Skip to content

Archive for May, 2012

May 31

1 Comment

The art of exit: when closing down is an alternative

When should we call it day? Quite often I find that some think tanks are operating under circumstances that were never considered as part of any possible future scenarios back when the centre’s were in their early days or years. From research driven to client driven, from long term research to short term problem solving, from intellectual independence to sometimes total (humiliating) dependence; many organisations are turning into the very thing they tried to avoid when they were founded.

This has terrible consequences for everyone: The quality of the work suffers and so does the quality of life of the staff. Too often, the excuse is that ‘that’s life’, that the reality of the aid industry is that think tanks (and research centres) need to ‘play the game’, they must think like private sector consultancies and explore markets, etc. I accept that if think tanks want to stay in business this is one way forward. I am not too sure this is the only way. I think that sometimes these organisations and their leaders are simply stuck on one path (the business as usual one) because they think that the alternative is just impossible to consider.

Close? Never!

The same is true for many programmes or projects that think tanks run (or implement -so this is equally relevant for donors, by the way). Over my six years at ODI we saw lots of new programmes set up but few closed down (although some were closed when they merged with other). But in general, the organisation grew and grew (and still does) and this growth was partly fuelled by the idea that to get out of the rat race (the constant chasing of financial targets) ODI had to be able to do more work. The more it did, the more margin it could gain, and the more margin it gained the larger its reserves, and the larger its reserves the bigger the opportunities to innovate and get out of the rat race. Or so the theory goes. But with more demand from funders (the aid industry has not suffered from the budget cuts in the United Kingdom) getting out seems almost impossible. Innovations happened on the margins and often due to the commitment and skills of a few researchers rather than as the consequence of an organisational strategy. I am not suggesting, of course, that this only happened there.

Closing a programme down, under this model, does not work.

This same inertia is seem in many projects implemented by think tanks. Donors’ impose LogFrames that are and feel inflexible. Changing something often means reallocating the same amount of funds to other activities but never (rarely) giving money back or accepting the need to shut down. Even then organisations adopt methods such as Outcome Mapping few are really capable of thinking of this option. Even changing course of action is a challenge. How to think of an alternative if all we know what to do is what we are doing?

NESTA has put together a very interesting report that presents an alternative to this. Closing a programme or even a think tank could be an opportunity to start over and to do so in a much stronger position. The Art of Exist is focused on public services but its lessons are relevant to think tanks.

NESTA calls this creative decommissioning (sorry for the jargon):

A process that combines efforts to innovate and decommission -actively challenging incumbent service models and mind-sets and supporting the development of (and investment in) new approaches.

It stems from a recognition that either the context has changed and the service provided is no longer appropriate or the service will not be able to deal with future needs (even if it works today). Decommissioning, although quite obvious in these circumstances, can be strongly opposed, because:

  • Change can often involve job losses -it could, in fact, mean that new partners need to be identified or that the think tank, in the case of a project it is implementing, will have to take a step to the side and let others do the work.
  • Decommissioning is particularly difficult when things appear to be fine -e.g. there is still funding for what we do.
  • Decommissioning goes against the interests of those in charge of making that decision.
  • Decommissioning is difficult to plan and implement and this is not a competency that organisations have.
  • Poor monitoring systems mean that the necessary evidence to make the case for decommissioning is simply not available (and so organisations just keep doing what they think works).

The study provides several examples of public services that have been successfully decommissioned and changed for better ones. It also offers some advice on how to develop this capacity:

  • Organisations need to be more loyal to outcomes than ways do doing things
  • They must be more open to scrutiny and allow other to challenge their practice; always looking for good news stories is not the best way forward
  • Any decommissioning decision demands useful and accessible evidence to support the choice and then to explain it
  • Finance needs to be flexible to the possibility and opportunities of creative decommissioning; funders need to accept that closing down may be the better option and not see this as failure
  • Organisations need to engage their staff and stakeholders on a different type of conversation that includes the decommissioning option and encourages arguments for and against.

