African Journal of Social Sciences

Volume 3 Number 2 (2013) 61-73 ISSN 2045-8452 (Print) ISSN 2045-8460 (Online) www.sachajournals.com

EVIDENCE FOR POLICY INFLUENCE AND LEGISLATION IN KENYA: WHAT LESSONS FOR RESEARCHERS, POLICY MAKERS AND LEGISLATOR POLICY-MAKERS LEGISLATORS IN THE EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY PARTNER STATES? Awuor PONGE
Institute of Policy Analysis and Research (IPAR Kenya); Also Commonwealth Scholarship Fellow, Education, Gender and International Development Institute of Education (IoE), University of London, England, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT There is collaboration between legislators and researchers; although the extent to boration although which policy is informed by research is contested. Development actors pay increasing attention to how research can fulfill its potential to improve policy and practice. Legislators respec data generated scientifically. This study set to respect illuminate how evidence has informed policy in Kenya and how this can be replicated. Using a cross section of available literature on good practices and intensive engagement with researchers and policy makers, the study found out that makers, while all sectors of the economy require real real-time evidence-based research, this has based faced challenges in the Kenyan context. Using three case examples of good context. practice, however, the study reveals that if pursued aggressively through lobbying through and advocacy, evidence greatly influences policy and legislation. The study concludes that there is a need for building the capacity of legislators and enhancing the mediating role between the think tanks and the legislature. Keywords: Evidence, Public Policy, Legislation Kenya. 1. INTRODUCTION The uptake of research findings into policy and ultimately legislation is often subject to contextual and political factors. However, legislators and researchers are both in agreement that and legislation and research would be improved if they collaborated more. Admitted that there is an emerging trend of collaboration between the legislators and the researchers, it needs to be enhanced. Although the extent to which policy is, or even should be informed by research is not extent agreed upon, there is general agreement that little direct communication exists between the researchers and the policy makers. According to Weiss (1979), there is mutual interest in whether social science research intended to influence policy is actually "used. Fred Carden r (2009) observes that development research is more than discovering fresh answers to clever questions. They are increasingly expected to formulate, assemble, and articula the meaning articulate 61

African Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 3 Number 2 (2013), pp. 61-73

and policy implications of their work to the policy community and to the public (Carden, 2009:37). Development actors are paying increasing attention to the question of how research, despite barriers, can fulfill its potential to improve policy and practice. It is important to underscore the importance of research for policy influence in this context. A policy recommendation will need to be based on a systematic enumeration and weighing of all potential benefits and costs of an intervention if it is to be credible. Politics influences how open decision-makers are to using evidence-based research in formulating policy or making decisions. They hold that ensuring that research findings impact on policy and practice can be challenging and time-consuming, as it requires careful consultation, negotiation and partnership building (Crichton & Theobald, 2009). Parliamentarians respect both qualitative and quantitative data, but only if it is gathered scientifically preferably by reputable research-oriented institutions and/or government agencies. However, it is documented that some decision makers do not think knowledge of research is necessary for policy and programme development, while some researchers think that decision makers will not recognize their work or will not be able to put the recommendations derived from research into practice (Trostle, Bronfman & Langer, 1999). They refer to this as mutual intellectual disdain (Trostle, et al., 1999:107). What policy makers need is information that is unambiguous, quickly understood and contributes to a decision. The evidence that social science research provides for the decision-making process can be of several orders - It can be qualitative and descriptive, it can be quantitative data, it can be statistical relationships between variables, or they can be theories about cause and effect. Whatever the nature of the empirical evidence that social science research supplies; the expectation are that it clarifies the situation and reduces uncertainty, and therefore, it influences the decision that policy makers make (Weiss, 1979: 427). Evidence needs to be interpreted against the local context in which the research was carried out. Yet to ensure uptake into policy and practice (and even legislation), findings need to be conceptualized in terms of bringing about policy change (Hutchinson, 2009:7). Carden (2009) observes that for researchers to design and execute an influential research would require that they understand the setting in which the policy is made and to organize research strategy for best effect within that setting. This leads us now to the question, who sets the policy agenda? At least we know who sets the research agenda. How then do we synchronize research agenda with the policy agenda? These are areas that require further deliberation. It is important to strengthen opportunities for legislators to access and use quality policy-relevant evidence, given the need to balance the potential excesses of the executive branch with legislative and judicial checks and balances. Of late, several attempts have been made to engender closer working relationships between researchers and policy maker. Efforts to promote evidence-informed policy processes in developing countries are gaining momentum as part of a broader agenda to promote democratic governance and strengthen accountability and transparency mechanisms (Jones, 2011). Rarely will policy makers be able to cite the findings of a specific study that influenced their decisions, but they have a sense that social science research has given them a backdrop of ideas and orientations that has had important consequences (Jefferys et al., 2007: 18). Who constitute the audience for policy research? Carden (2009) notes that policymakers need not always be the sole or primary audience for communication of researchers. Other influential audiences can include NGOs; research institutions; university scholars; business, labour and farm organisations; local or regional authorities; and community leaders.

