEP

Humour in Writing

Amidst all the seriousness of scientific writing, every now and then researchers let slip gems of humour. Other than proving to be coffee table jokes, certain phrases that are coined for research communication should also be included in a table of ‘Phrases to beware of’.

Compiled by Dr. Annapoorna Ravichander, Head, CPE, CSTEP and Arushi Sen, Senior Communication Officer, CSTEP

Sources:
http://io9.com/5880128/what-scientists-say-in-research-papers-vs-what-they-actually-mean

Interview
Interview with Madhusudan Srinivas

Senior News Editor, NDTV

The notion of what the mainstream news media stands for has changed. In addition to the 4 most widely read newspapers in the country, it also includes TV channels with large viewership, social media platforms like Twitter, and key wire networks like Firstpost and The Wire (in the Indian context). The most important factor deciding the fate of a research communication product is its packaging; gone are the days when one Press Release sent to different media would result in coverage. Identifying opinion leaders amongst the media community and establishing personal contact with them is crucial. 

Data Visualisation Compilation

On Think Tanks launched the 2014–15 compilation of the #ttdatavis competition at the Cartagena Data Festival in Colombia. The compilation and the competition inspired Think Tanks and similar organisations to showcase real world examples of impactful data visualisation. It also contains useful resources and ‘how tos’ to support Think Tanks to develop their own visualisations.

The compilation is available as free download as an interactive eBook (408 MB), which is also available in the iBooks store, as well as a downloadable PDF (100 MB). It includes 46 entries, which emerged from 31 think tanks spanning 19 countries around the globe.

The topics of the visualisations cover a lot of ground. The second round of the competition coincided with the COP20 climate negotiations in Peru and focused on climate change and the environment.

Jeff Knezovich, the editor of the compilation, described the compilation:

“Think tanks may have similar goals and objectives, but this competition clearly demonstrates the wide array of approaches think tanks have toward meeting those goals. We saw both static and interactive visualisations, to be sure.

But beyond that, some took a clear message-driven approach while others developed tools that let the user understand the data more clearly. And while some sought to tell stories about their research, others used visualisations to increase explain government actions (or proposed actions) pushing greater transparency and accountability. It’s a broad collection that any Think Tank can find inspiration in.”

For more information…

http://onthinktanks.org/2015/04/20/2014-15-ttdatavis-compilation-now-available/

Additional Reading – On Research Communication

A collection of blog posts that present an overview of the different discussions on communicating research that have been published on On Think Tanks.
http://onthinktanks.org/topic-pages/communicating-research-and-ideas/

A 10-step primer from a media expert on how to get your or your organisation’s opinion and work noticed by the mainstream media; on your terms without making compromises.
http://www.utne.com/media/guide-to-news-for-activists-press-attention.aspx#axzz3O98uSOxb

This article speaks about the challenges that researchers face when they need to get in touch with Policymakers.
http://www.researchtoaction.org/2009/04/brevity-the-soul-of-communication/

A website dedicated to building a network between research communication and media for more effective local, national, and international development action.
http://www.comminit.com/global/spaces-frontpage

Compiled by Arushi Sen, Senior Communication Officer, CSTEP

Article

Communications & Policy : Two Sides of a Coin

Dr. Ajay Mathur 

Director General, Bureau of Energy Efficiency

In 2006, the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) introduced the Standards & Labelling programme for refrigerators and air conditioners. The labels on these appliances provided information on the amount of energy used by a refrigerator over a year and the relative energy efficiency of a particular model compared to all other models in the market. The need for introducing this label came from the realisation that energy consumption of a particular model of a refrigerator or air conditioners was a low priority for a buyer, even though the energy bills of an air conditioner over its life are 3 to 4 times its original cost. However since the energy consumption information was not easily available at the time of sale, other characteristics, such as the buying price of the appliances, its brand, its colour, and the advice of neighbours and of the salesman, and its features, were the main factors in the decision to buy a particular model.

We thought therefore that the label, providing the energy consumption information, would be of value to consumers. At the same time, there was a strong feeling that the Indian consumer would not be swayed by the higher energy efficiency (and the promise of future energy bill reductions) if the price of the energy - efficient appliances was higher than those of lower – efficiency appliances. Consequently, many manufacturers were reluctant to join the labelling program. As a result, the Bureau found itself facing two challenges. The first was to ensure that consumers were able to use the information on the label to their benefit while making the buying decision, and the second was to convince more and more manufacturers to join the labelling program.

This was a chicken – and – egg situation, and we found it important to address both these challenges at the same time as we introduced the labels. The way forward was to reach out to both consumers and manufacturers simultaneously.

Consequently, we launched a targeted public outreach program on television and in the press, focusing on informing consumers of the benefits of labelled products. This was accompanied by surveys and collection of information on the growth in the sales of labelled products. The outreach programme was designed to reach, and be of use to appliance buyers. The findings of the surveys and information collection were designed to help manufacturers to decide on the usefulness of the labelling programme. In just a year – and – a – half, labelled products accounted for about half of the air conditioners, and three-quarters of the refrigerators that were sold. It became clear that consumers saw the label as a value proposition, and accepted the entry of this visible sign of energy efficiency into their homes and offices.

This experience underlines the fundamental nature of policy making, in as much as it necessarily introduces a change to the status quo. It also highlights the understanding that the success of a policy change largely depends on the ability to convince both the “Supplier” and the “User” of the change about its benefits. Effective communication therefore has to address all of these needs. It has to communicate – to the appropriate target groups – the benefits that the policy change brings in, and more broadly, capture and share the evolving implementation experience, especially in its early stages.

In the ultimate analysis, even the best - formed policies can be ineffective if people don’t know about them, and don’t know how to effectively benefit from them. Effective communications is integral part of effective policy.