Of course this does not just refer to closing down a research programme, a project, or an organisation. I have written before about the challenge of changing the way think tanks communicate. Why do things differently if they work? I have argued that think tanks need to think hard if the way to communicate today will be appropriate in the future. Adopting new channels such as working with the media or using digital tools more actively can seem daft when the organisation has direct access to policymakers but this may be an approach that is on its way out.

The same is true for the way it manages its work. Relying on basic project management skills may work now but will it work with larger projects or with multi-funder initiatives? Can think tanks guarantee that they will be able to retain the best talent without a professional and competent human resources department or team? These are tough decisions to make. But they would be easier if managers thought of them in the terms suggested by NESTA instead of the simple ‘business as usual or closing down’ choice.

I should mention that ODI was particularly good at making changes to the way it organised itself (not all and not always quickly) and so sought a number of ways of delivering its mandate. This led to some important improvements and, to a certain degree, to a sense that things could be changed if necessary.

May 30

Prospect magazine Think Tank of the Year Awards 2012

Prospect magazine is looking for entries for their think tanks annual award. This year they have extended their reach to North America and Europe with two new categories.

Entries close on the 15th June 2012 and the award’s ceremony will take place at the Royal Society on 10th July 2012.

The categories are:

Global

  • Think Tank of the Year
  • Publication of the Year

UK

  • UK Think Tank of the Year
  • Economic & Financial
  • Social Policy
  • Energy & the Environment
  • International Affairs
  • One to Watch

North America

  • North American Think Tank of the Year

Europe excluding the UK

  • European Think Tank of the Year

In the past I have made it clear that I prefer this award to the think tank index produced by James McGann. I am keen to see how the new categories work out. The North American think tank category, I assume, includes Canada, the United States of America, and Mexico; but I have a feeling that Mexican think tanks will be left out. The Europe (minus UK) category is easier to define.

Unlike the McGann ranking, the Prospect awards are based on submissions by the organisations (or interested parties), there is a cost to entry (the equivalent of US$80), and the winners are decided by a panel that discusses each submission in some detail. This is not an objective award, but I do not think it claims to be. And that is what I like about it.

Still, I’d rather it was focused on the UK; even the global, North American, and European categories could be UK focused: judging the influence that those think tanks have had on the UK or on issues that affect the UK.

May 29

1 Comment

Monitoring and Evaluation guide for health information

USAID published a Monitoring and Evaluation guide for health information products and services in 2007. It sets to describe what and how to evaluate health information products and services through a framework that clearly separates inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. It seeks to measure their reach, usefulness, use, and collaboration and capacity building attributes, by quantitative, as well as qualitative methods.

This guide focuses on assessing how effective is the way in which information reaches out, by the largest number of possible means, and how it satisfies its users. The guidelines present a range of indicators and offers advice on how each should be measured, clearly outlining their definition, data requirement, data sources, purposes and issues, with examples given at the end of each indicator.

According to Lisa Gosling, the objectives of monitoring and evaluation are ensuring quality, accountability and learning for the benefit of good management. The guide has lists of “dos and don’ts” which encourage the user to be simple, clear and effective, while avoiding the confusion which often accompanies complex reporting.

M&E is seen as an approach to developing a working routine that can be easily traced and managed, thus letting internal (collaborators, directors and members of the organisation), as well as external users (partners, funders or supervising entities) to remain informed about relevant processes and activities.

Significantly, such as in the case of the research based evidence advocacy guide by Young and Quinn, this one also outlines theories of behaviour change and communication. Behaviour change, according to Fishbein et al., implies eight conditions, seen through variables observable on the person who displays a particular behaviour:

  • Intention,
  • Skills,
  • Environmental constrains (direct causes),
  • Attitude,
  • Norms,
  • Self-image,
  • emotion, and
  • Self-efficacy,
The latter two are expected to influence behavioural intentions.
More manuals and guides can be found here.

