For a number of reasons, this time around I haven’t yet been in touch with my usual contacts. Instead, I’ve been exploring the local scene via connections with political journalists, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, policymakers, and politicians. This has led me to reflect about a few issues that have been at the back of my mind for the last few months.

It is a very small world, after all… and it is looking the wrong way

There are quite a few think tanks in Peru. More than many people think there are. Here is a list of about 40 organisations that could use the label. But few know both what think tanks are and any of the organisations in that list. Some of the Peruvian think tanks that enjoy great popularity among donors and international development researchers in the US or Europe are unknown to Peruvians working in policymaking bodies, the private sector, well-known political publications, and local philanthropists.

I found something similar in Zambia. The think tanks that were well-known to international development industry workers in Lusaka and the UK were virtually unknown to journalists and business leaders.

While foreign funders may not be ‘forcing’ think tanks to work on what they want them to work on (and, arguably, that is what happens in some contexts) I think it is safe to say that many organisations are busier engaging with global development discussions than with local political debates. This focus on processes happening outside their own political space limits their interactions with other local institutions and this has the effect of isolating them further (further than what think tanks already are by their own nature as elite organisations).

Proof of influence is only necessary when funders are not there

When I ask think tanks in the UK about how the measure their influence I am faced with a blank stare.

‘Measure?’ Sure, how do your funders know that you are influential? ‘Well, they just know’.

And this is true. Funders know who is influential and who isn’t because they are part of the same political scene that the think tanks they fund are part of. Think tank funders fund think tanks because they want to influence politics (and policies). By funding them they are making calculated choices about what to do with their money, who to give it to, when, etc.

So when they fund think tank it is because they know how influential they are. And just as they know before they fund them they would also know if they ceased to be influential -or if they became even more so.

But when it comes to foreign donors this situation is different. A foreign funder, working out of London, Washington, Ottawa, Brussels or Canberra, is not part of the political scene where it is sending its funds. It does not know who is influential and who isn’t. It has to rely on local offices staffed by people who spend just a few years in each country and, for the most part, socialise with other expats (there are of course exceptions to this) or consultants who undertake, often during short visits to the country, context or stakeholder analyses that cannot replace the tacit local knowledge about power and politicians, journalists, and anyone who really lives there has.

Foreign funders are like tourists that need to rely on guides written by other travellers or local ‘guides’ who filter what they should and shouldn’t know about the countries they are visiting. Worse still, they are risk-adverse tourists. They are not the off the beaten track kind of tourist but rather the kind that spends months on Tripadvisor before choosing a hotel or restaurant. They are the kind who bring their own water and packed lunches to the day tours they have booked weeks in advance via their local travel agent.

And because these foreign and detached funders cannot ‘just know’ who is influential in a country half-way across the world they resort to asking for proof (of the kind they may get from travel advice fora and rating agencies). And this proof translates into the kind of evaluation of impact that takes so much of our and of think tanks’ time.

Making funding local

The nature of funding is critical. One solution for all this is to make funding local by setting up a local research fund (other solutions include funding tertiary education systems). Instead of large (or small) vertical funds (which is how most think tanks in developing countries are getting their funds), foreign funders should take the initiative in setting up locally managed and led research funds.

Their funds could be pooled together (even a single funder like DFID that funds several think tanks through a number of initiatives: research consortia, contracts, the Think Tank Initiative, etc. could try to coordinate things a bit better) into a fund managed by a locally appointed board (representing local institutions: academia, the media, political parties, the private sector, civil society) and secretariat.

A well-managed fund (and there is no reason why it is necessary to hire a foreign consultancy firm to do this: even some of the poorest countries have successfully managed businesses: responsible and effective) could attract other sources of funding. In fact, the fund could be set up in coordination to the State. Other donors and even local foundations could be encouraged to contribute to it.

My guess is that as soon as the ‘funder’ becomes local think tanks will begin to pay greater attention to local processes and agendas and they will open new channels of engagement with a greater range of domestic social, political, and economic actors. The wold of think tanks will inevitably open up.

And as a consequence of this refocus of their attention, the question of influence will have to change. No longer will foreign agents, many of whom have never even been to the countries funded by their projects, have to demand proof of influence. The local fund will know. How? Well, it will just know.

An update

This post received a comment on Facebook from Andrej Nosko, at the Think Tank Fund, that I thought was worth including in this post and attempting to respond to:

Enrique very helpful questions getting to the point. I was just wondering whether influence should be the ultimate goal. In a complex domestic policy scene relevance might be worth more than influence (which can be based on other factors than quality policy research). I like the idea of local research fund but am weary of other problems that it could bring for example of the conflict of interest (clique of insiders equally disconnected from local community). Finally the design of the local fund would need to take into account the vanity of donors and their desire to be seen mainly outside (attribution rather than just contribution) as having impact in the local community

I think Andrej’s reflection on influence is correct. Influence should be an ultimate goal and other more immediate ones need t be given more attention. Particularly, it is important to focus on the organisations themselves a bit more. Are they properly staffed, resources, governed, managed, etc.

His second point related to the problems of a fund. I agree that there are huge problems with big funds. But I should have clarified that I did not mean to suggest that this would the only way for think tanks to access funding  -in fact, a research fund would most likely fund universities.

The point of a fund is that it gets donors, governments and local philanthropists into the practice of working with each other, of funding think tanks (and research in general), and of developing local funds.

It also gets think tanks and researchers more generally into the practice of engaging with a local funder instead of multiple foreign funders.

It may be strange for all at first, and mistakes will definitely be made (including it all becoming a clique or having some biases) but it is important that these are incorporated into a learning process.

I would expect that new local initiatives will emerge -out of a sense of competition and emulation. Maybe the ‘right’ will set up its own fund; and so the ‘left’ will do the same. And in response, the centre, will set something up, too. Or maybe the old fights of the left and the right will be left for the ballot box and political opponents will learn to work together in these new spaces.

Andrej last point is spot on. Yes, such an approach will need to address the vanity of donors. No longer will they be able to say that ‘their think tanks’ have done this or that. But I think that many of the recommendations that this blog has made over the last couple of years  face the same challenge.

This Managing Think Tanks chapter provides models which can structure thin tanks’ research operations and reach the goals mentioned above. It also lays out guidance for senior think tank managers who want to assess whether or not the current structure used at their institutions is the most appropriate.

There are two models for organising research – both are the result of two aspects of how think tanks conduct their research. The first aspect has to do with how research is organised:

The “solo star” model: notable and influential researchers basically work independently, with the aid of one or two research assistants. Results are usually published under the star’s name.

The team model. Think tanks that rely on teamwork tend to conduct large-scale research projects, program evaluations, and demonstration and pilot projects. The work more often includes original data collection and other field work; statistical analysis is frequently complex and rigorous.

The second aspect is staff structure. There can be either full-time staff or various types of supplemental staff, for instance associates and consultants. These two terms are restricted to projects on which these staff have a leading role. Variations are:

• very dominant resident staff; some supplemental researchers may be present but are not integral to the institute’s operations;
• resident staff working with consultants;
• resident staff working with associates;
• blend of resident staff, associates, and consultants

Which model should managers choose?

