GDNet M&E Report 2012–Year 1

GDNet M&E Report 2012 – Year 1
Robbie Gregorowski and Jodie Dubber
July 2012

1
Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
GDNet Year 1 M&E Summary.....................................................................................................3
Purpose Level - Diverse research and policy audiences make better use of development
research from the global south..................................................................................................6
Output 1 - Southern research better informed by current ideas and knowledge ..................11
Output 2 - Researchers better able to communicate their research to policy........................15
Output 3 - Knowledge networking between researchers and with policy actors increased...20
Output 4 - Lessons about knowledge brokering best practice in the global south learnt and
communicated..........................................................................................................................39

2
Introduction
This document provides the annual progress report (Year 1) and update to GDNet’s Baseline and M&E
Framework. The document is structured according to the GDNet logframe – with separate chapters from the
Purpose-level down through Outputs 1 to 5. An additional chapter focusses on Value for Money (VfM) as a
requirement of the DFID Annual Review process. Each Chapter is structured as follows:
 Year 1 summary – A clear summary statement of progress for each output indicator for comparison
against the baseline and the relevant milestone. The statement is followed by a more detailed
elaboration of the year 1 M&E data generated and an analysis of its implications.
 M&E approach summary – A very brief explanation of the approach and method adopted to generate
the data for each output indicator. Readers should refer to the 2011 GDNet Baseline and M&E
Framework for a more detailed account of how the M&E framework was designed and the methods
adopted.
 Data management plan – Setting out the on-going M&E roles and responsibilities within the GDNet
team.
 Evidence base – Providing detailed summaries of the relevant data used to support each output
indicator – typically web statistics, web users survey, log templates, and interviews.
Unless otherwise stated, Year 1 refers to the period January 2011 to December 2011. The GDNet M&E baseline
was established in December 2010 and reports against an annual reporting cycle according to the calendar year
January to December as follows:
Logframe M&E Framework
Baseline Baseline – est. December 2010
Milestone 1 (2011) Year 1 – January to December 2011
Milestone 2 (2012) Year 2 – January to December 2012
Target (2014) Year 3 – January to December 2013 with
the potential to extend to July 2014 to
cover GDNet Programme completion
.

3
GDNet Year 1 M&E Summary
Purpose Diverse research and policy audiences make better use of development research from the global south
Indicator 1 Southern researchers use of other southern research in own research
Baseline Significant use of Southern research in Southern researchers’ own research - 64% of GDNet researchers use Southern research to a great or
moderate extent and GDNet’s most popular KB publications on average draw on research which is 40% from the global south and 60% from
elsewhere
Year 1 Significant use of Southern research in Southern researchers’ own research – 64% of respondents use Southern research to a great or
moderate extent.
GDNet Ownership  Sherine Ghoneim Tools &
Frequency
 GDNet users web survey - annual
 Bibliometric sampling exercise –citation analysis - annual
Indicator 2 Cases of knowledge into use in policy processes
Baseline Eight cases of knowledge into use in the policy process selected, developed and validated by GDNet registered researchers
Year 1 Eight new cases of knowledge into use in the policy process selected, developed and validated by GDNet registered researchers. 12-months
follow up conducted with previous set of eight baselines cases.
GDNet Ownership  Sherine Ghoneim Tools &
Frequency
 GDNet users annual web survey – case identification - annual
 Awards & Medals Finalists Most Significant Change Technique – case selection
 Informal case study telephone interview – case development and validation
Output 1 Southern research better informed by current ideas and knowledge
Indicator 1 Level of use of, and satisfaction with GDNet research-orientated online services
Baseline High general use – an average of 23,617 visitors (33% from Global South) resulting in 8,359 recipients of Funding Opportunities newsletter,
and 1144 JSTOR sessions to access online journals. Moderate satisfaction– Knowledgebase online papers rated extremely useful by 38% and
moderately useful by a further 32% of respondents to the GDNet users’ web survey. Access to online journals rated extremely useful by 41%
and moderately useful by a further 29% of respondents
Year 1 Significant increase in headline level of use on the baseline, with the GDNet website receiving an average of 29,416 visitors per month with
39% coming from the Global South. Level of satisfaction is broadly maintained whilst noting a high proportion of users remain unaware of
the suite of recently launched ‘Web 2.0’ services offered by GDNet. GDNet users seem satisfied with the services provided by GDNet.
GDNet Ownership  Shahira Emara Tools &
Frequency
 GDNet web statistics – collected quarterly & analysed annually

4
Indicator 2 Level of use of, and satisfaction with themed services
Baseline Themed services not yet established
Year 1 GDNet piloted a beta version of 11 themed services on 13 July 2011, over half way through the Year 1 period under review, and launched the
full set of 23 themed services on 11 November 2011. It is therefore too early to fully assess the level of use and satisfaction with the services.
GDNet Ownership  Shahira Emara Tools &
Frequency
 GDNet web statistics – collected quarterly & analysed annually
Output 2 Researchers better able to communicate their research to policy
Indicator 1 Researchers’ confidence and ability to communicate their research – immediately following capacity building effort
Baseline On a self-assessment scale where 0 = not at all confident and 5 = very confident, the average GDNet researcher is moderately confident (2.8
out of 5) to communicate their research to policy before any training/capacity building has been provided by GDNet.
Year 1 On a ‘before and after’ self-assessment scale (where 0 = not at all confident and 5 = very confident to communicate their research to policy),
the average capacity building participant increases from 2.6 before to 3.9 (a 50% increase) after a GDNet capacity building effort. Similarly
in terms of ability, the average participant increases in ability from 1.8 before to 3.4 (an 89% increase) afterwards.
GDNet Ownership  Zeinab Sabet Tools &
Frequency
 Research communications capacity building questionnaire – per event
Indicator 2 Researchers’ confidence and ability to communicate their research – sustainability of capacity building effort
Baseline First set of cases of researchers’ ability to communicate their research to policy being developed.
Year 1 First set of nine ‘pledge’ cases developed from GDNet workshops 3-6 held during Year 1 indicating the sustainability and application of
GDNet’s capacity building effort.
GDNet Ownership  Zeinab Sabet Tools &
Frequency
 Research communications capacity building questionnaire – cases developed
from 3-month pledge follow up
 12-month pledge follow up (introduced in Year 1) in process
Output 3 Knowledge networking between researchers and with policy actors increased
Indicator 1 GDNet ‘user base’ interaction
Baseline Very limited ‘user base’ interaction – online collaborative workspace piloted
Year 1 GDNet have actively engaged with their ‘user base’ throughout Year 1, employing a wide range of communications products and activities
(blogging, setting up community groups, using social media such as Twitter, producing electronic newsletters etc.) to generate a range of
results and lessons.
GDNet Ownership  Zeinab Sabet / Sherine Ghoneim Tools &  User base interaction log – on-going / following each round of interaction

5
Frequency
Indicator 2 Researchers interactions with the policy domain
Baseline Very limited interaction – GDNet facilitation of researchers interactions with the policy domain not yet established
Year 1 During Year 1 GDNet have facilitated four distinct interactions between Southern researchers and the policy domain. This experience has
generated a small number of valid lessons including the requirement for GDNet to actively ‘host’ any researcher – policy domain interaction
in order to introduce both parties and encourage interaction based on common interest.
GDNet Ownership  Zeinab Sabet / Sherine Ghoneim Tools &
Frequency
 Interaction log - on-going / following each round of interaction
Output 4 Lessons about knowledge brokering best practice in the global south learnt and communicated
Indicator 1 Generation of best practice lessons
Baseline Generation of best practice lessons not yet established
Year 1 GDNet routinely log and reflect on knowledge brokering best practice in order to generate lessons.
GDNet Ownership  Sherine Ghoneim / Shahira Emara Tools &
Frequency
 Capacity building event reflection – on-going / following each knowledge
brokering expert involvement
 Synthesis of event reflection best practice - annual
Indicator 2 Communication of lessons
Baseline Communication of best practice lessons not yet established
Year 1 GDNet has undertaken four distinct best practice communications activities during Year 1. Of particular note was a combined paper and
blog entry on ‘Are southern academics virtually connected?’ which was picked up by The Guardian newspaper in the UK.
Frequency
 Inventory log of communications activities - on-going / following each round of
communication
Indicator 3 Instances of GDNet incorporating new thinking or innovation into its practices as a result of participation in knowledge brokering fora
Baseline No instances of GDNet incorporating new thinking or innovation into its practices as a result of participation in knowledge brokering fora
Year 1 Output 4 Indicator 3 was introduced following the GDNet DFID Annual Review in May 2012 and consequently was not reported against in
the Year 1 M&E process
Frequency
 Inventory / log of incorporating new thinking or innovation into GDNet practices

