At this stage in the planning process, a number of factors will guide your choice of advocacy activities. The usual role of any advocacy organization will provide the broader limits of possible choices of activities. For example, think tanks should not really be planning demonstrations, but of course they can choose to go into a coalition with an activist organization willing to do so, if they feel such public action or pressure is required. When it comes to advocating for the results of policy research or expert analysis, the natural networks of actors who usually engage in this type of discussion tend to be on the inside track, and that is where policy advocacy usually starts, with activities such as presentations and briefings with experts and decisionmakers. If advocates feel that they are not getting a positive response to the proposals on the inside track, they may then go to the media to put on some pressure. Of course, this can differ from context to context: a recent trainee from Bulgaria claimed that if an issue is not in the media, then politicians feel that the issue is de facto not on the agenda and are uninterested in advocacy efforts. In such a context, some type of media presence would be required as an opening advocacy activity.
Researcher advocates often try presenting their ideas on the inside track, before moving to the outside.
As this example illustrates, the specifics of the “way into the process” identified in the first circle of the APF will further guide you in the planning, that is, the target audiences and their current positions, the time available to try to change their position, and how far you think their positions can be changed or in other words, what you think is a feasible objective. Furthermore, you obviously need to plan these activities in relation to getting the timing right--for example, you might already have an idea when a policy window will open and possibly also close. In sum, you are looking for what will work to convince your target audiences in the time and openings available to have the best chance of achieving your target advocacy objective.
Design a set of activities to shift target audiences’ positions during the available time window.
Experience has clearly shown that the more participatory and collaborative the advocacy process, the more effective it will be. 1 This is hardly a surprise when we consider that the goal is to provide enough opportunities for target audiences to understand, engage, ask questions, process and digest, be convinced, further clarify, take input from others, bargain with players and stakeholders, and then own and act on your ideas. The management and steering of this negotiation and dialogue is at the heart of this activity selection step of the planning process.
The table below details the combination of advocacy activities that were used in each of the cases presented here.
Advocacy activities conducted in four cases
view larger image
A number of lessons also can be drawn from these cases:
Improving One Stop Shops (2006–2007)
Policy fellow and civil servant
In advocacy processes in the region, one of the major obstacles is often that important target audiences have little knowledge or capacity in the issue you want to address. This is a regular occurrence in areas of new technology and this was the case with One Stop Shops in Kazakhstan. To address this gap a capacity-building approach that offered trainings and study tours was used to soften up target audiences to the ideas and best practice in One Stop Shops. Such long-term capacity-building approaches to advocacy are, in fact, quite common. 4
Capacity building to fill identified gaps can be an important advocacy activity.
Ultimately, the purposeful planning of your activities in line with your advocacy objectives and yet balanced with overcoming obstacles will ensure that the range of activities and tools you select have the best chance of achieving the specific targets in your advocacy campaign.
In this vein, we often emphasize to policy researchers that the advocacy opportunities presented when conducting research interviews with decisionmakers and other key stakeholders should not be overlooked in building awareness of the research in the broader stakeholder group. It is beneficial to tell them when and how the research will be available and even ask them if it is possible to get a follow-up interview or meeting or just feedback by email, thereby engaging them throughout the process rather than just as a follow-up to the research conducted.
Through these measures, you are starting a dialogue and beginning to think about fostering their ownership of your ideas. As one trainee from an Estonian think tank commented: your policy recommendations should not come as a surprise to the target audience. Her approach is not just to inform decisionmakers of finished policy advice, but to use the research and analysis process to engage them and negotiate feasible and implementable recommendations that are developed jointly with the researcher. One of the cases illustrates a further useful approach to the early engagement of policymakers:
Reorganization of local administrative units in Mitrovica (2003–2006)
Think tank (European Stability Initiative)
Once the European Stability Initiative had completed the research process, they prepared a PowerPoint presentation of their initial analysis of the evidence collected and the implications they drew from it. At this point in the process, they went to decision makers, briefed them on the initial findings, and asked questions such as “Are we right?” “Is there something that we have missed?”
This kind of “case testing” approach communicates openness to decision makers and the importance of stakeholder input, which means that researchers end up not only getting very useful feedback but also, in fact, already beginning the advocacy discussion. Indeed, experience has shown that communication of research results prior to publication allows for early uptake and usage of the findings. 6
“Case testing” your initial findings on decisionmakers can help build ownership of ideas.
Consider the most suitable set of activities for your advocacy campaign:
