Social Research and Policy in the Development Arena

Critical Encounters

Martin Doornbos

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781349572786, 9781137548511
• eBook ISBN: 9781137548528
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: African Politics
• Index: Social Sciences

The author focuses on the research-policy nexus in development studies, highlighting reciprocal orientations and interactions between the domains of social research and of policy and politics. He looks at instances where these domains are complementary and geared towards common objectives, but also with others marked by opposing rationales.

Part I

The Research–Policy Nexus

1

Multiple Encounters, Multiple Frictions

Introduction

There are numerous areas of contact between the worlds of social research and of public policy and politics, encompassing a whole range of different orders. Together they form dynamic fields of interaction which often involve close rapport and mutual interests, but may also invoke uncomfortable connections, strains and conflict. Reciprocal orientations between social research and policy-making may thus be based on expectations of complementary relevance and mutual benefit, prompting occasional efforts to lay bridges and promote common perspectives and programmes. Often however the relations turn out tenuous and at times the policy embrace of research becomes too close for comfort. It would indeed be naïve, therefore, to ‘think of politics and science as entirely separate enterprises’ in which ‘science is engaged in the high pursuit of truth, and politics is engaged in the baser pursuit of interests’ (Guston 2000: xv).

Nonetheless, in the light of experience with research–policy connections to date, especially with respect to the domain of development and development studies, timely review and reconsideration of the feedback mechanisms at work remains essential at all stages concerned. Social research is expected to be relevant as a basis for policy development in a number of spheres. But under what conditions can one expect insights from research to be profitably taken up in the devising and implementation of policies? What position should the ‘policy’ side adopt to ensure it remains open to findings relevant to its actions and initiatives? How does it keep itself informed of what germinates as new and relevant information to its policy designs? Or should policy itself organize the research of which it wants to see results itself, perhaps by initiating novel ways of reaching into the world of research? And what should the ‘research’ side do in this connection to optimize chances that its results may be picked up by ‘policy’, in addition to being of relevance to other stakeholders and interested others? At what point(s) does research actually come in and how, by its own initiative or when commissioned? And at what stage or stages in any policy cycle is social research most likely to produce relevant insights – as preparatory work towards problem formulation, as evaluation of implementation, or as an assessment of the efficacy of research-policy feedback channels used? What room is there for collaborative linkages, joint actions and orientation on common ground between the domains of research and policy and to what extent can or should these be promoted or developed? But also, under what conditions is searching for such openings likely to remain fruitless and might better be left?

With a focus on these and related questions we enter the interrelated domains of public policy analysis, research–policy linkages, knowledge production and utilization and more. Within the wider field of development studies, these have come to constitute frequently visited niches in recent years. Recurrent questions raised in these areas have indeed been whether and to what extent has the design of policies (national and international) been effectively based on social research and to what extent social researchers have been able to play meaningful roles in assessing the implementation of developmental policies? What different ways of structuring the reciprocal relations between policy and research have been envisaged and what linkages appear most appropriate in particular instances?

Delineating distinct spheres

When trying to reconnoitre the interrelations between the domains of research and of policy and politics, particularly with reference to the development arena, various questions thus call for answers: what are the respective expectations from and orientations towards each other which are often manifested from within these spheres; what causes them to be complementary in several circumstances but deeply opposed in others; and why do the two worlds often appear to need and to confront each other?

To handle these questions, some further preliminary observations may be helpful. One is that in recent decades the nature of the relationships between several of the key actors and factors involved has been shifting, in some respects drastically. Broadly speaking, ‘research’ and ‘policy cum politics’ have often found themselves in a kind of dialectical relationship, with ‘research’ at some juxtapositions in the lead and ‘policy and politics’ being predominant in others. Historically there have been many junctions where independent research findings led to significant innovations and applications in industry but also in social policy. In many fields today, however, certainly in development studies, ‘policy’ has been taking the lead in initiating new areas for policy research, increasingly relegating ‘research’ to a dependent, at times almost subservient, position. Using the power of the purse, ‘policy’ now in large measure determines what is to be researched within the development arena, with ‘politics’ in the background setting the boundaries of what is permissible. Basically gone therefore are the days when the relationship was more usually the reverse, that is, in which ‘research’ functioned as a primary source of findings and ideas which might be picked up by policy in dealing with various areas of human activity, while at the same time research could be pursued for its own intrinsic interest. Gone too is the time when independent researchers might expect more action-oriented policy interest for the enquiries they had initiated and at times for their calls for action with respect to instances of policy neglect.

