Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Change management has become a popular topic with a large academic and
popular literature, but little consensus. Nevertheless, individuals or groups who
wish to pursue R4D in their own organizations should start by looking for the
fault lines within them. Who is predisposed to change? What skill sets are
needed to help get research from outputs to outcomes? Simply passing the
baton (outputs) to another partner to market to decision-makers will not work.
The outputs themselves need to be planned and developed with the ultimate
goal of feeding into specific decision-making processes.
The CPWF came to understand engagement and innovation platforms to
convey that understanding to its CGIAR stakeholders and emerging CRPs.
But the CPWF had difficulties in adapting its strategy to the quick emergence
and rapid evolution of CRPs, not knowing exactly where and how those were
developing.
Reassess incentives for learning
Any organization that wants to pursue R4D must reassess incentives for
learning and engaging toward this end. Mbabu and Hall (2012) maintain that
the learning system is the main tool for R4D. They emphasize the importance
of a research culture that supports institutional learning and a change agenda.
Throughout this topic authors have made repeated references to the
importance of learning. The authors of Chapter 6 applied an institutional
analysis-for-development framework to assess what CPWF researchers learned
about action arenas and institutional processes. Subsequently they applied a
boundary framework to examine how research on institutions influenced
stakeholders and decision-making processes. Many practical lessons emerged
that could be tested in other contexts and at other scales.
Whether or not and where the lessons learned are ever tested depends very
much on how learning is defined and rewarded by organizations. Where
researchers' performance is assessed mainly in terms of the number of publi-
cations and their citation index, learning for learning's sake is rewarded. In
such a system, researchers and peers decide the worthiness and quality of
research, mainly for each other. This could be characterized as research for
research rather than R4D.
Despite what was set out in basin or project outcome pathways there was
little incentive for researchers to step off the learning treadmill to engage for
outcomes on the ground. This seems an inherent contradiction in using
traditional research institutions to implement R4D for impact.
Within the organizational cultures of most mainstream research institutions,
researchers receive tangible rewards for their publication productivity in the
form of salary increases and promotion. Publications also enhance the reputa-
tions of individual researchers, making them more employable in the future.
Within the CPWF, rewards for achieving outcomes were largely intrinsic.
Because many of the CPWF partners were professionals in academic or
Search WWH ::




Custom Search