62

African Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 3 Number 2 (2013), pp. 61-73

1.1 WHY IS THERE NEED FOR EVIDENCE? Organisations of all types, shapes, and sizes are commissioning applied research and professional evaluations in pursuit of evidence-based decision making at an accelerated rate (Donaldson, 2009:4) The movement towards evidence-based decision making now appears highly valued across the globe, multidisciplinary in scope, and supported by an ever increasing number of practical applications (Donaldson, 2009:5). Donaldson (2009) asserts that contemporary applied research and evaluation practice rests firmly on the foundation of providing credible evidence. If this foundation is shaky, or built on sand, studies wobble, sway in the wind, and ultimately provide little value, and can even mislead or harm (Donaldson, 2009:6). Sound policy decisions benefit from data illustrating not only causality, but also conditionality. Assessing the effectiveness of public policies and programs is a significant presenting problem for modern democracies, and addressing this problem requires accurate and highly credible evidence about the consequences of public policies and programs (Henry, 2009:33). There is a heavy cost of making a wrong decision about causality. As Bickman & Reich (2009:54) have noted, to call a program effective when it is not meant that valuable resources may be wasted and the search for other means to solve the problem will be hindered. Some programs may not only be ineffective, but also harmful. In such cases, the cost of a wrong decision would be so high. Developers are likely to react unfavourably to ratings of effectiveness that indicate the data are inconclusive or the quality of the evidence in support of their approach is weak (Gersten & Hitchcock, 2009:83). Efforts to advance our understanding of what constitutes actionable evidence need to consider multiple perspectives, not simply those of evaluators. There is a need to take cognizance of the political context that includes the degree of confidence, that policy makers and other stakeholders feel that they need before taking action, and also the relative importance of knowledge production and knowledge accumulation for the range of stakeholders (Julnes & Rog, 2009:107). The structure of this paper is such that it has six sections that follow one another in chronological sequence. The introduction section gives insight into why evidence needs to be interpreted against the local context; the audience for policy research and what constitutes actionable evidence. In the literature review section, the usefulness of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) and the threats to its validity are dealt with at great length. The section then conceptualises what really constitutes credible evidence. The literature also addresses the role of Think Tanks in research and how this influences policy from a global perspective. The third section is the theoretical framework, which elaborates on the tripartite approach that embodies three dimensions namely process, content and outcome. The methodology section gives the data collection approach and the means of data validation. The last two sections deal with the findings and discussions and then the conclusions and the recommendations, in that order. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 WHAT COUNTS AS CREDIBLE EVIDENCE? Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been essential in understanding what works, what does not work, and what is harmful among interventions in many areas of public policy. While RCTs may be prone to numerous threats to validity, they are nonetheless one of the most credible designs available to researchers, especially for quantitative research (Bickman & Reich, 2009:71). RCTs requires the random assignment of individuals to a treatment group (the group receiving the intervention or program) or a control group (the group not receiving the intervention or program). Random assignment is argued to reduce most threats to internal

63

African Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 3 Number 2 (2013), pp. 61-73