To be sure, such generalized observations call for qualification with respect to particular areas, as there are always topics that remain unattended or ignored by policy, deliberately or not. One example in the field of development concerns the deepening resource crisis threatening pastoralist livelihoods and sustainable development on the African continent, which receives insufficient policy attention notwithstanding repeated calls for action from concerned scholars. Yet, such neglect may underscore a more fundamental point. While report after report stresses the aggravating dimensions of this particular problematic, ‘policy’ by and large remains unresponsive to researchers’ calls for understanding and action, presumably because the ‘politics’ side – representing economically powerful elites profitably engaged in the livestock trade and industry – does not favour it. As the latter often tends to perceive recommended interventions to be against its interests, ‘policy’ on its behalf may endeavour to steer the respective research into other, less demanding or threatening directions. The interests and inclinations for action from ‘politics’ and from ‘policy’ may indeed diverge, at times dramatically. Likewise, other examples could be cited of policy neglect of the potential insights to be derived from social research calling for action – in vain – with respect to various environmental and health issues.

Nonetheless, when entering the arena of research and politics/policy connections, it will be helpful to also recognize basic continuities running through the realms of politics and policy (and those of politicians and policy makers), allowing them in some ways to be viewed as essentially a single broad field – to be dubbed ‘politics’ or ‘policy’ as convenience demands. After all, policy makers supposedly prepare and implement policies for or on behalf of their political superiors even though we know very well that they, too, have their own politics and that politicians often seem to be following rather than leading their policy staff (Smith 1988). This is not to underestimate the differences between politics and policy that may manifest themselves, yet it is useful to appreciate how in several regards researchers often come to relate to a larger and complex ‘political’ realm comprising the state and its affiliated institutions, throwing up endless political and policy issues for deliberation and analysis (Mosse and Lewis 2006b). Thus, though occasionally we can conceive of more triangular kinds of relations between ‘research’, ‘policy’ and ‘politics’, for many purposes it will be useful to treat the policy cum politics field as a single one which researchers come to face, with an emphasis on either the policy or political dimensions as may be called for. With such provisos, it will be useful to scale down to a level allowing us to relate to more specific exchanges and dimensions of the respective relations.

This book recounts a range of encounters of social research with public policy and politics, which may be relevant to a better understanding of their implications and some of the questions they throw up. To open up this discussion, the following sections of this chapter will first review how over time research has been facing politics and policy, and subsequently how politics and policy have tended to approach social research. After all, there has been research about politics and policy, and policy and politics about research.

Research facing politics and policy

Setting aside science-oriented worlds of research on numerous topics – from astronomy to zoology – which occasionally draw attention from policy or politics, the interactions and connections between ‘research’ and ‘politics’ in a more narrow sense – namely that with regard to ‘the political’ – are still endless. Academic research on politics, such as from anthropology, political science, development studies or other angles, is being initiated from a whole range of vantage points. First, in its most ‘scientific’ form, research may be undertaken to try to ‘objectively’ analyse, interpret and comment on empirical political and policy processes (Long and Long 1992). This is not unlike the engagements of the ‘pure scientist’ in the categorization developed by Roger Pielke to distinguish between different kinds of orientations researchers may have vis-à-vis their subject matter (Pielke 2007). In Pielke’s categorization the ‘pure scientist’ represents the type that would focus on research without any consideration for its use or utility, and thus in its purest form without any direct connection with policy decision makers. Within political ‘science’, a behavioural stream that for years sought to come to quantitative analyses and propositions through advanced methodologies came close to this characterization, at least in its aspirations to arrive at ‘value free’ political analyses. The social sciences made great efforts to try to develop such value-free research methodologies to analyse political behaviour, but whether these have succeeded in banning all possible subjectivities remains questionable. Following frequent criticism on its ‘sterile’ pre-occupation with trying to develop quantifiable datasets, the behavioural orientation appears to have lost its one-time claims to scientific pre-eminence. At a more pedestrian level, meanwhile, research and politics frequently connect through election polls and opinion surveys on other political issues.