There are six factors that think tank managers should consider when deciding which model to use:

1. Type and size of projects. If think tanks have a large workload that consists of program evaluations, demonstration and pilot projects, technical assistance projects, and other projects that require significant primary data collection, then the team model is more appropriate.
2. Variability of the workload. If the quantity of the workload varies greatly then it is more of a challenge to maintain a consistent core staff.
3. Flexibility of the staff. A key question is core staff’s willingness and ability to work effectively on new topics. the more flexible the senior staff in working on different topics, the better the case for having a larger resident staff
4. Tax and social fund consequences. Since there can be important differences in the cost of hiring a staff member or consultant, think tanks may have to hire a significant amount of individuals in a consultant capacity.
5. Institutional reputation. The more prestigious the think tank, the easier it will be to attract a senior policy analyst or researcher to be a part-time staff member or a visiting fellow.
6. Special cases.

Think tank managers should think not only about their institutions’ present requirements but also about the goals the think tank is aiming for in the next few years. Flexibility is also important: there is no need to choose one model as the sole structure for its research. Finally, creativity is allowed for developing the best research structure for their organisation.

Another country that has joined Chile’s initiative, albeit in a different way, is Costa Rica: in April it received a loan of $35 million dollars from the Inter-American Development Bank destined towards the creation of graduate scholarships in the areas of science and technology; attracting foreign experts in said areas; and workshops for around 300 Costa Rican professionals. A percentage of the loan will also be invested in corporate innovation. This initiative is part of the National Science, Technology and Innovation Plan for 2011-2014, which has a strong focus on developing technology in order to attract foreign investment.

This can be a step towards further improving tertiary education and building a knowledge-based economy, certainly important for think tanks as most of them obtain their staff from universities and local professionals.  What is worrying, however, is this apparent trend among Latin American countries to invest heavily in innovation and research in science and technology, and not doing the same for the social sciences. Peru, for instance, has a state –funded scholarship program for those secondary school students living below the poverty line who want to go to university. But there’s a catch: they must study something related to science and technology if they want to be eligible for the scholarship.

It is understandable that developing countries want to focus on the “hard sciences” – they bring investors and stimulate the economy. Nevertheless, let us hope that they understand that science does not cure all evils. It would be interesting to see them investing in knowledge that can very well make science work better, particularly when taking into account that social and economic policy and politics can help create the right environment for scientific innovation by delivering said innovations to the public and to the private sector.

In Ghana:

Professor Stephen Adei, former Rector of the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), has called for the creation of a patriotic, committed national think-tank, to be used by political leaders for the management of the country.

In Zimbabwe:

Perhaps it is about time we had independent economic think tanks who chart the way for the economy, irrespective of the political parties, in a way the Fed directs monetary policy in the US independently of sitting governments.

Both calls are encouraging as they reflect a change in the way that researchers and policymakers relate to the international development community. I’ve seen this change in Zambia where a new think tank, PMRC, was set up by the initiative of the new ruling party. Unlike the usual Aid Industry funded and promoted think tanks across Africa, PMRC is entirely focused on its own national political space. It is more concerned about the needs of Zambian policymakers than the latest hype in London or Brussels.

Prof Adei, on Ghana:

explained that any such national think-tank could give advice to political leaders instead of them relying on the Bretton Wood Institutions for directives.

He said: “The Ghanaian is capable of managing his or her own affairs but has so far done a poor job, and we must do things differently in the future”.

Tapiwa Kapurura argues that Zimbabwe:

has the brains to form rock-solid think tanks. With all these sprouting tertiary institutions and universities, there are countless ideas emerging through the public markets.

Tapiwa Kapurura’s comments are, in my view, slightly more nuanced. He argues for think tanks (in plural) and not just a large national ‘patriotic’ think tank to solve all problems. This, unfortunately, has been a model favoured by many donors keen to fund the African Brookings. Instead of encouraging several small think tanks, with low overheads and innovation, they have opted for single mammoth-like think tanks intended to ‘serve’ the government in office.

The more the merrier, I say.

Without such information, leaders have trouble leading because they are more often responding to events than anticipating them.

This week’s Managing Think Tanks chapter provides several types of monitoring information that think tanks should regularly assemble and use. The monitoring program described is most useful for a think tank with a fairly large staff (50+) with specialists in areas such as personnel and public relations. Smaller think tanks can tweak the program in order to best suit their needs.

Some points to keep in mind. First, information has to be channeled to the right person at the right time. This is not always the organisation’s president. Managers should decide who is the most suited to receive information in order to improve the organisation’s work. Second, the information generated and provided should be in a simple, straightforward format. Third, basic financial indicators are discussed only in passing.

What to monitor?

As in the corporate sector, think tanks can use the concept of a balance scorecard in order to score themselves in key operations. It suggests five critical areas that senior managers should monitor:

.1. The public policy perspective. Success in communicating research results to policymakers, other stakeholders, and the public, and in informing the public on key issues of the day.

2. The client perspective. Success in meeting the expectations of donors who sponsor policy work and of those contracting with the institute for research, pilot projects, and evaluations.

3. The internal business perspective. Success in efficiently conducting research, communications activities, and support functions.

4. The innovation and learning perspective. Success in enhancing the skill level and mix of the staff and in defining important policy projects to pursue.

5. The financial perspective. Success in raising funds to support the research program and properly managing the institute’s resources.

Tables with indicators for each area are provided in the chapter.

Finally, since each think tank is different, organisation leaders should identify different areas for which they already have good information, and areas they need to work on. It is important for them to weigh the potential benefits from generating or collating additional information from the weaker areas against the costs. If the leaders think that more information is needed, then options must be considered for generating that information on a regular basis and who should receive it.

Oxford Big Data Centre to get £30 million 

The Big Data Institute at the Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, launched by Prime Minister David Cameron on 3 May, will be built using £10 million from the scheme, which is managed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Government funding will be matched by a £20 million donation from Chinese entrepreneur and philanthropist Li Ka-shing.

Big data is one of the “eight great technologies” outlined by universities and science minister David Willetts as government priorities in January.

President to oversee government think tank

The Egyptian Information and Decision Support Centre will be under presidential and cabinet supervision, having previously been overseen only by the cabinet. IDSC is one of Egypt’s most prominent think tanks. Previously overseen entirely by the Cabinet, the body was tasked with supporting decision-makers on a number of economic, social and political issues.The decision also states that the head of IDSC will be appointed directly by the president.

Events and announcements on think tanks

AusAid Selects RTI International for Project to Strengthen Public Policy Research in Indonesia

RTI International has been awarded the first phase of an ambitious 15-year project funded by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) to strengthen public policy research and research institutions in Indonesia. Called the “Knowledge Sector Initiative,” the far-reaching effort represents a major AusAID investment in support of the Government of Indonesia’s efforts to strengthen its research institutions and use of research in public policy development.

