Art. 2 Call for research proposals on assumptions underlying Dialogue & Dissent

The call aims to fund research projects that strengthen the evidence-base of the policy framework Dialogue and Dissent. It calls on scientists to submit research proposals that scrutinise specific articulated assumptions of the Theory of Change (ToC) underlying the policy framework (see annex 1) using primarily qualitative scientific methodologies. In this call, evaluation research of the projects/programmes of the Dialogue and Dissent framework of the MFA is excluded. The call is specifically meant for research which addresses the underlying assumptions of this framework. Each research project should contribute to two objectives: Generating new, evidence-based knowledge on the assumptions of the ToC underlying the Dialogue and Dissent framework; and Making this knowledge accessible, available and applicable to policymakers and CSOs in the Netherlands and in LLMICs. To be of relevance for this call, research proposals must relate to the theoretical propositions in the ToC document (Annex 1), and the empirical research part must be demonstrably linked to projects/programmes implemented in LLMICs by CSOs supported by the framework Dialogue and Dissent of the MFA. not be evaluation research. At the same time, this does not mean that research proposals should use the same theoretical lenses as used in the ToC, nor that all the fieldwork should be limited to programmes/projects financed by the MFA. In order to get different perspectives, different theoretical lenses may be used as long as the proposal shows the added value of those lenses compared to the ones used in the ToC. For the empirical part it is obligatory to also include actors, projects and/or cases which have no connection to the programmes/projects financed within the ‘Dialogue and Dissent’ framework of the MFA. By taking such a broader view, the MFA aims at getting a more comprehensive view, for instance on the influence of donor funding (from different donors) on the political role of (different) CSOs. The general research focus of this call are the assumptions underlying the Theory of Change (ToC) of the policy framework Dialogue and Dissent. The Theory of Change flowchart is depicted below (Figure 1). Annex 1 contains the full ToC document which elaborates the assumptions and positions them in two competing development paradigms. Within the context of the general research focus, research projects should focus on assumptions underlying one of the three specific themes depicted below. Annex 2 provides a more elaborate description of these three themes, covering the core assumptions of the Dialogue and Dissent Theory of Change, and providing research and policy questions. Research proposals must relate to the analysis and research questions in this document, and contribute to answering the formulated policy questions. While the research questions in annex 2 provide the overall direction and should therefore be the starting point for each research proposal, applicants are invited to refine and tailor them to specific subjects and/or cases. Political roles of CSOs in LLMICs Assumptions: CSOs play a crucial role in changing power relations CSOs perform 4 types of political roles to change power relations: Educational (internal & external) Communicative (linking state & society) Representational (voice & resistance) Cooperative (subsidiarity & coordination) Different roles require different organisational forms (i.e. formal / informal), capacities and different forms of legitimacy When pressured, informed and/or persuaded by CSOs, states and companies change their policies and practices, and societal groups change their norms, values and practices to be more sustainable, equitable and inclusive Precondition: CSOs need to be locally rooted, strong, legitimate and autonomous to perform political roles The aid chain Assumptions: External aid by the Ministry and (mainly Northern) CSOs can strengthen CSOs in LLMICs in their political roles through capacity building and assistance in advocacy processes CSOs are actors in their own right and not merely instrumental channels for aid delivery Promoting civil society’s political roles needs a long-term, context-specific approach, which incorporates mutual learning, trust and local ownership Precondition: The design of the aid chain does not interfere with the aspects mentioned in the previous point Civic space under pressure Assumptions: Assumption/precondition: CSOs need civic space to perform political roles External aid by the Ministry and (mainly Northern) CSOs can strengthen CSOs in LLMICs in their political roles by offering protection in hostile environments and lobbying for improved political space While projects must focus on one of the three themes mentioned, each project should explicitly reflect on the relevance of their project (findings) for the two other themes. This reflection is needed as the three themes are interrelated. To encourage discourse on the interrelatedness of the three themes, all applicants of awarded projects will periodically meet to discuss progress and findings at workshops organised by the Knowledge Platform INCLUDE. Figure 1: Theory of Change Dialogue & Dissent Each project proposal should consist of two parts: a literature review and empirical research. In addition to these parts, research teams have to actively participate in knowledge brokering activities (see Section 2.3). Literature review is defined here as a study that provides an overview of existing, peer-reviewed published scientific research insights and/or methodologies, complemented with grey literature where relevant and feasible. The review should identify, select, synthesise and appraise all high- quality research evidence relevant for the research project (part two). In doing