validity (e.g., selection bias, maturation, history), and the use of control group provides data to determine the relative performance of the treatment group, helping to answer the compared to what? question when measuring program impact (Azzam & Christie, 2007). The AEA War against RCT as the Gold Standard for producing credible evidence in applied research and evaluation (Donaldson, 2009:79) did identify the following limitations of utilizing RCTs for generating understandings of causality: Randomized controlled group trials (RCTs) are not the only studies capable of generating understandings of causality. RCTs are not always best for determining causality and can be misleading the complex nature of causality and the multitude of the actual influences on outcomes render RCTs less capable of discovering causal. RCTs should sometimes be ruled out for reasons of ethics. Bickman & Reich (2009) noted that the validity of RCTs can be threatened when one group is exposed to external events that can affect policy outcome but not the other groups. What ideally counts as credible evidence should be: Studies capable of determining causality; Methods capable of demonstrating scientific rigor alternative and mixed-methods have been demonstrated to be scientifically and rigorous. Studies capable of supporting appropriate policy and program decisions. Evidence needs to be broadly considered as true and accurate. Credibility mandates that the methods are sufficiently sound and sufficiently fair to convincingly indicate that the program is either good or bad (Henry, 2009:35). 2.2 THINK TANKS AND POLICY INFLUENCE Research is a fundamental element in the national development process, and has the potential to influence policy in various ways; promote the emergence of new ideas and skills; improve the intellectual framework surrounding policy-making and also be able to influence policy directly (Ndiaye, 2009). Legislatures can be categorised as four types according to their role in shaping policy debates and their related need for, and access to, information and research: Rubber stamp legislature: Legislators meet to vote for the ruling partys programme of work and have little need for independent information. Emerging legislature: Legislators need information to participate in the legislative process. Informed legislature: Legislators noted more for debate than for policy initiatives, the legislature amends some bills introduced by the government and enacts some bills of its own. Transformative legislature: Legislators can alter proposals offered by the government and develop their own policy options. Such a legislature can introduce and enact fully developed proposals, and may undertake regular annual reviews of the implementation of new legislation. [Source: Datta and Jones (2009) as quoted in Jones (2011)]. Jones (2011) notes that the relative influence of the legislative branch in East Africa is still young, with the legislature in all the three countries only moving beyond a rubber stamp function since the advent of multi-party democracy. Our legislators may best be characterized as emergent: legislators know that they need information to participate effectively in the legislative process and they have rudimentary resources. Whether or not the best and most relevant research reaches the person with the problem depends on the efficiency of the

64

African Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 3 Number 2 (2013), pp. 61-73

communications links. Therefore, the usual prescription for improving the use of research is to improve the means of communication to policy makers (Weiss, 1979: 427). According to Jefferys et al., (2007:19), researchers believe that they are contributing to making the world a better place through their research work, even when policy change does not directly result from their efforts. They appreciate the excitement of seeing research applied to the real world and the respect they received for their expertise in the policy arena. According to Enrique Mendizabal (2012)1, Think Tanks are small players (ultimately policy decisions depend on others) and can make, for the most part, small contributions to policy making. But these contributions can be made in many different ways, for example by: direct advice and implementation (easy); revolving door of staff; formal and informal training of future decision makers; affecting the way individuals make decisions with new data or methods; creating and maintaining spaces to reflect on issues of public interest and develop new relationships; informing the public agenda via the media; and brokering linkages between decision makers and third parties. Focusing only on direct influence would greatly limit all that think tanks can do because it may undermine the efforts to strengthen the evidence informed and it may also undermine and weaken other institutions such as the media, political parties, NGOs, Universities, whose roles in society are far more important than those of think tanks. 3. MATERIALS AND METHOD This study has been mainly a qualitative study. The main method employed was a secondary literature review of best practices from the Kenya region. However, it has benefitted greatly from engagement with practitioners in development practice in the form of researchers working with Think Tanks and in the academia. The primary data was generated from the key informant interviews of the researchers and the academics that at great length shed more light to data generated from the secondary literature. The Paravets in Kenya case study has been validated by academics from the University of Nairobis College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences; the Land Laws in Kenya case study has been validated by the Institution of Surveyors of Kenya (ISK) which is the national professional organisation of practice on issues of land and land resources management. The Agricultural Policy in Kenya benefitted greatly from two research institutes in national Universities namely the Institute for Development Studies (IDS) of the University of Nairobi and the Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development based at the Egerton University. In assessing the capacity for think-tanks to communicate, advocate and influence policies in Kenya, the study has been influenced by the diverse engagements with researchers and academics through the East African Community Think Tank Network (EAC-TTN), drawn from Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi. The network is coordinated by the African Research and Resource Forum (ARRF) and brings together more than 10 other research organisations which have been interrogating this issue for over a year now. In legislative and policy influence of evidence-based research, the study greatly benefitted from engagement with the International Institute for Legislative Affairs (ILA). In terms of policy advocacy and how the researchers and the legislators are working together, the Civil Society Organisations have provided much of the background information that has fed into this study. These include the Institute for Social Accountability (TISA), the Devolved Governance Non-State Actors (DEGONSA) and the Task Force on Devolved

Mendizabal, Enrique blogs at On ThinkTanks. These ideas are from his blog, Supporting think tanks: Advice from the think tanks themselves. Available online at: http://onthinktanks.org/2012/08/03/ausaidsapproach-to-revitalising-the-knowledge-sector-in-indonesia-a-public-discussion/ <Accessed on 25 October 2012>