Career Opportunities

Senior Research Portfolio Manager – Economic and Social Research Council

There is a vacancy in the ESRC Research, Partnerships and International Directorate for a full-time Grade E Senior Research Portfolio Manager who will provide leadership in the management and development of ESRC’s international development research and knowledge exchange portfolio. It will involve leading and managing ESRC’s international development portfolio including acting as project lead on a selection of ESRC’s partnership activities with DFID. Those partnerships include the Joint Fund for Poverty Alleviation Research, the ESRC-DFID Growth Programme, as well as new activity currently under development on Education Systems Research.

Those eligible to work in the UK are welcome to apply. Deadline is May 10th.

Senior Researcher – Land Rights and Agro-food Systems in Southern Africa|PLAAS

PLAAS requires a Senior Researcher to jointly lead its ongoing work in research projects relating to land rights and agrarian change in Southern Africa. Applications for the above 12-month renewable contract post, starting as soon as possible, are invited from suitably qualified and experienced persons. Requirements are listed in the link above. Deadline to apply is May 17th.

More ‘enlightened’ donors, on the other hand, are willing to invest in the development of new partnerships for the think tanks they support; although this is not always easy. Here is an example of a very interesting one: not only is CONICYT not a foreign ‘Aid donor’ but it is also a State agency. Who said developing country governments were not interested?

The Chilean National Scientific and Technological Research Commission (CONICYT) has announced an interesting programme that looks to strengthen the relationships between Chilean and international think tanks, academics and professionals dedicated to science and technology. It is holding a competition for the creation of international networks between research centres with Germany, Brazil, China, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and Mexico. The purpose is to promote initiatives that facilitate and encourage interaction between Chilean research centres dedicated to scientific and technological issues and similar institutions in foreign countries:

The establishment of international networks in science and technology research permits the enrichment, strengthening and promotion of national scientific, technological and innovative systems, and at the same time, contributes both to the solution of common problems and to the formation of necessary human capital for the creation of knowledge that makes an impact on the economic and social development of countries.

The winning proposals will be awarded with financing, depending on the countries involved. Proposals including centres from North American, South American and European countries will be awarded 16 million Chilean pesos, around USD 34,000, while proposals including centres from countries in Asia and Oceania will be awarded USD 53,000.

The competition also offers internships for Chilean doctorates and young professionals in research centres overseas, as well as trips to Chilean scientific and technological research centres for foreign academics. There will also be bilateral workshops and seminars in Chile with the countries included in the open call.

Promoting networks of think tanks from around the world can be quite beneficial, for several reasons. They can share strategies that work, regarding communications, impact or funding. Access to information can also improve: think tanks from developing countries can gain access to databases and research abroad, and vice versa. Policy ideas and their implications can be discussed more widely with peers who may have had to deal with similar issues in the past.

Networks such as these can have better effects on think tanks that do not have much experience than, say, bringing in “experts” from abroad who instruct them  what to do.

What caught our attention is that this is an initiative promoted by the Chilean government for Chilean think tanks. By the looks of it, too, it does not appear to be a particularly expensive initiative.

Time and time again we hear that international development funders are not keen to fund non-core activities. Few see any value in funding networking efforts, exchanges, partnership building, etc. They all want to benefit from them but are not willing to cover the costs.

Here, then, is a case that think tanks and donors should pay attention to. If the Chileans ‘see’ the value of this kind of investment surely others can see it, too.

This is surely something that initiatives like the TTI, the Think Tank Fund, DFID Zambia’s ZEAP and AusAid’s Knowledge Sector Initiative, to mention a few, could consider. It need not be expensive and it need not be too cumbersome. As in the case of the Chilean programme, the initiative can rest on the think tanks themselves to find the right partners for them.

These women, like the think tanks that this blog write for and about, were missing a great opportunity to claim power to themselves.

I hope that the readers of this blog recognise that all the authors writing here always have think tanks’ best interests in mind. While we try to be useful for think tanks and their supporters we want to make sure that think tanks are always the primary audience. Other blogs and organisations deal with other primary audiences.

I have been meaning to write this blog post for some time but over the weekend a number of conversations have prompted me to give it a go.

Here is the usual scenario: passive

A funder announces a new project or fund for think tanks in a country, set of countries, region or sector (sometimes even earmarks the funds to a set of pre-defined think tanks). In some cases it launches a call for a contractor to manage the project or fund; and in other cases it decides to go at it directly.

What do the think tanks that stand to benefit from this project or fund do? They wait for instructions. They attend ‘consultation events’ when they are invited, they answer questionnaires, receive the ‘experts’ who come to check them out, and eventually write a proposal to be included in the project or fund.

All this, usually, is done independently from other think tanks even though it is quite likely that they all know each other and their leaders interact with each other on a regular basis.

There are two problems with this scenario. First, think tanks are unlikely to get what they need if they let others design the projects and funds that are supposed to help them. After years of intensively working with a handfull of organisations I can honestly say that the best places to really understand how think tanks can be supported are the men and women working in and with those think tanks. Goran Buldioski’s call for more a more intelligent demand for support cannot be stressed enough.

The second problem is that this is a missed opportunity. By waiting, think tanks, are showing an unfortunate lack of strategic capacity. Here is a bit of information that some think tanks may not know. The Aid community always talks about southern organisations’ dependency on northern organisations. But the fact is that the opposite is just as true. Donors are hugely dependent on the think tanks they fund. Once a donor has made a commitment, once they project’s business case has been approved, the consultants have been identified, etc. there is no going back for them. The money has to be spent. (Of course it hasn’t, but I think it would be hard to find a funder that sends the money back home.)

This means that think tanks have an advantage. Once the commitment has been made think tanks have a much greater negotiating power that they think they have. Before, think tanks needed the money so funders could lay down the rules. But once the funder had made the commitment (specially for a large project) think tanks can lay down their own rules, too.

A new scenario: proactive

A funder announces a project or fund for think tanks. The think tanks that stand to benefit from it get together independently of the funder or the contractors and develop a support programme that works for them. They develop their own diagnostics and find their own preferred ‘expert’ support.

When the funder or its contractors come around to share their plans the think tanks respond by sharing their plans, instead. Some negotiation between the parties take place, the think tanks take on some of the better ideas of the funders or contractors and develop a refined plan for support. A plan that works for them.

Will the funders accept this bottom-up plan? Of course they will. Imagine if the funder, after receiving a well carefully developed plan from the think tanks it says it wants to support, decided to dismiss it and go ahead with its own plans. I am not a headlines writer but this could be the title of quite a few articles on the subject: “Donor XYZ tells its grantees: ‘your ideas to not count!’”

And the same would be true for contractors. They would have to go back to their clients and review their logframes and contracts.

Most importantly, funders should want this to happen. They should even demand this before funding think tanks. This kind of proactive behaviour is an excellent way of identifying the organisations that deserve to be supported (I bet that many of the larger and better funded ones will not even bother; they will probably prefer to keep things as they are -after all, they have worked for them in the past). It can help to establish the basis of real and sustainable networks that do not require to be constantly subsidised by third parties. And it would transfer the responsibility for the success of the intervention from the funder to the grantees.