so, it should use multiple theoretical perspectives, connecting the insights of multiple scientific traditions. The literature review should not duplicate the extensive literature review in the ToC (Annex 1), but should build on and/or relate to it. As the research projects concentrate on understanding complex processes and phenomena related to the assumptions behind the Dialogue and Dissent ToC, researchers must use qualitative research methods. A mixed methods approach may be used, where quantitative methods complement the main qualitative part, if researchers can show the added value of such an approach. Using these methodologies, evidence based results concerning the (validity of) the assumptions underlying the Dialogue and Dissent framework should be delivered. As explained above, the empirical part of the research proposal, must be demonstrably linked to projects/programmes implemented in LLMICs by CSOs supported by the framework Dialogue and Dissent of the MFA. At the same time the project must not be limited to projects/programmes supported by Dialogue and Dissent. Projects should provide two types of output. First, projects should provide input and lessons for the design of the next civil society policy framework of the MFA. As this design process will already start in 2019, research results should be available by then. This has consequences for the timing of output: the whole project (literature review and empirical research) has to be finalised in max. 18 months after the starting date. The literature review process must be completed within 3 months. A report of the review part of the project (output) must be sent within 4 months after the starting date to NWO-WOTRO who will assess the review for quality and share the review and assessment with the Knowledge Platform INCLUDE. For the empirical part, including the writing of the final report a maximum of 15 months are available. Thus, delivering the results in time is a prerequisite and no (budget-neutral) extension of projects is possible. Second, knowledge generated by the researches should be accessible, available and applicable for the MFA as input for a learning agenda with its partners in the Dialogue and Dissent framework. As this is an ongoing process, frequent interaction between researchers and the MFA on both intermediate results and final reports is a prerequisite. The Knowledge Platform INCLUDE will facilitate knowledge brokering activities. Main and co-applicant of awarded projects are obliged to actively participate in and contribute to knowledge brokering activities, e.g. workshop participation and timely delivery of interim- results. In order to facilitate outcome and impact, the Knowledge Platform INCLUDE will regularly organize workshops and other knowledge brokering activities that bring together researchers of different projects with relevant practitioners6Practitioners include any type of organisation other than research or higher education organisations that represent a group of people actively engaged in policy design for and/or implementation of those policies (programming), including public organisations (governmental departments of line ministries, local or international governments, extension services, et cetera), as well as private organisations (including for-profit enterprises (such as SME’s and MNE’s) and related support organisations and private non-profit organisations such as NGOs, cooperatives, social movements, unions and civil society organisations)., including CSOs and the MFA. By involving them along the research, they act as sounding board to reflect on the approach of the empirical part and/or in discussing the (early) findings. This increases the likelihood that research results will be used and thereby improves their impact. Projects should budget the participation of main and co-applicant(s) to these workshops. Active participation in all knowledge brokering activities is required. Research updates will be published on a website. The four workshops are: A kick-off meeting (one day) organized immediately after the actual start of the projects where the main applicants of all projects meet with a small group of stakeholders to fine tune their project plans in view of the call’s goals and objectives; A workshop (one day) five months after the start of the projects. The goal of this workshop is to discuss the results of the literature review (part one of the project) and to discuss the impact of the review on the empirical part. During this workshop the main and co-applicant will discuss their findings with a broader group of stakeholders (practitioners and researchers); A progress workshop (one day) approximately one year after the start of the project to discuss intermediate results of the projects with main and co-applicants of all projects and a broader group of stakeholders; A final workshop (one day) of main applicants of all projects with a small group of stakeholders at the end of the projects, in which final results on both project and programme level will be discussed, to synthesize results from all projects in order to formulate an aggregated and concise and coherent advice for more evidence-informed CSO policy frameworks to all stakeholders, and especially to the MFA of The Netherlands that will feed a new policy framework Dialogue and Dissent. Next to these knowledge brokering activities, consortia are expected to organise a project kick-off workshop to fine tune the approach of the project (directly after the programme kick-off workshop) and to organize a final self-assessment workshop with stakeholders on site resulting in a final research report. Costs for policy briefs, lay-men publications, books, and other (visual/audio) approaches or tools to enhance knowledge sharing and use should also be budgeted.

Aim

Rechtspraak bij dit artikel