Alan Mccluskey, UNIFR, 2007-01-24

From P2P to P2V

The P2P methodology in the policy area was centred on thematic peer visits. The theme was an issue chosen by the host and communicated to the visitors prior to the visit along with written material about the context and the issue to be dealt with. The issue chosen was necessarily a major challenge for the host country. In addition, the issue needed to be sufficiently complex and multifaceted that it was possible to deal with it during the visit from a wide range of perspectives. Prior to the visit, visitors were required to read the material provided. The visit was constructed around making the home context and the issue understandable to the visitors. This involved a considerable effort on the part of participants to study the whole home context as well as the issue being dealt with, leading to almost all the time being taken up in visits, presentations and demonstrations. A selection of local actors participated in one or other of the meetings to present their work, but they were not otherwise involved in the project. To simplify things, input from other contexts (including that of the visitors) was kept to a minimum. The underlying model was that of "best practice" and its transfer to other contexts. From this perspective, there was a tacit assumption that the way the hosts handled the "issue" would necessarily involve exemplary practice that could then be identified and "transferred" to the visitors' home context. Some work was done on the notion of "transfer" or rather "transformation" (on the basis of ideas gathered from the host country and to be used at home after the visit), but this was not a central aspect of the work. In addition, as only a couple of people from each country were involved in the process, so it fell to them to communicate what they had "learnt" to others in their country and to drive the possible work on integrating new ideas. The major tangible outcome of P2P was the peer-review report on each country visited along with the description and validation of the methodology itself.

The starting point for P2V is somewhat different. It seeks to adapt the peer review methodology from P2P to empower and extend valorisation. I have written elsewhere about valorisation. I have also written about the peer review process. For valorisation to take place, external input is required, both from R&D projects as well as from the experience of peers. If peer exchange is to be carried out around an issue identified by the hosts, as in P2P, then the nature of that issue needs to be communicated to the visitors prior to the visit in the form of a documented "request". I use the word "request" because the hosts are actively seeking input on an issue they are confronted with. The visitors as well as the project facilitators need to respond by preparing material to present during the visit from their home context or from R&D outcomes. This is quite different from P2P. This also shifts the exchange visit, compared with P2P, to finding the right balance between the exploration of the host context and issue and external input from visitors and R&D projects. As such, it echoes something of the approach adopted in PIC. Capitalising on the experience of others and projects that have been carried out requires a collective learning process that necessarily assesses the original idea or tools and then, when appropriate, transforms them into something that is appropriate in the new context. As a result, the hosts need to "digest" this material so that it can be used as input to develop transformational policies for their home context, in particular, concerning the ways of working of the actors involved. To provide the suitable terrain for transformation, key actors from the host country need to be involved in the process right from the start. They need to participate in the formulation of the "request" and develop a shared understanding of the issue and its context. Contrary to P2P, these actors need to take part in the whole visit and be involved in "gathering" information that might be used in the transformation. Their participation provides a wider basis on which the whole transformational process can take place. At the same time, it may well make the work more challenging to organise and carry out. One of the outcomes of P2V will be this revised methodology, but the most important outcome should be the transformation of the home context with the help of input from R&D and experience from peers. This implies a number of considerable challenges one of which is the gathering of convincing evidence of the transformations generated by this work as proof of impact.

Alan McCluskey, UNIFR, 2007-01-24