LogoLogo
English
English
  • INSPIRED: Where policy meets dialogue
  • Who is this website for?
    • Civil society and domestic stakeholders
    • Development practitioners and EU representatives
    • Government officials
  • Guide
    • What is INSPIRED?
    • Why does INSPIRED make a difference?
      • A three-tier approach
    • How does INSPIRED work in practice?
      • A dialogue process in three phases
        • Collective Assessment Phase
          • The Participatory Policy Analysis (PPA)
        • Consensus Building Phase
          • The Roadmap for Reform
            • Balancing priorities and trade-offs
            • Considering the policy cycle
            • Structure
            • Types of Roadmaps for Reform
            • Unlocking the black box of “political will”
        • Monitoring and Donor Alignment Phase
          • Monitoring the recommendations of the Roadmap for Reforms
          • Ensuring the alignment of donor support to the priorities outlined in the Roadmap
          • The Policy Network Strategy
            • The Joint Analysis of the Policy Network
            • The network graph
            • The exercise of strategic foresight
      • Measuring progress: The Integrated Support Framework (ISF)
    • Who is involved?
      • The Donor(s)
        • Opening the space for dialogue‌
        • Building incentives through conditionality
        • Providing actors with access to decision-makers
        • Promoting the adoption of international standards
        • Bringing in experiences and good practices to feed deliberation
      • The Partner Government
        • Appointing the right person(s)
        • Providing access to government data
        • Coordinating the participation of the concerned public actors
        • Honouring the commitments collectively agreed through dialogue
        • Allocating resources for the implementation of the roadmap
      • The Dialogue Host
        • Convening the key stakeholders
        • Facilitating the dialogue sessions
        • Promoting knowledge-sharing among stakeholders
        • Coordinating the division of labour
        • Acting as the main hub of the resulting policy network
        • Reporting and keeping track of the collective progress
      • The Stakeholders
        • Civil Society Organisations
        • Political parties
        • Public administration
        • Parliaments
        • Media
        • Social agents
        • National Human Rights institutions
        • Academia
        • Democracy support organisations
    • What change can INSPIRED bring?
      • Types of change
      • Harvesting INSPIRED outcomes
  • The INSPIRED Toolkit
    • Results-orientation
    • Three categories
    • The tools
      • 1. Scoping the policy landscape
      • 2. Determining the stage of the policy cycle
      • 3. Stakeholder mapping
      • 4. Set-up and follow-up of indicators
      • 5. Deliberation around evaluative criteria
      • 6. Joint Research
      • 7. Workshops and focus groups
      • 8. Public events & campaigning
      • 9. Bilateral meetings
      • 10. Working groups
      • 11. High-level missions
      • 12. Workshops on multi-party dialogue
      • 13. Study visits
      • 14. Online consultations
      • 15. Grant schemes
      • 16. Training courses
      • 17. Coaching
      • 18. Network mapping
      • 19. International Peer to Peer support
  • Resources
    • Library
      • Policy dialogue: General
      • Policy analysis for dialogue facilitation
      • Dialogue stakeholders
      • Trust-building
      • Policy dialogue in thematic policies
      • EU democracy support
    • Track record
    • Contact us
  • LEGAL NOTICE
Powered by GitBook
LogoLogo
On this page
  1. Guide
  2. Who is involved?
  3. The Stakeholders

Academia

There are numerous advantages to including think tanks or policy research institutes in policy dialogue. Thanks to their focus on research, evidence-based argumentation and their experience in communicating complex analyses to policymakers, the media and the general public alike, think tanks can indeed be very useful allies in INSPIRED processes. If they are perceived as sufficiently independent, they can feed the dialogue with the necessary data and analysis to create a knowledge base accepted by all the participants. On the other hand, if they take in charge most of these tasks, they risk interfering with the collaborative dynamics that are vital to promoting both ownership and trust among the other stakeholders, so the Dialogue Host must carefully weigh up the pros and cons of their involvement and, whenever possible, incite them to actively engage the other participants in their research.

Besides, the degree of impartiality of think tanks when it comes to policy monitoring – but above all in advocating for policy change– will vary according to their allegiances (to government, to parties, to business, etc.). Likewise, think tanks or research institutes that are attached to universities have mandates that restrict their activities to thinking rather than acting, while others define themselves as ‘think and do tanks’.

Another issue that needs consideration is the different dynamic and mindset that characterise the academic and policy professionals: whereas the first ones are inclined to searching optimal solutions, the seconds are forced to optimize resources and negotiate their way through political and bureaucratic constraints. However, the passage between both professions is quite common and constitutes one of the most salient features of policy networks.

As with the media, think tanks can be engaged not only for their expertise, but also as full-fledged stakeholders, namely in those policy areas in which they have a long track record of advocacy and research, especially if they have championed –or opposed– similar reforms. This would be the case if they are close to decision-makers, or they hold a high reputation due to the quality and reliability of their research. What seems clear is that, whatever their exact role in the dialogue process, think tanks or research institutes can sometimes ‘enlighten’ the discussions thanks to their focus on evidence, thus moving the discussions beyond interests or beliefs and helping the Dialogue Host to broker the knowledge exchange among the participants.

PreviousNational Human Rights institutionsNextDemocracy support organisations

Last updated 1 year ago