Research_gaps_group_work

=CCAFS-ILRI Workshop on Communications and Social Learning in Climate Change = 8-10 May 2012 ILRI Campus, Addis Ababa

=Research gaps (plenary fishbowl discussion based on table group work)=

During this session, participants discussed in table groups what seemed to be - among the gaps highlighted in the discussion paper presentation (12.00 session that day) - the real gaps but also potentially missing gaps and key questions. The group inputs were then brought together in a fishbowl discussion and summarized with the help of two active observers.

**Points from group discussions**

 * Where is the proof of the value of social learning? So far it is anecdotal.
 * Social learning (SL) leads to action; we have a theory of change about it but don't know
 * Key gap: combine research and process (research about process) -> lots of evidence exists for CCAFS and others
 * Apply successful approaches to other settings
 * Commitment to influence within and outside CG, e.g. donors focus on global public goods
 * How to combine this with publishing and properly developing (against multi disciplinary science which is not recognized)?
 * Issue of cost of social learning? Will it be more expensive?
 * Old and new tools are there for social learning but social learning is not new – how to adopt it for CC?
 * CCAFS is about climate not about social learning
 * What exactly should CCAFS do? Depends on continuum position and scale
 * Capacity for CCAFS to change CG internally?
 * CCAFS will engage with end users __sometimes__ at national level at community level...
 * Recognize your CCAFS strength (key advantage) to facilitate initiatives with different donors
 * Stress shocks that raise CC agenda
 * We don’t understand CC well. Do we have evidence about how to change behaviour?
 * CG is good at AFS (agriculture and food security), not at CC.
 * Lots of partnerships within CCAFS with CC scientists
 * We __do__ know a lot about CC we can act! e.g. using scenarios – identify policies, technologies that could work elsewhere
 * There are 3 categories of researchers:
 * Those who do excellent science (publishing)
 * Those who do good science (somebody else will worry about publishing,
 * Those who do uncertain science (multi-stakeholder processes, SL)
 * Engage in reflexive learning with farmers etc.
 * Research on how to do SL for decision making at different levels
 * Is CCAFS best placed to change (i.e. 'do' S.L.) or should it work with existing platforms?
 * Power dynamics? Researchers and farmers at different levels of the spectrum – incentives for farmers to have a voice?
 * Once you engage in development you let go of research process, it becomes something else. Let go of research and recognition. You’re going into development process (but keep what’s good)
 * Example of IWRM modeling project with tracks (research, SL. Platform): Identify problems from stakeholder’s point of view (translate them into research) gaps in research on SL and making it credible
 * Priorities? Groups/clusters? Supporting some groups? Help them support one another?
 * SL processes – explain that some decisions on CC are more social, less economic – Identify toolkit on S.L

Missing gaps

 * Learning with/for action (outcomes)
 * M&E of impact of social learning
 * What principles and processes help institutionalise social learning (e.g. draw more from the G7 case studies)
 * Does social learning take more or less resources than other communication approaches?
 * How does social learning help build and share consensus in context and uncertainty

Opportunities

 * Innovative partnerships facilitation: Institutional building with private sector, especially with the CG;
 * Long term engagement

**Summary by active observers**

 * SL & CC: There is a good reason for SL in CC, we know why already. But what is the risk?
 * CCAFS can change the CG system itself
 * What can be done depends on the continuum (scope and scale) where CCAFS wishes to pisition itself
 * Power structures – CCAFS has the liberty talk to / with farmers, get them involved
 * Unique Selling Point (USP) of CCAFS? Combination of approaches/actors
 * CCAFS is positioned to have CC in the Agriculture and Food Security agenda
 * We need incentives for farmers to engage in SL for researchers
 * Use (existing) successful approaches for this work
 * How different is SL for other sectors?
 * Integrate science to engage with development! Combine with incentives to publish about it!
 * Decision-making processes: if they concern individuals, they are not about SL.

**Additional comments from participants**

 * Research and social learning adaptation
 * Recognize good learning practices and principles
 * Shared principles from groups within the CCAFS groups and partners
 * Capacities (CCAFS has more people who are close to the ground)
 * What do CCAFS end users need from CCAFS and how can we better shape what we are using?
 * Social learning is a huge piece of work
 * CCAFS can play the boundary – packaging science in different and relevant ways through learning communities (NGO’s private sector and communality leaders)
 * What is CCAFS looking at and what do they want to achieve?
 * Focusing on behavior not just learning (transformation of behavior)
 * How can these processes engage around local governance processes and work on sustainability?