THE DEVELOPMENT OF A JOINT KNOWLEDGE AGENDA An advisory report for Share-Net Netherlands
SERENA VAN BEEK - 2526632 LIENEKE ELEVELD - 2572829 VIANCA FELIX - 2509604 AMALIA HASNIDA - 2552357 ROOS JOOSTEN - 2523290 MATTHIJS VAN DER LINDE - 2505045 NIDHI NAIK - 2576391 TESS SCHONEVELD - 2080354 KIMRIEK SCHUTTEN - 2517690 EMMA STEENBERGEN - 2049619
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A JOINT KNOWLEDGE AGENDA An advisory report for Share-Net Netherlands
van Beek, S. (2526632), Eleveld, L. (2572829), Felix, V. (2509604), Hasnida, A. (2552357), Joosten, R. (2523290), van der Linde, M. (2505045), Naik, N. (2576391), Schoneveld, T. (2080354), Schutten, K. (2517690), Steenbergen, E. (2049619)
Amsterdam, 22 October 2015 Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
DATUM
ONS KENMERK
09.11.2014
VU/Athena/2014 201
E-MAIL
TELEFOON
[email protected]
020 – 598 7031
UW BRIEF VAN
UW KENMERK
FAX
BIJLAGE(N)
Dear Reader, This is to inform you that this report has been written by Management, Policy Analysis and Entrepreneurship (MPA) students of the VU University participating in the course Analysis of Governmental Policy. This report has not been graded at the moment, but will be graded in the near future. This study was a student learning exercise and the report is not an official publication. Please consider this when using the report and the recommendations.
Sincerely, Kyra Pedersen, MSc Junior lecturer course Analysis of Governmental Policy
FACULTEIT DER AARD- EN LEVENSWETENSCHAPPEN
De Boelelaan 1085 1081 HV Amsterdam WWW.FALW.VU.NL
Preface As a knowledge platform, Share-Net Netherlands aims to contribute in the knowledge improvement on Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights (SRHR). This advisory report is written in order to provide advice to Share-Net Netherlands to improve the knowledge flow between different stakeholders in the area of SRHR. As implied by the current situation, little is known about the process of knowledge sharing between the organizations in particular context of Share-Net Netherlands. Therefore, in this report, we are particularly looking into insight in the power relations between the different stakeholders involved in Share-Net Netherlands in the process of the development of a joint knowledge agenda. This report is formed by a group of ten master students in Management, Policy Analysis, and Entrepreneurship in Health and Life Science programme at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. It is also a part of project requirement from the Analysis of Governmental Policy course. This report is intended to Share-Net Netherlands in particular and people who work in the area of SRHR in general, which also includes academic researchers, NGOs, and the policy makers. We acknowledge the contribution given by the respondents from various organizations (the policy makers, NGOs, knowledge institutions) which have extended their valuable inputs in the completion of this report. Furthermore, we deliver our gratitude to Billie de Haas as principal commissioner for her insights particularly during the preparation of this study. We would also thank Athena Institute Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam as the academic institution of the researchers for providing guidance in writing this report. In the end, we aspire that this report will contribute in the development of joint knowledge agenda as seen by Share-Net Netherlands.
Executive Summary Share-Net is the Dutch knowledge platform for Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR), HIV and AIDS. SRHR is a broad concept that places all matters related to birth, pregnancy, relationship and sexuality under one roof. The main goal of Share-Net is to strengthen the SRHR and HIV/AIDS-related knowledge and practices of their members. Share-Net’s members include researchers, universities, knowledge institutes, the Government, NGOs and individual members. The knowledge flow is seen as the continuous movement of knowledge between different stakeholders. Within Share-Net this is mostly between the three biggest stakeholders: the policy makers, NGOs and researchers. To improve the knowledge flow the idea of a Joint Knowledge Agenda (JKA) arises. The JKA is an agenda which is set by the three biggest stakeholders together. These stakeholders need to come to long term agreements with each other to decide which subjects are important to be acted upon. The stakeholders have also their personal agendas, which will also be integrated. Power has a major influence on the setting of a JKA. Therefore the research objective of this study will be to provide advice to Share-Net Netherlands in order to improve the knowledge flow between different stakeholders by gaining insight in the power relations between the different stakeholders involved in Share-Net Netherlands in the process of the development of a JKA. The conceptual framework used in the study is derived from a model about power relations and a model about agenda setting. It describes that every NGO, researcher and policy maker has his own motives, resources and tactics concerning the topics they would want on the JKA. The tactics describe how the stakeholder uses his motives and resources in order to get his topic on the agenda. The tactics of every stakeholder are exercised in the negotiation arena. The negotiation arena is the arena where stakeholders negotiate about what should be on the JKA, in the arena power between different stakeholders is exercised. Three factors can influence the power of a stakeholder, these factors are: policy community cohesion, facilitation and guiding institution. Policy community cohesion denotes if the stakeholders respect each other's knowledge. Facilitation indicates if there is a person or group who unites the stakeholders and facilitates a discussion about the development of a JKA. At last, guiding institutions entails if one of the stakeholders in the arena takes charge in the negotiation. From the concepts in the conceptual framework sub-questions are derived. This study uses a qualitative approach, by conducting semi-structured interviews by ten respondents. Nine respondents represented each of the three stakeholder categories, and one respondent has expertise in power relations. For the semi-structured interviews an interview guide was designed. The ten interviews were transcribed and afterwards coded. Both thematic and open coding are used. In a code guide all the codes were registered and an analysis matrix was
constructed which comprised the topics based on the sub questions of this study. At the end each of the topics were summarised. Different stakeholder groups have different motives to get their topics on the agenda. The policy makers work within the framework of policy regarding SRHR. NGOs look for topics to place on their agenda in their own line of interest or they call for tenders or proposals. Researchers are interested in research gaps which they want to place high on the agenda. The main resources, that are mentioned by the stakeholder groups, are finances, time, social skills and expertise. Different stakeholder groups indicated that the forming of alliances, lobbying in both formal and informal way and gaining support are forms of tactics that are used to get the topics of their interest on the agenda. The stakeholder groups agree that it is beneficial to collaborate with other stakeholders. It is stated that every stakeholder has added value in the negotiation. Knowledge is also shared. It is mentioned by all respondents that the facilitator of the meetings has influence on the topics that will be addressed during the meetings. However this is not always seen as a problem, because the facilitator usually has knowledge and passion for the topic. By different stakeholders the MOFA is seen as a guiding institution, although the MOFA thinks that other stakeholders also have influence on the topics that will be placed on the agenda. It was also mentioned that NGOs have influence because they raise awareness for certain topics, via campaigning for instance. Every stakeholder has its own power to or over based on the resources such as money, expertise and social skills. However, the study findings suggest that the Lower House holds the most power in the development of a JKA, due to that they direct the policy and allocate funding’s. There are a few important findings that come forward in the discussion. First, the smaller NGOs stay small because they have less resources than bigger NGOs. Resources play an important part in facilitation, that is why certain stakeholders facilitate more meetings than others. There seems to be a gap between policy makers and NGOs. There are different tactics mentioned by only NGOs and researchers. However, policy makers do not mention any tactics, although they are considered as the main guiding institutions. It seems that they do not need these tactics. Furthermore, NGOs and researchers consider the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the decision makers, while this is not the case. The MOFA say that all the decision making is done by the Lower House. One thing that could be concluded from literature is that is important to have a facilitator between policy makers, NGOs and researchers, in other words: a knowledge broker. From the results several recommendations for Share-Net can be derived. The three most important ones are: (1) acknowledge the difference in roles of the stakeholders and start an open dialogue about the responsibility of each stakeholder with the stakeholders, (2) set a clear and