6
Purpose Level - Diverse research and policy audiences make better
use of development research from the global south
Indicator 1 - Southern researchers’ use of other southern research in own research
Year 1 summary – Significant use of Southern research in Southern researchers’ own research – 64% of
respondents use Southern research to a great or moderate extent.
GDNet user base web survey results – Surveyed using the same format as the baseline year, a number of
questions in the web survey provide an indication of the level of use of Southern research. Further details on
the responses to the web survey are provided in Annex 2. Asked to what extent Southern researchers use
Southern research in their own work, 64% of respondents claimed that Southern research was used to a great
or moderate extent (See Annex 2 question 23). This is precisely the same percentage figure as the baseline.
When asked to describe the type of research that they read, the most common response researchers gave is
that they do not distinguish between Northern and Southern research (32%) (See Annex 2 question 24).
However, the next biggest group (28%) believe they read more Northern than Southern research, followed by
27% who believe they read the same amount of Southern and Northern research. These results are very
similar to the baseline year as would be expected as any transition in the use of Southern research will be slow
and dependent on multiple exogenous factors.
As with the baseline, what emerges from the results of the web survey is a nuanced picture of use – significant
use of Southern research by Southern researchers but perhaps no more significant than their use of Northern
research. The web survey again provided a number of interesting insights into the nature and perceptions of
Southern research by Southern users and how they tend to combine use of Northern and Southern research in
a complementary manner (See Annex 2 question 24). The following responses illustrate this:
“A good part of "southern research" is of very low quality, although some of it is top-notch quality. I therefore
find most useful to read mainly "northern research" and the best southern research I can find.”
“Academic research on subjective wellbeing (my current area of interest) is predominantly produced in Northern
academic/research organizations and CSO/think tanks.”
“Because there is little research by southern researchers that is published in internationally ranked journals I
naturally tend to favour Northern research.”
These responses hint at a potentially important niche for GDNet to consider and for which it may be well suited
– raising the profile of the best Southern research so that it is perceived as on a par with Northern research in
terms of quality. To a certain extent GDNet already does this through its tagline to ‘showcase’ Southern
research but it is not clear that GDNet’s remit covers an explicit focus on raising perceptions of quality in order
to increase use.
M&E approach summary
Purpose level indicator 1 draws on perceptions of use of Southern research gathered from the annual GDNet
users web survey. The experimental citation analysis exercise undertaken for the baseline was not repeated in
Year 1 as it was felt it would not produce any more meaningful results. It may be repeated in Year 3.
Data management plan
Robbie Gregorowski / ITAD
 On an annual basis – Repeat analysis of the annual GDNet user base web survey.
Sherine Ghoneim / GDNet
 On-going – Interpretation of the findings of the annual GDNet user base web survey and application to
better understand and improve the services GDNet offers

7
Evidence base
See Annex 1 for the GDNet user base web survey questionnaire.
See Annex 2 for a summary of the results of the Year 1 GDNet user base web survey.

8
Indicator 2 - Cases of knowledge into use in policy processes
Year 1 summary – Eight new cases of knowledge into use in the policy process selected, developed and validated by GDNet registered researchers. 12-months follow up
conducted with previous set of eight baselines cases.
Brigitte Nyambo, Ethiopia, Agriculture
Subject: Integrated Pest Management Technology (IPM).
Context: To influence bio-control policy in Ethiopia.
Impact: Wherever the parasitoid was piloted, the pesticide
application was reduced by around 75%. In other words,
“for every $ spent, there is a cost benefit rate of 1 to
26”.Policy Influencing Factor: The involvement of a
multidisciplinary team, which included researchers, special
workers, farmers, donors and other development partners
GDNet Researchers- Cases
of Knowledge into Use in
Policy Processes – Year 1
Cecil Agutu, Kenya, Agriculture
Subject: The formulation of national laws and government
policy in the sugar sub-sector in Kenya. Context: Research aim
to advocate for new reforms towards the revival and better
management of the sugar sub-sector. Impact: Farmers’ rights
are now preserved: they have to be paid within 30 days of
delivery, or else they are paid at the market rate. Policy
Influencing Factor: Identifying the audience first before
choosing the communication channel to use is very important.
Constancio Nguja, Mozambique, Good governance
Subject: Advocacy on key issues for civil society. Context:
Mozambique students were advocating for improved student
rights for students studying in South Sudan. Impact: Public
debate on the issue of student rights Policy Influencing Factor:
The use of robust evidence and sound knowledge based on
Southern research plays a key role in the legitimacy of the
process.
Waweru Mwangi, Kenya, Innovative banking
Subject: Use of a card-less ATM systems for personal
banking Context: Using bio-authentication to increase
access to ATMS Impact: The National Planning Council of
Kenya are in discussions with a view to launching a card-
less ATM model for initial trials Policy Influencing Factor:
The subject of the research is high-profile and of
importance to a growing proportion of the population;
20% of Kenyans are currently involved in banking, and
banking and security are issues of national importance.
Hasina Kharbhih, India, Child labour rights
Subject: Child labour in rat hole coal mining in India Context: To
explore the nature of the work the children undertake in these
informal and unregulated mines Impact: The UN Special
Rapporteur on Human Trafficking questioned the governments
of India, Nepal and Bangladesh on the use of child labour in coal
mines. Policy Influencing Factor: A critical lesson is that it is
important to generate and use a form of evidence that
substantiates the research – the use of photo and video to
support data generated in interviews.
Francesco Pastore, Labour, Mongolia
Subject: Mongolian youth education and employment
Context: More than half of the population of Mongolia is
under 24 years old, and more than a quarter of this group are
unemployed. Impact: A series of policy tools were proposed
to the government of Mongolia following the research. Policy
Influencing Factor: A key lesson is the involvement of
international organizations, such as the ILO and UNESCO and
their ability to interact with the government, which is far
greater than that of academic researchers
Davidson Omole, Nigeria, Finance & economics
Subject: Performance of the Nigerian stock exchange
Context: To understand some of the reasons for the lack of
performance since 1960 Impact: In line with some of the
findings and those of others, a second-tier securities
exchange market was introduced in Nigeria. Policy
Influencing Factor: The research was part-funded by the
AERC, who helped to publicize it through the AERC
conference
Martin Oteng-Ababio, Ghana, Waste management
Subject: Electronic waste management services in Ghana
Context: Appropriate regulation for e-waste management
Impact: The research has provided a robust evidence base
around which to engage and encourage the government to
create an enabling environment for e-waste recycling. Policy
Influencing Factor: The research offered government planners
and policy makers potentially innovative solutions to what had
previously been viewed as a hazardous informal activity.

9
The Year 1 case selection process has resulted in the 8 rigorous, robust and representative cases of knowledge
into use in the policy process. Each case has been summarised on the map above and briefly written up in full
in Annex 5. Based on a rapid synthesis of the eight cases developed in year 1, it is possible to extract a number
of interesting policy influencing factors as well as a number of suggestions as to how GDNet’s role and
contribution in supporting Southern research could be further enhanced:
Policy influencing factors
 Several of the themes which became the subject of the research in cases identified had very little in
the way of a prior robust, empirical research or evidence-base. In this regard a number of the cases
(for example, case 1 on e-waste regulation in Ghana) were particularly influential with policy makers
because the provided them with the evidence upon which to base their policy. This characteristic of
‘direct applicability’ may be one of the features of Southern research in comparison more ‘traditional’
European and North America-style research, presenting opportunities for researchers to actively
collaborate with policy makers in better understanding priority themes and contexts as well as
providing the evidence base for more effective planning and policy.
 A similar factor which perhaps distinguishes Southern research as being more innovative than more
traditional forms of research relates to the form and use of evidence. The case on children engaged in
rat hole mining in the coal mines of Jaintia Hills District, India demonstrated that successful policy
influence came about only through the use of documentary evidence (photos and video footage) as
well as more traditional research findings from child interviews etc. This allowed the team to engage
not just Indian policy-makers but also the media and international human rights organisations.
 A number of the cases indicate that Southern researchers are particularly adept at translating their
research findings into formats appropriate the meeting the needs of multiple stakeholder and
audience groups. For example, case 7 on the formulation of national laws and government policy in
the sugar sub-sector in Kenya, employed a wider range of format and channels to disseminate the
research findings to farmers (as primary stakeholders) as well as to local and national policy makers.
GDNet’s role and contribution
 Pointing Southern researchers in the direction of themes and contexts which require a better
evidence-based understanding and solutions may be a future role for GDNet. More directly, GDNet
can play a simple but critical role in sharing innovative research, connecting researchers in one region
or country with other researchers so that knowledge and learning in one context can effectively be
transferred and replicated in similar contexts elsewhere.
 The use of evidence in the most appropriate format – using photos and videos combined with more
formal research techniques such as surveys and interviews - is one of the areas where Southern
research can be considered more effective and advanced than more traditional Western research –
Southern research is better at bringing in innovative technology such as the use of visual and social
media to generate more substantial impact. There is a potential role for GDNet in sharing the lessons
and experience of how best to combine the two forms of research as well as potentially providing
training in the use of more innovative research and documentation techniques for Southern
researchers – building the capacity of Southern researchers to present their research in the most
appropriate format for a particular stakeholder audience.
 Overall, the case selection process has identified that GDNet engages a wealth of innovative, informed
and highly motivated researchers. The simple process of producing the cases has provided a
showcase for a number of these researchers. GDNet could use the on-going case selection process to
provide a platform expressing GDNet’s lessons and learning on the key success factors in producing
effective, policy-influencing work – this would both help raise the profile of innovativeness of
Southern research (something that more traditional Western research may learn from) and help bring
the lessons and success stories to a wider audience.
M&E approach summary

10
The aim for this indicator is to develop a robust and credible portfolio of cases of knowledge into use on a year
on year basis – updating progress with existing cases and developing new ones. The process for developing
new cases involves 3 stages which are repeated annually:
 Stage 1 – Case identification from GDNet Registered Researchers - A broad number of ‘cases’ (approx.
35-50) are identified from responses to the annual GDNet user base web survey.
 Stage 2 – Most significant selection and validation panels – Engaging a group of GDN A&M Finalists at
the GDN Annual Conference which is held in Budapest in June 2012 to review and select the ‘most
significant’ cases. The A&M Finalists panel is followed by a second panel of GDNet key stakeholders
including GDNet staff and independent research communications experts to further review and select
the most significant cases down to a shortlist of 8-10 cases.
 Stage 3 – Development and Validation of Most Significant Cases - The authors of the 8-10 selected
cases are contacted by the ITAD consultant and each invited to an informal telephone interview to
discuss and develop their case in more detail.
 On an annual basis – Facilitation of the case selection process and development of new cases.
Zeinab Sabet / GDNet
 On-going – more detailed case follow-up and lesson learning if required.
Sherine Ghoneim / GDNet
 On-going – Extraction and synthesis of lessons to enhance GDNet’s role and contribution.
Evidence base
A detailed explanation of the process designed to identify the cases can be found in the Baseline and M&E
Framework report.
 Annex 3 provides the long-list of cases gained from the web survey.
 Annex 5 provides the full write ups of the new cases developed in Year 1.
 Annex 6 provides the updates and revalidated write ups of the existing 8 baselines cases.

