Stripe Review of Social Sciences in the CGIAR

Stripe Review of Social Sciences in the CGIAR October 2009 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Stripe Review of Social Sciences in the CGIAR Review Panel: Christopher B. Barrett (Chair) Arun Agrawal Oliver T. Coomes Jean-Philippe Platteau OCTOBER 2009 i The Science Council of the CGIAR encourages fair use of this material provided proper citation is made. Correct citation: CGIAR Science Council (2009) Stripe Review of Social Sciences in the CGIAR. Rome, Italy: Science Council Secretariat ii Science Council Commentary on the Stripe Review of Social Sciences in the CGIAR October 2009 The impetus for the Stripe Review on Social Sciences in the CGIAR arose from repeated concerns expressed in many EPMRs that social science capacity in Centers was deteriorating. Accordingly, the SC commissioned an initial scoping paper in 2008 that presented the justification for conducting an in‐depth review. The review Panel’s mandate was to provide a System‐level assessment of social sciences in the CGIAR including its quality, coherence, relevance, productivity and capacity, and to make recommendations for improvement. The main phase of the Review was implemented from January to August, 2009. The key elements were: collecting comprehensive data on social science activities and results; formulating a normative framework of “optimal” social sciences roles in the CGIAR against which the current state could be assessed; e‐consultation with Center social scientists to prioritize issues and define hypotheses; analysis of publications and their citations, with a review of selected publications and projects; interviews with staff and partners at nine Center headquarters or regional offices; and soliciting feedback from Centers and external experts on the draft report. The approach taken provides “good practice” for future studies of a similar nature. With one exception, all Centers and CPs were responsive to nearly all the Panel’s requests.1 The Science Council discussed the Panel’s report at its 12th meeting held at CIFOR in Bogor, Indonesia. The Chairman of the Panel, Professor Chris Barrett, presented the report. The Science Council conveys it’s thanks to the Panel Chair and the three members, Drs Arun Agrawal, Oliver Coomes and Jean‐Philippe Platteau, for a frank and insightful report that presents a compelling analysis of the current state of social science in the System. The SC is impressed by the volume of information the Panel assembled to support its analysis including the feedback it solicited from Center staff and social scientists outside the System. The SC emphasizes that this is an important and timely report that deserves full attention from Center management and CGIAR membership to ensure serious consideration of its findings and recommendations. Key Diagnosis The Panel forms its main diagnosis around what it has termed the “new business model”. This model is characterized by: a) a shift from largely unrestricted core funding to relying excessively on restricted funding, most of which comes through very small, short‐duration development‐ oriented grants; b) a lack of vision on what CGIAR social science should be doing that has led to an almost unlimited expansion of social scientists’ agenda; and c) the Centers’ desire to maintain a large cadre of international staff in relation to the work carried out. This has led to a loss of focus and fragmentation in social science work, an erosion of the quality and effectiveness of social science research, a fall of staff morale, and difficulties recruiting and retaining high quality 1 IITA opted not to participate in this review. iii staff. The strategy of maintaining a large cadre of internationally recruited social science staff represents a high‐cost approach for the work being done, much of which could be carried out by well‐trained MS degree holders. The Science Council agrees with this core analysis which reveals shortcomings in Centers’ ability to plan coherent research agendas based on clear strategies and prioritization and defend these agendas in their negotiations with the donors thereby resisting funding‐driven fragmentation. The SC observes that this diagnosis signals broader problems within the System that triggered the CGIAR change management process. The effects of the trends described in the Panel’s report, therefore, are likely to go well beyond social sciences. Nonetheless, the problem may be more serious for social science, than for other disciplines, if the grant money is more fragmented and developmental in orientation and if labor markets for social scientist recruitment are more competitive. These problems may also reflect an inability of the discipline to explain and demonstrate its value in conducting more long‐term and strategic research —both potential and actual—to Center management and donors, and the demand for social science research, therefore, has not been clearly articulated in the Center’s strategic planning. The CGIAR change management process is intended to reverse these trends and improve the coherence and relevance of the CGIAR’s research and the sustainability of long‐term funding. It is imperative that the CGIAR System, including its Centers and donors, take the Stripe Review Panel’s analysis seriously. Special attention to improving social science capacity is needed as part of the change management process. Quality of research The Panel assessed quality primarily by looking at the quality of staff and the quality and impacts of publications. It also reviewed on‐going projects that shed light on the scope and role of social sciences, project funding and the planned partnerships. Close analyses of a sample of projects allowed assessment of methodological quality and the match between objectives and approaches. The CGIAR System should be extremely concerned by the findings that social science research is judged to be methodologically weak and declining in quality. In addition, there appears to be a lack of critical mass of high quality social scientists with sufficiently diverse disciplinary skills. The Panel also found that partnerships are increasingly transactional (even competitive in the case of NARS) and the quality of the partnerships with ARIs is weak. Another aspect of declining quality is that data collection, management and exploitation were found to be deficient. The SC strongly endorses the need to systematically improve the management of data and its use internally and externally, including attention to ethical issues in data collection. Nonetheless, the SC emphasizes that the review has also revealed pockets of excellence in the CGIAR. The Panel notes that excellence seems to be associated with: sufficient seniority among the researchers, clearly defined long‐term projects with assured funding, long‐term partnerships with ARIs, and inclusion of an inter‐disciplinary component. Center management can influence many of these factors despite funding pressures. iv In its assessment of quality, the Panel applied criteria used in academia, such as number of publications and citation. The SC accepts that these criteria are also applicable to a highly mission‐driven organization. It emphasizes, however, that publications and citations as used in the profession at large is too narrow a perspective. In the CGIAR social science research ambition needs to also include a strong commitment to solving important problems that impact poor people. Comparative advantage and relevance The report lists the attributes that give social scientists in the Centers a comparative advantage in generating international public goods. The most important attribute is the ability to organize research around problems rather than disciplines—the ease of conducting inter‐disciplinary research—and work at an international scale and sustained over time. Other elements of comparative advantage include the Centers’ physical infrastructure and long‐term presence in developing countries, and a cadre of well‐trained, internationally recruited staff. Given comparative advantage, the Panel identified three areas where it sees the greatest opportunities for CGIAR social science research to be effective in serving its mission: (i) technological change that sustainably increases agricultural productivity by and for the poor; (ii) natural resource conservation that benefits the rural poor directly or indirectly via environmental services, especially those that help agricultural productivity; and (iii) institutional innovations and policies that enhance the quality of life for poor and marginalized agrarian populations. Of these, the Panel considers the first as the single most important area of CGIAR social science comparative advantage because it most fully capitalizes on the opportunity for close interaction between social and biophysical scientists that is distinctive to the CGIAR. In the Panel’s view, a plurality if not a majority of staff should be in the first area. The Panel hypothesizes that, as Centers’ missions have expanded, the most competent social scientists have been drawn into the marketing and policy area, with fewer engaged in research on productivity enhancement. The SC agrees with the Panel’s judgment that Center management needs to take action to protect the focus and relevance of the Center’s research agenda. Drifting with funding trends cannot be fully avoided but it can be sharply reduced. However, in order to improve the overall relevance, measures at the System level among the donor community are also clearly needed. For example, critical

Load more