Finally, and this is something that funders would definitely be interested in: their could count this as an early success of their projects and funds. Impact? Check! (and the project has not even started yet.)

The women in the village in Burkina Faso could have several valid excuses for their passivity. I cannot begin imagine the problems they face on a daily basis -they make our problems pale in comparison- and their understanding of international development policy and practice is likely to be limited and highly mediated by the NGOs that control their access to the big players. But think tanks really have no excuse. They are supposed to be, even the least developed, politically savvy agents.

Think tanks are usually in a constant search for funding, particularly those in developing countries where local sources of funding are virtually nonexistent.  Thus, it is important for think tanks to have the technical qualities to be competitive in their market. This means that organisations have to show an understanding of its costs, and control of and accountability of its use of sponsor funding.

To understand its costs means that a think tank will be able to link the research it intends to do with the funding available from a sponsor. It also needs to demonstrate to sponsors that they are using the money for the purpose intended. Most developing country think tanks do not quite have a system in place that can meet these standards:

Most of them do not have a clear understanding of indirect costs. Their project budgets are either based solely on direct costs, which often means they are not truly including all the costs of the organization in their requests for funding, or they include an ad hoc factor for “overhead,” which is usually an arbitrary mark-up applied to total costs… As a result, these organizations seem to be constantly in a state of financial crisis, living from project to project with little financial stability for the organization or its staff.

Once think tanks begin to mature and develop into a larger organisation, several situations occur. For instance, there is greater formality in staffing arrangements; more substantial fixed costs related to facilities, such as equipment and maintenance, and administration; and greater costs for business development. These changes result in think tanks incurring costs that cannot be attributed to specific research projects (at least, not without great administrative difficulty): in order words, indirect costs.

Knowing the full cost of a research project (that is, including indirect costs) sets a baseline for financial analysis of the project and provides a basis for requesting reimbursements from sponsors for its full cost. It is important to be able to measure and include all of the necessary costs of the organisation into research projects, particularly when one considers that sponsors are reluctant to pay for indirect costs.

Given limited funds, the sponsor desires the greatest result for a given investment and therefore wishes to be assured that indirect costs are being limited to those reasonably necessary for the think tank to continue to survive and develop.

Think tanks who wish to ensure its future sustainability should develop a way to account for its indirect costs, serving two functions: providing an internal management tool for identifying and tracking costs that are crucial to the sustainability of the organisation; and providing a clear statement of indirect cost recovery policies, so that sponsors pay only for a fair share of the organisation’s necessary costs.

A way to do this is to develop a financial management system that segregates and tracks indirect costs against direct project costs. Additionally, think tanks have to include an annual external audit. The audit can confirm the application of indirect costs recovery projects, and the validity of direct project costs.

Methods for allocating indirect costs

The chapter focuses on two common methods for allocating indirect costs: case-by-case allocation and developing an indirect cost rate:

1. Case-by-case allocation

It determines a rate of actual usage for each activity in the organisation. Examples are keeping track of long distance telephone calls, using a log for photocopying, etc.

2. Indirect cost rate

This is a way to distribute indirect costs proportionately across an organisation’s activities or projects. An organisation’s costs have to be first divided into two groups: direct costs and indirect costs. The indirect costs are then aggregated into a pool which is allocated to project costs, in proportion to the ratio of indirect costs to direct costs.

This method has to have a set of documentation that can be provided to funders.

Financial audits

Finally, auditing, which is a process commonly conducted annually by an outside accountant, is useful in assessing the completeness and accuracy of an organisation’s financial information. It can be used by think tanks as a management tool, as it assures sponsors that the think tank has sound financial management.

Featured image found in http://www.marylandreporter.com

If you are interested (and you should) you can find the presentations from Richard Darlington(IPPR), Nick Scott (ODI) and John Prideaux (The Economist) here in the video and a storify report of the event.

Also, both Jonathan Tanner at ODI and Leonora Merry at SMF wrote follow up blogs on the event:

• To create or to disseminate, is that the question? Jonathan Tanner, ODI
• Three things I learned from our #wonkcomms event Leonora Merry, SMF

In addition they have set up WonkComms blog, a LinkedIn group and a Twitter handle, which aim to provide a space for research communicators to share ideas and experiences.

These are being led by Nick Scott at ODI and the idea is that the blog will be filled with insightful articles and commentary on the future of research communications in think tanks.

As you know Nick’s work has featured in onthinktanks in the past and we are always interested in what he has to say.

If you are based in the UK I certainly recommend that you join the LinkedIn group.

Also, I think this is an excellent example of how to report on an event (most of the text above is from the email I received 48 working hours after the event).

2011 – 2012 Think Tank Initiative Annual Report now available

The Think Tank Initiative has published its annual review for the 2011 – 2012 period. Topics discussed are the lessons learned from its work with its grantees around the world in capacity development; innovations and changes in its the research agenda; and the events held during the year, such as meetings with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and the Think Tank Funders’ Forum. It also includes conclusions gathered from the Think Tank Initiative Exchange 2012.

Events and announcements on think tanks

PASOS Think Tank Awards 2013 opens call for nominations

The Policy Association for an Open Society (PASOS) has opened a call for nominations for the PASOS Think-Tank Awards 2013. The awards recognize outstanding think-tanks in young and aspiring democracies in Europe and Central Asia, and publicize the importance of what they do. Deadline for submissions is 6 September 2013. The awards are open to PASOS Members and Associate Members. The members and PASOS Board members can submit nominations, including self-nominations in the case of Members and Associate Members, for any or all categories.

Bluhm/Helfand Social Innovation Fellowship

The Bluhm/Helfand Social Innovation Fellowship @ Chicago Ideas Week is looking to support young socially-conscious leaders who have developed sustainable ventures addressing social needs, and provides them with exposure to nationally recognized business and community leaders, funding to support their cause, and a platform for growth. Fellowship details and applicant criteria are in the link above. Deadline to apply is June 6.

Career opportunities

Program Manager at Open Society Foundations

The Information Program seeks a full-time program manager to help develop and expand the program’s work on the protection of civil liberties in the digital environment, with a particular focus on surveillance and privacy. Duties and responsibilities, education and skills required are described in the link above. Deadline is April 30.

Program Manager at the Institute for Security Studies

The Institute for Security Studies is looking for Program Managers for their Addis Ababa and Pretoria offices. Programme Managers will report to the head of the Conflict Prevention and Risk Analysis Division (CPRA), the unit within ISS that provides continental conflict analysis and early warning to complement the state-based mechanisms of the African Union. Duties and responsibilities as well as skills required are described in the link above. Deadline to apply is May 5.

Refocusing the think tank’s mission as needed is called strategic planning. As a formal written product in its most developed form, strategic planning involves considering the relevance of the institution’s mission statement in light of its current situation. This, in order to analyse new work programs for the think tank.