11
Output 1 - Southern research better informed by current ideas and
knowledge
Indicator 1 - Level of use of and satisfaction with GDNet research-orientated online
services
Year 1 summary – Significant increase in headline level of use on the baseline, with the GDNet website
receiving an average of 29,416 visitors per month with 39% coming from the Global South. Level of
satisfaction is broadly maintained whilst noting a high proportion of users remain unaware of the suite of
recently launched ‘Web 2.0’ services offered by GDNet. GDNet users seem satisfied with the services
provided by GDNet.
Summarised below are the key web statistics currently generated on the use of GDNet online services,
averaged for Year 1 – January to December 2011.
2011
GDNet Monthly Web
Statistics Report
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average
Total no. of Hits 92,099 133,708 120,433 95,304 163,515 112,291 148,691 159,240 180,052 114,390 111,068 141,016 130,984
Total no. of Visits 20,517 19,813 22,267 25,510 35,598 41,475 71,110 64,016 74,505 42,414 42,815 35,850 41,324
Total no. of Visitors 25,149 20,869 26,183 26,142 29,346 32,426 28,166 29,384 36,971 30,305 36,259 31,792 29,416
% of Visitors from Global
South
40.40% 39.28% 40.34% 40.87% 39.24% 42.02% 41.17% 41.73% 38.35% 33.81% 34.17% 34.83% 38.85%
Total Recipients 15,630 15,668 15,725 15,751 15,787 15,809 15,867 15,942 16,008 16,051 16,104 16,159
No. of new
recipients/month
81 38 57 26 36 22 58 75 66 43 53 55 50.83
Total Recipients 8,191 8,222 8,275 8,298 8,328 8,347 8,396 8,464 8,522 8,556 8,602 8,649
No. of new
recipients/month
53 31 53 23 30 19 49 68 58 34 46 47 42.58
Total researcher profiles 11,759 11,797 11,854 11,880 11,916 11,938 11,996 12,081 12,147 12,190 12,243 12,300
No. of new researcher
profiles/month
94 38 57 26 36 22 58 85 66 43 53 57 52.92
% researchers with
research papers
13.25% 13.21% 13.17% 13.15% 13.11% 13.08% 13.02% 12.93% 12.86% 12.81% 12.76% 12.71%
Total organisation
profiles
4616 4633 4655 4661 4693 4707 4709 4742 4744 4750 4754 4794
No. of new organisation
profiles/month
0 17 22 6 32 14 2 33 2 6 4 40 14.83
Total no of online
research papers
16,786 16,886 17,024 17,099 17,197 17,234 17,264 17,438 17,468 17,563 17,634 17,764
No. of new online
research papers/month
16 100 138 75 98 37 30 174 30 95 71 130 82.83
Number of researchers
accessing online journals
121 118 142 144 139 98 58 81 95 97 88 73 104.50
Total document
downloads from KB
3,781 3,403 11,673 10,927 23,493 7,697 21,009 23,352 12,723 8,415 7,457 9,739 11,972
Access to online journals - No. of JSTOR sessions/month
Document Downloads from Knowledgebase
Research in Focus newsletter
Funding Opportunities newsletter
Researcher Profiles
Organisation Profiles
Online research papers
Level of use – The level of use of GDNet’s research-orientated online services has significantly increased in Year
1 compared to the figures established at the baseline. At the headline level GDNet receives an average of
29,416 visitors per month with 39% coming from the Global South
1
. This represents a noticeable increase on
the baseline figures of 23,617 visitors per month with 33% from the Global South. The recipients of GDN
Newsletters continue to steadily increase: an average of 51 new recipients per month receive the Research into
Focus newsletter (16, 159 total recipients in December 2011), and an average of 42 new recipients receive the
Funding Opportunities newsletter (8,649 total recipients in December 2011).
1
Established from users’ IP addresses.

12
The webstats also highlight a number of potentially positive increases in the level of use – most noticeably the
increase (with considerable fluctuation) in the number of document downloads from the KnowledgeBase.
Document downloads averaged approximately 4,000 per month at the baseline. Smoothing the data over the
12 months in Year 1, the average monthly total document download figure has increased to a 11,900 per
month. This is very positive for GDNet but may require close monitoring in order to explain and attribute any
sudden increases in downloads throughout the year.
Further insights into the level of use of GDNet’s online services are provided from the web survey.
Interestingly and positively for GDNet, almost a fifth (19%) of survey respondents indicated that they had
registered with GDNet during 2011 (Year 1). This represents a significant proportion of GDNet’s expanding
user base as new users. However, the story is nuanced in that 18% of respondents stated that they access
GDNet on average once a week. This is down from 26.9% accessing the site once a week for the baseline. In
line with the baseline findings, there does not seem to be a single stand out service that attracts GDNet’s users.
Rather, accessing the KnowledgeBase online papers, accessing online journals, and receiving the GDN
Newsletters remain the three main and evenly split motivations.
Quality of use (developing a core of ‘involved’ users and focussing on their uptake of knowledge) is harder to
assess although it remains a priority of GDNet under the Year 1 strategy. Rather like the web survey findings
on the level of use, the picturing on quality is nuanced. Behaviour that may be considered reflective of
involved, quality use of GDNet, such as researchers regularly updating their profiles, seems to have dropped
since the baseline – where as 36.7% of respondents had never updated their profiles in the baseline user base
survey, this figure has risen to 51.3% in Year 1. However, much more positively for GDNet, and perhaps more
significant in terms of quality of use, almost a third of respondents (30.1%) now have their research featured
on GDNet. This represents a 10% increase under Year 1 compared to the baseline figure of 20%.
GDNet will continue to focus attention on quality as well as level of use and during the next year. The M&E and
Social Marketing experts will work with the GDNet team to develop a small set of indicators for users who
attain key ‘quality’ usage goals such as the % of users who:
 view a profile (researcher or organisation);
 click on ‘featured’ content;
 download a document;
 and/or conduct a search on the site.
Level of satisfaction – Satisfaction with GDNet’s research orientated online services is assessed based on the
web survey findings. In line with the baseline findings, GDNet users seem satisfied with the services provided
by GDNet. The KnowledgeBase online papers rated extremely useful by 36.2% and moderately useful by 28.2%
- this represents a very slight decrease in satisfaction on the baseline but still represents a high level of
satisfaction. The most useful services and the level of user satisfaction remains broadly in line with the results
generated for the baseline. Other services rated as extremely useful include:
 Funding Opportunities newsletter (37%)
 Accessing the online journals (42%)
The web survey results also highlight two further issues where GDNet may want to dedicate further attention.
First, a number of services were less highly rated by survey respondents. Amongst GDNet’s ‘core’ services, the
KnowledgeBase researcher and organisational profiles and Regional Window portals are deemed to be
moderately and somewhat useful by the majority of users. Similarly, the majority of GDNet’s newer ‘Web 2.0’
tools (GDNet’s feeds, YouTube channel, Twitter, and Community Groups) are considered only somewhat useful
by between a fifth and a quarter or respondents. There are two likely explanations for this:
 The services are target at specific groups of Southern researchers with particular knowledge needs
rather than the broad group of GDNet’s Registered Researchers who are invited to respond to the
survey.
 As recently introduced services (the GDNet’s feeds, YouTube channel, Twitter, and Community Groups
were all rolled out and piloted during Year 1), existing users may not yet be aware of the services and
consequently haven’t yet had the chance to appreciate them.

13
Second, GDNet may wish to dedicate resources during Year 2 to marketing and increasing the ‘visibility’ of a
range of its newly launched core services. The web survey revealed that there are 6 core services for which at
least a quarter of users are unaware, and two services where the unawareness rate is over 40%:
 GDNet Regional Window Portals – 25.2% unaware of service
 Thematic Windows – 26.9% unaware of service
 GDNet Feeds (RSS or email) – 26.1% unaware of service
 GDNet YouTube channel – 42.3% unaware of service
 GDNet Twitter – 43.3% unaware of service
 GDNet Community Groups – 23.4% unaware of service
There are a small number of anomalies between the webstats and the web survey, highlighting some issues
that require further interrogation and explanation by GDNet:
 For example, the webstats for July indicate a very low number of researchers accessing online journals
(58 visitors) despite researchers’ expression of interest in accessing online journals as a key incentive.
It would be useful to get more details of number of downloads from these services in comparison to
the total of 21,000 document downloads from GDNet KnowledgeBase (KB) to identify means of
extending research outreach and uptake. One possible explanation for this apparent anomaly may be
that GDNet users may not distinguish between accessing documents through free access to online
journals and accessing documents through the KB. GDNet should further investigate the total
downloads from online journal access in comparison to the 21,000 document downloads from the KB
if this distinction on source of downloads is feasible.
 Since the programme was conceived there has been a big change in policies on open access (most
recently the World Bank and the Welcome Trust both launched open access policies; JSTOR has
opened free access to Africa, but now restricts some access to India and Pakistan). Visitors to GDNet
from the Global South are just less than 40%, yet the main target audience for GDNet is the Global
South audience. This has a number of implications:
o GDNet should be more explicit about how the web stats identifying visitors from the Global
South are defined and generated.
o In terms of increasing visitors and users from the Global South, which the Connect South
campaign is looking to do, some further triangulation between the web stats and web survey
is required. The next round of the web survey scheduled for December 2012 should include
some specific Global South user profiling and needs questions get a better understanding of
the user profiles and requirements to tailor knowledge products such as ‘how to guides’ or
‘search skills’ to facilitate access to journals.
o Finally, the apparent low usage of access to the online journals may be attributable to lack
awareness of the service and low visibility on the GDNet site. It may prove useful to provide
enhanced sign posting to facilitate access to free online journals and to guide researchers
through further development of information literacy guides.
M&E approach
The M&E of the level of use of, and satisfaction with research-orientated online services will combines GDNet’s
monthly web statistics with data generated from the annual GDNet user base web survey.
Karim Sohr
 Design, testing and monthly production of standardised GDNet web statistics report.
Shahira Emara
 Monthly collection and quality assurance of web statistics
Robbie Gregorowski
 On an annual basis – assess level of use of research-orientated online services over previous 12
months through analysis of web statistics and through the annual GDNet users web survey, and report
on findings against baseline and lesson learnt to GDNet.
Evidence base