65

African Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 3 Number 2 (2013), pp. 61-73

Government (TFDG) and the National Taxpayers Association (NTA). Also not left behind are the national Think Tanks in Kenya namely the Institute of Policy Analysis and Research (IPAR) and the government-owned Kenya Institute of Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA). Finally, the challenges of communicating research evidence to legislators has benefitted from experiences drawn from continental examples and benefitted from in-country and regional discussions in the EAC-TTN. 4. DISCUSSIONS

4.1 THE KENYAN CONTEXT IS THERE CAPACITY? In the Kenyan context, it is appropriate to say the Policy Research Institutions (PRIs) have the capacity to undertake evidence based research. However, the main problem is that there are few of such institutions in the country. The demand for evidence-based research is there, but the policy research institutions specialize in just some few sectors, while others are not covered because of either a shortage of personnel or the technical expertise to carry out such. The majority of PRIs in Kenya work in the sectors of social, economic and political development. In areas like agriculture and industry, most of the research has been left to specialised research institutions mostly academic-oriented without a conspicuous inclination to informing policy. While all sectors of the economy require real-time evidence-based research, this has not been achieved in the Kenyan context because of a shortage of funding; reliance on donor-funding which is sometimes not forthcoming; lack of technical expertise in other sectors; and where there is technical expertise, they prefer to look for better paying jobs than relying on the poorly remunerated research jobs in the PRIs. Ndiaye (2009:19) observes that the lack of a real troika of decision-makers, researchers and actors handicap the establishment of a dialogue that could have combined all three around a set of common goals. In his analytical framework of this tripartite relationship, in which we identify for our context and purposes, the decision-makers with the legislators, there is a need for a symbiotic relationship between the legislators and researchers; between researchers and the Non-State Actors; and between the Non-State Actors and the legislators; and that this relationship is interwoven in a web defined by partnership, pro-activeness, involvement and information sharing. 4.2 IS THE RESEARCH EVER UTILISED FOR POLICY OR LEGISLATION? With the less capacity that is there, it is not appropriate to say that their research is utilised fully by the policy makers. In the first place, the PRIs have been at the forefront in setting the research agenda, but due to other factors like political interference and un-timeliness of the research, very little find its way to the top of the agenda of the policy makers. Most of the research is dictated either by the mood of the country or the demands of the funding institutions. There is some research that is conducted over time to generate sufficient evidence. By the time the PRIs come up with the findings, either they have been overtaken by events or the mood in the country has changed, making it difficult for the findings to be utilized by the policy makers. Some evidence-based findings are not easily palatable to the political elite because they go against the party policies. In such instances, it will be very difficult for the policy makers to utilize such findings. Policy makers in Kenya for example, in most instances prefer to commission research findings to the core research activities of the PRIs. In the cases of the commissioned work, it is more often than not, that the findings have to be bent on the expectations of the commissioning agent. What this implies is that there will be a need for the PRIs to doctor the evidence to be in

66

African Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 3 Number 2 (2013), pp. 61-73

