Harnessing research for development to tackle wicked problems - Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security - page 54

As a model of possibilities, PIPA makes explicit: (i) the causal links between
outputs, outcomes and impacts; and (ii) the relationships between partner
organizations that are necessary for these to happen. Impact narratives, as
articulated in the OLMs, improve stakeholders' understanding and communi-
cation. In principle, impact pathways can address incentives, power differentials
and cultural values.
The CPWF required all Phase 2 projects to use a ToC, mostly by discussing
the desired outcomes, developing OLMs and linking them with project
activities. The CPWF used M&E, linked to ToC, on projects' impact
pathways. Methods included most significant change stories (Leon et al., 2009;
CPWF, 2012) and reflection workshops, and progress and annual reports.
Basin teams recognized that using ToC, including PIPA, was useful to share
a project's vision, and to analyze entry points and progress toward outcomes.
This is a distinguishing feature of the CPWF. That said, it was also reported
that applying many of the tools developed for project monitoring and
compliance were laborious and time-consuming. Many also had difficulty
understanding how individual projects fit within basin and global programs.
Some now think that the CPWF should have put more emphasis at the
outset on the theory and practice of R4D (Cofie, 2012). The most obvious
gaps were researchers' reluctance to engage stakeholders in agenda setting,
research design and monitoring (Sullivan, 2012). Basin project team leaders
provided a number of critical thoughts (Box 3.4).
When Phase 2 started, the CPWF proposition was that the R4D approach
would trigger tipping points for large-scale change over the ten years of Phases
Box 3.4 Thoughts from basin and project team leaders
• “Outputs to outcomes to impact” is NOT a common language
among researchers, many of whom are reluctant to consider
targeting research outputs to outcomes.
• Cross-project, cross-discipline, and cross-scale linking of milestones
to communications plans is a more robust approach than using
individual projects, disciplines and scales.
• OLMs should be conceived as iterative and not a snapshot. Outputs
evolve over time and opportunities to link them to outcomes may
bring in new people.
• Sharing expected outputs with a wide range of trusted audiences
throughout the process increases the likelihood of getting the right
information into the right hands at the right time.
• Some outputs intended for internal use only (a data layer, for
example) can be useful to other people, if they are made aware of
them. Conversely, some outputs may be considered sufficient if they
contribute to the global body of knowledge.