CPWF Working Papers
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/10568/3720
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item A 'PASEO' Approach: Regionally contextualized and integrated engagement, dialoguing, knowledge sharing and communication(Working Paper, 2014-11) Schuetz, Tonya; Waldorf, AbbyIn research for development (R4D) and programmatic research work for development knowledge sharing and knowledge management, engagement and networking is essential for achieving behavioral change. R4D is about making sure research is contributing to positive development agendas and changes. We need to engage and communicate internally within our projects with the potential users of our results who can influence and implement change. It is important to clearly distinguish—from the beginning—the difference between this ‘internal communication’, what we will refer to as the ‘paseo approach’, and corporate communications. This document will elaborate the key characteristics/principles/good practices of what we aim for in internal project communications, the ‘paseo approach’, and what it requires in terms of processes, competencies and skills in the people who undertake it.Item Most Significant Change Stories from the Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF)(Working Paper, 2009) León, C. de; Douthwaite, Boru; Álvarez, S.The following stories were collected from CPWF project and theme leaders in two rounds. The first round of stories were collected in January 2007 based on the following two questions: What has been the most significant technical development or advance made by your 1) CPWF project / theme / basin since the start? What has been the most significant partnership change (significant in terms of making 2) scientific progress and/or developmental impact more likely) that has taken place since the start of your CPWF project (or theme or basin)? In June 2009 we repeated the process asking the same basic question, without specifying between technical and partnership changes. We asked for photographs and references to documents that substantiate the stories. We collected 54 stories in Round 1, and 15 in Round 2. A selection of 44 stories are presented here. Those we left out we did so if the stories they told were not clear, if they did not follow the format, or if we did not receive answers to clarifying questions. T he stories are organized by the CPWF’s five themes and according to First Call projects, Basin Focal Projects and Small Grants projects. They show the broad range of outcomes and impacts that the CPWF is beginning to have. The stories are not a comprehensive audit of CPWF impact, but rather what people felt motivated to write about. The stories provide gateways to evidence of change, and are not to be interpreted as definitive but as iterative. Indeed, some projects presented change stories in both rounds. CPWF Theme Leaders selected the first round story or stories they thought most significant and gave their reasons. The selection decisions and criteria are given as feedback to the projects as a way for the CPWF to focus innovation towards explicitly valued directions and away from less valued ones. One story was selected as the most significant from the second round stories. T he Most Significant Change (MSC) method was used to collect and analyze the stories1. MSC is part of a repertoire of iterative learning-based approaches that are employed by the CPWF and its projects in response to emergent change. The authors of the stories are principally the program’s Theme Leaders, Project Leaders and Principle Investigators. In writing the stories they were able to give their interpretation of the emerging issues and changes that most mattered to the leadership in these projects.Item Geographical extrapolation domain analysis: Scaling up watershed management research projects, a toolkit to guide implementation(Working Paper, 2009) Rubiano, J.; Soto, V.Funding agencies, research programs, and organizations involved in the implementation of research need to know the potential worldwide impact and applicability of their efforts and investments. The extrapolation domain analysis method (EDA) was developed to produce information about the location, areas, and population potentially influenced by research outputs. This working paper presents detailed steps how to implement an EDA. For a particular research project, it starts with establishing a baseline assessment of the project, and proceeds through data collection, preparation, and similarity modeling concluding with reporting and validation. The guide is designed for users with intermediate knowledge of GIS and Bayesian statistics for a smooth and easy implementation of the method. It also requires the participation of the members of the research project for proper identification of key variables to be used in the process.Item Improving knowledge for targeting interventions: Willingness of individuals to participate and calculation of institutional environment indices(Working Paper, 2009) Rubiano, J.; García, J.We present a method for the calculation of individuals’ willingness to participate (IWP) and an institutional environment index (IEI). A description of the approach, data and procedures is presented using as a case study of data for municipalities in Bolivia. We use these procedures as examples of how these two indicators can be estimated using secondary data. The method can be easily applied to countries with relatively good socio-economic secondary data at municipal level to produce continental or sub-continental pictures of these two key factors. The purpose of developing these two indicators was to provide better information for targeting interventions as identified by the implementation of Extrapolation Domain Analysis (EDA).Item Stories from the field: A most significant change synthesis(Working Paper, 2008) Harrington, Larry W.; Douthwaite, Boru; León, C. de; Woolley, Jonathan N.In January of 2007, a number of people working with the CGIAR challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) were invited to tell stories about the ‘most significant change’ (innovations or partnerships) they had observed as a result of CPWF activity. This paper aims to pull together some of the threads emerging from these stories, weaving them into a fabric that gives insight into CPWF approaches and achievements. The most significant change (MSC) technique was developed to more effectively moni¬tor and evaluate complex participatory rural development programs in which there is diversity in both implementation and outcomes. It has been referred to as ‘monitoring-without-indicators’ (MSC does not make use of pre-defined quantitative indicators) or ‘the story approach’ (answers to important questions about change are felt to be most readily found in stories of who did what, when and why). Authors of cPwF msc stories included theme leaders, Basin coordinators, Project lead¬ers and Principal Investigators. Most stories were based on experiences in the first call of Competitive Grant Projects. Others emerged from Basin Focal Projects or Small Grant Projects. Authors of stories were self-selected, with a total of 54 stories submitted. These stories were compiled and sent for analysis and screening to key leaders. Two categories of stories were requested: one on “the most significant technical devel¬opment/advance”, the other on “the most significant partnership change”. Within the former, there are stories on technical innovations, institutional and policy innovations, and information and knowledge management. within the latter, stories were submitted on field-level partnerships, basin-level partnerships, and capacity building. Some MSC stories focus on only one of the above categories. However, many discuss the interrelationships among categories, e.g., how an institutional innovation enabled widespread use of a new technology. more than half of the stories are also linked to a specific production environment, e.g., dryland, irrigated or rice-based, salt-affected, or aquatic. These are predominantly stories about technical innovations, and the institu¬tional innovations and partnerships contributing to their success. The remaining stories tend to focus on conceptual frameworks, information and knowledge management, and institutional and policy innovations not closely tied to any particular technology.