Assessing the research to policy interface in Lao PDR

The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) commissioned the Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF), in partnership with Lao researchers Dr Soytavanh Mienmany and Dr Somphasith Douangsavanh, to undertake an evaluation assessing how and why ACIAR-funded research contributed to policy and development outcomes in relation to fish passages, forest plantations and groundwater irrigation in Laos.

ACIAR is Australia’s specialist international agricultural research for development agency. Its mission is to achieve “more productive and sustainable agricultural systems, for the benefit of developing countries and Australia, through international agricultural research partnerships”.

The evaluation explored

the extent to which selected research in fisheries, forestry and water resource sectors contributed to expected and unintended outcomes
how and why research interfaced with policy-making
the extent to which the research engaged with the gendered dimensions of the context and gendered outcomes of the research
transferrable lessons for future research programs.

The evaluation team took a collaborative approach, working together on evaluation design; document review; the development of retrospective theories of change for each body of research; key informant interviews with ACIAR staff and researchers from Australia and a broad range of research users in Laos; workshops in Australia and Laos; joint analysis; and development of reports, briefs, articles, presentations and a video.

The evaluation team used three frameworks to guide the evaluation. Research Contribution Framework supported the evaluation team to identify the specific processes of engagement that enabled research users to become aware of, learn from and utilise to change policies and practices. Combining this with Boswell and Smith’s four models of research-policy relations supported evaluators and evaluation users to think critically about the role of research in policy-making, moving beyond assumptions that evidence directly shapes policy.

The diagram below shows the key outcomes of the three bodies of research:

Assessing the research to policy interface in Lao PDR diagram

The team also used Gender at Work (Rao and Kelleher, 2010) to identify and analyse gendered dimensions of the research. Project stakeholders recognised that there were very significant gendered dimensions in the contexts in which they were working, however most projects did not incorporate formal gender analysis or planning to promote gender equity, disability and social inclusion through the research, and there was little evidence of substantial gendered outcomes resulting from the research.

The evaluation found that the following key factors contributed to ACIAR research interfacing with policy-making:

long-term investment in the research activities (10+ years)
the employment of researchers who were highly knowledgeable, connected, trusted, had diverse skillsets and a long-term or continual presence in Laos
similar or the same framing of the research ‘problem’ amongst researchers, research users and policy-makers, established through strong formal and informal context analysis
effective and respectful partnership practices between Australian and Lao researchers, and local leadership of researchers who became policy champions
the planning and implementation of diverse, purposive and ongoing methods of engagement between researchers and a wide variety of research users, including both formal and informal engagements that facilitated the production of knowledge of science, practice and social values.

The combination of these factors enabled the development of robust evidence, trusting relationships, systemic capacity strengthening amongst a range of institutions, and the windows of opportunity that were required for research to interface with policy-making.

Dr Soytavanh Mienmany:

In the past, I joined the evaluation of several projects and mainly I was the data collector. Before joining this evaluation, I didn't understand project design at all. I only knew the part that I contribute, that's it.

But this time I was thinking that, I don't want to be this data collector. Is this okay? I want to learn how to analyse data and parts of the report, and communicate the research after the report is done.

Dr Somphasith Douangsavanh:

In terms of a collaborative research process, I would say this went really well as we met locally to plan things together, and we made it super-clear by allocating a specific task for each team member to make sure we hit the target.

Bethany Davies:

Both the Lao government and ACIAR were really interested in understanding what worked effectively in that relationship between science and policy.

So they were really interested in understanding how to improve the way that they use science in the management of key sectors in their development planning. And ACIAR really wanted to know how we can most effectively work in partner systems to support them to do that.

So in that way, there was really an equal, investment in conducting the evaluation. To reflect that, we also wanted to make sure that the evaluation team was led both from Australia and from Lao.

So I think the team did a really excellent job of building a collegial relationship with the team in Lao, and making sure that they felt empowered and enabled to engage as equal partners in the evaluation. So that was possible because they were on board from the very beginning of the design stages.

Jessie Meaney-Davis:

So it was really helpful in the beginning that Soy and Somphasith were really clear about what their expectations were of the evaluation and what they wanted to learn and what they wanted to contribute.

So we were really deliberate about the way we planned all of the processes and really allowed enough space for everyone to say what they did want to contribute to, what they didn't feel so comfortable contributing to, where they really wanted to take the lead on something so that everyone had that open space to decide how they wanted to contribute.

Dr Soytavanh Mienmany:

Knowing the framework is very important to understanding what is going to be in the report, how to analyse that. Yeah, and the main important part, this project was allowed a local lead.

It is very comfortable for me that it's a journey of learning and sharing. So I would feel like the leader in the team was not on the top all the time, knowing everything, but was open to discussion valuing my contribution and my skill, my capacity.

Dr Keren Winterford:

We work in a way always, which prioritises inclusion and the unique contribution of national consultants. So we always work as equals.

We always involve our national consultants in all parts of evaluation or research activity. And it's really about us co-producing the work together. We're all one team. And we seek to ensure that each individual has the best opportunities through an evaluation for their own professional and personal learning and growth.

And so that it's a positive experience, both for themselves but also for our clients or our partners who are working with and delivering really good learning outcomes, such that they can use that information and evidence to improve, development programming in the future.

Dr Soytavanh Mienmany:

This is one of my best experience of working as a foreign team – a Lao team – and sharing my knowledge about the Lao context, where some international development team may not know about that.

Dr Somphasith Douangsavanh:

We learn a lot and we can improve from this evaluation. Thank you.

Return to this page to access the latest reports, articles, events from this evaluation.

RESEARCH OUTPUTS

Assessing the research to policy interface in Laos (Report) (2024)

International Collaboration for Research Impact (Video) (2023)

ISF and ACIAR Research to Policy in Laos (Video) (2023)