proper timeframe for the joint knowledge agenda in order to make it feasible and (3) evaluate other attempts to develop a joint knowledge agenda and learn from this.
Table of contents Chapter 1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 2 - Contextual background ......................................................................................... 14 Chapter 3 - Theoretical background ........................................................................................ 21 Chapter 4 - Conceptual framework ......................................................................................... 27 Chapter 5 - Methodology ......................................................................................................... 32 Chapter 6 - Results ................................................................................................................... 36 Chapter 7 - Discussion.............................................................................................................. 49 Chapter 8 - Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 53 Chapter 9 - Recommendations ................................................................................................ 54 Chapter 10 - Literature ............................................................................................................ 55 Annex ....................................................................................................................................... 62
List of figures Figure 1. Actor map Figure 2. Motives, resources and tactics in the planning arena Figure 3. Three stream model of agenda setting by Kingdon Figure 4. Conceptual framework of the Arena of power relations
List of tables Table 1. Framework of Shiffman and Smith’s of determinants for understanding the political priority of different issues. Table 2. Operationalization of concepts
List of abbreviations DSO-GA ISS JKA KNAW KIT LGBT MDG MOFA MSM NGO NWO R&D SRHR UMC UN WHO
Directie Sociale Ontwikkeling: Gezondheid and Aids Institute of Social Studies Joint Knowledge Agenda Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Millennium Development Goals Ministry of Foreign Affairs Men who have Sex with Men Non-Governmental Organization Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Research and Development Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Universitair Medisch Centrum United Nations World Health Organization
Chapter 1 - Introduction The government of the Netherlands, represented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), focuses on addressing issues related to Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights (SRHR) in developing countries. SRHR consider the right to have a safe, responsible and satisfying sex life, wherein violence, coercion and discrimination do not play a part (United Nations, 1995). Unfortunately, SRHR are not established for all individuals worldwide, especially in developing countries. Due to its substantial impact on public health, SRHR have been included as a separate goal in Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 5, with regard to improve maternal health (Lathapersad-Pillay, 2009) and MDG 6 which is related to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases (United Nations, 2015). In order to decide which SRHR related issues in developing countries should be addressed, the policy makers of the MOFA created a knowledge platform on SRHR called Share-Net. Share-Net aims to combine the expertise of Dutch members, Southern partners and key international stakeholders working in the area of SRHR (Nzokirishaka, 2014).The Dutch members consist of individual researchers, universities, knowledge institutes, the MOFA and NGOs (Share-Net International, 2015c). Its focus is to achieve a better connection between, science policy and practice by sharing existing knowledge, by generating new knowledge, by addressing research gaps, and by translating knowledge to reveal implications for policy, programming, and practice (Hisschemöller & Hoppe, 2001; Kemp & Rotmans, 2009). (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2015). The continuous movement of knowledge between different stakeholders is called the knowledge flow (Carver, 2001). These knowledge flows inside Share-Net are most of the time between the three biggest stakeholders: the policy makers of the MOFA, NGOs and researchers and happens either circular or peripheral (Carver, 2001). Circular flow is about sharing the knowledge during a circular planning processes, whereby knowledge flows around in the iterative cycle of planning. The second flow is the periphery flow, whereby the knowledge and practice goes back and forth from the core of the organizations to the more remote organizations (Carver, 2001). The knowledge flow between the policy makers of the MOFA, NGOs and researchers is not considered fluent due to different interests. Complexity arises because of differences in time frames, reward structures, goals, process cycles, epistemologies and power (McNie, 2007; Sarewitz and Pielke 2007; Van den Hove, 2007; Koohang, Harman & Britz, 2008). Power influences, for example, which knowledge is considered important, who manages knowledge, and in what way it is applied is dependent on the authority of the actor (Koohang, Harman & Britz, 2008). Literature and practice therefore suggest that, in order to deal with the challenge of connecting science, policy and practice, and to improve the knowledge flow, the production of knowledge should be joint (Van Buuren &
Edelenbos, 2004; Vogel et al., 2007; Regeer & Bunders, 2009; Pohl et al., 2010). A joint knowledge agenda is understood to be the integration of the personal agendas of different stakeholders involved in the development of joint knowledge agenda. Knowledge sharing in organizations is a challenging process that is value loaded and driven by power balances within the organization (Ipe, M., 2003). Lack of knowledge sharing has proved to be a major barrier to the effective management of knowledge in organizations (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Hendriks, 1999). A joint knowledge agenda could contribute to the improvement of knowledge sharing and therefore of the knowledge flow. However, even though there is written about why managing and joining knowledge is important to organizations, little is known on the processes that could be used to identify, capture, share and use knowledge. In other words there is little information on how the agenda can be set up (Ipe, 2003). Soenen & Moingeon (2015) suggested that a study of knowledge implies a study of power dynamics. In the knowledge flow, power is seen through factors relating to control, cooperation, efficiency, and effectiveness in organizational relationships both internal (staff) and external (stakeholder) (Koohang, Harman & Britz, 2008). Furthermore knowledge is nowadays seen as an important strategic resource in organizations to gain power, and considered critical to organizational success (Ipe, 2003). On the contrary, the field of power dynamics is still relatively under represented and neglected in formal knowledge management literature (Hardy, 1996; Hislop, 2005; Roberts, 2006). The research objective of this study therefore is to provide advice to Share-Net Netherlands in order to improve the knowledge flow between different stakeholders by gaining insight in the power relations between the different stakeholders involved in Share-Net Netherlands in the process of the development of a joint knowledge agenda. The main research question of the study is: what are the power relations between the different stakeholders involved in Share-Net Netherlands in
the
process
of
the
development
of
a
joint
knowledge
agenda?