May 25

Guest blog: Robert Picciotto on randomised control trials

Reblogged from ngo performance:

Click to visit the original post

My recent blog on randomised control trials led to enthustiastic comments about Robert Picciotto's recent paper: Experimentalism and development evaluation: Will the bubble burst?.

I am delighted that Robert agreed to explain the main ideas in this guest blog. Robert ("Bob") was previously Director General, Evaluation, at the World Bank and is now a Visiting Professor at King's College, London.

Read more… 510 more words

Robert Piccioto on the RCT craze provides an excellent sense of history and measure to what they can and cannot do. One thing though; not all those promoting them are micro economists. Most, in fact have little or no experience in quantitative research. A dangerous combination: hype and ignorance.

May 25

1 Comment

Research based Evidence Advocacy guidebook by Young and Quinn

Eoin Young and Lisa Quinn have published a guidebook on research based evidence advocacy. The guidebook is based on their work with the Open Society Foundations. The guidebook is an interesting new resource for think tanks as it presents along side practical advice and tools a new analytical framework.

It should be noted that the guidebook uses the word advocacy. Many think tanks prefer to stay away from it but readers should note that this really refers to communicating from outside of the policy space; and this is something that many think tanks have to do.

The advocacy planning framework recognises all the premises others make (the context is complex, influence is two ways, etc.) but outlines three interesting categories:

The guidebook covers each of these areas in detail and provides practical advice for each.

There are some issues that could have been given more attention -or maybe ought to be given more attention by the users of the guidebook by making use of other materials (I cannot expect every single guide to cover all bases):

  • As usual, context is limited to what we already know about the policy cycle, the different roles or behaviours of researchers and policymakers, etc. But context is political and it is about values.
  • Evidence is limited to certain type of evidence: “research based”. But this type of evidence is not always available. It also assumes that evidence tells us what to do but this is not the case (at least this is my opinion); evidence informs but cannot argue for its self.
  • Arguments need values -these are missing from the analysis.

An interesting contribution to other guidebooks is the idea of leverage: combining evidence, support and opportunity to push in the direction you want change to happen. Leverage suggests that one needs to look for opportunities but also recognises that we (the think tanks, policy entrepreneurs, etc.) tend to be the weaker players in the policy process. This is important.

Of particular use are tables 3 (page 130) and 4 (135) which list a number of useful advocacy activities for different cases (contexts) and audiences.

And most important of all, there is an actual template to plan a campaign/strategy; something that is often missing from most manuals or guidebooks.

For more information on this and other work by Young and Quinn you can visit the International Centre for Policy Advocacy.

There are more manuals here.

May 24

3 Comments

Think tanks and the political and cultural system: the Israeli case

On my last post I discussed approaches to research impact, how academics can amplify the effects of their work on public policy. But what happens when it is the political and cultural structure of a country that hinders the possibility for think tanks to effectively insert their work and influence the decision making process? According to Hannah Elka Meyers for the Middle East Quarterly, this is Israel´s case. She has interviewed directors and fellows of several prominent Israeli think tanks such as the Van Leer Institute and the Shalem Center, and come to the conclusion that even though Israel has the highest number of think tanks in the Middle East, its political and cultural structure discourages politicians and policy makers from consulting with independent institutions, and provides little space for external research.

Even such heavyweights as the Shalem Center, International Institute for Counterterrorism in Herzliya, and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs have had little impact on Israeli policymaking. Many research centers’ own heads admit their lack of political influence. Eyal Zisser, director and senior research fellow at Tel Aviv University´s Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, for example, acknowledges a lack of ‘real influence’.

A parliamentary system coupled with a proportional electoral system offers little chance for outside policy work to insert itself into public policy debate. Since the executive and the legislative are fused in the parliamentary model, as is also the case in countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom, there are fewer points of access to approach policy makers. Political parties in this model are also more disciplined and close-knit, and party members are reluctant to take independent positions that go against the party’s stance. The proportional electoral system also hinders think tank participation since political parties focused on specific topics tend to be stronger and can dominate the agenda.