sync with the expectations of the policy makers begging the question Is it really evidencebased research? There is documented evidence that even the World Bank (IBRD) and other regional development banks like the African Development Bank (AfDB); the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) to name but a few, also engage in such research theatrics when it comes to commissioned research works. Another tragedy for the PRIs in Africa in general and Kenya in particular, is that there is the presence of the government-owned PRIs. This means that the policy makers will be ready to consume the findings from their own PRI whether it is evidence-based or not, and leave out evidencebased findings from the non-government-owned PRIs. 4.3 THE PARAVETS IN KENYA CASE STUDY Livestock services were among the first rural services targeted for privatisation under structural adjustment programmes, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. The veterinary profession however was very slow to respond. In Kenya the increasing financial constraints effectively paralyzed government services in the late 80s and early 90s. During this period NGOs introduced a new model of community-based livestock services, otherwise called Community-based Animal Health Care (CAHC). Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG), one of early pioneers in the mid 80s, adopted an action-research approach with a clear objective to use the results, if positive, to influence the policy environment to allow the approaches to be widely replicated. Despite the outstanding success and proliferation of the new Community-based Animal Health Care (CAHC) approaches in ASAL areas, it took over 15 years to convince policy makers to develop policies and legislation to allow the approach to be used legally (Overseas Development Institute, 2003). ITDG conducted extensive research to gather sufficient evidence to convince the policy makers. There were hurdles on the way, but ultimately, the evidence and recommendations of the study were highly regarded by everyone. The Department of Veterinary Services trusted it because there were two well-regarded Kenyans on the team, and the donors respected the expatriate team leader. The approach they used, including discussions with a very wide range of stakeholders at workshops throughout the country, also contributed to a high degree of credibility (Young, Kajume & Wanyama, 2003:19). Policy-makers in Kenya seem to have been most convinced of the value of the Community-based Animal Healthcare Workers (CAHW) approach by seeing them in action in the field. Once convinced, multi-stakeholder workshops have proved to be a very effective mechanism for deepening understanding and developing new policy ideas (Young et al., 2003:20). 4.4 THE LAND LAWS IN KENYA Kowuor (2012) has noted that Kenya is one country which had never had a land policy before the year 2009. The country has gone ahead to have a new constitution in the year 2010 and is now in the process of enacting various legislations from provisions in the two blue prints. Other land and property related policies are now being prepared such as Land Reclamation Policy and Land Use Policy. The Institution of Surveyors of Kenya (ISK) as a professional organization of more land and property sector professionals decided to get involved in the process. The institution was involved in the formulation of the land policy, inclusion of land related provisions in the Constitution of Kenya 2010, and is now involved in the process of enactment of land related legislations and policies. Involvement in the process effectively required the use of varied strategies. This included cooperation with the media, engagement

67

African Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 3 Number 2 (2013), pp. 61-73

with other land sector organizations, working with parliamentarians and collaboration with the relevant ministries and executive. Advocacy is useful if there is empirical evidence of the propositions and concerns that informs the process of formulating new policies and laws to address the problems identified. It is therefore important for the associations carry out research in diverse areas of concerns and uses the findings to inform the formulation and drafting processes (Kowuor, 2012:3). At the end of the day, the processes end with passage of policies and enactment of the legislations. Making the legislators understand the proposals and how the proposals are going to address the problems of the citizen is important. Legislators whose background is from the sector usually provide better platforms for reaching the others from other sectors (Kowuor, 2012:5). 4.5 AGRICULTURAL POLICY IN KENYA Agriculture remains the backbone of the Kenyan economy. It is the single most important sector in the economy, contributing approximately 25% of the GDP, and employing 75% of the national labour force (Republic of Kenya, 2005). Over 80% of the Kenyan population live in the rural areas and derive their livelihoods, directly or indirectly from agriculture. Policies for agriculture consist of government decisions that influence the level and stability of input and output prices, public investments affecting agricultural production, costs and revenues and allocation of resources. These policies affect agriculture either directly or indirectly. Alila & Atieno (2006) note that the key areas of agricultural policy concern include: increasing agricultural productivity and incomes, emphasis on irrigation to reduce over-reliance on rain-fed agriculture, encouraging diversification into non-traditional agricultural commodities and value addition to reduce vulnerability, enhancing the food security, encouraging private-sector-led development of the sector and ensuring environmental sustainability. Over the years, the role of technocrats who are involved in formulating agricultural policy have been marginalised. However, there is now a paradigm shift which has seen policy making in general and within the ministry in particular, tending towards evidence-based findings from research undertakings of local consultants, universities and policy research institutes (PRIs), which policy formulation had made very limited use of in the past. The importance of policy based on evidence has grown with the establishment of PRIs, namely, the Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (IPAR), the Kenya Institute for Public Policy Analysis and Research (KIPPRA), the Institute for Development Studies (IDS) of the University of Nairobi and the Egerton University based Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development (Alila & Atieno, 2006). 4.6 CAPACITY FOR THINK-TANKS TO EXERT INFLUENCE ON POLICIES IN KENYA There is little capacity of the African think-tanks to communicate, advocate and influence policies. In the Kenyan context, for purposes of effecting research communication and advocacy, the PRIs have had to partner with the civil society with a network of Non-State Actors. But this again has not been very effective because the civil society agenda and the PRIs policy agenda in most cases do not converge. The civil society readily gets funding for advocacy, but usually on current and topical issues. Because of their limited capacity for research, they have always commissioned researchers from the think-tanks to carry out research that advice their advocacy topic. This has meant that the think-tanks cannot dictate the research for communication and advocacy.