Chapter 2 - Contextual background In this chapter more information will be provided on the SRHR, Share-Net, joint knowledge agenda and the different actors involved in Share-Net. At first, information will be provided on SRHR and the role of the MOFA in SRHR. Secondly, the knowledge platform Share-Net will be explained more in detail including their idea of a joint knowledge agenda. Thirdly, the different stakeholders involved in Share-Net will be explained. At the end an actor map will be presented and explained to clarify the relations between the different actors.
Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) According to the UN, SRHR consider the rights that individuals should be able to have a safe, responsible and satisfying sex life, wherein violence, coercion and discrimination do not play a part (United Nations, 1995). The Dutch government defines SRHR as rights for each individual worldwide to have pleasant and safe sex (Rijksoverheid, 2015). It is a broad concept that places all matters related to birth and pregnancy, relationships and sexuality under one roof (Kennedy, 2015). Unfortunately, SRHR are not established for all individuals worldwide (Rijksoverheid, 2015) the goal of Dutch government is to establish SRHR in the countries where it is not established yet, especially in developing countries. In order to achieve the goal, the Dutch government works in cooperation with governments of respective countries, civil society organisations, business community, international organizations and research institutions. In order to improve the SRHR situation and to achieve the MDGs 5 (improvement of the maternal health) and 6 (fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria and diseases), the Dutch government has launched four core areas of SRHR policy: 1) sex education and services for young people, 2) better access to contraceptives, AIDS inhibitors and other medicines, 3) sexual and reproductive health care as part of an accessible, affordable basic health care system, 4) more respect for sexual health and rights of discriminated and vulnerable groups such as homosexuals, drug users, prostitutes and child brides. The Netherlands wants to contribute to the fight against maternal mortality, HIV / AIDS infections and unwanted (teenage) pregnancies. This is good for people as well as for the social and economic progress of these countries. The Netherlands is therefore committed to SRHR (Rijksoverheid, 2015).
Share-Net Few years ago, the MOFA wanted to set up five knowledge platforms, whereof one was going to be on the topic SRHR. Since Share-Net already existed as a knowledge platform for SRHR, the MOFA let Share-Net continue as the knowledge platform for this topic. From that moment on, MOFA are
linked Share-Net because MOFA is granting subsidies to the platform. As mentioned earlier, Share-Net is the Dutch knowledge platform for SRHR and HIV/AIDS (Share-Net International, 2015e). Share-Net Netherlands was founded by its members in 2001 and originated from an earlier network called the Aids Co-ordination Group. The aim of Share-Net is to strengthen the SRHR and HIV-related knowledge and practices of their members. Share-Net focusses on information exchange, on sharing knowledge and good practices, and on facilitating dialogue on policy, programming and practice (Share-Net International, 2015d). Share-Net decided to form the platform so that organisations and individual experts involved in the field of SRHR and HIV/AIDS are enabled to strengthen their individual and their joint capacities (Share-Net International, 2015d). Share-Net shares knowledge and information in various ways. This can be written sharing, with for example newsletters and websites, but also oral sharing via workgroups, thematic meetings and systematic reviews (Researcher 4). Share-Net’s memberships include researchers, universities, knowledge institutes, the MOFA and NGOs, which are professionally active in the field of SRHR and HIV and AIDS in developing countries (Share-Net International, 2015c). Andriessen (2006) made a distinction between knowledge and information, information is defined as ‘a collection of facts and figures’ and knowledge is defined as ‘insights and interpretations’. To improve the knowledge flow and strengthen the SRHR and HIVrelated practices of the members, Share-Net aims to develop a joint knowledge agenda.
Joint knowledge agenda A joint knowledge agenda aims to unite different stakeholders to an agreement to prioritise subjects for agenda together. It makes knowledge and the knowledge process more clear and detailed. It contributes to standardize the use of knowledge and it should improve the formulation of knowledge which makes it easier to manage knowledge (Skyrme & Amidon, 1997). Joint knowledge production might lead to better, more policy relevant or more socially robust knowledge and could therefore enhance mutual collaboration through better communication (Van den Hove, 2007). A joint knowledge agenda can be achieved by the process of presenting knowledge in a form that can be utilized by others which is implied as knowledge sharing. Hereby, the sender does not keep ownership of the knowledge by oneself. This results in joint ownership of the knowledge between the different stakeholders (Ipe, 2003). A joint knowledge agenda will contribute to make different demands and supplies of the stakeholders more clear. If the supply between the policy makers and researchers is not clear, it can happen that the policy makers wants to use the knowledge from researchers to make policy, but the policy makers do not know which researcher is looking at which theme. On the other hand, if the demand is not clear the researchers do not know what is relevant for research (Researcher 4).
