Partnerships, platforms and power - Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security - page 174

development objectives, mainly to maximize profit for economic growth.
Researchers insisted that it was their duty to influence policymakers by
providing them with the information they lacked—information best obtained,
of course, from research. When policymakers were not influenced, researchers
may have conceded that their information was not packaged appropriately. But
they seldom challenged the underlying assumption that policymakers lack
information (Waisbord, 2001).
In contrast, R4D does not consider policymakers as mere recipients of
information generated through research. It treats stakeholders in general and
policymakers in particular as principal participants in a dynamic social process
of innovation. The process is not controlled by researchers and research
findings are only one of several sources of information. In Chapter 1 (see the
section Poverty and development: The broader context) the authors wrote
about the CPWF that “People-centered perspectives allowed the CPWF to
consider the causes of poverty including the importance of human agency,
empowerment, and institutional accountability. Human agency is what poor
people can do for themselves, and empowerment is creating conditions that
allow them to do so. These perspectives not only recognize the strategic
importance of economic development, but the role of institutions as possible
root causes of poverty.”
Chapter 3 listed principles of R4D that emerged from practice within
the CPWF, principles that reflect a philosophy sometimes at odds with the
philosophy of mainstream development research:

• A focus on generating innovation amongst stakeholders;

• Embedding innovation processes in local institutional, policy and political

contexts;

• Involvement and continuous interaction with stakeholders; and

• Science and research as an activity distributed throughout the economy

and involving a dense network of people.

The assumptions of participatory theory underlie these statements. Participatory
theory was a critical reaction against modernization theory, yet both theories see
knowledge (research) as a means of influence and a lever for change. An
important difference is the nature of that knowledge. Mainstream research sees
knowledge as fundamental truth. R4D sees knowledge as socially constructed.
Each leads to very different theories of change. In R4D, “engagement” is
central to change and is manifested in partnerships and platforms.
In summary, the experience of the CPWF in R4D explains how and why
the CGIAR struggles to implement innovative, partnership-based, cross-
disciplinary, cross-scale, outcome-oriented research. Successful change is
demand driven and is disruptive, not neutral. It empowers partners and
stakeholders by forcing research into a new mode of engagement with the
broader world. It requires new incentives for individuals as well as institutions.