Second, research may critically scrutinize politics and policy-making in a more normative and judgemental manner, such as in exposing growing authoritarianism or lack of democratic engagement in some cases, questioning the premises of state-building strategies, or highlighting policy pitfalls or erroneous assumptions in other respects. Research of this nature may be guided by the concerns of Pielke’s ‘issue advocates’, among others. Nonetheless, in reality the difference between such variants tends to be largely gradual. Methodologically even the most neutral research approaches aiming to arrive at ‘objective’ representations of reality may find themselves informed by normative assumptions, while conversely some critical political analyses may reach the stature of universally accepted texts. Fundamental critical research which advances alternative political arrangements is a different matter altogether. It may contribute to illuminating insights, fuelling stimulating debate, but is often destined to lead a mostly theoretical existence.

Different types of researchers, representing and highlighting different research methodologies and objectives, may come to their engagement in political inquiries with contrasting backgrounds and motivations. For the ‘pure scientist’, academic interest may be the principal driving force, spurred by a desire to achieve better understanding, to seek the ‘truth’, or a determination to correct predominant assumptions. As for ‘issue advocates’ and other critically disposed analysts, the researchers concerned may embark on examining policy questions for their clarification and regulation, but possibly also in the interest of affected communities. In either case, their involvement may be put forward as being for the benefit of the ‘scholarly community’, though that often seems added as an afterthought.

Other kinds of research engagements within the politics and public policy area comprise action-research of sorts, undertaken by individual researchers or NGOs acting as agenda setting agencies. Some such engagements may have special relevance in crisis situations, where NGOs of the Pax type may play useful roles on a semi-independent basis in conflict mediation and resolution. The practical relevance of these engagements often remains limited to what a particular government with final authority is prepared to allow or support. Nonetheless, partly on the basis of priorities expressed on the ground, community-oriented action-research may in principle contribute to the formulation of agendas for action and negotiation. In this volume, Chapter 4 discusses examples of these research approaches. In Pielke’s categorization, this would invoke the role of ‘honest brokers’, scholars who relate to decision-making processes by seeking to clarify and, at times, expand the scope of choice available to decision makers (Pielke 2007: 17). Pielke’s types, though (the ‘pure scientist’, ‘issue advocate’ and ‘honest broker’), probably should not be regarded so much as carrying invariable research personality attributes but rather as contextually determined role designations. One and the same researcher may well play a role as ‘issue advocate’ in one context and of ‘honest broker’ in another.

Research on conflict resolution has moved in many directions, such as civil society peace-building (Van Leeuwen 2008), post-conflict election arrangements (Kumar 1998), economic motives in civil strife (Arnson and Zartman 2005), international conflict resolution (Azar and Burton 1986) and numerous other dimensions. From quite different perspectives, peace researcher Johan Galtung and anthropologist Marco Bassi have put forward additional relevant approaches to conflict resolution and to expand the scope of choices available to stakeholders, namely in international disputes and in resource conflicts over pastoral lands respectively (Bassi 2004, Galtung 1998).

More significantly different in principle is yet another variant in the research vis-à-vis the politics–policy nexus, namely that where research is undertaken to amend, rationalize or reinforce political or policy processes, or as a manner of reflecting on any such adaptations. Some work on strengthening ‘state capacity’ falls into this category (e.g. Besley and Persson 2009), together with other more applied research on public policy issues. A good deal of research on the strengthening of public institutions is initiated as commissioned research. The Department for International Development (DFID)-sponsored Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Sussex Research Centre devoted to studying the ‘Future State’, for example, largely concentrates on identifying emerging contours of novel policy programmes thought worth replicating in other contexts. This includes work on new forms of decentralized service delivery and on more meaningful taxation management, as I was able to witness some years ago (Doornbos and Wilson 2007), but in principle may cover research on a broad array of other issues. This particular IDS Centre’s core activities are to:

undertake and disseminate new research on key issues relating to the future of public authority in developing countries; to help important audiences – including policy-makers, politicians, political parties, scholars and civil society organizations – to understand and engage with the wide range of research that is being published on these issues; and to assist researchers from developing countries to contribute more effectively to research and applied development policy at regional and global levels.