14
A detailed explanation of the process used to generate the web statistics and GDNet user base web survey can
be found in the Baseline and M&E Framework report.
 Annex 4 provides an analysis of the web statistics generated in Year 1.
Indicator 2 - Level of use of and satisfaction with themed services
Year 1 summary – GDNet piloted a beta version of 11 themed services on 13 July 2011, over half way through
the Year 1 period under review, and launched the full set of 23 themed services on 11 November 2011. It is
therefore too early to fully assess the level of use and satisfaction with the services.
GDNet piloted a beta version of 11 themed services on 13 July 2011, over half way through the Year 1 period
under review, and launched the full set of 23 themed services on 11 November 2011. It is therefore too early
to fully assess the level of use and satisfaction with the services, particularly as to ‘Launch and pilot test
themed services’ is a key GDNet milestone to achieve during 2012. As mentioned above, the web survey
highlights the need for GDNet to proactively market the themed services as a new service as 26.9% of the web
survey respondents were unaware of the service.
M&E approach
Level of use themed services will be properly monitored and assessed in Year 2 using web usage statistics.
Web statistics are likely to include:
 Number of RSS sign-ups to each thematic micro-site (feasibility to be further discussed with GDNet)
 Frequency of micro-site usage – likely to be defined in terms of the number of micro-site hits and
proportion of hits from the Global South
 Numbers of recipients of thematic bulletin emails
 Quality of micro-site usage – Participants entering into online discussion, submitting content to micro-
site (feasibility to be further discussed with GDNet following first micro-site launch anticipated by the
end of 2012)
Satisfaction with themed services will be assessed through the annual GDNet users web survey, also in Year 2.
This will assess overall satisfaction with themed services from the general population of GDNet users.
Shahira Emara
 Day-to-day – management and facilitation of themed services including generating web statistics on
the level of use (reporting monthly but analysed quarterly).
Robbie Gregorowski
 On an annual basis - assess thematic service satisfaction through the annual GDNet users web survey
as well as designing short web survey targeted at thematic micro-site users
Evidence base
To be defined in the Year 2 round of M&E activities.

15
Output 2 - Researchers better able to communicate their research to
policy
Indicator 1 – Researchers’ confidence and ability to communicate their research –
immediately following capacity building effort
Year 1 summary – On a ‘before and after’ self-assessment scale where 0 = not at all confident and 5 = very
confident to communicate their research to policy, the average capacity building participant increases from
2.6 before to 3.9 after a GDNet capacity building effort. Similarly in terms of ability, the average participant
increases in ability from 1.8 before to 3.4 afterwards.
A summary of the ‘before and after’ confidence and ability scores generated across the four research
communications capacity building events conducted by GDNet during Year 1 is provided below:
Workshop 3 GDNet-AERC Research Communications Policy Workshop
24-26 May 2011 Nairobi, Kenya
Average before Average after Average increase
Confidence 2.9 4.3 1.4
Ability 3.0 4.2 1.2
Workshop 4 GDNet-TrustAfrica Policy Workshop
7-8 June, 2011 Kampala, Uganda
Ability 2.5 3.5 1.0
Workshop 5 PEM Research Communications Workshop
10-11 October, 2011 New-Delhi, India
Ability 1.8 2.8 1.0
Workshop 6 GDNet-AERC Policy Brief Training Workshop
December 1-2, 2011 Nairobi, Kenya
Ability 1.7 3.1 1.4
Overall these results produce average before and after confidence and ability figure as follows:
 Average before confidence score 2.6
 Average after confidence score 3.9
 Average increase in confidence 1.3 (50%)
 Baseline – average increase in confidence 1.2 (39%)
 Average before ability score 1.8
 Average after ability score 3.4
 Average increase in ability 1.6 (89%)
 Baseline – average increase in ability 1.1 (38%)
Confidence – across the 4 GDNet events from May – December 2011, the average GDNet researcher is
moderately confident (2.6 out of 5) to communicate their research to policy before any training/capacity
building has been provided by GDNet. This average confidence figure rises to 3.9 immediately following a
training / capacity building event. This equates to an average 50% increase in confidence immediately
following a capacity building event.

16
Ability – Across the 4 GDNet events from May – December 2011, the average GDNet researcher is not able (1.8
out of 5) to communicate their research to policy before any training/capacity building has been provided by
GDNet. This average ability figure rises to 3.4 immediately following a training / capacity building event. This
equates to an average 89% increase in ability immediately following a capacity building event.
These results imply a number of broad conclusions:
 The magnitude of the increase in both confidence and ability is significantly greater than the increase
defined at the baseline. Two factors may go some way to explaining this:
o The baseline figures were established based on only two workshops so may not have
reflected a true average.
o GDNet have themselves increased in both confidence and ability when it comes to planning
and delivering effective training and capacity building events perhaps through a better
understanding of participants’ needs and the most appropriate and successful training
methods. This reflects the ‘journey’ that GDNet itself has made as an increasingly effective
knowledge broker for the Global South.
 GDNet’s capacity building efforts are successful – across all four workshops held in Year 1 there has
been a significant increase in both researchers’ confidence and ability as a result of interaction with
GDNet.
 The scale of the increase tends to be of the same magnitude across each workshop and is consistent
with the scale of the increase established for the baseline.
 Although challenging to demonstrate given a range of external factors, it may be possible for GDNet to
demonstrate an increase in the scale of researchers’ confidence and ability over time, from event to
event, as GDNet and their facilitators enhance their research communications capacity building skills
and learn lessons on how best to engage researchers on this topic. However, it should not be
assumed that this effect will be obvious given the widely varying nature of workshop participants
between events.
 That, immediately following a capacity building event, the confidence and ability of researchers to
communicate their research is increased is not particularly eye-opening. Rather what is more
important is a long term and sustainable increase in confidence and ability, and what this means for
how these researchers do their jobs. This is assesses using the ‘pledge’ under output 2 indicator 2.
M&E approach for Indicator 1 and Indicator 2
GDNet activities under Output 2 revolve around a series of region-specific and thematic mentoring, capacity
building and training workshops for a range of researchers / GDNet stakeholders on research communications
and writing for policy relevance. Participants’ confidence and ability before, immediately after and 3-months
after the workshop are assessed through a questionnaire and follow up email survey. This provides both an
immediate before and after rating as well as a more rich, qualitative assessment of the ‘impact’ of the training
3-months later.

17
Indicator 2 – Researchers’ confidence and ability to communicate their research –
sustainability of capacity building effort
Year 1 summary – First set of nine ‘pledge’ cases developed from GDNet workshops 3-6 held during Year 1
indicating the sustainability and application of GDNet’s capacity building effort.
The long term sustainability and impact of GDNet’s capacity building efforts are assesses 3-months after each
workshop through a ‘pledge’. Each participant is asked to respond to the following:
Question – What will you do differently as a result of attending this workshop?
Pledge – ‘Within the next 3 months I will…’
A sample of the most informative ‘pledge’ statements is presented below.
GDNet-AERC Research Communications Policy Workshop
Pledge :
Write a policy brief for my current research
3-month follow up:
Task executed. An improved version of the policy brief has been circulated and presented at a workshop on
poverty in Lomé. The Nairobi workshop was obviously very useful as it taught us to say the essential and more
importantly to say it in the simplest and clearest way. The training allowed me to produce a policy brief
destined for policymakers on each research paper I finalise. In other words, a policy brief is always finalised and
sent to the sponsoring organisation.
GDNet-TrustAfrica Policy Workshop
Pledge :
Finalise my policy brief within a month
3-month follow up:
My expectations were perfectly met as I managed to send the policy brief to TrustAfrica on time. Thanks to the
workshop, I now know how to communicate my results to decision makers. We are planning to organize by end
of January 2011 a Conference gathering members of the Government, Company Managers and researchers to
communicate to them the results of our research. We will be using the techniques we learned at the workshop.
PEM Research Communications Workshop
Pledge :
As mentioned, I will focus on research communication alongside with actual research
3-month follow up:
The workshop was really helpful. We are now better equipped while preparing the dissemination materials. At
the moment we are in the process of preparing the working papers and the policy briefs based on the project
outputs where the learning from the workshop is being utilized. Moreover, we are also planning to organize
seminars to disseminate the working papers and policy briefs.
Pledge :
Redo the policy brief and contact media on communicating the results
3-month follow up:
We have redone the policy brief on water sector a couple of months after the workshop. We have
communicated some of our recent results to donors and other stakeholders, however, as the on-going products
are not yet finalized we have not prepared anything that can be disseminated to media. As indicated in Delhi
workshop, we do plan to communicate some of our results to media institutions. So, half of the promise is done.

