INTERNATIONAL GIRLS IN ICT DAY GHANA CELEBRATION

African Ladies In ICT( Marshalls University wing)

Camfed Ghana ICT Training Workshop NR 14

A three day ICT Safety Training Workshop has been organized 
for selected teachers in the northern region to create awareness 
on the risks associated with online communication and the 
negative impact it has on the youth in the society.

Telecoms Service Qaulity; Ghana Moves To Deal With Poor Quality Of Service

To get more update on ICT and other Technology news please 
subscribe to our channel http://bit.ly/12JSI1j

STUDENTS ENCOURAGED TO MASTER IN ICT

Effectiveness of ICT for Rural Development: Building a Digital Green Learning Community

This workshop will share Digital Green approach using ICT for 
rural communities across different domains such as agriculture, 
livelihoods, health and nutrition, and in different geographies in 
India and Africa, specially Ethiopia and Ghana.

Course Review towards Instituting EIPM Course

Introduction

It was a long range of discussions that begun in the third quarter of 2013, harmonized by series of personal meetings, phone calls, and email exchanges. Seeking an opportunity to engage a government institution to work in altering traditional processes of government business has never been easy. But with the goodwill and support of all stakeholders, a golden opportunity flashed through, witnessed by the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This was the bedrock of other activities in GINKS’ engagement with the Civil Service Training Centre (CSTC) Accra, Ghana to embed a sustainable course in Evidence Informed Policy Making (EIPM) at the centre. A course review exercise was started, and has produced some inspiring experiences that are worth presenting for public exposition. GINKS (Ghana Information Network for Knowledge Sharing) is undertaking these activities as part of its commitments in the VakaYiko Consortium. This short piece describes the concept of EIPM, and shares GINKS’ experiences with reviewing the courses available at CSTC.

The Concept, EIPM

To better understand the concept of EIPM, it is best to break it down into smaller compartments (Evidence and Policy Making); which will be reassembled to give a much holistic understanding. Concerning this, Oxman et al (2009) wrote that;

“Evidence concerns facts (actual or asserted) intended for use in support of a conclusion. A fact, in turn, is something known through experience or observation. An important implication of this understanding is that evidence can be used to support a conclusion, but it is not the same as a conclusion. Evidence alone does not make decisions”.

By this understanding of evidence therefore, different ‘evidence’ works have different relationship with what actually is evidence. For example expert opinion is more than just evidence, but a combination of facts, the interpretation of those facts, experiences, values and conclusions (Oxman et al, 2009). Secondly, not all ‘evidence’ works are convincing. In this regard Askew, Matthews and Partridge (2002) argued that;

“Apart from the importance of the quality of the evidence, which is principally associated with the rigor with which research methods and scientific principles are applied, there is the more contested aspect of choice of research methods, or even more fundamentally, choice of approach or research paradigm”.

And Oxman et al (2009) observe that;

“Research evidence is generally more convincing than haphazard observations because it uses systematic methods to collect and analyse observations. Similarly, well designed and executed research is more convincing than poorly designed and executed research”.

Some other determinants of perceived credible or quality research findings include, the profile of the researcher, how the works is communicated, the context of the research (sector and discipline), and where the research was conducted (scale or “global evidence”) (Askew, Matthews & Partridge, 2002; Oxman et al, 2009).

Policy Making is an act of making decisions for[1] or on behalf of[2]; and that affect a group of people, especially nations; and policy makers are officers charged with this responsibility. Although policy making falls within the domain of the Executive arm of government in most countries, de facto actors may span from global, through national to local levels of social strata.

Other than policy makers in this vertical arrangement, there are actors present in a breadth of relationships, and may include local and international NGOs, bilateral and multilateral donors, Think Tanks, and other Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) that may be unofficially responsible for policy making within the jurisdiction (Askew, Matthews & Partridge, 2002). These organizations may be engaged in activities that have indirect bearing on official policy making.

For example, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) may influence government policy within an LMIC (Lower and Middle Income Country), to either increase or decrease budgetary allocation to health relief by virtue of the organization’s expanded operations within the country.

Evidence Informed Policy Making (EIPM) is therefore the assimilation of research evidence into policy making processes; an activity that requires the possession of primary evidence evaluation skills, information literacy skills, writing and communication skills, and an understanding of the policy process. Concerning this Oxman et al (2009) explained that;

“Evidence-informed policymaking is characterised by the fact that its access and appraisal of evidence as an input into the policymaking process is both systematic and transparent;… and also that policymakers understand the systematic processes used to ensure that relevant research is identified, appraised and used appropriately, as well as the potential uses of such processes”.

From the wide spectrum of policy makers present, it is obvious that there are equally different information needs. For these needs to be adequately satisfied, policy makers and their assistants must possess skills that enable them to satisfy these needs.