68

African Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 3 Number 2 (2013), pp. 61-73

For purposes of policy influence, the academic elite that frequent the think-tanks easily find their way into government committees and task forces, where they can offer their technical expertise in the respective fields. This is the area where the think-tanks have been able to have substantial influence, but in most cases, the academics decide to detach themselves from the think-tank tag when undertaking such assignments, precisely for pure monetary gains. There is also the proliferation of think-tanks with a majority of them established with the tag purely for commercial gains without the technical expertise. The academics come up with brief case think-tanks which are commissioned to carry out evidence-based research, but because of their amorphous nature, they have to hire the services of other technical persons to carry out the work for them. 4.7 COOPERATION BETWEEN RESEARCHERS AND LEGISLATORS The researchers prefer working in groups and in collaboration with the Non-State Actors (NSAs) to engage MPs, typically via consultation fora such as workshops, conferences and special events. MPs, in turn, are increasingly inviting NSAs to special events and parliamentary committee meetings. Examples include the engagement between the NSA and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Ministry of Local Government on Devolved Financing; the engagement between the Devolved Governance Non-State Actors (DEGONSA) and the Task Force on Devolved Government (TFDG) during their engagements with the citizens and in the review of the six Devolution Bills that were developed; and ultimately, the recent appointment of the National Coordinator of a CSO, The Institute for Social Accountability (TISA), as a member of the Policy Steering Committee on Performance Management established by the Prime Minister. The Institute of Economic Affairs also continues to play a critical role in providing the much needed evidence to inform the work of Parliamentary Committees on Budgeting and other fiscal policies. In Kenya, there is the International Institute for Legislative Affairs (ILA) which has been working closely with the legislators, especially helping them in drafting of bills and/or proposing critical Bills that could be tabled in Parliament. ILA offers technical support to government departments, Members of parliament and other stakeholders in the legislative process in terms of research, drafting of legislation and lobbying. ILA engages in public education and awareness campaigns to educate the public on proposed and current legislation. The civil society and research institutes have also been involved in security studies, which have greatly provided the much needed evidence which have informed legislation in the security sector and particularly the police reforms. The studies have been carried out by the Institute of Policy Analysis and Research (IPAR), KIPPRA, the National Taxpayers Association (NTA), the National Task Force on Police Reforms, Peacenet and Saferworld. Some of the Bills that the researchers, the civil society and the legislators have worked on jointly include: Tobacco Control Act (2007); The Alcoholic Drinks Control Act (2010); The Devolved Government Act (2011); Transition to Devolved Government Act (2011); Urban Areas and Cities Act (2011); Inter-Governmental Relations Act (2011); County Government Financial Management Act (2011); National Police Service Act (2012); The Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act (2012); National Police Service Commission Act (2012). 4.8 CHALLENGES OF COMMUNICATING RESEARCH EVIDENCE TO LEGISLATORS? Ndiaye (2009) observes that there is a general feeling that efforts to disseminate and communicate research evidence to legislators are still limited. These bottlenecks are universally applicable and the Kenyan case is no exception. He attributes these to a number of factors that include:

69

African Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 3 Number 2 (2013), pp. 61-73

Researchers despair at the prospect of simplifying and compressing the complexities of their own research to catch the distracted attention of decision makers). There is the weak capacity to absorb and implement research findings both by the researchers and the policy makers and legislators; There has also been the shifting policy agendas occasioned by the changes in government. Some researchers maintain that access to the legislators is hampered by cumbersome procedural rules; and Lack of a framework for consultation and exchange between the researchers and the legislators. There is also the lack of understanding between the researchers and the legislators, complicated with administrative red tape. Researchers in most cases initiate programmes that may not fall within the priorities of the legislators.

