Research_gaps_group_work

Edit 0 12 …

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?