The joint knowledge agenda will contribute by aligning the demands and supplies, which will make it easier for the different stakeholders to contribute to each other and to communicate. It works both ways around, because making the demand and supplies clear will also contribute to the development of the joint knowledge agenda. Another contribution of a joint knowledge agenda in the SRHR field will be to facilitate all the organisations to have common goals, making it more clearly for stakeholders where can they have added value (Researcher 4). Also concerns are raised about the development of a joint knowledge agenda. It can cause the stakeholders to focus on only certain issues and limit the stakeholders views by not letting them look into new themes. This could lead to little innovation. Another concern is that there is a lot of competition. How is it possible to form a joint knowledge agenda, if all the stakeholders have their own interests and themes? There should be space left for the different stakeholders to develop their interests (Researcher 4). In the context of SRHR issues in developing countries, the knowledge sharing activity is facilitated through the Share-Net platform. In particular, Share-Net attempts to ensure that resources among the actors are strategically utilized to deliver maximum effect on knowledge sharing (Nzokirishaka, 2014).
Policy makers of Ministry of Foreign Affairs As mentioned above, the MOFA of Netherlands is involved in Share-Net (Share-Net International, 2015a). The Ministry has a SRHR Partnership Fund available to divide over different Dutch NGOs (Share-Net International, 2015b). Initially Share-Net was not funded by MOFA, but later on when it was in need of more funding, the MOFA started with funding. Next to subsidies provided by MOFA, the funding of Share-Net came from the member contribution (Researcher 4). The MOFA is a donor as well as a member of Share-Net. The Ministry has several different departments, the ones who provide the money and ensure the existence of Share-Net, are not the same as those who are involved in Share-Net as a member. The people of the Ministry who are involved in Share-Net as a member are mostly from the Directorate of Social Development: Health and Aids Department (Directie Sociale Ontwikkeling: Gezondheid and Aids Department : DSO-GA) (Researcher 4). However, as mentioned before, there is just a small amount of people from the Ministry that are attending in knowledge sharing events of Share-Net, because the people from the MOFA who are involved in Share-Net are usually difficult to reach (Researcher 5).
Non-Governmental Organisations
There is no legal definition of NGOs generally accepted. However there are a few requirements that should be fulfilled. First of all, NGO should not depend on control by the government. Also, they should not be competing with the government in their focus on human rights. An NGO is also not allowed to make any profit. The last requirement is that they are a non-criminal and a non-violent organisation (Edward & Hulme, 1995; Quill, 2015). The SRHR partnership fund focuses on two areas of SRHR policy as Netherlands has strong track record in these areas. The areas are: youth and sexual and reproductive rights for those who are currently denied these rights (Share-Net International, 2015b). The MOFA has selected seven Dutch NGOs to develop concrete program proposals for activities in the above mentioned areas, at country level, in close cooperation with the Ministry, embassies and permanent missions at the UN (ShareNet International, 2015b). The two areas and these NGOs will now be briefly discussed. The rights of youth is the first area of focus. Several NGOs are working on the subject’s child marriage, child prostitution, teen pregnancy and overall child exploitation. These are the main NGOs focusing on these topics: Plan Nederland, Save the Children, Dutch Foundation of Children Stamps and Terres de Hommes (Plan Nederland, 2014; Save the Children, 2015; Terres de Hommes, 2015, ShareNet International, 2015b). ‘Plan Nederland’ is thereby also focussing on female genital mutilation (Plan Nederland, 2014). The second focus of Share-Net is the topic SRHR for those who are currently denied these rights. The NGOs that are connected to this area all focus on different groups who have been denied these rights. For example the ‘Aids fonds’, they look after the right of anyone that is affected by HIV and AIDS, their main theme inside the Share-Net Platform is to give information about the HIV transmission in key populations (Aids Fonds, 2015; Share-Net International, 2015b).
Researchers Researchers involved in Share-Net are mainly connected to Share-Net through a university or knowledge institute. However, some researchers involved in Share-Net are independent consultants and are not connected through universities or knowledge institutes. Next to that, researchers can also be connected to Share-Net through more than one institute (Researcher 5). Share-Net Netherlands has several Dutch universities and research institutes as a member. Examples of the universities and institutions that are a member of Share-Net are Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, University Medical Centre (Universitair Medisch Centrum : UMC) Utrecht and Institute of Social Studies (ISS) of the Erasmus University Rotterdam (Share-Net International, 2015a). Researchers working for these universities on subjects related to SRHR can also be individual members of Share-Net. For instance a researcher who is working for the Athena Institute
of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on the subject of maternal health. Also, some researchers of the Department of Medical Anthropology of the University of Amsterdam are involved in Share-Net. However, as mentioned before, a lot of researchers do not attend the knowledge sharing events of Share-Net (Researcher 5).
Actor map Actor maps are the diagrams made to understand the relationship between various actors by taking into consideration the possible factors that might influence these relationships. This actor map provides insight into which actors are playing a role within Share-Net Netherlands, and who should be involved in our study (Van Mierlo B. et al., 2010). As shown in figure 1, from all the actors who are relevant for our study we take into account the following actors: 1) MOFA - Here MOFA is represented by policy makers of the MOFA. 2) Intermediaries - Are the organizations that ensures quality and innovation in science and promotes development in the field of science and research, e.g.: NWO, KNAW 3) Foundations - Here foundations are the private foundations for charitable causes usually funded by an individual or a business and is managed by its own trustees. 4) NGOs - Here NGOs are the ones based in Netherlands 5) Industries - The Industries and Companies that are based in Netherlands 6) Industry R&D - Here it is represented by Research and Development department of The Netherlands based Industries. 7) Knowledge Institutes and Universities - Here it is represented by all the Universities and Knowledge Institutes that are in Netherlands 8) Researchers - Here the researchers are independent researchers who are based in Netherlands.