The Experience, Reviewing Courses at CSTC

As a prelude to embedding a course in EIPM at the CSTC, there was the need to review all courses offered by the centre. With reference to appropriate documents and agreements, course review tools were developed for an online survey of courses presented at the centre’s website for 2013 and 2014 academic years, and semi-structured interviews of two principal officers of the CSTC.

These two methods were used to provide adequate breadth and depth to data that was collected and to each other in the review exercise. Different sub-themes to the review exercise were explored and these included, background of courses, course contents related to EIPM, course structure, course participants, course sustainability, and training methodology and pedagogy.

A total of sixty one (61) different courses were available for training in 2013 and sixty (60) for the year 2014. Many of such findings were made from statistical evaluations (mean, median, mode, standard deviation, etc) made, and presentations were made in cross-tables and charts. Identified gaps in data gathered from the website informed the design of interview schedules for the second phase of the review exercise.

Appointments were made, and availability was discussed with interviewees. After some adjustments to these schedules, interviews were conducted and lasted for approximately two (2) hours each. These discussions were semi-formal, and allowed for elucidation of misconceptions and gaps that were present after the online course review. The interviews were recorded on electronic audio media, and transcribed with Listen N Write (the free transcription software).

The following key findings were made from the course review exercise undertaken, that;

a.    the CSTC had no specific course on EIPM

b.    at least 50% of the offered courses in 2013 were not delivered due to financial constraints

c.    MDAs (Ministries, Departments and Agencies) were responsible for staff training

d.    most of the courses at CSTC ran for 2 to 3 days

e.    the Head of the Civil Service is a key player in deciding the final call of courses delivered and the priority topics for each year (although informed by the CSTC through needs assessment)

f.     there are four non-exclusive categories of courses (scheme of service, competency-based, induction and promotional)

g.    participants for CSTC courses originate from all the MDAs, the Public Services, and other extra-ministerial organizations in which the Head of Civil Service has presence

h.    participants are categorised into classes (according to job specifications) for training purposes

i.      course completion rate at CSTC is almost a hundred percent (100%)

j.     the introduction of a new course can be a challenge, but once introduced, discontinuation is very rear

k.    there are 12 permanent trainers and a pool of about 55 adjunct trainers

l.      peer reviews activities are organized among trainers

m.  CSTC believes in a Skill Based Approach to training, and adapts a participatory approach to training delivery known as Learner-Centred training

The Conclusion, Looking Forward

Evidence Informed Policy Making (EIPM) is a fast developing multi-discipline, with applications in health, medicine, law enforcement, knowledge management, public administration, and the likes. Due to its approach to development (one that is based on what works) any programme to make EIPM a core aspect of public policymaking processes is likely to enhance efficiency and effectiveness, especially in LMICs.

This short piece delved into the concepts of evidence and policy making, and combined these to provide and understanding of EIPM. The various activities and findings of the course review exercise embarked upon by GINKS at CSTC also featured. Such findings, and a subsequent needs assessment will inform the design of course modules for delivering EIPM training at CSTC.

As GINKS proceed to achieve other milestones of VakaYiko, and in concert with the in-country stakeholders, it is hoped that the impact of “better formulated and implemented policies and processes as a result of increased access, evaluation, scrutiny and use of research evidence” is achieved.

---

[1] An example is a policy made by a multilateral organization such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), or a resolution passed by the United Nations, organizations that are located outside the jurisdiction of a single State. Such policies or resolutions are ‘enforceable’ at national levels by virtue of membership or association.

[2] An example is a Ministry, Department or Agency (MDA) of State such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a district administrator.

 

Knowledge Brokering: the Think Tanks’ Approach and Opportunity to Policy Influence in Ghana

Introduction

Ghana has a long standing history of democracy on the African continent, especially after the country paved way for multi-party democracy in 1992. The state has since undertaken development programmes with the consciousness of, and collaboration from many other stakeholders. Among these stakeholders are Think Tanks, a category of not-for-profit organizations that seek to influence government policy making in diverse range of sectors with the ultimate object of efficiency and effectiveness in delivering development.

Available to Think Tanks are a wide variety of tools, processes and mechanisms with which they influence government policy decisions. Prominent among these methods are publication of surveys and reports, media presence, advocacy, conferences, seminars and meetings.

In the conduct of their activities, Think Tanks have engaged in knowledge brokering in one way or another. This piece therefore seeks to explore the knowledge brokering role of Think Tanks in Ghana, and discuss ways to enhance these activities as Think Tanks seek to continuously influence government policy making.

Knowledge Brokering (the Concept and the practice)

Knowledge brokering is a concept that has been defined as the “use of information-packaging mechanisms and/or interactive knowledge-sharing mechanisms to bridge policy-makers’ and researchers’ contexts” (WHO, 2013). Lomas (2007; cited in Knight, 2013) expands the definition by indicating that knowledge brokering includes all activities that links decision makers with researchers, facilitating their interaction so that they are able to better understand each other’s goals and professional cultures, influence each other’s work, forge new partnerships, and promote the use of research-based evidence in decision-making.