Funding can also prove to be an obstacle for Israeli think tanks. The government does not hire these institutions to carry out research on its behalf nor does it provide incentives by giving tax breaks to nonprofit organisations. Since there are few private sources, this causes think tanks to rely on universities for funding, which in turn leads to research becoming more oriented towards academia than public policy. In addition, the few private sources that do exist are short term, which does not allow think tanks to delve deeper in their research.

There is also a culture of informality in Israel that results in government officials seeking out individuals and not institutions when looking for outside information. Being a small country, most people in the political circuit tend to know each other and create personal ties. This happens during the mandatory military service as well.

This article proves to be very interesting because while usually the focus is on how think tanks can act in order to be more influential in public policy making,  it is important to also consider that there are political and social structures, particularly in developing countries, that give shape to the channels of communication between think tanks and politicians and public officials and make the relationship between them more challenging. More has been written on this topic: regarding the relationship between think tanks and political parties in Latin America, for example, is a publication by International IDEA called Thinking Politics: Think Tanks and Political Parties in Latin America (in Spanish). Enrique Mendizabal and Norma Correa also have a book on think tanks, politics and the media called Vínculos entre conocimiento y política: el rol de la investigación en el debate público en América Latina. 

May 21

2 Comments

Outsourcing policymaking to think tanks: it can guarantee influence but is it desirable?

[Editor's note: Tristan Stubbs works for the Research and Policy in Development programme at ODI. He writes in a personal capacity. His reflections, although inspired by British politics are extremely relevant to think tanks in developing countries -particularly those under pressure to get closer to governments in search of influence. It follows from a poignant reflection on the merits of influence for influence's sake.]

Two weeks ago, London elected the Conservative politician, Boris Johnson, to his second term as mayor of the city. There was a notably low turnout, perhaps because the three major parties each put up the same candidate that had contested the election the last time around, in 2008. More interesting, then, were the individuals representing the smaller parties, not least the former civil servant Siobhan Benita. Running as an independent, in some ways she was more of an ‘establishment’ candidate than those from the established parties. A career bureaucrat, she even won the support of the erstwhile head of the Civil Service, Sir Gus O’Donnell.

Benita said she’d decided to run because ‘she was losing faith in the power of the civil service to keep politicians in check’. Her statement attracted predictable criticism, from both the left and right. Commentators pointed out that it’s not the job of the civil service to hold elected representatives to account (that’s the first step on the road to authoritarianism). Keeping the government in check is the job of parliament, voters and the legal system – not an unelected technocracy.

I was reminded of Benita’s analysis of the role of the modern civil service when I read in the Times a couple of days ago that the government is considering outsourcing areas of UK policy-making to think tanks and other organisations. At face value, there’s little new in this: many think tanks measure their success on their closeness to government, and governments the world over have long outsourced their research and policy grunt work to non-civil servants. Where this proposal differed, however, was in the idea that policies might also be implemented by the outsourced providers.

The suggestions are as follows. Against the background of austerity-driven public spending cuts and a reported growing frustration in the British prime minister’s office with the efficacy of the civil service, government departments would commission think tanks or consultants to devise, develop and ‘torture test’ policy, instead of using bureaucrats to do this job. Policy areas could include revising business regulations or reviewing welfare payments. A department that wanted to develop an idea that had gained prime ministerial approval could draw from a pot of money, and then choose from ‘a list of companies, think-tanks, consultancies or charities chosen by the Government to work on the scheme’. At the moment, most policy ideas are developed ‘in-house’ by specialist subject experts – the change could mean this group would be significantly reduced in number.

Where outside organisations were entrusted with actually putting policies into effect (most likely when managing smaller schemes), controversy might arise for two reasons. One, though the government currently outsources much similar work – the Times article mentions how McKinsey’s and PwC are already advising on IT and finance products – this would represent the first time third parties would be able to devise policy without direct civil service involvement. Two, the proposal raises significant questions about conflicts of interest. The article quotes the concerns of a civil service source: ‘[i]n areas such as regulatory reform, for example, the same firm which developed the policy could implement it as well’.