18
We will be communicating the progress (including our communication outputs) to GDN.
Pledge :
Set up a network among stakeholders related to policymaking process
3-month follow up:
The process to set up the network is still going. However, there are several obstacles to implement the idea.
Based on the plan, we will start the network creation process through an FDG that involves stakeholders related
to education, health and water sector. The purpose of this FGD is to explore and gather information about any
development issues related to education, health and water sector, particularly the issues that happen recently.
Also this FGD process will try to set up a strategy on how each stakeholder can take role in policy changing. This
FGD is not happened yet, since it is quite difficult to find a time to gather all those people. Besides that it is quite
hard to find some people who have the same concern or interest with CEDS, mainly for this project. So far, the
effort that I have done to start this network is by identifying the stakeholders and make a list of them. This
process is done by conducting some informal meeting with some people. I hope the FGD can be held quite soon. I
plan to set up te FGD in the middle of March.
Pledge :
Prepare a press release and a policy brief
3-month follow up:
Following your guidelines during the October PEM Communications Workshop in New Delhi, we have prepared
three policy briefs for each of the three sectors on education, health and water services. Policy briefs have not
been disseminated because we are in the midst of preparation for a major conference to present these policy
briefs to our target audience composed mostly of policy makers and sectoral stakeholders. The Conference will
be held on March 13 of this year. A press release will come shortly prior to the Conference. We are also at the
thick of preparation in launching our website to be able to disseminate the results of our study on Strengthening
Institutions in Public Expenditures Accountability. The PEM Asia Workshop has significantly helped us in crafting
the requirements of GDN especially in the formulation of policy briefs and technical presentations.
GDNet-AERC Policy Brief Training Workshop
Pledge :
Write policy briefs for all my recent papers; communicate with others on my results; identify tactics to
communicate my findings .
3-month follow up:
I was able to make an intervention on Cameroonian TV for another piece of work on human development. If I
didn’t participate in the workshop, I am sure my intervention would have never been that successful. All my
friends called me to congratulate after my intervention. As for my future research, I will produce policy briefs for
it. I still haven't had the chance to finalise policy briefs for previous research but will do it at least for the last two
research papers.
Pledge :
Rework my policy brief on the AERC project; tell my colleagues about the GDNet-AERC policy brief meeting and
pass on some of the learnings (TOT)
3-month follow up:
I have told many of my colleagues about the training. Made copies of the pamphlets and circulated within
colleagues in my institute. The training made my revised paper co-authored paper titled ""Towards effective
research uptake and innovative communication of research projects"" more robust. I have submitted the paper
and i hope it will be published soon. I am now more confident to write policy briefs targeted to the right
audiences.
Pledge :
Review the way of writing key abstracts, presenting the results of my work to colleagues, policymakers and
media

19
3-month follow up:
I am currently at the Centre of Studies of African Economies (CSAE), Oxford University. And, today (29.02)
(between 1-2.30 PM local time) I presented my paper titled "Trade liberalization, labour market reform and
firm's labour demand: evidence from Cameroon" at the CSAE seminar. The feedback I received show that,
relative to the past (i.e. before the workshop in Nairobi) I made a lot of progress regarding two points: (1) the
abstract, and (2) policy implications of the results. You remember we had a group work on (i) the meaning of
policy implications of the results, and (ii) how to present them. This shows that I made a lot of progress on
writing the abstract as well as the presentation of the policy implications. However, and still from the feedback I
received, I still have some problems on how to present the results, namely the background information. Any
assistance from you or GDN is still welcome.
The pledges provide not only an insight in to the nature of the application of the capacity building but also a
very clear link from training to increased confidence / ability to direct application by the researchers – the
sustainability of the capacity building effort. A number of pledges point directly to higher order outcomes and
possibly even impact (all be it small scale) as a result of GDNet’s capacity building efforts:
We are planning to organize by end of January 2011 a Conference gathering members of the Government,
Company Managers and researchers to communicate to them the results of our research. We will be using the
techniques we learned at the workshop.
Following your guidelines during the October PEM Communications Workshop in New Delhi, we have prepared
three policy briefs for each of the three sectors on education, health and water services.
I was able to make an intervention on Cameroonian TV for another piece of work on human development. If I
didn’t participate in the workshop, I am sure my intervention would have never been that successful.
 Design and testing of workshop questionnaire template and results
Zeinab Sabet / GDNet
 On-going – defining confidence and ability statements in advance of each workshop,
 Facilitating questionnaire completion by participants at each workshop,
 Recording results following each workshop in the results template,
 Facilitating the 3-month ‘pledge’ email and telephone follow-up with a sample of participants (approx.
25%) following each workshop and completing the pledge follow-up template,
 Synthesis of pledge results into a small number of cases on an annual basis,
 Follow-up on training event feedback to extract learning for GDNet and feed this back into improved
training and capacity building provision.
Evidence base
GDNet holds the capacity building workshop questionnaire responses, including the pledge statements and the
3-month follow up response in an Excel database designed by ITAD. It is not practical to include this as an
annex but GDNet is happy to share the database with interested parties.

20
Output 3 - Knowledge networking between researchers and with policy actors increased
Indicator 1 – GDNet ‘user base’ interaction
Year 1 summary – GDNet have actively engaged with their ‘user base’ throughout Year 1, employing a wide range of communications products and activities (blogging,
setting up community groups, using social media such as Twitter, producing electronic newsletters etc.) to generate a range of results and lessons.
GDNet user base interaction involves Southern researchers with whom GDNet has built a sustained engagement – through attendance at a capacity building event,
conference, or membership of a community or thematic group. GDNet logs all its interaction with its ‘user base’ in a log template set out below. The aim of the template is
to set out ‘at a glance’ the nature of the interaction, the results that this interactions produces, as well as any lessons GDNet learns as a result of this interaction. The
purpose of the log is to provide a ‘living’ document which GDNet staff can interrogate periodically in order to learn lessons on the nature of their interaction with their key
set of stakeholders. The log will be analysed and synthesised annually in order to establish the extent of user base interaction. Indicators of increased user base interaction
will relate to sustained or even increased blog views and responses, sustained or increased subscriptions, views and ‘click throughs’ to GDNet social media such as Twitter
and YouTube. It is anticipated that log will also include indicators of more strategic and in-depth user base interaction such as collaboration with specific partners to
produce research communications products as well as panels and presentations at workshops and conferences.
Date &
Person
at
GDNet
Aim and nature of
facilitation from GDNet
(event or activity)
Brief level and nature of
user base
Specific products / results / outcomes produced Lessons for GDN / GDNet
Sherine
Ghoneim
and
Zeinab
Sabet
(GDNet),
with the
support of
CommsCo
nsult
(Megan
GDN 12th
Annual Conference
- Financing Development in a
Post-Crisis World: The Need
for a Fresh Look
January 13-15, 2011
Bogotá, Colombia
GDNet undertook a complete
social media coverage of the
event , including blog posts,
video blogs, video interviews,
 A broad spectrum of
GDNet's user base
attended the Conference,
including southern and
northern researchers,
policymakers, Awards &
Medals Finalists and
donors
This wide range of GDNet's user base was engaged in a range of social
media tools, including blog posts, video blogs, video interviews, twitter,
electronic newsletter and printed broadsheet
Total of Blog posts
17 (12 in English and 5 Spanish) -
http://gdnetcomms.wordpress.com/tag/gdn2011/
These generated:
- 10,918 views and 5000 visits in January 2011
- 4,887 visitors (compared 1,426 in January 2010)
 A big conference with such a wide user base
requires a broad range of social media tools
 Need to engage audience more to read and
comment on the blog
 Twitter being a very useful tool in terms of content
spinning
 Newsletter being very effective in directing user
base to

21
Lloyd
Laney,
Andrew
Clappison
& Betty
Allen) and
Euforic
(Pier
Andrea
Pirani)
twitter, electronic newsletter
and printed broadsheet
Total of talking heads
29 -
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6D179AA6395DAB66&feature=vi
ew_all)
- The top video of Colombian president Santos has 67 views
- Majority of other videos received between 15-40 views
- Two of the video interviews were turned into short blogs on
DFID's sitehttp://www.researchtoaction.org/kala-sridhar-
research-communication-and-policy-implications/ ;
http://www.researchtoaction.org/louise-shaxson-the-
importance-of-research-communication/
One conference video trailer -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j58oX_3kzs&list=PL6D179AA6395DA
B66&index=31&feature=plpp_video
- The Conference trailer received 762 views
Four Electronic Newsletters sent out to 17,089 subscribers
GDN Conference 2011 (Day 1): http://createsend.com/t/r-
AC9EAC8C4611A620
7E0943EDF0CEBFCA
163FFA8AB8733A32
Three broadsheets
- Each sheet contained two stories from the conference (taken
from the blog and e-newsletter), a selection of 6-10 images
from Flickr, five tweets from @GlobalDevNet and other
accounts, information on the GDNet Diray Room and an Awards
and Medals section (comprehensive list of the stories, images
and Tweets used on each of the three Broadsheets can be
found on the overview spreadsheet)
- Each day 5 copies of each sheet were printed and placed
around the Universidad de los Andes conference location and
the Crown Plaza Hotel during breakfast.