Knowledge brokerage involves processes of translation, coordination, alignment, gate-keeping and representation between perspectives whiles requiring the ability to link practices by facilitating transactions between them (Meyer, 2010; Karner et al, 2011). It is obvious therefore that knowledge brokering is a borderline field/activity that brings together policy makers on one hand, seeking effectiveness of their policies but with limited knowledge summarization skills; and knowledge producers on the other hand, generating evidence that inform the effectiveness but with too much detail for the policy maker.

To this effect the WHO (2013) perceives a knowledge broker as an individual or organization that engages in knowledge brokering activities. Meyer (2010) agrees that knowledge brokers act in three different manners: as knowledge managers, linkage agents (between producers and users of knowledge), or capacity builders (through enhancing access to knowledge); and in doing so, they are involved in a broad range of activities: articulation work, communication work, identification work, mediation work, educational work, and so on.

The activities of a knowledge broker therefore require a variety of tools, such as organizing seminars or meetings, developing databases, and producing plain-language booklets (ibid). This implies that knowledge brokering is a core function of Think Tanks, acknowledged explicitly or not. Think Tanks therefore constitute a segment of knowledge brokers (see Smith and Torres, 2013).

An Overview of Think Tank Knowledge Brokering in Ghana

Think Tanks have been operating in Ghana and many other African countries for many years. Kimenyi and Datta (2011) acknowledge that during the early post-independence years, African governments reconfigured former colonial research institutions to promote growth and development, and invested considerable sums of money in expanding state infrastructure, including research and development (R&D). These activities served as platforms for invigorating research projects that were mostly implemented by academics (intellectuals) for informing policy making.

However, as the political climate became turbulent in the 1960s and 70s, policy making was dominated by ruling parties, particularly presidents or the ‘big man’, with little input from other groups in society. Post-independence African leaders sought primarily to consolidate power and extract economic gains, perceived intellectual criticisms as a challenge to their rule, and reacted by cutting support to intellectual development. African intellectuals therefore turned to civil society for international donor support and thereby provided indirect advice to their governments through research projects undertaken on behalf of the donors (see Kimenyi and Datta, 2011).

With a rich pool of human resources, Think Tanks have increasingly played pivotal roles in the development of the Ghanaian society, especially from the days of structural adjustment. Ohemeng (2005) attributes such great prominence to “the important role they play in the dissemination of ideas [knowledge] and their influence in the policymaking process in general”.

Currently, Ghana boasts of a great number of Think Tanks with prominence over a wide range of socio-economic issues. In fact the Global Go To Think Tank index registered 38 Think Tanks in its 2013 report (Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, 2014). Ghanaian Think Tanks have very broad sphere of influence ranging across parliament, the bureaucracy and the executive.

Moving Forward

In a current vibrant civil society environment in Ghana, Think Tanks have maintained a high profile for policy influence. However notwithstanding their number, these institutions need to step-up efforts in order to expand their influence on government policy making (reflected in global indices). To this end therefore, the following approaches are suggested;

1.    conduct a stock-taking exercise of all knowledge brokering resources within the country

2.    establish a portal for coordinating knowledge  brokering resources among Think Tanks

3.    encourage patronage of the portal through reward systems and indices/ranking

4.    establish standards for knowledge brokering resources produced by Think Tanks

5.    and convene national policy dialogues to discuss coordinated efforts by stakeholders at improving knowledge brokerage

Bibliography

World Health Organization (WHO). 2013. How can knowledge brokering be advanced in a country’s health system? Health Systems and Policy Analysis (BRIDGE series). Policy Brief 17
Knight, C. 2013. Knowledge brokers: the role of intermediaries in producing research impact. Evidence & Policy, Vol 9 (3), pp. 309-16

Meyer, M. 2010. The Rise of the Knowledge Broker. Science Communication, Vol. 32 (1), pp. 118-127

Karner, S., Rohracher, H., Bock, B., Hoekstra, F. & Moschitz, H. 2011. Knowledge Brokerage in Communities of Practice: Synthesis report on literature review [Draft version].

Smith, K.E. & Torres, J. 2013. Think tanks as research mediators? Case studies from public health. Evidence & Policy, Vol 9 (3), pp. 371-90

Kimenyi, M.S. & Datta, A. 2011. Think tanks in sub-Saharan Africa How the political landscape has influenced their origins. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Ohemeng, F.L.K. (2005). Getting the State Right: Think Tanks and the Dissemination of New Public Management Ideas in Ghana. Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 43 (3), pp. 443–465

Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program. 2014. 2013 Global Go To Think Tank Index and Abridged Report. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.