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!