In recent years numerous other research institutions have emerged within the global development arena, many of them devoted to specialized fields and most of them ready to take on research assignments for governments, NGOs or other organizations. In commissioned research, however, the scope for more substantial research engagements with political processes and structures almost necessarily remains limited given the requirement for the research to be seen to remain ‘power-neutral’, and for the policy makers involved to be commissioning research that will appear to be of some intrinsic interest while avoiding adventurous or controversial departures.

Commissioned research focused on policy intervention may include innumerable modes and subject areas in its application (Bierschenk et al. 2002). Research–policy connections are complex here, as researchers in these instances will mostly be expected to comply with the demands and directives placed on them by those in charge of policy, though with the latter possibly representing a different line from those responsible for the interventions to be evaluated. In cases of dispute, the ‘policy’ side will theoretically have the final word in determining what exactly will be investigated and how, though certain understandings and deals between contracting parties may play a role. Inevitably, therefore, tension and friction occasionally arise between applied researchers and commissioning agencies, especially if the research concerned is to establish ‘what went wrong’ in certain instances while the commissioning agencies themselves have an interest in a particular outcome (Wenger 1987). Policy makers in principle are expected to subscribe to the idea of ‘objectivity’ and to give credit to the notion of professional expertise and codes of conduct with which research results are to be obtained. Claims that certain issues have been investigated and verified by ‘independent expertise’ are much coveted. In practice, though, contract parties often fail to abide by that norm. If much depends on the outcome of the research for one party or another, intense fights and efforts to influence the results may be anticipated. In the Netherlands, André Köbben and Henk Tromp have recorded frequent instances in which commissioning agencies (successfully) put pressure on researchers to present and adjust their findings and conclusions in manners preferred by the stakeholders (Köbben and Tromp 1999). Evaluation of policy may thus turn into a notable politics of evaluation. All this comes in contrast to independent researchers pursuing their own objectives, attempting to get a better grip on the dynamics of political and policy processes and trying to make the propelling factors and interests explicit, assuming that access to relevant data can be obtained.

A very different kind of social research–policy connection is represented by research-led consultancy groups that make their expertise available to national and international organizations in specific fields like global health. One interesting example is Anthrologica which describes itself as

a research-based organisation specializing in applied anthropology in global health. We conduct formative and operational research across health sectors, focusing on the interface between the provision and uptake of health services, particularly in resource-scarce settings. Our specific expertise lies in incorporating the needs and perceptions of intended beneficiaries into health policy and planning to ensure that it is contextually relevant and that opportunities for improving health are maximised through the active participation of recipients. We work within the healthcare structures of the countries in which we operate, often in collaboration with local partners.

(www.anthrologica.com)

Surely, an anthropology-based organization ready to engage in its part of research-led policy preparation and assessment should potentially be able to play a meaningful role within the research–policy nexus.

NGOs and other parties operating in complex and conflict-ridden situations have their own concerns and agendas and often seek support for their position and interventions by commissioning research, counting on social researchers to share their points of departure. Researchers, for their part, may seek to interest NGOs or other agencies in the research they intend to undertake, trying to cast the latter in terms that may match with the interests of possible sponsors. In short, a complex field of interactions is at work here, with researchers, sponsoring bodies of various sorts and actors representing actual dynamic forces continuously engaging in realignments vis-à-vis one another. Naturally this affects the nature of the enquiries and the kinds of resolution sought. At times, researchers and commissioning agencies may be found on similar wavelengths, sharing a basic open-endedness towards issues at stake and their possible resolution. In other instances, the conditions attached to contract research propositions may set severe constraints on the scope for enquiry allowed.

External field agencies concerned with issues of conflict resolution, such as the local branches of international NGOs, may not be in a position to engage in these situations with entirely open agendas: they may be expected to mediate according to certain set of rules or criteria which are part of their brief and are immutable. The larger the external organization involved the more complex their operational guidelines may turn out to be. This may reduce their flexibility on the ground and the openness allowed to the research concerned (Van Leeuwen 2008: 94–5). Questions then arise as to whether social research can still primarily address problems encountered on the ground rather than having to abide by agency demands and interests. In the pursuit of issues designated as of key agency interest, other concerns may be accorded less weight, even i...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• List of Acronyms
• Introduction
• Part I: The Research–Policy Nexus
• Part II: Research and Policy: Complementarities
• Part III: Research, Policy and Politics: Collisions
• Part IV: By Way of Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index