22
Photographs: 611 photographs of the Conference and pre-meetings (e.g.
Board, RNPs etc.) produced in collaboration with Victor Holguin,
professional photographer (116 of which are published on Flickr) -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdnet/sets/72157625816614218/
Twitter
- Number of followers increased from 30 to 600
- 151 'click-throughs' of url links from Hootsuite from 1st
-30th
January 2011
A Bubble – Diary room was set-up during the Conference, thus providing a
space where talking heads were conducted
Zeinab
Sabet
(GDNet),
with the
support of
CommsCo
nsult
(Megan
Lloyed
Laney,
Andrew
Clappison
& Betty
Allen) and
Euforic
(Pier
Andrea
Pirani)
GDNet Research
Communications Training for
Awards & Medals Finalists
January 11-12, 2011
Bogotá, Colombia
 Organised in
collaboration with
CommsConsult, the two-
day Training aimed to
strengthen the capacity
of the Awards & Medals
Finalists to both identify
the headlines of their
research and make it
accessible for a range of
different audiences
through developing
principles of effective
communication in the
written and spoken
word.
 GNDet undertook the
social media coverage of
the workshop, and
 GDNet co-delivered the
training, together with
CommsConsult, to a wide
group of 22 academic
researchers from Africa,
Asia, Europe and Latin
America, who were
selected as finalists for
the GDN Awards &
Medals Competition
 Finalists were expected
to present their research
at the GDN Annual
Conference
 A&M Finalists were engaged in a range of social media tools,
including blog posts, talking heads, recording of their mock-
presentations, and a video trailer about what it means to you to win.
GDN Annual Conference participants were also able to follow the
A&M Finalists Training related activities through the GDNet blog,
newsletters and broadsheets.
Total Blog posts: 2 - http://gdnetblog.org/2011/01/12/research-
communication-training-for-gdn-awards-and-medals-finalists/ ;
http://gdnetblog.org/2011/01/15/which-foreigners-are-worth-wooing-a-
meta-analysis-of-vertical-spillovers-from-fdi/
Video Interviews
Vide Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8J2csP15qo
Photographs -
 A GDNet Community Group was set up specifically for the Awards &
Medals Finalists of 2011, where all workshop-related material were
uploaded. Facilitated by GDNet, the group provided a space for
researchers to interact with each other and with workshop
facilitators -
http://cloud1.gdnet.org/cms.php?id=public_group_community_defa
ult_landing_page&community_group_id=15
 Difficult to engage academic researchers during
workshop and in discussions
 The challenge was to convince them of the added
value that a PowerPoint presentation and data
visualization could bring to their presentation
 Effective use of video-critique and peer review
methods to improve the styles and build the
confidence of participants to present their work in
different forums, including at the Conference
Ceremony later in the week

23
facilitated the "writing
for development"
through its community
group for the
participants of the
workshop that was
organised in
collaboration with
CommsConsult.
 The climax of the training sessions was the presentation of each
finalist's research in a confident and engaging style to the other
scholars at the conference and the judging committee
 All researchers completed a questionnaire where they pledged how
they would do their job differently in the future in terms of
communicating their research, which was to be followed-up 3
months later (please see output 2)

Sherine
Ghoneim,
Zeinab
Sabet,
Haitham
Khouly &
Jermeen
Baroudy
(GDNet),
with the
support of
CommsCo
nsult
(Andrew
Clappison
& Betty
Allen) and
Euforic
(Pier
Andrea
Pirani)
ERF 17th
Annual Conference -
Politics and Economic
Development
March 20 –22, 2011
Antalya, Turkey
GDNet undertook a complete
social media coverage of the
event, including blog posts,
video blogs, video interviews,
twitter, electronic newsletter
and a video trailer for the ERF
Award Winners.
 A broad spectrum of ERF
(GDNet's Regional
Network Partner)'s user
base attended the
Conference, including
southern and northern
researchers, policymakers
and Economic Research
Forum's staff, and were
directed to GDNet's
knowledge base/website
and GDNet blog
 This wide range of user base was engaged in a range of social media
tools, including blog posts, video blogs, video interviews, twitter and
electronic newsletter
 Both GDNet and ERF blogs were used for the social media coverage
of the events
Total Blog posts: 12 on ERF Blog and 3 on GDNet Blog
- 2083 views
Total Video Blogs: 9 posted on ERF Blog
Total of talking heads: 29
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41FA5DFDCC3E83FB&feature=vie
w_all
- 516 views
Photographs -
Twitter
- 34 followers (ERF account- @erflatest, set up on March 9th
,
2011)
Video Trailer –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzfwqAyTKfM&feature=plcp&context
=C48a949aVDvjVQa1PpcFOMCD_9CHm2qfAAT5Z7-nYyZOBWYlorVpc
 Need to have a GDNet social media plan for regular
content in order not to lose followers/audience
built earlier at the first event
 A good internet connection is essential to complete
such an exercise
requires a broad range of social media tools
comment on the blog
spinning
 Newsletter being very effective in directing user
base to

24
Newsletter
ERF Conference 2011 (Day 1): http://createsend.com/t/r-
F29F74955F563816
ERF conference 2011 (Day 2): http://createsend.com/t/r-
1D80B36B97A5C2F0
ERF Conference 2011 (Day 3): http://createsend.com/t/r-
53D7925EE093F557
Sherine
Ghoneim
& Zeinab
Sabet
(GDNet) 1
Pier
Andrea
Pirani
(Euforic)
The 2011 Annual Bank
Conference on Development
Economics (ABCDE)
May 30-June 1, 2011
Paris, France
 The conference was co-
hosted by
the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation
and
Development (OECD),
the French Ministry of
Foreign and European
Affairs, the French
Ministry of Economy,
Finance, and Industry,
and the World Bank
 GDNet undertook a
complete social media
coverage of the event,
including blog posts,
video blogs, video
interviews and twitter
OECD's user base, among
others, attended the
Conference and were
directed to GDNet's
and GDNet blog
This wide range of user base was engaged in a range of social media tools,
including blog posts, video blogs, video interviews and twitter
Total Blog posts
5 - http://gdnetblog.org/page/8/
Total Video Blogs 4 -
http://gdnetblog.org/page/8/
Talking heads 11 -
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3855B777657E256B&feature=vie
w_all
Photographs
comment on the blog
spinning
May 24-
26, 2011
Special session at the AERC
Biannual Research Workshop
on "Opening up to the World
The session aimed to explore
the barriers and potentials of
the uptake of the Word Bank's
 Blogging tweeting about the session would have
helped content spinning

25
Sherine
Ghoneim
Bank: the World Bank’s Open
data Initiative"
May 24-26, 2011
Nairobi, Kenya
GDNet co-organised the
session with WBI and AERC
Open Data Initiative.
The session was conducted by
Thomas Danielewitz, World
Bank
Sherine
Ghoneim,
Zeinab
Sabet
(GDNet),
with the
support of
Internatio
nal Food
Policy
Research
Institute -
IFPRI
(Chris
Addison)
GDNet-AERC Research
Communications Policy
Workshop
May 24-26, 2011
Nairobi, Kenya
 The workshop was
organised, designed and
delivered as part of
GDNet’s series of
Research
Communications
Capacity Building
Workshops, in
collaboration with
the African Economic
Research Consortium
(AERC) and the
International Food
Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI). The workshop
was specifically tailored
and designed to support
AERC researchers
involved in
the Reproductive
Health, Economic
Growth and Poverty
Reduction Collaborative
IFPRI, to a group of 17
academic researchers
from Africa involved in
the AERC Reproductive
Health, Economic Growth
and Poverty
Reduction Collaborative
Research Project
Total Blog posts: 1
http://gdnetblog.org/2011/06/05/gdnet-aerc-research-communications-
workshop/
Photographs -
 A GDNet Community Group was set up specifically for the group of
researchers who attended the workshop, where all workshop related
material were uploaded. The group provided a space for researchers
to interact with each other and with workshop facilitators.-
https://researcher.gdnet.org/cms.php?id=public_group_community_
default_landing_page&community_group_id=19
 Involving IFPRI was very useful, not only for the
participants but also for the GDNet team – building
the team capacity in terms of workshop facilitation
and good practices from IFPRI's experience
 Talking heads being and effective learning and
practice tool

26
Research Project to
make an impact on
policy decisions with
their research results
 GDNet undertook the
the workshop (including
blog posts and talking
heads with participants),
and facilitated the
"writing for
development" through
its community group for
the participants of the
workshop
Zeinab
Sabet &
Haitham
Khouly
(GDNet),
with the
support of
Farai
Samhung
u
(CommsC
onsult)
and Julia
D'Agostin
o (CIPPEC)
GDNet-TrustAfrica Policy
Workshop
June 7-8, 2011
Kampala, Uganda
 Organized, designed and
delivered as part of
GDNet’s series of
Research
Communications
Capacity Building
Workshops, in
collaboration with Trust
Africa, CIPPEC and Com
msConsult, the
workshop aimed to
build the capacity of a
group of researchers
involved in
the Investment Climate
and Business
CommsConsult and
CIPPEC, to a group of 23
from Africa involved in
the Investment Climate
and Business
Environment Research
Fund (ICBE-RF)
 Participants were engaged in a range of social media tools, including
talking heads and the recording of their mock-press conference.
Total Blog posts: 1
http://gdnetblog.org/2011/06/20/gdnet-trustafrica-policy-workshop/
Total Video Blogs: 2
Photographs -
Talking heads: 4
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF7B10D89E10C550F&feature=vie
w_all
to interact with each other and with workshop facilitators.
 Establish contact with researchers early on
 Engage researchers more through the Community
Group
 Useful questionnaire allowing to compare
conference and ability of participants before and
after the workshop
 The pledge gives participants ownership and shows
commitment to follow-up from GDNet's side
 Talking heads and mock press conferences being
and effective learning and practice tool

