{"id":989,"date":"2014-03-21T19:20:08","date_gmt":"2014-03-21T19:20:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/?p=989"},"modified":"2016-01-06T18:18:17","modified_gmt":"2016-01-06T18:18:17","slug":"supporting-think-tanks-series-synthesis-of-the-think-pieces-possible-recommendations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/supporting-think-tanks-series-synthesis-of-the-think-pieces-possible-recommendations\/","title":{"rendered":"Supporting think tanks series: synthesis of the think pieces and (possible) recommendations"},"content":{"rendered":"
The following practical implications and (possible) recommendations build on some of the conclusions and suggestions included in\u00a0the previous post on supporting think tanks<\/a>. They are based on a series of think pieces commissioned to support the evaluation of a pilot of the Knowledge Sector Initiative:<\/p>\n The list below is not exhaustive. It reflects my own priorities and opinions and has been inspired by the think pieces as well as my own experience and research. It is intended to provide food for thought particularly since the KSI is already underway and hoping it can inform other initiatives, too.<\/p>\n An important lesson emerging from the think pieces is that when dealing with culture and politics it may be best to incorporate these into the intervention rather than attempt to control or avoid them. This could translate into the following practical recommendations (as well as others):<\/p>\n Efforts to develop the capacity of think tanks need to follow previous efforts to develop or find the right (appropriate) donor-grantee relationships. All the examples that refer to donor support for capacity development efforts relate to direct interventions; that is, where donors provide the support without a managing contractor. The only case that involved a managing contractor was the last phase of the SISERA programme, mentioned in Stephen Yeo\u2019s think piece \u2013 which failed and led to its closure.<\/p>\n Given the complexity involved in understanding donor and grantee cultures, politics, and interests \u2013and their relationships with each other and third parties \u2013 it is not surprising that introducing a \u00a0managing contractor would have presented such a problem. But this third party need not be a seen as a challenge alone; it offers important opportunities, too.<\/p>\n This is particularly relevant for the DFAT Knowledge Sector Initiative where a separate entity has been charged with implementation. The following challenges and questions may need to be addressed by parties involved:<\/p>\n A common approach to dealing with the challenges is to attempt to control the relationship between grantees and supporters (funders and contractors). But a possible negative externality from this is the formation of a clique or closed-access community that in effect limits the sources of advice, information, inspiration and support that think tanks and other knowledge sector organisations support.<\/p>\n\n
On dealing with culture and politics<\/h2>\n
\n
On donor\u2013grantee relationships<\/h2>\n
\n