Let’s consider the consequences of these proposals for think tanks. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and the plans have not yet even reached pilot stage. However, it’s not too difficult to imagine a situation in which think tanks that take advantage of the scheme would not be subject to the same level of scrutiny as an equivalent commercial outfit. As this blog frequently argues, think tanks – even if constituted as a charity – tend not to be neutral, non-partisan organisations. Their work is intensely political, and they aim – rightly – to influence policy just as assiduously as businesses. Yet they depend on using informed, evidence-based research to support their policy work. The sustainability of their credibility therefore derives from maintaining some distance from government. If the entire research, policy, and implementation cycle were farmed out to an ostensibly independent research institution, this would close loops that were formally open. A think tank would be wise only very cautiously to discard a reputation for openness to academic collaboration.

Secondly – and even though there can be significant career advantages for individual staffers if think tanks are perceived to be close to government – the quality of a think tank’s output is also dependent on an ‘arm’s-length’ relationship. It’s a fine line to draw, but a think tank’s reputation depends a lot on its ability to take government to task where necessary. How can it deliver innovative policy suggestions if, rather than acting as a ‘critical friend’, a think tank is offered significant financial incentives to work directly on behalf of a government’s agenda – thereby opening itself up to accusations that it’s benefited from patronage?

A third point has more to do with the attitude expressed by Siobhan Benita. The British system of government is known for its impartiality and lack of corruption largely because its unwritten constitution puts political decisions in the hands of elected ministers, and demands political impartiality from civil servants. Above the middle ranks of the bureaucracy, it’s forbidden to hold even lowly political rank. This is why Benita’s comment was worrying, and why handing over policy implementation to any external organisation should also be of concern. Under the proposals, the civil service would not only outsource the policy-making process to political organisations, but its constitutionally mandated accountability as well. If anything went wrong, where would the buck stop?

May 18

1 Comment

How to employ, retain and motivate staff

[Editor’s note: Leandro Echt is an analyst at the Civil Society Directorate at CIPPEC, where he works mainly on the links between research and policy and think tanks’s policy influence. He coordinates the web site VIPPAL – Bridging research and policy in Latin America.]

I would like to make some comments related to the point of how attract, retain and motivate think tanks’ staff, one of the major issues regarding the complex world of directors leading institutes that seek to influence public policies. In 2011, CIPPEC created and started to coordinate the on-line platform Executive Directors of Latin America (DEAL), a community of practice that brings together Directors from some of the most prominent policy research institutes in Latin America interested in improving the impact of policy research. Within DEAL, CIPPEC and Enrique, jointly with the Directors and staff of different think tanks, reflected on the most common dilemmas regarding staffing and some strategies to face them.

The causes of the challenges related to staffing that think tanks face vary depending on the context of each country, but could be grouped in two: challenges of the external environment and internal or organisational challenges. Enrique has mentioned some of them, but I can add others. Some challenges of the context are: limited supply of qualified researchers in the market, little knowledge of think tanks and little interest in working in organisations that are neither academic nor government or party, lack of a ‘career path’ involving think tanks (in part, the lack of culture of think tanks and interest in working on them has to do with the informality of the political system and the professional environment that rewards personal relationships seeking positions of power).

Some internal or organisational challenges are: lack of human capital strategy (few think tanks know which is the most appropriate team for them; which is the right equilibrium between generalists and specialists, support human resources versus those who do the projects, the relationship between seniors and juniors, communicators and researchers, etc.?), professional development opportunities are limited, the remuneration (monetary and non monetary) is not competitive enough, lack of a capacity building strategy for the staff, difficulties providing good financial incentives (how to develop a policy of salaries, awards and promotions when the organisation is mostly funded by projects?), complexity of the management of non-monetary incentives (how to distribute these incentives? who implement and control them? how to ensure equity when distributing them?)

