{"id":902,"date":"2014-07-16T21:00:21","date_gmt":"2014-07-16T21:00:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/?p=902"},"modified":"2016-01-06T17:50:33","modified_gmt":"2016-01-06T17:50:33","slug":"rethinking-how-research-is-communicated-two-cases-from-cameroon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/rethinking-how-research-is-communicated-two-cases-from-cameroon\/","title":{"rendered":"Rethinking how research is communicated: two cases from Cameroon"},"content":{"rendered":"
[Editor\u2019s note: This post was written by Sandrine Ebakisse, a knowledge manager by profession. She carried out this analysis with a research grant from the Communications Division of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). You can read\u00a0some slides about this study<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0the full study report on the IDRC website<\/a>.]<\/em><\/p>\n We generally tend to relegate communication to a classic triptych: if we have formulated a message, developed the tools to transmit the message, and reached the desired target, then we assume to have communicated. Job done. My study of research communication in Cameroon\u2019s forest sector shows the importance of going beyond this traditional model. The ability to be analytical and\u00a0think strategically<\/a>is critically important. Otherwise, neither the messages nor the tools for transmitting them will produce the desired results.<\/p>\n The two research organizations I studied were not content with traditional communication activities once their research work was done. They took the process a step further by developing successful knowledge-sharing and communication strategies. Without these, their research almost certainly would not have had such an impact or influenced government actions.<\/p>\n The first organization, the\u00a0Centre pour l\u2019Environnement et le D\u00e9veloppement (CED)<\/a>, became actively involved in resolving a dispute arising from a concession contract signed between the government and a U.S.-based agriculture company. The case, known as the\u00a0Herakles Farms scandal<\/a>, related to\u00a0the company\u2019s plan<\/a>\u00a0to develop a large palm oil plantation in a forested area of southwest Cameroon. CED researchers uncovered non-compliance with the procedures for establishing a concession, serious environmental risks, and disregard for the rights of shoreline communities in the sought-after area.\u00a0CED\u2019s research<\/a>\u00a0sparked a debate on the proposed development and, as a result,\u00a0the concession agreement was recently amended<\/a>\u00a0by a presidential decree.<\/p>\n The second organization, the\u00a0Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)<\/a>, conducted\u00a0a revealing study<\/a>\u00a0on the revenue generated by the domestic sale of timber in Cameroon, which was not regulated enough by forestry legislation. CIFOR\u2019s research data helped put the regulation of domestic wood harvesting on the agenda, and showed that government revenue from this sector could eventually match the income from timber exports.<\/p>\n A closer look at these results confirms two important points:<\/p>\n A better understanding of these points could help many organizations achieve greater success with their research-uptake activities.<\/p>\n CED and CIFOR operate in similar contexts, but they interpret those contexts differently and each occupies their own particular niche. CIFOR acts as a partner with the Cameroonian government and benefits from direct access to it, mainly because of its International Organisation standing (CIFOR is a member of the\u00a0CGIAR<\/a>\u00a0consortium). On the other hand, due to its limited access to government decision-makers, CED, that has a more domestic focus and nature, has adopted an advocacy approach to meet its objectives. The figure below by Daniel\u00a0Start and Ingie\u00a0Hovland illustrates these different positions.<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n CIFOR\u2019s approach is to communicate directly with the public forest administration, whereas CED uses indirect communication. CIFOR designs tools such as\u00a0policies briefs<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0journalistic reports<\/a>\u00a0to influence government decision-makers and to promote evidence-based policies and practices.<\/p>\n CED, on the other hand, conveys this same evidence-based data to the media and other multipliers such as donor agencies and non-governmental organizations, by using\u00a0press releases<\/a>, public debates and other tools. These intermediaries pass on CED\u2019s message until it reaches its ultimate target: the forest administration. This is for example the case with the relay conducted by the\u00a0Oakland Institute<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Greenpeace<\/a>\u00a0on the Herakles farm scandal.<\/p>\n Although these two organizations have vastly different nature and approaches to influence, they use some of the same techniques. I present these below as necessary conditions for research to gain influence through communication.<\/p>\n CED and CIFOR both needed to fulfill the following conditions to influence policy and practice:<\/p>\n The CIFOR and CED experiences point to some lessons on communicating research that can help allay misconceptions and benefit research organisations and the donor agencies that fund them.<\/p>\n To manage their image and properly present their work, research organizations need communication professionals. However, researchers themselves are also responsible for communicating about their work. Giving a presentation at a conference is a form of communication, for example. It therefore stands to reason that serious organizations will ensure that their researchers understand the basic concepts of communication. That said, every research project has specific goals and purposes, and calling on communication professionals as intermediaries will be more important in some cases than in others. It all depends on the objectives.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This post was written by Sandrine Ebakisse, a knowledge manager by profession. She carried out this analysis with a research grant from the Communications Division of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). In it she reflects on the strategies of two policy research organisations working in Cameroon’s forestry sector.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":"","footnotes":""},"tags":[178],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/902"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=902"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/902\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=902"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=902"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Research Uptake: Yes, Communication Really Does Matter<\/h3>\n
Two revealing cases<\/h3>\n
\n
Communication approaches linked to theories of change<\/h3>\n
Conditions for gaining influence<\/h3>\n
\n
\n