The actor maps are based on three external factors (Van Mierlo B. et al., 2010) that can influence the relationship between these actors: 1) Hierarchy 2) Knowledge 3) Money
Figure 1. Actor Map
Hierarchy Hierarchy represents the formal power (Van Mierlo B. et al., 2010). As seen in the above figure, MOFA has control over whether the legitimacy is conferred upon the industries, NGOs, foundations, knowledge institutes and universities and intermediaries. This means that all these actors need to fulfil certain criteria’s set by the MOFA, in order to gain the legitimate status. Similarly industries decide the legitimacy of their R&D departments. However as the researchers here are mentioned as independent no one controls their legitimacy.
Knowledge Knowledge is defined as ‘insights and interpretations’ (Andriessen, 2006). Figure 1 demonstrates the flow of knowledge between the actors. The insights and interpretations are generally provided after conducting study in relation to a relevant topic. If we take this in terms of project then insight and interpretation will be provided by actor who carried out the project to those actors who assigned the project. So the knowledge transfer will be from the researchers to the MOFA, Intermediaries, knowledge institutes & universities, foundations NGOs and Industry R&D. Knowledge institutes and universities will transfer the knowledge to intermediaries and MOFA. NGOs will transfer the knowledge to MOFA, foundations, industries and intermediaries. Industry R&D will transfer knowledge the industries while intermediaries will transfer the knowledge to the MOFA.
Money Money flow shows how the money flows between various actors. Money could be provided in the form of donations or as payment in return for the work done. As seen in figure 1, MOFA provides fund to the intermediaries, knowledge institutes & universities, researchers, and NGOs. Intermediaries provide money to NGOs, knowledge institutes & universities, and researchers. Foundations provide funds to NGOs. Industries provide funds to NGOs and Industry R&D. However foundations and industries might also provide money to individual politician or the political party to carry out the political campaign. Hence foundations and industries also provide money indirectly to the MOFA. Knowledge institutes & universities and NGOs provide money in the form of payment to the researchers. Hence the actor maps provides insight into how various relationships between the actors involved is influenced by various factors and thus helps in understanding these relations in more depth.
Chapter 3 - Theoretical background Present study aims to gain insight into the power relations between the different stakeholders involved in Share-Net Netherlands in the process of the development of a joint knowledge agenda. For the purpose of this study a joint knowledge agenda is understood to be the integration of the personal agendas of different stakeholders involved in the development of joint knowledge agenda. In this chapter the concept of power will be elucidated and a bridge will be built between the concept power and the model about power relations that is used as the basis of the conceptual framework for this study. Subsequently the process of agenda setting will be discussed in order to explain the development of a joint knowledge agenda. Finally, a conceptual framework for this study will be presented.
Power In this paragraph the concept power will be explained more in depth. Power is considered as a complex concept in the scientific world (Clegg & Haugaard, 2009). It is an ongoing discussion which has mainly to do with the different epistemologies from scientists (Clegg & Haugaard, 2009). Mastin defined Epistemology as: “The study of the nature and scope of knowledge and justified belief’’ (Mastin, 2008). It is related to the process of creating and circulating knowledge about a certain issue. The view on what knowledge is and how to create and circulate knowledge is related to the epistemology of a specific person (Mastin, 2008). Clegg & Haugaard (2009) make a distinction between two types of power; ‘power over’ and ‘power to’. ‘Power over’ is related to a social relation, one has power over someone else or a group (Clegg & Haugaard, 2009). Buse, Mays & Walt (2012) confirm that power in policy making is related to a social relation. Clegg & Haugaard (2009) see ‘power over’ as negative because it limits the action taken by the group or person without power. ‘Power over’ can also be called social power. ‘Power to’ is the power of an individual or group to achieve something. In the previous paragraph an explanation of the concept of power is given. But for the purpose of this study will be looked at power relations between different stakeholders involved in the development of a joint knowledge agenda. A model that is describing power relations is the model of few (2002). According to Few (2002) the policy process is, a set of negotiations between different actors. The relation between these actors is visualised as an arena, called the arena of power relations and is shown in figure 2.
Figure 2. Motives, resources and tactics in the planning arena (Few, 2002)
Every actor takes their own interests and interpretations about certain issues into the arena and will negotiate about it with other actors. While negotiating social power will be applied, this social power is seen by Few (2002) as the actor’s strategy of action to influence the objectives of other actors. The actor’s strategy of action is shaped by motives, resources and tactics. Motives are reasons of actors to intervene and the actor’s strategic objectives. Resources include social connections, personal skills, structural properties all needed to effect objectives of other actors. To effect the objectives during negotiation actors use tactics, which are strategies to influence other actors. The power relations between different actors can be measured by linking the motives, resources and tactics of different actors with the outcome of the negotiation arena. The outcome of the negotiation arena is the interpretation of the group as a whole about the issue negotiated about in the negotiation arena, this is shown in figure 2 as planning outcome. This is called planning outcome, because the case study
was
about
planning
(Few,
2002).
To summarize, power is related to the process of creating and circulating knowledge about a certain issue. Power is divided into two forms of power, social power referred to as ‘power over’ and ‘power to’ which is defined as power of a group or individual to achieve something. The model of Few (2002) gives a description about power relation and describes social power in the negotiation area.
Agenda setting In order to gain more insight in how personal agendas of different stakeholders are established, the process of agenda setting is explained in this paragraph. This is of relevance because personal agendas of the different stakeholders involved in Share-Net stand at the start of a joint knowledge agenda. Agenda setting is the process of selecting certain issues to get them on the agenda in order to have them considered by policy makers (Buse, Mays & Walt, 2012; Princen, 2011). This process also involves an exclusion of topics that will not be put on the agenda; policy makers should make decisions to which issues attention is devoted and to which issues no attention is devoted. Since there are limited resources available, such as money, staff, expertise and time. As a consequence, issues that achieve a high position on the agenda are more likely to be acted upon than issues that have a lower position
on
the
agenda
(Buse,
Mays
&
Walt,
2012).