In order to address these challenges, we have identified some strategies developed by think tanks and some suggestions from the literature:

  • When seeking to identify qualified researchers, think tanks can collaborate with universities (agreements with universities to detect and interview students, think tanks trainings’ for students, contracts to get discounts or scholarships for think tanks’ staff when applying for a master, etc).
  • As Enrique commented in many opportunities, another option is to contract globally, identifying qualified researchers in other countries. Moreover, a think tank can have visiting fellows: national or international researchers leaving abroad that stay some periods in the organisation working on a topic that is interesting for both parts
  • Regarding contracting strategies, the best option, but not always possible, is to have a staff with formal contracts. In a market characterised by high levels of informality, finding a civil society organisation in which to enjoy some stability is attractive to researchers, especially for younger ones.
  • Undoubtedly, salary is the key incentive for the staff. In order to ensure competitive salaries, CIPPEC developed annual market surveys including public sector, private sector, other civil society organisations, and academia.
  • Think tanks can also provide their staff with some additional benefits, such as enabling researchers to complement their work in the institute with other activities (teaching, consultancies, etc), flexibility in their research agenda and autonomy in decision making, flexibility of timetables, and the freedom to work from home.
  • Also, think tanks can provide researchers with a ‘supporting system’ for improving the quality of work: for example, while responsibility in obtaining funds is shared between the institute and the programmes’ teams, CIPPEC, through the Institutional Development area, actively supports the search for funding for projects that programmes (and researchers) desire to carry want.
  • For researchers used to develop individual consultants, the fact of having a trained team is a great support that allows them to handle several projects simultaneously. CIPPEC also gives support to enhance the image and exposure of senior researchers: there is a proactive communication team seeking to publish articles of researchers in the most read newspapers of the country, and searching for interviews or appearances in the media.
  • Think tanks can also attempt to ‘advertise’ themselves more effectively. As Enrique said, another great opportunity that think tanks can offer prospective researchers is the possibility to access the policy arena: working in an organisation whose work is recognised in the world of decision makers gives them the opportunity to be in constant interaction with policy makers. Eventually, this access to the policy world can be used as a platform for access to public sector positions.
  • When trying to motivate the staff, a common strategy is to recognise great performances with a certain amount of money (bonus or a prize for publications) or support for presentations in conferences (paying for travel and accommodation, for example). Also, think tanks can support staff’s studies (signing letters of recommendation) or support their participation in different kinds of trainings (from policy or organisational trainings to the learning of another language).
  • Finally, for junior researchers getting close to policy actors is a valuable benefit of working in think tanks. Mentoring programs are also a great incentive for them: some institutes encourage young researchers to work with one or more senior researchers, so they can learn in-depth about various policy issues, receive support in regard to skills, techniques, research methodologies, and inspiration and advice about their professional careers.

So these are some common dilemmas and strategies that think tanks face and develop when seeking to attract, retain and motivate the staff. I hope they help others to reflect on their current practices.

May 17

4 Comments

Influence for influence’s sake? The merits of a two pronged approach for research impact

The London School of Economics´ Impact of Social Sciences Project, whose objective is to help academics to increase the scope and reach of their research by having more influence on public policy, has published a Handbook on Maximising the Impacts of your Research. This Handbook is a compilation of the initial findings of a comparative analysis focused on 120 academics from several social science disciplines, and provides advice on how to achieve maximum visibility, both within the discipline and externally. There are many other such handbooks and manuals.

However, Mel Bartley, Director for the International Centre for Lifecourse Studies, argues in a post on the Impact of Social Sciences blog that it is problematic to view scientists as a group that works in isolation from the real world. In fact, the reason science exists, she says, is because it has always found a way to be useful and financially viable:

The notion of scientists as a Brahminic group divorced from everyday concerns may be true of some individuals but as a description of how science is done it has little foundation in social reality. Disciplines wax and wane appear and disappear in the academy, and this happens as a result of intense activity by scientific entrepreneurs.

