Research gaps group work
From ccsl ilriwikis
Contents
CCAFS-ILRI Workshop on Communications and Social Learning in Climate Change
8-10 May 2012 ILRI Campus, Addis Ababa
Research gaps (plenary fishbowl discussion based on table group work)
During this session, participants discussed in table groups what seemed to be - among the gaps highlighted in the discussion paper presentation (12.00 session that day) - the real gaps but also potentially missing gaps and key questions. The group inputs were then brought together in a fishbowl discussion and summarized with the help of two active observers.
Points from group discussions
- Where is the proof of the value of social learning? So far it is anecdotal.
- Social learning (SL) leads to action; we have a theory of change about it but don't know
- Key gap: combine research and process (research about process) -> lots of evidence exists for CCAFS and others
- Apply successful approaches to other settings
- Commitment to influence within and outside CG, e.g. donors focus on global public goods
- How to combine this with publishing and properly developing (against multi disciplinary science which is not recognized)?
- Issue of cost of social learning? Will it be more expensive?
- Old and new tools are there for social learning but social learning is not new – how to adopt it for CC?
- CCAFS is about climate not about social learning
- What exactly should CCAFS do? Depends on continuum position and scale
- Capacity for CCAFS to change CG internally?
- CCAFS will engage with end users sometimes at national level at community level...
- Recognize your CCAFS strength (key advantage) to facilitate initiatives with different donors
- Stress shocks that raise CC agenda
- We don’t understand CC well. Do we have evidence about how to change behaviour?
- CG is good at AFS (agriculture and food security), not at CC.
- Lots of partnerships within CCAFS with CC scientists
- We do know a lot about CC we can act! e.g. using scenarios – identify policies, technologies that could work elsewhere
- There are 3 categories of researchers:
Those who do excellent science (publishing) Those who do good science (somebody else will worry about publishing, Those who do uncertain science (multi-stakeholder processes, SL)
- Engage in reflexive learning with farmers etc.
- Research on how to do SL for decision making at different levels
- Is CCAFS best placed to change (i.e. 'do' S.L.) or should it work with existing platforms?
- Power dynamics? Researchers and farmers at different levels of the spectrum – incentives for farmers to have a voice?
- Once you engage in development you let go of research process, it becomes something else. Let go of research and recognition. You’re going into development process (but keep what’s good)
- Example of IWRM modeling project with tracks (research, SL. Platform): Identify problems from stakeholder’s point of view (translate them into research) gaps in research on SL and making it credible
- Priorities? Groups/clusters? Supporting some groups? Help them support one another?
- SL processes – explain that some decisions on CC are more social, less economic – Identify toolkit on S.L
Missing gaps
- Learning with/for action (outcomes)
- M&E of impact of social learning
- What principles and processes help institutionalise social learning (e.g. draw more from the G7 case studies)
- Does social learning take more or less resources than other communication approaches?
- How does social learning help build and share consensus in context and uncertainty
Opportunities
- Innovative partnerships facilitation: Institutional building with private sector, especially with the CG;
- Long term engagement
Summary by active observers
- SL & CC: There is a good reason for SL in CC, we know why already. But what is the risk?
- CCAFS can change the CG system itself
- What can be done depends on the continuum (scope and scale) where CCAFS wishes to pisition itself
- Power structures – CCAFS has the liberty talk to / with farmers, get them involved
- Unique Selling Point (USP) of CCAFS? Combination of approaches/actors
- CCAFS is positioned to have CC in the Agriculture and Food Security agenda
- We need incentives for farmers to engage in SL for researchers
- Use (existing) successful approaches for this work
- How different is SL for other sectors?
- Integrate science to engage with development! Combine with incentives to publish about it!
- Decision-making processes: if they concern individuals, they are not about SL.
Additional comments from participants
- Research and social learning adaptation
- Recognize good learning practices and principles
- Shared principles from groups within the CCAFS groups and partners
- Capacities (CCAFS has more people who are close to the ground)
- What do CCAFS end users need from CCAFS and how can we better shape what we are using?
- Social learning is a huge piece of work
- CCAFS can play the boundary – packaging science in different and relevant ways through learning communities (NGO’s private sector and communality leaders)
- What is CCAFS looking at and what do they want to achieve?
- Focusing on behavior not just learning (transformation of behavior)
- How can these processes engage around local governance processes and work on sustainability?