Several models, such as the model of Hall et al. (1975) and the model of Kingdon (2010), address how topics get on the agenda and the likelihood that there will be acted upon, solving or improving the issue. The approach of Hall et al. (1975) explains that an issue and a likely solution will become part of the agenda only when the issues are legitimate, feasible and supported by the public (Hall et al., 1975; as referred to in Buse, Mays & Walt, 2012). An issue is considered legitimate if the government is concerned about an issue, when the government has the right to intervene and should intervene. Feasibility addresses the question whether it is achievable to implement the policy. Support is about the validation of the issue by the public. In other words, the public confirms that there is an issue and the government should do something about it (Buse, Mays & Walt, 2012). In summary, agenda setting is about getting issues high on the agenda. The model of Hall et al. (1975) describes this process and describes that an issue will come on the agenda if the issue is legitimate, feasible and is supported by the public. Kingdon (2010) also describes the process of agenda setting but in a different way than Hall et al. (1975) does. According to Kingdon (2010) issues could be shifted on the agenda whenever the characteristics of the problem and the development of policy solutions confluence with the features of political institutions and their circumstances (Kingdon, 2010; as referred to in Buse, Mays & Walt, 2012). This process of getting issues on the agenda is visualized by Kindon by using the metaphor of three streams that flow independently, but may emerge at some moment as is shown in Figure 3.
Figure
3.
Three
stream
model
of
agenda
setting
by
Kingdon
This model of Kingdon (2010) demonstrates a distinction between the three streams. Firstly, the ‘problem stream’ which includes the characteristics of the problem, it refers to the perceived problems by the public requiring governmental action. Secondly the ‘policy stream’ which refers to an exploration of a range of possible solutions for the problem and also includes a consideration of previous attempts by the government to deal with the issue. The third stream to which Kingdon (2010) referred, is the ‘politics stream’ refers to a momentum that catalyses a change in policy on account of the willingness of politicians to deal with the problem. In other words, the momentum to influence the political will in order to change the policy (Kingdon, 2010). Although these three streams flow rather separately, they might intersect at some time. According to Kingdon (2010) the junction of these streams will create a ‘policy window’ or ‘window of opportunity’, as is shown in Figure 3, in which the issue gets onto the agenda and it is highly likely that the current policy is changed. In overview, the models of Hall et al. (1975) and Kingdon (2010) address why a particular issue is on the agenda or why it is not. However, these models do not specifically address the role of power between actors in the process of agenda setting. Since for the purpose of this study power relations are of interest, there is also looked at a model that does include power in the process agenda setting. Shiffman and Smith (2007) developed a framework to understand why a topic receives political priority. Political priority indicates whether topics are put higher or lower on the agenda and therefore are acted upon. According to Shiffman and Smith (2007) power influences the political priority. The framework, presented in table 1, has focus on power in four main concepts: (1) actor power, (2) ideas, (3) political context and (4) issue characteristics (Shiffman & Smith, 2007). Actor power is about the power of individuals and organisations that are involved with the topic. Ideas denote the power of the ideas that are present
about the topic among involved actors and which define and describe the topic. The political context describes the power of the political context to build support for the topic. The last main concept is the power of the characteristics of the topic, such as evidence based facts about the topic (Shiffman & Smith, 2007). In summary, according to Shiffman and Smith (2007) the four concepts mentioned above determine which topics receive priority on the agenda and on which topics therefore is acted upon.
Table 1. Framework of Shiffman and Smith’s of determinants for understanding the political priority of different issues (Shiffman & Smith, 2007)
This study aims to gain insight into the power relations between different stakeholders. As aforementioned, power relations are associated with knowledge flow and therefore knowledge sharing (Soenen & Moingeon (2015); Koohang, Harman & Britz, 2008). A major barrier to effective management in organisations is the result of a lack in knowledge sharing (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Hendriks, 1999). Therefore, present study tries to gain a deeper understanding of the concept of actor power, as presented in the model of Shiffman & Smith’s (2007). As can be seen in table 1, each of the concepts (actor power, ideas, context and characteristics) can be addressed by certain indicators/subconcepts: the indicators addressing actor power include (1) policy community cohesion, (2) leadership, (3) guiding institutions and (4) civil society mobilisation. Policy community cohesion refers to the cohesion of those who are involved with the issue. Leadership addresses an individual who takes the lead in unifying the community in order to deal with the topic. This individual often is seen as frontrunner concerning the issue. Guiding institutions are associated with coordination of organisations who are involved with the issue and take charge in order to get attention for the issue at stake. Civil society mobilisation is about the mobilisation of (inter)national political authorities in
order to address the issue (Shiffman & Smith, 2007). These four indicators of actor power address one of the main concepts of the framework of Shiffman & Smith (2007) about agenda setting.
Chapter 4 - Conceptual framework In this part, the developed conceptual framework used in this study is presented. This conceptual framework is derived from the theory of Clegg and Haugaard (2009), Few (2002) and Shiffmann and Smith (2007). This forms the basis for the research and functions as a tool for gaining insight in the power relations between the different stakeholders involved in Share-Net Netherlands. The constructed conceptual framework can be seen in figure 4.