Importantly, the most successful think tanks make such planning continuous; each year or so, there may be events for taking stock and assessing new options—new research topics, alternative clients, and different activities (e.g., offering new training programs or starting a forprofit subsidiary to conduct household interviews).

Also, strategic planning should not be done only when under financial pressure. A crisis environment is not the best for decision making.

That said, this chapter concentrates not on preparing a formal strategic plan, but on identifying and assessing new opportunities for a think tank. It is better to focus a think tank’s limited available resources on generating and evaluating the new products that the think tank can offer, the new clients it can work on and the new policy recommendations it can make.

One specific change a think tank can make is providing consulting services alongside conducting foundation-supported research and policy analysis. Private think tanks can have four groups of clients: national government agencies, local governments, donors and businesses. Working with donors and national government agencies involves the type of work that think tanks prefer doing, such as policy development or training of officials. Work with local governments is more hands-on, and working for businesses can be very diverse.

There are challenges as well as rewards that come with this diversification. Challenges are:

• agenda-setting and lack of focus;
• restricted use of data and publications;
• perceived lack of independence;
• conflict of cultures within the think tank;
• restive clients or sponsors; and
• management challenges.

Possible rewards can be:

• broader base of experience for policy development;
• improved efficiency;
• support for overhead functions; and
• improved visibility and marketing possibilities.

The chapter also focuses on how to foster innovation and change in a think tank, such as leadership attributes, and it provides points for identifying, assessing and piloting promising innovations. For instance, it points out that a flat, informal organisation is the most effective for fostering innovation as the more layers between staff and senior management, the more likely that management will not learn about good ideas. Having a diverse group of people that make up your staff is also a good idea, as it makes the decision making process stronger. Low internal barriers can help staff exchange ideas, and a bit of internal turbulence is not always a bad thing: it can stimulate change.

Finally, the process of innovation can be divided into three steps: calling for ideas, assessing alternatives and piloting the strongest candidates. The staff has to know that new ideas are welcome, which have to go through a review phase, and then one has to be decided upon taking into account financial resources and the capacity to launch the initiative.

Featured image found on http://www.freshnetworks.com

The former is too detailed while the latter probably not enough (at least not given that many think tanks depend on funders with high value for money expectations and would rather they reported absolutely everything the think tanks did, no matter how small).

In any case, I would aim for something in the middle.

A simple and short strategic plan

There is no need for SMART objectives all over the place. These are OK for organisational change projects maybe but not for the think tank itself (although this could be part of the vision) SMART objectives are more relevant for initiatives or programmes or, and this may be an exception, for single issue think tanks like the ones I have proposed in relation to natural resources.

This week’s Managing Think Tanks chapter deals with the structure and potential contributions of the board of directors – a chapter that presidents or executive directors of think tanks would do well to read, as it outlines methods that they can use to work more effectively with the board. Their main objective should be to get the board to spend its time advising on key issues for the development of the institution.

There can be two kinds of boards in think tanks: a management board and the board of directors. The management board is in charge of mostly day-to-day activities, and the board of directors is more involved in strategy and has ultimate fiduciary responsibility. While this is the standard model, there are variations influenced by the political, economic and social context that influenced the think tank’s origins. This chapter deals with the standard model.

Board functions are usually outlined in national law that governs nonprofit organisations. They are basically two: maintaining accountability, and safeguarding the public trust. Regarding the former, boards have to ensure that the organisation’s resources are properly spent. As to the latter, they must guarantee that think tanks are contributing to the public good (since they are awarded legal and tax advantages for being nonprofit institutions).

However, common board problems stem from board members undertaking functions beyond what they should, resulting in an inefficient use of time. Such problems are:

1. Time spent on the trivial. Items of trivial scope or importance receive disproportionate attention.
2. Short-term bias. The board concentrates on day-to-day items that could be handled by the staff rather than issues that may have much greater consequences for the organization.
3. Reactive stance. The board responds to staff initiatives and information rather than asserts leadership (e.g., indicating topics for the meeting’s agenda).
4. Reviewing, rehashing, redoing. The board spends too much time reviewing what staff has already done; this should be a management function.
5. Leaky accountability. Board members “go around” the president to assign tasks to staff members, making it hard to hold the president responsible for results.
6. Diffuse authority. The specific responsibilities of the president and board are not well defined, frustrating accountability.

In order to prevent these problems, a good starting point is to put together a clear statement of the organisation’s mission. When the board accepts it, indicators that measure the think tank’s performance should be added – for instance, conduct of policy research at a high professional standard. Once the board has been convinced that its role is to work on the big-picture issues of the think tank’s mission, the next step is for presidents and board members to clearly know their management responsibilities.

Adoption of a clearly articulated mission statement with corresponding indicators of accomplishment and Executive Limitations helps focus the board’s work on strategic issues.

Meetings can also be made more efficient by setting the agenda and distributing materials to board members in advance. The chapter provides examples of typical agendas for board meetings and typical materials distributed.

Also, it is also more and more common for think tanks (and corporations) to have smaller boards with fewer committees. This way, more work is done by the full board and there can be more open discussion and exchange. They can also better use their time during meetings, the frequency of which is recommended to be two times a year for well-established organisations, and quarterly meetings for younger institutions.

Having appropriate board members is also important for its efficiency: Each candidate for board membership should be an experienced professional with a strong reputation for integrity, creativity, and thoughtfulness. Beyond this, at least some members should have substantial experience in public policy development, social science research and evaluation, and corporate finance. It is also important to include someone with a background in working with the media or other form of communications.

And finally, a series of guides are available in order to help the boards conduct self-assessments.

Featured image found on http://www.philanthroteach.org

Besides the ROI we also looked at Social Network Analysis and Outcome Mapping. If you ask me there is a great deal more value in exploring Social Network Analysis than any other method.

ROIs, but even better, Social ROIs, can be useful if:

• They are conducted ex-ante;
• It is possible (and appropriate) to monetise all costs and benefits;
• There is a clear (or as clear as possible) cause and effect relationship (e.g. it works for building a road or reallocating resources); and
• They include options from which to choose

But when it comes to research and the impact (terrible word, I know) it has on policy (too broad, I know) none of these conditions are possible:

• It is impossible to know how long ‘influencing’ will take or how long or how exactly an idea will become policy, then action, etc and so it is not possible to do an ex-ante ROI;
• Costs and benefits cannot be easily calculated (should we consider the training of the researchers, the years of data collection and analysis that led to an insight that led to a study, etc.?) or monetised (what would think tanks dedicated to promoting democratic institutions, human rights, etc. monetise? Most would, no doubt, focus on an issue not because of the return because the issue is important -of moral desert).
• There isn’t a clear cause and effect relationship; and
• Think tanks do not have ‘options’; at most they can only do what they have the capacity to do.