Bartley believes that there is interest in learning how to maximise research impact because some research traditions have lost their initial purpose and now need a justification for their continued existence. She argues that a two pronged approach is needed, not only to understand the way research can influence policy, but to reflect on the implications and consequences of this influence. She utilises the notion of the social problem process, divided in stages, which begins with calling attention to a problem and then asking for something to be done about it. Demand for action, however, is held at bay by a process of enquiry on the problem, which creates a market for new knowledge.

The Impact of Social Sciences Project is hardly the only one in its field. There is also the Canadian Research Impact, which provides knowledge mobilisation services to universities, government agencies and communities; Research Councils UK, which is focused on improving support mechanisms, evaluation and sharing best practices among their researchers; the Becker Library Model for the Assessment of Research Impact, providing a framework for tracking biomedical research impact; and UC Berkeley’s Research Impact Initiative, which offers a monetary reward for those academics that will allow their work to be free to all readers.

In the developing world, several organisations are also working hard to understand how as well as to influence policy. How will opinions like Bartley’s affect the way they approach the relationship between social science and practice?

May 15

How can think tanks take advantage of mobile data?

This month’s Alaska Airlines Magazine features an article on mobile technologies applied to research, showing the advances made on data collection on real time, highlighting the ever-shrinking costs of using new technologies, added to widely extended mobile networks around the world, even in developing countries. The author, Dayton Fandray, follows the development of hardware adapted for mobile technology and their use on research. Matthew McKown, a researcher at the Coastal Conservation Action Lab at UCSC who works with Nexleaf Analytics, a non-profit organization that develops mobile sensing technology, in a seabird conservation project:

We went with the mobile phones for a number of reasons. One, they are a mass-produced consumer report (…); they are power-efficient, user friendly and pretty rugged. Capabilities of mobile phones will continue to increase and prices will continue to go down. So we’re getting better answers and reducing costs

These tools have been gradually embraced by scientific and medical academia, the marketing industry as well as development projects, but also are being increasingly used by think tanks for collecting data. Mobile data collecting software is flourishing, with many platforms developed for tasks like surveys, documentation and real-time information.

Clear advantages on using mobile data collection for think tanks include extending the geographic reach of studies to areas that are difficult to cover with traditional methods and safer data transportation, but the most important aspect is real-time work. Global Pulse is an UN-affiliated initiative founded in 2009 by the Secretary-General that intends to impulse mobile technology as a mean of collecting information leading to a better public policy building and more effective and immediate responses to challenges. Global Pulse, which incorporates private actors, partnered in 2010 with mobileactive.org, a network promoting social development through mobile technologies, to develop an inventory on mobile data collection projects; mostly on agriculture, health and electoral processes. Global Pulse frequently works through partnerships with specialized teams and organisations, a model that could be followed by think tank for specific subjects.

Undoubtedly, the most important use think tanks could give to mobile technology nowadays is to communicate and interact with users through apps. Mobile apps are increasingly specialised, and the most important think tanks are already launching them, replacing somehow conventional websites. Although think tanks and public policy planning don’t need as many gadgets as natural sciences or medicine research, they could use more cloud computing tools, to which mobile phones and accessories can connect. According to Nick Scott on innovations in internal communications:

Internal communications are becoming harder to sustain, as remote working becomes more common. It is a paradox that increased opportunities for long-distance external communication brought about by the internet are feeding increased internal disconnection.

Another challenge for mobile data as a work tool is its acceptance by the institutions, which may rather prefer other means that work well for them. According to Enrique Mendizabal:

many think tanks are already very successful at communicating with their main audiences. (…) Not ‘doing digital’ (as a proxy of not trying new approaches) often has more to do with a decision to keep doing what works rather than ignorance.

There’s still a long road toward ‘going digital’, and it is starting by its internal and external communications.


« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,420 other followers