Think tanks‘ challenges of communicate and disseminate sensitive topics: Four Case Studies FINAL PRESENTATION
CSCS
CONTENT • • • • •
Team Objectives Motivation Methodology Case studies • Institutional description and communication office • Policy aims and comunication activities
• Learning by doing/designing as it goes • Reflection on colaboration and lessons learnt • Future perspective
TEAM • Radka Vicenová from the Centre for European and North Atlantic Affairs (CENAA - Slovak Republic) • Mykola Stepanov & Nadia Dobryanska from Centre for Political and Legal Reforms (CPLR Ukraine) • Francesca Uccelli from Institute of Peruvian Studies (IEP-Perú) • Ermy Ardhyanti from Article 33- Indonesia.
OBJECTIVES • The project aims to exchange information about our institutions and its culture of communication with the objective to reflect and improve our own communication practices. • We expected that by the end of the project, the participants would enrich their communication approaches, strategies, practices or decisionmaking processes, inspired by the exchange experience.
MOTIVATION Using best communication practices and tools from the experience of other colleagues makes our institutions stronger and more influential for the realization of our ideas into practice. For the purpose of this project, we assumed that: •peer learning among think tanks from different regions and different background could complement and enrich think tanks knowledge, experiences and practices; •peer learning on an institutional topic, as communication strategies, would be much more motivating for researchers if they shared a common topic of interest in which they are experts; •the main motivation to change in this project of collaboration (through learning, exchangingand collaborating among the others) would be that we are really interested to know how the others think tanks are dealing with their own communicational challenges (on the shared topic) and therefore we are willing to learn and apply that experience.
METHODOLOGY • Inductive process • Self case study approach • Focus on sensitive issues Process: Understanding the institutional framework Understanding the communication office history Inquiry for meanings of communication Internal Mapping on Research Policy Aim (RPA) and communication activities (CA) • Select RPA • Group the CA on a common framework. • Select the activities for in deep analyses. • • • •
Research policy aim and communication activities IEP
CENAA
CPLR
Article 33
To provide information and recommendations for addressing the subject of armed conflict and collective memory in secondary schools in distinct contexts, with a focus on Human Rights and interculturality.
To give strategies to stop the tendency of radicalizing mainstream political parties’ rhetoric as a response to increasing demand for radical solutions in the society.
To reform the system of administrative services (granting permits, certificates, passports etc) provided by the state and municipalities to citizens to make it more citizenfriendly (comfortable, easy, transparent).
To improve transparency and accountability in managing mining resources at the subnational level in Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam.�
I. Policy meetings II. Publish a work document
I. Policy meetings II. Educational events, workshops and trainings
I. Policy meetings II. Educational events, workshops
I. Policy meetings II. Social media
Case studies: Institutional description and communication office. Differences and similarities Institutional description History Size Researchers profiles Research areas
Communication office Full-time/ part-time Job description Communication strategy Communication policy Decision making process Influence of donors Budget support Capacity building Monitoring evaluation and Key Performance Indicators (KPI)
Case studies: Policy aims and comunication activities. Differences and similarities Policy aims Institutional vs. Project Based Justification and Context Groups of activities Activities Target groups
LEARNING BY DOING Designing on the go approach: -Allows to adapt the questions and instruments to a the particularirty of TT institutions -Help to better understand the context, challenge and complexity of institutions in terms of communication -Implies frecuent collaboration in order to decide together every step of the process - Encourages interaction and collective reflection during the whole process -It was an appropiate way to solve the fact that members of the team didn’t know each other, that we were not experts on the topic and at the same time offers much space for collaboration. -Face-to face meatings were crucial for the main decision making -It’s very time consuming
REFLECTION ON COLABORATION AND LESSONS LEARNT
• General challenges • Putting together the project team and getting to know each other • Change of the central focus of the study • Development of the mapping process • Developing the methodology • Looking for the topic shared by all think tanks
FUTURE PERSPECTIVE
• Future collaboration • To continue in institutional issues • To move further to policy aims (i.e. radicalism, violence) • To initiate common comparative research project
THANK YOU