There are other reasons why ROIs are not the right tool for think tanks, including:

• They create incentives against initiatives that have low possibilities of success -but may be none-the-less important;
• Since every case is unique it is not possible to compare them using the same 4, 5 or 10 (etc.) criteria and therefore each initiative would have to be studied on its own and to such a great detail that it would be simply impossible for any single think tanks to do so without spending great sums of money;
• As a method to assess the performance of a think tank the ROI is only useful if it is applied to all the initiatives of the think tank and not to a ‘sample’ of them. Imagine an investment fund manager who only reported on the returns of some of the fund’s investments and using those to make claims about the performance of the entire portfolio. If a think tank wants to use ROIs to make claims about the organisation’s performance then it would be forced to undertake an ROI for every single one of its interventions;
• As a tool for learning it is rather useless -unless it is used as an excuse to assess the contributing factors for change- and an expensive one, too; and
• Because it opens up a door that think tanks should try to keep closed. Think tanks should try to articulate their value to society in terms that do not hide the complexity of their roles. The argument that ROIs can help sell think tanks to ‘simple minded’ funders is not only flawed but also dangerous: 1) these are not the funders that think tanks should be working with, and 2) if not the think tanks, who can educate the funders?

There is already a literature on the rates of return to research which concludes, among other things that:

the main challenges facing the measurement of the rate of return to research:

• The attribution problem -did the research influence policy?
• The identification problem [alone] -did the policy intervention or reform lead to the desired/observed outcome?
• The measurement problem -can benefits of the outcomes be quantified? [and monetised?]

Are ROI’s useful for think tanks at all? Yes. Think tanks can use ROIs to assess policy options and recommend the best (or more desirable ones) to their policy audiences. In other words, ROIs (and other such methods) can be useful research methods on which to base their arguments and advice. So, by all means, do look into them but don’t use them for what they are not useful.

An alternative to the ROI: the Force Field Analysis (although common sense will do, too)

Is there a tool (I am not a fan of tools but…) that could do some of the things that ROIs’ are supposed to do? Well, Force Field Analysis (FFA) is a tool that can, unlike a Return on Investment (ROI) evaluation, be done ex-ante (to help decide), be used for monitoring (to learn and adapt), and offer a sense of whether all that was done was done properly (to evaluate).

It won’t quantify (in any scientific way) the level of contribution to a change (not will it attempt to) but it can offer some sense of it. It can certainly help to tell a reliable and nuanced story.

The FFA described below was improved by Ben Ramalingam and was later adapted over a series of workshops with researchers, advocates, policymakers, communicators and others. The (adapted) text and diagrams below are taken from a How to Note on Policy Influence that I drafted for DFID in 2010 -so I apologise for any self-referencing:

Force Field Analysis: using it for planning

Using a force field analysis can help identify and understand the forces for and against a desired change in an actor, and which of those forces a think tank can have the biggest influence on. It is not be necessary to conduct a FFA for every policy objective, though, and ideally organisations should learn to prioritise those objectives and actors which are the most important for their mission and where they are unsure of their influencing capacity.

In order to use a FFA effectively, the think tank needs, above all, a clear desired change. The more specific the change the better -and the change ought to be linked to a particular actor (a person, a team, an organisation) with decision-making capacity.

If a flip-chart is used then:

1. Write the objective in the middle of your diagram (see diagram below). For example: “The Vice-Minister for Transport signs-off, before the new budget is approved, a USD100 rural roads programme focused on the Eastern Province in accordance to the proposals made our research programme.”
2. Draw up a list of all forces for the change i.e. that will influence the particular actor and its willingness/capacity to change. Sort them into common themes and write them on the left hand side of the change. Forces can be people, events, knowledge, processes, structures, etc.The list can be as long as necessary and it should reflect the specific nature of the change and its context. If the change is very clear the list of forces will be easier to identify.
3. Then repeat this process listing all forces against the change i.e. that will hinder the desired change.
4. Next, making sure you consult widely, rate the strengths of each of the forces, ranging from one (weak) to five (strong). In some cases, a force may have a force of zero, meaning that while it has no effect ‘right now’ it may have an effect in the future. This could be based on experience, the literature, risk assessments, etc. In some cases, too, the 1-5 scale may not be enough. Some forces are simply much higher than all others and this has to be made clear. In these cases, it is possible to break the rule and rate them as 10 or 15 or maybe add a * next to the force to suggest that ‘even if all other negative forces were gone this would be enough to prevent change.
5. Total up all the forces for and forces against to see how the overall numbers compare. This indicates how easy or difficult you think it will be to bring about the change. It is not a scientific calculation but, if the forces and rates are based on sound evidence (from various sources) then the assessment of difficulty will be as accurate as it could ever be.

Here is where Ben introduced a new dimension. The steps so far have given us a sense of the factors that may cause a change to happen or not. It also gives an estimate of the degree of difficulty of that change. Anyone doing a FFA should expect the balance to be negative or else they should consider that they have chosen to target something that was going to happen anyway.

The FFA as it was originally developed did not provide a sense of what to do next. The next steps can help in this respect:

1. Next, the think tanks can consider their own influence over each of the forces. They can rate this influence from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong) for each force, considering:
   1. Where can they strengthen weak forces who are for the change, to increase their impact?
   2. Where can they reduce the impact of forces who are against the change, by either decreasing their impact or influencing them to change their attitude or behaviour?
2. The think tank can develop its strategy by focusing on the opportunity to increase weak positive forces and reduce strong negative forces.
3. During this process they need to think about their influence through other actors and forces as well as their direct influence. Although they might not have a lot of influence over an actor or force directly, they may still be able to change their behaviour by using another actor or force that the think tanks do have a lot more influence over.

Completing a FFA can help an organisation or team decide what actions would be required to influence others to achieve their objective and whether these actions merit the necessary resources -or the resources they have. They may find that it will require a disproportionate amount of effort to change an organisation’s or group’s behaviour, even if they had been previously prioritised; alternatively, they may find that they have a lot of influence over a person, organisation or group (or process) who they had previously discounted as being immovable or relevant.

If after conducting a FFA the think tanks decide that it is unlikely that they could influence a desired change in an organisation or group, it can be helpful to consider that:

• If they can’t influence them in the way that they originally wanted to, can they influence them in another way? For example, if they can’t influence someone to support their policy recommendations, instead could they influence them not to directly block them?
• If they are trying to influence a large change in a particular organisation which they now think is impossible, could they try breaking it up into intermediary (shorter-term) changes and see how possible each step would be to influence?

Using FFA for ex-ante decision-making

Ideally, a think tank would do several FFAs: for different objectives. By comparing them it can make a decision as to which objective(s) deserve(s) its efforts. It may very well choose the hardest one but there will be a record of the others and of the opportunities that they offered the think tank. This decision can be evaluated in the future.

Using FFA for monitoring and evaluation

To monitor, the think tank can repeat the FFA process during the influencing effort. This may involve adding new forces (that emerged or became clear during the influencing effort it self), chancing the strengths of the forces, and changing the influence of the think tank on the forces.