27
Environment Research
Fund (ICBE-RF) in
research uptake
the workshop, and
for development"
group for the
participants of the
workshop
https://researcher.gdnet.org/~community_groups/GDNet-
Trust%20Africa%20Policy%20Workshop
 Researchers were engaged in a mock press conference exercise that
helped them practising their public speaking skills
Leandro
Echt -
CIPPEC
“Using knowledge to
improve policy influence”
Workshop
August 11-12, 2011
Lima, Peru
 Organised in the
framework of the
GDNet-CIPPEC initiative
"Spaces for
Engagement: Using
Knowledge to Improve
Public Decisions", the
main objective was to
strengthen capacities of
think tanks in the region
to influence public
policies, through the
strengthening of
relationships between
Executive Directors and
the presentation and
discussion of tools,
strategies and concrete
 The workshop aimed at
Executive Directors of the
most prominent Think
Tanks in Latin America, as
well as professionals
involved in the research-
action in those
institutions, interested in
learning about tools for
policy influence.
Total Blog posts: 2 (http://gdnetblog.org/2011/08/11/using-knowledge-
to-improve-policy-influence/ ; http://gdnetblog.org/2011/08/16/some-
lessons-learned-by-latin-american-think-tanks/ )
Photographs -
 There is a great interest from researchers and policy
research institutes in learning about cutting edge
initiatives and practices, i.e. from M&E of policy
influence.
 The workshop positioned the "Spaces for
engagement programme" as a referent on M&E of
the policy influence issue in LA region
 Provided an excellent opportunity to showcase
CIPPEC and GDNet´s joint work, and to continue
enhancing a Community of Practice interested in
addressing evidence based policy issues. Not only it
was a very fruitful meeting with many Latin
American CEOs but also many of them and other
participants, such as IDRC, expressed great interest
in CIPPEC and GDNet activities
 Face to face meetings are great opportunities to
engage new audiences in the project activities. As
an example, many participants of Lima's Workshop
are currently participants of the online course, new
CEOs became members of DEAL and some
organizations asked for CIPPEC's technical
assistance
 DEAL (www.vippal.org/deal as a virtual community
for Executive Directors in LA) became more relevant

28
experiences of research
communication and
engagement with policy
makers.
 The workshop was
framed by the joint
efforts of the following
organizations: Overseas
Development Institute
(ODI), the Center for the
Implementation of
Public Policies
Promoting Equity and
Growth (CIPPEC) and the
Consortium for
Economic and Social
Research (CIES).
the workshop with the
help of CIPPEC's team
members who attended
the workshop
and got more visibility after Lima Workshop
Zeinab
Sabet &
Sherine
Ghoneim
(GDNet),
Megan
Lloyed
Laney
(CommsC
onsult)
PEM Asia Research
Communications Workshop
October 10-11, 2011
Delhi, India
 Organised and delivered
in collaboration with
CommsConsult as part
of GDNet’s series of
Research
CommsConsult, to a
group of 12 Asian
talking heads and the recording of their group exercises
Total Blog posts: 1
http://gdnetblog.org/2011/10/14/pem-asia-research-communications-
workshop/
Photographs -
 Participants benefited a lot from the Policy and
Media panels which involved policy and media
actors – sharing concrete experiences with
participants helped them understand and realise
the importance of effective communication of their
research
Group

29
and
Ramona
Angelescu
(GDN)
Communications
Capacity Building
Workshops, the
workshop was
specifically designed for
a group of Asian
researchers involved in
the GDN PEM Project
“Strengthening
Institutions to Improve
Public Expenditure
Accountability” to
influence policy
decisions with their
research results in their
respective countries
the workshop, and
for development"
group for the
participants of the
workshop that was
organised in
collaboration with
CommsConsult
A GDNet Community Group was set up for this workshop -
https://researcher.gdnet.org/~community_groups/PEM%20Asia%20Resea
rch%20Communications%20Workshop
Talking heads 4
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5B49FBFC502B06E2&feature=v
iew_all
to interact with each other and with workshop facilitators –
https://researcher.gdnet.org/~community_groups/PEM%20Asia%20
Research%20Communications%20Workshop
after the workshop
 Talking heads being an effective learning and
practice tool
Sherine
Ghoneim
& Zeinab
Sabet
(GDNet);
Jorge
Barriga
LACEA 16th
Annual Meeting
November 10-12, 2011
Santiago, Chile
LACEA (GDNet's Regional
Network Partner)'s user
base attended the
Conference, including
southern and northern
researchers, policymakers
 This wide range of user base was engaged in a range of social media
tools, including blog posts and twitter
Total Blog posts: 4 http://gdnetblog.org/page/5/
Photographs -
 GDNet presence was essential – would have helped
generating more content for the blog
requires a broad range of social media tools –
would have been useful to produce electronic
newsletter and send more tweets

30
(LACEA) the meeting and LACEA's staff, and
were directed to GDNet's
and GDNet blog
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdnet/sets/72157628102435082/ comment on the blog
spinning
Zeinab
Sabet &
Sherine
Ghoneim
(GDNet),
Megan
Lloyed
Laney
(CommsC
onsult)
and AERC
team
GDNet-AERC Policy Brief
Training Workshop – ICT &
Economic Development
Project
December 1-2, 2011
Nairobi, Kenya
 Organised, designed and
delivered in
collaboration with
CommsConsult, the
workshop was dedicated
to a specific group of
researchers who
produced research
papers for the AERC “ICT
and Economic
Development” Project.
the workshop, and
for development"
group for the
participants of the
workshop.
CommsConsult, to a
group of 13 academic
researchers involved in
the the AERC “ICT and
Economic Development”
Project.
And
Through GDNet Writing for
Development Communities
A GDNet Community Group
was set up specifically for the
group of researchers who
attended the workshop, where
all workshop related material
were uploaded. The group
provided a space for
researchers to interact with
each other and with workshop
facilitators.
talking heads and the recording of their group exercises
Total Blog posts: 2
Total Video Blogs: 5
http://gdnetblog.org/page/4/ ; http://gdnetblog.org/page/3/
Photographs -
Talking heads: 5
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL46BA3E5770531E5A&feature=v
iew_all
A GDNet Community Group was set up specifically for the group of
material were uploaded. The group provided a space for researchers to
interact with each other and with workshop facilitators -
https://researcher.gdnet.org/~community_groups/GDNet-
AERC%20Policy%20Brief%20Workshop
 Participants benefited a lot from the Policy and
Media panels which involved policy and media
actors – sharing concrete experiences with
participants helped them understand and realise
the importance of effective communication of their
research
Group
after the workshop
 Talking heads and mock press conferences being an
effective learning and practice tool

31
Sherine
Ghoneim
and
Zeinab
Sabet
(GDNet) -
2012
“Understanding and Avoiding
the Oil Curse in the Arab
World” – ERF-AFESD
Conference
January 15-16, 2012
Kuwait, Kuwait
 GDNet undertook a
complete social media
coverage of the event,
including blog posts,
video blogs, video
interviews and twitter
GDNet user base interaction
has been improved by using
social media tools, including
blog posts, video blogs, video
interviews and twitter.
ERF Blog
- 416 views
GDNet &
CIPPEC
(Julia
D'Agostin
o;
Leandro
Echt &
Vanesa
Weyrauch
)
GDNet-CIPPEC Online
Courses – 2011
 Three English online
courses were delivered
and facilitated – Policy
influence (18, 15 & 16
participants)
 One Spanish online
course delivered and
facilitated – Policy
influence (16
participants)
 One Spanish online
course delivered and
facilitated – M&E (16
participants)
 Online courses are
dedicated to a wide
audience
 Online training material are provided, including 6 modules per course
 Courses are evaluated by participants with suggestions for
improvement
 One pager of lessons learned is produced per course
 Online courses have proven to be a very cost-
effective way to raise awareness of emerging R&P
practices such as M&E of policy influence as well as
to improve researchers' knowledge of how to
better plan and communicate the enhancement of
policy influence
 It is very useful to include the methodology of
“learning groups”. These groups are composed of
participants who exchange their exercises and
comments about each other’s work. This process of
sharing opinions and thinking about different
situations and contexts is a unique but useful way
of learning and improving as an organization
 Courses need to have an initial week that only
involves introductions by participants, time to
prove the platform, and the opportunity to ask
technical questions. Without this week, much time
is lost as the organizations get involved in the
program, when they should be working on the
topics proposed for the first week
 Each week needs to have a debate. A chart with all
the subjects to be discussed should be built before
the initiation of the course. It is also very fruitful to
finish weeks with a summary of these debates,

32
which are then shared with participants, and also
work as a ‘back up’ of the discussions once the
course is finished.
 We have noticed that participants use to take a big
part of the discussions to their own practices and
countries’ contexts. So it is important that
facilitators understand the general political, social
and economic situations of participants’ countries.
In that way, tutors will be able to understand the
background of trainees’ exercises and will also have
better approach to the discussions
 Since many participants asked to keep in contact
with others and remain informed about new
courses and initiatives, we would like to create an
Alumni group to ensure constant communication
between representatives of the program and
previous participants
 The most successful strategy for giving feedback is
by posting comments one-by-one so everyone can
see them
 When following up participants’ activity
(participation, exercises), it is very fruitful to
combine exchanges through the forums with
particular e mails
 We realized that most participants do the exercises
and share contents with members of their own
organizations, so we have started to encourage
those kind of practices by recommending them
when discussing about the exercises
The log indicates that GDNet have actively engaged with their ‘user base’ throughout Year 1, employing a wide range of communications products and activities (blogging,
setting up community groups, using social media such as Twitter, producing electronic newsletters etc.) to generate a range of results and lessons (the need for continual
and dedicated community group facilitation in order to maintain a vibrant community, and the need for a wide range of targeted communications channels and products at
larger conferences in order to meet the wide range user base knowledge needs.)

