Susan

Thanks for these comment s- lets discuss how we can do this and still keep the Strategy short.

I agree with haltshul, all stakeholders should be involved as much as possible from the onset of the research activities to ensure wide dissemination and adoption of end results.

Allow me to push back a little here (esp. as you are such a strong promoter of good science communication). I, for one, was not suggesting that the Science Strategy ‘deal comprehensively’ with influencing or capdev or gender etc, but rather that it articulate in a powerful way (that is, NOT the usual lip service) how the conducting of science at ILRI is integrated with its communication, with capdev, etc.

We’ve seen that in the program, region and CRP science strategies (still in draft form) that ILRI is developing there is generally a similar dearth of mention of influencing, or even communications and capdev and other cross-program work, even in references to TOC and impact pathways.

I’m not advising that we insert a line in the Science Strategy that says comms, or capdev, is important. I’m suggesting that we take the time to think hard about the role of comms RIGHT WITHIN SCIENCE and share a vision of what that might look like and work towards that. So at least our scientists have a common basis for developing their own project, program, region or CRP comms strategies.

If the Science Strategy has no need to even mention communications, let alone specify how science employs communications to get science into use, then CapDev has no need to mention communications, and CKM has no need to mention science or CapDev . . . And we all are encouraged to remain in our professional silos . . .

I would have thought that having ‘influencing’ and ‘capacity development’ as 2 of ILRI’s 3 strategic objectives would demand their mention, with a bit of powerful exposition, in our Science Strategy. In the same way that the Influencing and Capacity Development strategies must themselves build on the Science Strategy . . . .

Well, that’s my two cents anyway. Thanks for listening!

One comment is that the Science Strategy must be seen in the context of the other Critical Success Factors identifies in the overall ILRI Strategy. The Science Strategy deals with ‘Getting the science right’ but is/will be complemented by the strategies on the others. So it does not deal so comprehensively with influencing, or capacity development, for example.

I take the point that how the Science Strategy links the different objectives of the SRF, the ILRI Strategic Objectives etc. is not well enough articulated.

Several have commented on ‘how’ we do our science which is important. How we work, how we collaborate, with whom, when etc are important. The bid question is how do we bring about change? There is lots of work going on in the CRPs and elsewhere on theories of change and impact pathways and Susan has pointe us to some of the work by Patti Kristjanson. At the last IRMC meeting we agreed to set up a small group to review past experience in ILRI on innovation and how we embed this in our strategy moving forward.

And how shall we get our science right if we don’t say, right in the science strategy, how we will get our science into action (e.g., outcomes, impacts, etc.) Isn’t the how as important as the what?

I don’t think I agree- the science strategy focuses on ‘getting the science right’. It’s about focus on this CSF

SO agree with Isabelle that we must not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Relatively modern technologies have probably saved half of us from early death. We need such technologies in poor communities and countries, too. But, of course, such technologies will have to be made with their ‘use context’ uppermost in mind, as Lance suggests above. Else they will ba available only for the rich.

RUNNING OUT OF TIME

I agree with Lance and others that articulating powerfully HOW we will work, as well as WHAT we will work on, would strengthen our Science Strategy—and our science! As an institute, ILRI seems to keep circling back to this topic without lasting effect. Here, for example, is Patti Kristjanson (formerly of ILRI and CCAFS) advocating ‘social learning’ in Jan 2014:

‘Those of us attempting to use science to help solve complex agriculturally related development problems—like how to help hundreds of millions of smallholder farmers adapt to harsher, more erratic, climates while producing more food and lifting themselves out of poverty—need to try new approaches. If we keep doing science the way we’ve always been doing it, we’re going to run out of time.’ —Patti Kristjanson http://www.ilri.org/ilrinews/index.php/archives/12403 and http://www.ilri.org/ilrinews/index.php/archives/10623

And below is more from Patti (2009) on seven principles that might help us institutionalize and scale out what works best. As described in a PNAS paper of hers. http://www.ilri.org/ilrinews/index.php/archives/656

How to ensure success or failure of getting your research into use:

1 Problem definition.
DO: Define the problem to be solved in a collaborative and user-driven manner.
HOW TO FAIL?: Separate yourselves (scientists who produce knowledge) from the decision-makers who use it.

2 Program management.
DO: Adopt a project orientation and organization and appoint dynamic leaders accountable for achieving user-driven goals.
HOW TO FAIL?: Let your ‘study of the problem’ displace ‘creation of solutions’.

3 Boundary spanning.
DO: Use ‘boundary-spanning’ organizations, individuals and actions to help bridge gaps between research and research-user communities, construct informal arenas that foster producer-user dialogues, develop joint ‘rules of engagement’ and define products jointly.
HOW TO FAIL?: Allow dominance by groups committed to the status quo.

4 Systems integration.
DO: Recognize that scientific research is just one ‘piece of the puzzle’ and apply systems-oriented strategies.
HOW TO FAIL?: Don’t engage partners best positioned to help transform knowledge into useful strategies, policies, interventions or technologies.

5 Learning orientation.
DO: Design your project as much for learning as for knowing and to be frankly experimental, expect and embrace failures to learn from them throughout the project’s life.
HOW TO FAIL?: Punish or fail to fund or reward risk-taking managers

6 Continuity with flexibility.
DO: Strengthen links between organizations and individuals operating locally, building strong networks and innovation/response capacity.
HOW TO FAIL?: Leave development of communication strategies and products to the communication experts to do and development of research products for the researchers to do.

7 Manage asymmetries of power.
DO: Level the playing field by generating hybrid, co-created knowledge.
HOW TO FAIL?: Don’t deal with the often large (and largely hidden) asymmetries of power felt by stakeholders.

And here is a short animated video made in Mar 2013, and quote, on the benefits of social learning:

‘We’re running out of time; our wicked problems are likely to overrun our solutions unless we learn together, better and faster.’ —Patti Kristjanson

http://www.ilri.org/ilrinews/index.php/archives/10731

‘Do we need to bring in more persons with development background and experience? ‘
I would ask “How can we more effectively engage with development actors and with private sector to implement our research outcomes?” Researchers should engaged with stakeholders and be much more imaginative and proactive in how they communicate their findings. For that we need communication strategy!