All of theses changes demand analysis to decide why they happened. It would be a mistake to assume that they changed because of the actions of the think tank simple because the think tank sought to change them. And this should be clear from the fact that think tank is likely to be focusing its attention on only a small portion of the forces affecting the desired change.

The analysis in turn should provide the think tank with additional options and choices which can be evaluated later on.

FFA can also be used to evaluate the intervention. It should be possible to:

• Analyse the strategic capacity of the think tank by reflecting on the choices made by it at the start (comparing options) and during the monitoring process (adapting the strategy);
• Determine if the forces that the think tanks targeted directly changed -and to describe what the think tank did and how it may have contributed towards those changed; 
• Draw lessons from each intervention by determining which actions led to which changes; and
• Learn more about the context and the causes of policy change in the sector or issue under focus as the listing and rating exercise demands a great deal of research, intelligence gathering, analysis, and critical thinking. All of this can be incorporated into the think tank’s collective knowledge for future initiatives and action.

But it won’t provide a number nor should be used to attempt to attribute a change or impact to a single actor or intervention.

Expert Group Establishes Libya’s First Economic Think Tank

Some of the Libya’s most successful businessmen have come together and founded the LEAD Foundation, with the aim of drawing up concrete plans to grow Libya’s private sector. The foundation’s goal is to reduce the levels of unemployment, and elevate the standard of living for all Libyan citizens. LEAD foundation plans to announce major initiatives that will lay the foundations for a strong economic recovery.

Events and announcements on Think Tanks

Call for Papers: Belgrade Security Forum 2013

The organizers of the Belgrade Security Forum have the pleasure of inviting scholars and researchers to submit their proposal papers for the academic portion of the third Belgrade Security Forum (BSF) to be held on 19-21 September 2013. The topic of this year’s academic event is Transformation of State and Professional Practices in International Security.

All submissions must include the applicant’s CV (two pages at most) attached to his/her paper proposal (up to 400 words). Submissions should be made electronically to jrs@fpn.bg.ac.rs, and titled “Call for paper proposals for BSF 2013”. Deadline for submissions is 1 May 2013.

Call for Papers: Vol.  24 of the European and Security Affairs Journal

With the purpose to promote comprehensive research and policy options in the current proposed issues, IDM’s Center for European & Security Affairs invites scholars, researchers, university lecturers, public policy practitioners, and graduate students at advanced stages of research to submit 500-word proposals for papers to be published in the 24th issue of the Journal.

Career opportunities

Program Coordinator – The Institute for Democracy and Mediation

The Institute for Democracy and Mediation is seeking a Program Coordinator for its Center for European & Security Affairs. The successful candidate will join CESA’s team under the lead and supervision of CESA’s Director and will be offered a renewable one-year contract with a competitive salary commensurate with qualifications and experience. Deadline to apply is 19 April.

Internship Programme – NESTA 

Nesta is delighted to be able to offer an exciting new Internship programme. Internships are a critical part of gaining relevant experience for candidates to progress in their chosen career and there are opportunities in an array of different departments within Nesta. All positions on the Nesta Internship programme are paid positions (London Living Wage). Deadline for applications is Monday, 22 April.

Deadline for abstracts is 20 April 2013. Final deadline for papers is 20 May 2013.

Back in 2010 I wrote that: Rupert Murdoch had sent shockwaves through the publishing community with The Times‘ new pay-wall.

Whatever people think about this, Murdoch’s decision is a response to a challenge that we, in the think tank community, share with publishers: free content costs money to produce.

I was reminded of this last week at a concert in Lima. The Killers, a world famous band, was playing at the National Stadium for the second time. The next day, Keane was billed to play; then New Order a few days later; and The Hives, the following week. Somehow, Lima has become a must-stop for the best bands in the world. Ten years ago this would have been inconceivable. The closest half decent band got to us was Santiago.

Two things have happened since then: people in Lima have more money to spend (tickets are more expensive in Lima than in London) and bands cannot depend on the income from CD sales (or downloads) any more. Live shows are the best way to go straight to the consumers: consumers that won’t pay for a download but will happily do so for a concert.

Can think tanks learn something from this strategy?

What are the options for charging for content?

A number of business models are available and could be considered for think tanks looking to charge for content.

Freemium model: the freemium model involves providing users with alternative ‘plans’ to access different levels/layers of content or services. For example, all users may get a newsletter but only those who pay get to read the latest articles; or only those who pay get guaranteed seats at events; etc.  Free, Silver, Gold, Platinum think tank membership?

‘Free’ helps to build market share but once you have a good share of the market you can begin to monetise it via upsells or adding new models. Chatham House is a good example of an organisation that has been able to develop a membership model.

Subscription model: the subscription model provides a standard service for a cost per day, month, year, etc. It is similar to the Freemium model only that it does not include free content. Some think tanks produce intermediary economic and political data and analysis that may not be of interest for the general public or policymakers but could be of great value for corporations and business or trade publications. Why not sell this by product of their usual research to generate a small but continuous income stream?

Affiliate model:  the affiliate model refers to organisations that ‘drive’ traffic to someone else who charges for specific products (goods/services) or who values traffic and is willing to pay. For example, a think tank could redirect to Amazon or to other researcher portals that need hits to get funds from donors.

A think tank could be an excellent affiliate of traders and users of political, economic and social knowledge but also of short- to mid-term programmes that might not have time to direct sufficient traffic to their sites without a strong brands that the think tanks can offer. 

Virtual goods model: the virtual goods model involves developing ‘digital’ products such as online publications, downloadable programmes, network services, online platforms, M&E tools, etc. Users would pay for using these products just as they pay for iPhone apps.

In fact, a think tank could develop iPhone or Facebook apps or virtual gifts/goods for people to send each other or for them to participate in research -by providing data, for example.

Live-gig or publication model: while CD sales are falling, live-shows are soaring. The live-gig model would imply charging for events with keynote speakers and preferential ‘VIP’ or ‘Back Stage’ access to meet the experts. A think tank could organise Hay Festival style events or a VIP meeting series targeted at a paying audience. TED charges quite a lot for its events –and there is a waiting list. The live-gig model also includes capacity building activities and workshops in which think tank experts deliver the content of their research directly to the users. In ODI we did this via Outcome Mapping and Research Communications workshops. These were our ‘gigs’.

Similarly, people might not be willing to pay for content on the internet but are still keen to buy a printed publication. This might mean going back to basics (for some think tanks) but it is certainly a good idea to consider. Standpoint for instance, is published by a think tank. And in a way, so is Harvard Business Review.

Network effect: based on the positive network externalities that come with more users using a particular service –and that increase the value of the service way above its price (e.g. as more people use delicious or a particular mobile phone provider, the more valuable vis a vis price it is for users)

Business to business/government e-commerce: where a think tank (functioning as a consultancy) provides services/goods directly to other organisations (NGOs, research centres, donors, governments) including raw data, literature reviews, background work, etc. –that is too expensive or too difficult for them to carry out but that they need to carry out their core business. The Economist Intelligence Unit is a great example; Apoyo is another in Peru.