Figure 4. Conceptual framework of the Arena of power relations
The conceptual framework shows the interrelation between ‘power to’ and power over’ within the field of SRHR. ‘Power to’ can be seen as the stakeholder's power to achieve something (Clegg & Haugaard, 2009). This is shaped by the motives, resources and tactics of every stakeholder. ‘Power over’ is seen as power related to a social relation, someone or a group has power over someone else or a group (Clegg & Haugaard, 2009). ‘Power over’ plays a role in the negotiation arena. ‘Power to’ influences the ‘power over’ and vice versa. In the conceptual framework the assumption is made that every stakeholder group has their own motives, resources and tactics, which are derived from the model of Few (2002). In this study three stakeholder groups are included, which are the NGOs, researchers and policy makers. In the conceptual framework these stakeholder groups are represented respectively by the triangles in the colours red, orange and green. Motives in this study are considered as reasons why stakeholders want
to take part in the development of a joint knowledge agenda, which topics they would like to address on the joint knowledge agenda and why they want these topics to be addressed. Resources are the means the stakeholder uses in order to possibly put their topics of interest on the joint knowledge agenda such as knowledge and existing social connections. Finally, tactics are the way these resources can be used to bring the topics of interest on the JKA. Examples of tactics are persuasion, alliance formation and manipulation (Few, 2002). The tactics arise from the stakeholder’s motives and resources. All together the motives, resources and tactics denote the ‘power to’ of a stakeholder as identified by Clegg and Haugaard (2009). The motives, resources and tactics can be studied on an organizational level as well as on an individual level. The representative of a stakeholder can have personal motives, resources and tactics but can also represent the motives, resources and tactics of the whole stakeholder. It is considered that in most cases the organizational and individual level are interconnected. However, in this research the focus will mainly be on the organizational level, since the objective is to explore the power relations between different stakeholders groups. Another aspect from the conceptual framework is the negotiation arena. Based on Few (2002), the arena is considered as a space where different stakeholders come together in negotiation concerning different interpretations and interests (Few, 2002; van Ufford, 1993). Examples of such spaces are social events where stakeholders put forward a proposal, initiative or argument (Few, 2002). However the negotiation arena does resemble one specific moment, it can be seen as a process of negotiation between different stakeholders which can be on different moments in time. It is likely that the different stakeholders use their power, in order to achieve a higher position for their topics of interest on the joint knowledge agenda. Therefore the arena is seen a space where ‘power over’ is exercised. According to Shiffman and Smith (2007) four factors are important in negotiating which issues are prioritized over others. Therefore these factors are taken into account as factors that play a role in the negotiation arena. The four factors are factors, where the stakeholder cannot prepare for, in contrast to their tactics, but which arise once the stakeholders are in the negotiation arena. Three factors are used: leadership, policy community cohesion and guiding institutions. For the purpose of this study the term leadership is changed into facilitation, which is defined as the presence of individuals capable of uniting the SRHR community, which enables a dialogue about SRHR topics. Another influencing factor is the presence of guiding institutions, these are institutions which lead the content of the negotiation once the SRHR community is united. If there is a guiding institution in the negotiation, this institution can have a large influence on the process of joint knowledge agenda development by for example deciding which topics are discussed. The third factor is policy community
cohesion, this is the degree of coalescence among the NGOs, researchers and the policy makers of MOFA. It entails for example if the stakeholders are willing to negotiate with each other and if they take each other seriously. The fourth factor of Shiffman and Smith (2007); civil society mobilization, is not incorporated in the negotiation arena, because civil society does not play a direct role in the negotiation process of different stakeholders from Share-Net Netherlands in the development of a joint knowledge agenda. However, this concept is addressed under the motives of stakeholders why they prioritize certain topics because the opinion of civil society might influence the motives. The triangles with the motives, resources and tactics of every stakeholder and the triangles of the three factors influencing the negotiation arena are all surrounded by a white area. This white area is seen as the field of SRHR where the negotiation about SRHR topics takes place. A desired outcome from the negotiation between these stakeholders would be a joint SRHR knowledge agenda. However, for the purpose of this research the outcome has been omitted from the framework since this outcome is not present yet. Operationalization of concepts This section elaborates on how the concepts used in the conceptual framework are defined for this research. In the previous section the concepts are defined, this section elaborates on the operationalization of these concepts for this research. The operationalization is based on literature from Few (2002) and Shiffman & Smith (2007). More background information has been presented previously in the theoretical background. Table 2 displays the operationalization of concepts.
Table 2: Operationalization of concepts Concepts Motives
Operationalization -
Reasons for taking part in the development of a JKA
-
Reasons for choosing the topics that should be on the joint knowledge agenda
-
Reasons for choosing the topics that should be on their personal agenda
Resources
Tactics
-
Contacts / network
-
Time
-
Expertise; knowledge, academic skills (Few, 2002)
-
Social skills (Few, 2002)
-
Finances
-
Alliance formation (Few, 2002); working together with other stakeholders
-
Manipulation (Few, 2002); Influencing in a persuasive way, others may notice.
Policy community cohesion
Facilitation
-
Support; make sure that you get followers
-
Lobbying
-
Persuasion (Few, 2002)
-
Networking
-
Open attitude
-
Respect
-
Cooperation (Shiffman & Smith, 2007)
-
Presence of uniting parties
-
Hosting; Lent or rent out available space
-
Organisation of meetings or other knowledge sharing moments
Guiding institutions
-
Certain institutions guide the negotiation
Sub-questions From the conceptual framework seven sub-questions can be derived:
1. What are the motives of the involved stakeholders to get certain SRHR issues on the Joint knowledge agenda? 2. What resources do the stakeholders have to put their SRHR priorities on the agenda? 3. What are the tactics stakeholders use to promote their own SRHR agenda among other stakeholders? 4. How does policy community cohesion influence the formulation of a joint SRHR knowledge agenda? 5. How does facilitation influence the formulation of a joint SRHR knowledge agenda? 6. How do guiding institutions influence the formulation of a joint SRHR knowledge agenda?
Chapter 5 - Methodology Present study was an exploratory study, which aim is to explore a phenomenon that was yet known to have little information (Gray, 2014). A qualitative approach was used for this study by using semi-structured interviews. The study was conducted in four weeks, as indicated in the timeline in Annex 7. In this chapter, the comprehensive methodology will be further elaborated, which includes study population & recruitment, data collection and data analysis.