33
A brief analysis of the log template indicates a number of conclusions:
 GDNet has developed particular expertise in the use of a suite of social media tools to support and facilitate user base interaction. For example, GDNet undertook
complete social media coverage of the GDN 12
th
Annual Conference including blog posts, video blogs, video interviews, twitter, electronic newsletter and printed
broadsheet.
 There are signs of high usage of many of the social media tools by GDNet’s user base. For example, the 17 blog posts generated during the GDN 12
th
Annual
Conference were viewed 10,918 times in the month of January alone, demonstrating considerable reach beyond the direct conference attendees. Similarly, the
four daily Conference Newsletters were sent out to 17,089 subscribers.
 There is considerable evidence that GDNet’s own capacity to better understand and facilitate user base interaction has improved considerable over time. For
example, in the 12 months since the GDNet Twitter feed was established there has been a significant increase in followers from a base of approximately 30 to a
peak of over 600 followers immediately following the GDN Conference. Similarly, GDNet has responded to the needs and demands of specific user base groups - A
GDNet Community Group was set up specifically for the Awards & Medals Finalists of 2011, where all workshop-related material were uploaded. Facilitated by
GDNet, the group provided a space for researchers to interact with each other and with workshop facilitators -
http://cloud1.gdnet.org/cms.php?id=public_group_community_default_landing_page&community_group_id=15
The scale and breadth of GDNet’s user base interaction is impressive given that no user base interaction was recorded for the baseline. A key challenge for GDNet will be to
maintain and perhaps even enhance the level of user base interaction over the remainder of the programme and map and analyse trends over time. For example by
comparing the support provided to the GDN 12
th
Annual Conference to see if it can bettered at the GDN 13
th
Annual Conference in Budapest in June 2012. Similarly, as
GDNet’s experience facilitating user base interaction increases then it may be possible to further tailor the services provided to specific user base needs and demands. The
M&E Consultant will work with the GDNet team to develop a small set of metrics/indicators to quantify, map, and reflect on trends in user base interaction. It is anticipated
that GDNet will maintain the log over the next reporting period and synthesis the lessons learned in order to produce a best practice guide (or similar) on how best to
facilitate user base interaction and engagement for Southern researchers.
 Annually from baseline - designing GDNet user base interaction log template
Zeinab Sabet and Shahira Emara / GDNet
 On-going – logging GDNet user base interaction according to log template and extracting lessons for GDNet
Evidence base
The latest version of the template for logging GDNet user base interaction is provided above.

34
Indicator 2 - Researchers interactions with the policy domain
Year 1 summary – During Year 1 GDNet have facilitated four distinct interactions between Southern researchers and the policy domain. This experience has generated a
small number of valid lessons including the requirement for GDNet to actively ‘host’ any researcher – policy domain interaction in order to introduce both parties and
encourage interaction based on common interest.
Similar to Output 3 indicator 1 GDNet also endeavours to support and facilitate a smaller number of interactions between Southern researchers and the policy domain. As
with Output 3 indicator 1, GDNet activities under this output are logged using the template below. The rationale supporting the template is for GDNet to both record
activities as well as identify results and lessons from facilitating the interaction between Southern researchers and the policy domain.
Date &
Person at
GDNet
Aim and nature of facilitation from
GDNet
(event or activity)
Nature of researcher – policy domain
interaction
Specific products / results /
outcomes
Lessons for GDN / GDNet
January 13-
15, 2011
Sherine
Ghoneim
“Research Shaping Policy – Latin
America’s Experiences”
January 13-15, 2011
Bogotá, Colombia
GDNet organised this special session in
collaboration with CIPPEC at the GDN 12th
Annual Conference.
Moderated by a journalist and an Egyptian
policymaker, the session brought together the
Executive Directors of three Latin American
think tanks from Colombia, Ecuador and Chile
to draw similarities and contrasts from their
different approaches to influencing policy.
Suggestions as to how to behave as a
researcher if you want to be policy influential
were made by the three Executive Directors.
They also shared two significant organizational
decisions they had made to improve their
influence.
  Blogging tweeting about the session would have helped
content spinning
August 11-
12, 2011
LACEA
(Jorge
Barriga)
“Lessons learned by think tanks of the
region”
August 11-12, 2011
Lima, Peru
GDNet organised this session in
collaboration with CIPPEC at its workshop
“Using knowledge to improve policy
influence”.
The session addressed Think thanks and the
challenges they face when influencing policy.
Four Executive Directors and one Director of
an Economic Program from Latin American
institutes presented and discussed their
experiences, organizational structures and
lessons learned in the field of policy influence.
 A blog story about the session was
posted on GDNet blog
http://gdnetblog.org/2011/08/16/som
e-lessons-learned-by-latin-american-
think-tanks/#more-1410
 Tweets were sent live during the
session

35
The session addressed Think thanks and
the challenges they face when influencing
policy were addressed in the opening
session of the workshop “Using
knowledge to improve policy influence”,
which was held in Lima, Peru, on August
11th and 12th
.
November,
2011
LACEA
(Jorge
Barriga)
GDNet-LACEA Session “Researchers and
policymakers: Bridging the gap”
The session aimed at launching a debate
around the factors that promote or
hinder the transfer of knowledge from
the academic/research field to the policy
arena and what concrete actions could be
implemented to further the interaction
between both.
The session allowed for an interactive debate
between researchers and policymakers on the
following issues:
 The main facilitators and barriers to
improving the transfer of knowledge from
research to policymaking, and to the
generation of awareness and interest
among decision makers on the importance
of academic input into public policies
 Concrete actions that both researchers and
policymakers can implement to promote
agenda-harmonization between them
 Specific steps that organizations, such as
GDN, could carry out to support the
incorporation of policy research into
policymaking
 Tweets were sent live during the
session
March,
2011
CIPPEC
(Julia
D'Agostino;
Leandro
Echt &
Vanesa
Weyrauch)
Executive Directors of Latin America
(DEAL)
DEAL is a community of practice that
brings together executive directors from
the more prominent PRIs in Latin America
interested in improving the impact of
policy research.
www.vippal.org/deal
 DEAL is a space allowing the search of
answers, sharing knowledge, best practices
and lessons learned, discussing challenges
and dilemmas, and receiving materials and
skills regarding the complex world of
directors leading institutes that seek to
influence public policies
 26 CEOs and 13 countries are involved
 One “Ask the expert” document: “How
to attract, hold and motivate think
tanks’ staff”
 Two debates about “Different
fundraising models in think tanks” and
“Promotion of debates during election
campaigns experiences”
 “Promotion of debates during election
campaigns experiences”: three videos
on the experiences of the Executive
Directors from Fedesarrollo
 Difficult to engage Executive Directors in exchanging ideas,
resources and experiences. Even though they welcome
information and knowledge posted by CIPPEC and experts,
their level of spontaneous participation is low
 Difficult to promote effective participation among CEOs
members of DEAL (Executive Directors of Latin America) due
to their lack of time and their skills to manage technological
aspects of the platform
 In November 2011, CIPPEC launched a process in which
specialists in think tanks would analyse and share
experiences of how think tanks deal with a set of crucial

36
(Colombia), CIES (Peru), and CIPPEC
(Argentina) were uploaded
challenges selected by Executive Directors in the Lima
meeting (see previous template) such as human resources
management and monitoring and evaluating policy
influence. We tested whether this is more appropriate
methodology to attract their attention and respond to their
needs, but we didn’t get any feedback
 CEOs of less developed think tanks have more incentives to
participate in the discussions than the ones of more
developed institutes
CIPPEC
(Julia
D'Agostino;
Leandro
Echt &
Vanesa
Weyrauch)
Evidence Based Policy Development
Network (EBPDN) - Latin American
Chapter
EBPDN is a worldwide community of
practice for think tanks, policy research
institutes and similar organizations
working in international development to
promote more evidence-based pro-poor
development policies. The program helps
members to support each other through
training, exchange visits, and sharing of
information, and collaborate on projects
to generate and use research-based
evidence to improve development policy
at national, regional and
global level
 In the Latin American chapter, CIPPEC
(under the supervision of GDNet and
EBPDN) has contributed to improve the
way in which researchers and policy makers
engage in a virtual platform. This platform
is a space to exchange knowledge, debates,
share lessons and experiences on bridging
research and policy.
 250 members and 35 countries involved
 20 bimonthly newsletters
 Virtual library - LA audience does not
participate in debates as it happens
with general EBPDN

During Year 1 GDNet have facilitated four distinct interactions between Southern researchers and the policy domain. This facilitation has mainly been event-focussed and
based around organising and facilitating special sessions at workshops and conferences where researchers and policy actors are encouraged to interact and engage with
each other. This experience has generated a small number of valid lessons including the requirement for GDNet to actively ‘host’ any researcher – policy domain
interaction in order to introduce both parties and encourage interaction based on common interest.
It is not anticipated that GDNet will actively facilitate researcher-policy domain interaction with a high frequency. Rather GDNet will focus on taking advantage of
opportunities where researchers and policy stakeholders come together and will use these opportunities to facilitate interaction. It is anticipated that GDNet will maintain

37
the log over the next reporting period and synthesis the lessons learned in order to produce a set of lessons on how researcher – policy domain interaction can best be
facilitated.
Zeinab Sabet and Shahira Emara / GDNet
 On-going – logging researcher – policy domain interaction according to log template and extracting lessons for GDNet
Evidence base
The latest version of the template for logging researcher – policy domain interaction is provided above.

38
Important note:
Output 4 ‘GDN Fellows’ research better communicated to different, identified audiences’ was dropped
following the2012 DFID Annual Review and the GDNet logframe revised and re-numbered accordingly.
Although the term GDN Fellows had yet to be defined when the output was dropped, the small set of existing
activities that GDNet were conducting under the Output have been subsumed into other Outputs. For
example, GDNet has published GDN Grantee research on the knowledge base which can be found at
http://cloud2.gdnet.org/cms.php?id=gdnet, relating to Output 1 indicator 1.

GDNet M&E Report 2012–Year 1

GDNet M&E Report 2012–Year 1

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (18)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à GDNet M&E Report 2012–Year 1

Similaire à GDNet M&E Report 2012–Year 1 (20)

Plus de GDNet - Global Development Network, Cairo Office

Plus de GDNet - Global Development Network, Cairo Office (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

GDNet M&E Report 2012–Year 1