There are a number of key issues to consider when conducting communications and advocacy work. These include: analysing stakeholders and audience, developing a message, developing a strategy outputs and activities, supporting researchers and liaising with policymakers acting as interlocutors. The implications of integrating political perspectives into the research process are twofold. Firstly that it is important to be realistic about influencing policy. Secondly, policymakers should be honest about the use of evidence in policy. Evidence can matter for policy making, but often it is not as influential as policymakers state or researchers like to think (Porter, 2010:3). Be that as it may, the role of research-based advocacy cannot be under-estimated. 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Researchers should meet with legislators, especially legislative committee chairs, or parliamentary committees to input on issues on which legislators would like more information. In the Kenyan example, these would include interactions with the Constitutional Implementation Committee (CIC); Constitutional Implementation Oversight Committee (CIOC); the Parliamentary Select Committee on Legislative Affairs; the Office of the Attorney General; the Ministry of Justice, Constitutional Affairs and National Cohesion among others. This can be effected through breakfast policy meetings in neutral locations which makes it an informal atmosphere for the legislators away from the academic environment of the researchers. The glaring gap between researchers and policy makers needs to be narrowed through a serious, ethical and honest rethinking of the research prioritisation process both at the national and international levels. Researchers and legislators should begin to develop relationships that might lead to further collaboration. This can be effected through legislators having specific researchers with expertise in specific policy areas attached to their offices to research and offer advice on policy agenda, and also help with drafting the necessary legislation taking into consideration the technical input. Building the capacity of legislators and researchers to work together can lead to greater appreciation of the role of each other and an increased interest in getting research into legislation. There is a further need to develop the capacity of researchers to communicate, for instance, to write short briefs for policy makers, and working closely with policymakers so that they can better understand and use research findings, will help to increase the chances that research will impact health systems policy and practice. In the Kenyan case, there is a need for the government to facilitate the programmes at the Centre for Parliamentary Studies and Training to build the capacity of the legislators and the support staff. The ongoing work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in Kenya should be scaled-up to the County level and the mechanisms put in place to ensure sustainability once the WFD funding comes to a close.

70

African Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 3 Number 2 (2013), pp. 61-73

This should be factored in the annual national budget and not left to donor organizations. This lesson should be applicable to all the governments of the other partner states. To enhance the mediating role between the think tanks and the legislature through legislative research, there is a need to establish research departments in the Parliaments of the different partner states. Evidence exists of these departments in Kenya and Uganda, and there is a need for the other partner states to emulate this. In Kenya, there is a need to enhance the role of the Directorate of Information and Research Services at the National Assembly, which in partnership with the other research institutes and policy think tanks can provide the much needed evidence that, inform both legislation and policy. There is the need to build respect and trust between the researchers and the legislators by creating more opportunities for informal regular interactions. The government should establish scientist-legislator linkages or partnering similar to the pilot example with the Ugandan government which has been hailed as extremely successful in enhancing evidencebased policy and legislation. At the national level, broader stakeholder consultation and participation are needed in prioritization and resource allocation for an appropriate and sustainable research agenda. There should be greater effort to understand the political context the legal and policy framework, the key actors, their attitudes and influences, and other reform processes. More effort to understand the policy process in the respective countries how new ideas become incorporated into policy, and new legislation enacted. In conducting research, the credibility and integrity of the researchers matter a lot. There is a need to use well established researchers whose integrity is beyond reproach. In this respect, partnering with established think tanks and also development studies institutes in both national and private universities, as well as the science and technology councils in each of the partner states becomes incumbent. At the international level, what is urgently required is for researchers to get closer to governments, to listen and advise and not to direct or impose and use financial incentives as carrots to agree to researchers areas of interest. To communicate research and influence policy a number of approaches should be adopted, including direct interaction with policy makers, working with the media to influence debates and holding dissemination meetings with communities. Research dissemination meetings and workshops provide good opportunities to discuss and debate evidence directly with policymakers. However, it is also important to maintain communication with policymakers throughout the research process to provide updates and develop trusting relationships. Policy influence requires dedicated efforts towards building relationships with key stakeholders, strengthening researchers ability to communicate findings to different groups of people, and increasing policy makers capacity to understand and use evidence when making decisions. The think tanks should strive to generate interest among the non-professionals, CSOs, and Parliamentarians. They should adopt a clearer communication strategy to influence government actors in the sector and government policy. They should also spend more effort to get to know the key players and figure out how best to influence them. The lessons learned should be used to replicate the process in other areas of policy influencing. Lastly, there is needed to fund research and development simultaneously, and encouraging researchers and development specialists to be aware of the fact that being involved in each other's specific area of concern, produces multiple benefits. Funding and implementation priorities must be increased based upon locally-owned, evidence-based plans that aim to develop the target sector. At national levels, research is more likely to be used when it addresses country-specific priorities and when recommendations take into account the reality of different contexts including practicality, budget and service delivery issues.