How useful are these options for think tanks? I am not sure. It will depend of their capacity to develop some of the services and activities that would be ‘paid’ for as well as their context -not every policy or business community is equally interested in paying for additional services and content. Think tanks could follow one or more of these but further analysis is required.

Some principles/guidelines should be observed when deciding to set up a paywall:

• You should not charge for everything and you should not charge everyone
• Those who MUST read you content must be able to read it whenever they want to read it –burden free (which is not the same as free)
• Those who can pay and are willing to pay should pay -but make it easy.
• Those who can pay and are not willing to pay (and are not in the MUST read category) either do not value your work enough or were never really our target audience –so don’t worry about them
• Don’t forget that your researchers, just as journalists, want to be read so be careful that your centre’s pay wall does not limit their audience.

Building walls in the right places

The walls that a think tank builds around its content must be carefully erected to, among other things:

• Facilitate/encourage payment
• Maximise exposure of ‘sample’ or ‘tempting’ content
• Maximise exposure of your experts and researchers
• Facilitate social media access through a ‘back door’ (compatible with the ‘being there’ approach to communications)
• Encourage cross-posting or links to other sections of our ‘space’

Issues to explore

There are a number of issues that one should explore further:

• Identify and review different business models as they are being implemented by similar industries and by other think tanks
• Revenue/profit potential from different charge-for-content business models
• Compatibility with your own business model; and implication of charge-for-content business models on yours. In particular, is it possible for an organisaiton to run parallel business models?

I think it might be worth a try. The live-gig model in particular can be an alternative for think tanks but this will demand that thy invest in developing an approach to events that trully sells. Old-school key-note speeches and panelists that go on for hours on end will not do it any more. Like the The Killers, think tanks will need to invest in their production if they want them to pay off.

But a key role that think tanks play, albeit one not as glamorous as the high level impact that donors and think tanks prefer to highlight, is the eduction of the public: from the elites and the educated masses all the way to the general public.

Zia Haq, in the Hisdustan Times reported that the Indian Government is planning to launch a Think tank to reach out to ‘wary’ masses. The concern is that poorly explained and communicated policies as bad as poorly designed ones:

“Not being able to convince people about policies can have larger consequences,” an official said, requesting anonymity.

This function is central to think tanks’ contributions to their societies, and demonstrates the difficulty that any attempt to measure it will face.

The main challenge that this particular think tank will face relates to its capacity to add value to the efforts of the government to bring people along or to convince them of their own views. While legitimizing policy is a valid function this ought to be done on the basis of sound research and analysis. It may be that, the Indian Government could accomplish the same objectives it has set out for this think tank simply by funding new or existing content focused think tanks to study public policy more openly and actively. Once again, the density model may be a possible solution.

I suggested that this particular approach was relevant to initiatives such as AusAid’s Knowledge Sector Initiative in Indonesia; but also to an upcoming DFID project to support economic policy debate in Zambia.

These are three examples of what can be done:

• VoxEU: this is probably the most authoritative and relevant economic research space across the world. It is edited to ensure high quality and presented in an accessible way to reach a broad audience (some posts get upwards of 300,000 views). And at a budget close to GBP50,00o is probably the most value for money portal I know of.

• The Salt: this is a blog specialised on the political economy and science of food. Staffed by professional journalists and scientists (and often scientific journalists) it effectively brings together great ideas with issues of public interest. It has the backing of  NPR but it could be replicated by any medium size media organisation. The editorial competence of the The Salt is particularly important. It is not just a channel for anything researchers and experts want to communicate -which is what The Guardian’s Development portal has become (and which has helped to dumb down the British Aid Industry which is not expected to defend its arguments)- but another player in the field of food policy, business, and science.

• The Conversation:  this is an Australian initiative -so AusAid need not look far for inspiration- that brings together universities, the private sector, and the State to communicate evidence based commentary and analysis -and even research briefs direct to the public. DFID, too, should look at this, and VoxEU, as an alternative to the trully unhelpful R4D: listing papers is not the same as informing! I hear that the Conversation is going to be replicated in other countries -I hope it is true.

Why are these important? The Conversation puts it this way:

Access to independent, high-quality, authenticated, explanatory journalism underpins a functioning democracy. Our aim is to allow for better understanding of current affairs and complex issues. And hopefully allow for a better quality of public discourse and conversations.

Think tanks would greatly benefit from having such organisations or initiatives in their countries or sectors. They would offer them with opportunities that they themselves, and on their own, cannot realise.

This week’s Managing Think Tanks chapter provides practical guidelines on how think tanks can establish an effective communication program. It uses the term communication rather than dissemination because the former denotes a process that starts at the beginning of the research project with the identification of policy clients, goes on to define products to meet the needs of the various intended audiences and then updates the plan as needed as the project evolves.

The chapter goes over marketing literature in order to lay out seven step for developing a communication plan for a specific product, and how to make them more effective.

The step by step process is as follows:

1. Identify the target audience;

2. Determine the communication objective for each audience;

3. Select the communications channels;

4. Design the message;

5. Establish the budget for communications for this project;

6. Decide on the communications mix, and;

7. Measure the communications results.

These steps seem straightforward enough, but complications can always arise. In order to avoid them, the chapter provides tips on making the process work. It is important to have experience, for instance, with other public relations officials, journalists and public officials. Clear language is key to communicate the message in the manner intended, both by bringing in a trained journalist that can “translate” the language of the research or to improve the quality of the researchers’ writing. The need for training in TV and radio appearances is even greater.

What are think tanks in developing and transitional countries doing to better communicate their work? Organisations from the former Soviet bloc were interviewed, as well as from Africa. Regarding the Soviet bloc think tanks, most think tank leaders signalled that personal contacts were the basis for their involvement with policy makers. When it came to publications, two-thirds of the organisations reported a 20% allocation of professional staff effort in writing publications, some effort going to research and consulting, seminars, and sometimes training. All of them distribute some form of free publication.

Over 80 percent of the former Soviet bloc think tanks had a targeting strategy for circulation of their free publications:

Sixty-eight percent sent publications directly to policymakers, who were targeted by using a mailing list of officials interested in the topic of the publication, or distributing the publications at seminars policymakers attend.

Several think tanks noted that the distribution and targeting of publications produced with grant monies are governed by conditions in grant agreements.

They generally considered short documents to be the best type of publication to reach policymakers.

There appears to be a noticeable difference between the results for the former Soviet bloc think tanks and the results of the sub-Saharan African think tanks (although the two studies are not comparable). The latter places emphasis on the importance of concise memos among think tanks from this region.

Finally, the chapter addresses who should be involved in developing a communications plan and where the responsibility for the development and execution of the overall communications plan should be placed within the think tank. In larger, Western think tanks, there is usually a separate office for communications that is mostly in charge of both public relations and publications. In smaller think tanks, the communications function can be shared by senior management and the public relations office.

As for when, the communications team should always meet near the beginning of a project – the seven step process laid out above can guide the preparation for the plan.

Featured image from http://www.spinsucks.com