Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Because R4D emphasizes the use of research outputs or information in
engagement with decision-makers, communication and KM are integral
parts of research;
Because engagement is a dynamic and on-going social process, communi-
cation and KM must evolve to meet changing needs; and
Teams must integrate research, communication and KM.
Learning systems
One of the hypotheses that underpins R4D is that learning is a central com-
ponent. In conventional research, researchers work in controlled settings.
In R4D, researchers work on complex problems by engaging with people
who may be farmers, investors, government officials or NGO workers. It also
implies working at various levels and dealing with wicked problems where
there is no one single solution.
The CPWF approach to R4D originated with a set of learning-orientated
tools for monitoring and evaluation (impact pathways, outcome logic models,
most significant change). This was supplemented with various interactive
learning exercises and with knowledge management. Taken together these
form a learning system. It is useful to describe the elements of this system and
the way different tools influenced learning and how they were interrelated.
There is no silver bullet approach for organizing such research. The CPWF's
learning system was made up of three broad areas: monitoring, spaces and
activities for reflection (opportunities to reflect on progress), and knowledge
sharing (Figure 3.3). As Hall (2013) states:
This however leaves open the question of how one organizes these
different activities, organizations and processes in such a way that research
plays a valuable role in development. Surely it [cannot] be the same in
different countries or subsectors or under different stages of social and
market development? The answer is we [do not] know how to organize
this, at least not in a specific sense, and this has to be worked out and
learned on a case by case basis. The implication of this is that the R4D
must have a way of framing this learning.
A program evaluation was carried out in 2013 to learn how these different
systems were perceived (Schuetz, 2013). Some of the key findings from the
survey were:
The impact pathways and monitoring and evaluation packages were useful
as tools for reflection. But the framework in which they were imple-
mented was quite rigid so that some of them were not carried out.
Spaces for reflection were important to the learning process that allowed
the CPWF to adapt. Innovation funds provided seed money for targeted
Search WWH ::




Custom Search