71

African Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 3 Number 2 (2013), pp. 61-73

REFERENCES Alila, Patrick O., & Atieno, Rosemary. (2006). Agricultural Policy in Kenya: Issues and Processes. A paper presented at the Future Agricultures Consortium workshop, Institute of Development Studies, 20 22 March 2006. Brighton, Sussex: IDS/Future Agricultures. Azzam, T., & Christie, C. A. (2007). Using public databases to study relative program impact. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 22(2), 57 68. Bickman, L., & Reich, S. M. (2009). Randomised Controlled Trials: A Gold Standard with Feet of Clay? In Donasldson, S. I., Christie, C. A. & Mark, M. M. (eds) (2009). What Counts as Credible Evidence in Applied Research and Evaluation Practice? California: SAGE. pp. 51 77. Carden, F. (2009). Knowledge to Policy: Making the Most of Development Research. Ottawa: IDRC/SAGE. Crichton, J. and Theobald, S. (2009). Getting research into policy and practice: experiences from sexual and reproductive health, HIV and AIDS. Health Insights, 78. Brighton: IDS. Donaldson, S. I. (2009). In Search of the Blueprint for an Evidence-Based Global Society. In Donasldson, S. I., Christie, C. A. & Mark, M. M. (eds) (2009). What Counts as Credible Evidence in Applied Research and Evaluation Practice? California: SAGE. Gersten, R. & Hitchcock, J. (2009). What is Credible Evidence in Education? The role of What Works Clearinghouse in Informing the Process. In Donasldson, S. I., Christie, C. A. & Mark, M. M. (eds) (2009). What Counts as Credible Evidence in Applied Research and Evaluation Practice? California: SAGE. pp. 78 95. Henry, G. T. (2009). When Getting it right matters: The case for high-quality policy and program impact evaluations. In Donasldson, S. I., Christie, C. A. & Mark, M. M. (eds) (2009). What Counts as Credible Evidence in Applied Research and Evaluation Practice? California: SAGE. pp. 32 50. Hutchinson, E. (2009). Acting on the Evidence, Health Insights, 78. Brighton: IDS. Jefferys, M., Troy, K., Slawik, N. & Lightfoot, E. (2007). Issues in bridging the divide between policymakers and researchers, Minnesota: University of Minnnesota. Jones, N. (2011). Involving legislators in evidence-Informed policy processes: a neglected part of the democratic governance agenda. ODI Background Report. Accessed on 3 August 2011. Available online at <www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/5769.pdf> Julnes, G. & Rog, D. (2009). Evaluation Methods for Producing Actionable Evidence: Contextual Influences on Advocacy and Appropriateness of Method Choice. In Donasldson, S. I., Christie, C. A. & Mark, M. M. (eds) (2009). What Counts as Credible Evidence in Applied Research and Evaluation Practice? California: SAGE. Kowuor, Collins. (2012). The Dynamics of Influencing National Policies and Legislation: The Kenyan Perspective in Land Reforms. A Paper presented during the FIG Working Week 2012 on Knowing to Manage the Territory, Protect the Environment, Evaluate the Cultural Heritage. In Rome, Italy, 6 10 May 2012. Mendizabal, Enrique. (2012). AusAIDs approach to revitalising the knowledge sector in Indonesia: A public discussion. Available online at OnThinkTanks website at: http://onthinktanks.org/2012/08/03/ausaids-approach-to-revitalising-theknowledge-sector-in-indonesia-a-public-discussion/ <Accessed on 29 January 2013>

72

African Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 3 Number 2 (2013), pp. 61-73

Ndiaye, A (Ed.) (2009). African researchers and decision-makers: building synergy for development, Ottawa: IDRC, Dakar: CODESSRIA. ODI. (2003). Paravets in Kenya Case Study: Community-based Animal Health Workers in Kenya: The Long and Complicated Process of Policy Reform. A Case Summary of ODI's Bridging Research and Policy Project. London: ODI. ODI. (2012). A good news case study: Tanzania Essential Health Interventions Project. Available online at: http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odiassets/publications-opinion-files/7814.pdf <Accessed on 28 January 2013> Republic of Kenya (2005). Economic Survey 2005. Government Printer, Nairobi. Trostle, J., Bronfman, M & Langer, A. (1999). How do researchers influence decision-makers? Case studies of Mexican policies. Health Policy and Planning, 14(2): 103114. Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5): 426-431. Young, John., Kajume, Julius & Wanyama, Jacob. (2003). Animal Health Care in Kenya: The Road to Community-based Animal Health Service Delivery. Overseas Development Institute. Working Paper 214. London: ODI. Available online at: http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinionfiles/178.pdf <Accessed on 28 January 2013>

2010-2013 Sacha International Academic Journals, Meridian Centre, 258 Kingsland Road, Hackney, London E8 4DG, England, United Kingdom. In Compliance with the Standards Approved by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council Abstracting and Indexing in: IndexCopernicus USA, British International Libraries, Social Science Research Network Worldwide, Econlit (USA), Open-J Gate For the Advancement of Knowledge to the World. www.sachajournals.com

73