Study population & Recruitment Ten respondents are interviewed for this study. Since the study is exploratory, ten respondents were considered as sufficient to provide an explorative overview of the perceptions of the related stakeholders. An inclusion criteria for this study was that all respondents had to be a member of Share-Net, either individually or through an organisation or have to be experts on power or joint knowledge agenda. Also, the respondents had to be able to answer the interview questions in Dutch or in English. An exclusion criteria of this study was that respondents could not be students, because they were considered to lack expertise to answer the interview questions. The respondents were recruited in several ways. The recruitment started with purposive sampling. By using this type of sampling, the respondents were deliberately selected according to one or more criteria, to obtain a representative sample (Gray, 2014). While this approach can result in true cross-section of the population, purposive sampling can also lead to unconscious bias towards sample selection (Gray, 2014). The researchers started recruiting respondents at two Share-Net events, on 29 September and 8 October 2015. A background check on the profession of the respondents was done in order to categorize them in one of the stakeholder groups: researchers, NGO employees, or policy makers of the MOFA. Moreover, to recruit more respondents, snowball sampling was utilized. Using this approach, the identification of new respondents in the population was based on the references from other respondents (Gray, 2014). In this study, the contacts that were made during the events were asked for more connections. Next to this, the commissioners of this study provided several contacts as well. All potential respondents were e-mailed first to invite them for an interview. When a respondent did not respond, they were followed up by phone. Once they agreed to be interviewed, a confirmation email was sent to them. Present study aimed to have an equal amount of participants in each group of stakeholders, because this will provide an overview of perceptions and experiences of
different stakeholders. Each of the three stakeholder groups had three respondents to represent the group, and the tenth respondent was an expert on power relations.
Data collection To get more insight of the commissioners, clarifying conversations with both of the commissioners have been conducted before data collection commenced. These conversations were recorded and summarized to conduct a member check. The information is used mostly for the contextual background. Semi-structured interviews were used to gain deeper insights in the perceptions, thoughts, attitudes and views of the respondents (Gray, 2014). A semi-structured interview guide was designed, which allowed the interviewers to elaborate on (other) related topics and to ask probing questions. This way, a semi-structured interview provided a way for exploring subjective meanings implied by the respondents. The interview guide was designed both in English and in Dutch, because two of the researchers of present study are non-Dutch speakers. In addition, the respondents could choose to be interviewed in the language they preferred. This increases the validity of the study because respondents could express themselves better because of a smaller language barrier. The interview guide was initially designed in English, then translated to Dutch and then translated back to English by different researchers. This also increases the validity, because by doing the back- and forward translation, it is made sure that the interview questions are the same in English and in Dutch (Gray, 2014). The same interview guide was used for the nine respondents in the stakeholder groups. For the interview with the expert on power relations, the interview guide was adjusted, because certain questions addressing a specific meeting between different stakeholders to develop a joint knowledge agenda, were not applicable. Internal validity is associated with a strong link between data collection and theoretical ideas developed from the study (Gray, 2014). In order to improve internal validity of the interview guide, some adjustments on the interview questions were made after the first couple of interviews. The interview started with some general questions about for example the respondent’s function and relation to Share-Net. Subsequently, questions about motives, resources and tactics between different stakeholders were addressed in accordance to the conceptual framework. Next, questions about the topics policy community cohesion, leadership, and guiding institution, that were derived from the model of Shiffman and Smith (2007), were asked. The interviews lasted between 45 minutes and one hour and were conducted face-to-face. Each researcher conducted one interview and attended another. The second researcher served the
role of internal replication in which he or she inspected the interview procedures in the attempt to avoid misinterpretation, omission, and fabrication that might occur during the data collection (Gray, 2014). Prior to the interview, informed consent was signed by each respondent. By signing this informed consent, respondents declared that they voluntarily participated in the study, knew the purpose of the study and were aware of their rights regarding their participation. The interview was recorded in order to facilitate transcription and data-analyses. Also, a summary of the interview was made and sent to the respondent for a member check.
Data analysis As preparation for data analysis, the ten interviews were transcribed using the programme ExpressScribe (NCH Software, Express Scribe Transcription Software). Every interview was labelled with a respondent code so the interviewee’s identity was not reducible from this transcript. The code was based on the number of the interview, which stakeholder group it represents and the interviewer initials. To further ensure the anonymity of the respondents, the name of the organizations where the respondents work were also replaced by certain code, and parts of the interview that were not authorized by the respondents were not included in the transcription. Subsequently, the ten transcripts were coded with the use of the analysis programme MAXQDA 12 (MAXQDA, software for qualitative data analysis, 1989-2015). Coding was in general done by thematic analyses, to develop a coding tree. Throughout the thematic analysis, forms of patterned response within the data was recognized, which captured substantial meanings in relation to the overall research question (Gray, 2014). The analysis of this research was focused on identifying and describing themes: implicit and explicit ideas acquired from the respondents. For the development of the coding tree, two researchers categorized the data by developing themes in consensus, based on the conceptual framework and operationalization. Codes were developed to represent the identified themes and were linked to raw data as summary markers for later analysis. Additional themes, such as background information of the respondents, were added in this process. To further develop the code tree, the two researchers thematically coded two transcripts in consensus, and data was placed within the context of the developed themes. Next to thematic coding, also open coding has been used when fragments did not fit with the existing thematic codes. Open coding was done by labelling and categorizing meaningful fragments through close examination of the data by constantly making comparisons of categories found in the data (Gray, 2014). New codes that were found by open coding, were added to the code tree. The codes and sub codes were updated until it reached a point of data saturation by means that there were no new properties, classes, categories, or relationships emerged from the data (Gray, 2014).
All codes and sub codes are described and operationalized in a code guide, in order to align the interpretation of the codes by the researchers and to ensure that the transcripts were analysed identically and consistently by all the researchers (Guest, McQueen & Namey, 2012). The code guide was bilingually made since the interviews were conducted in Dutch as well as in English. To improve validity of the coding guide, every code was first made in Dutch by two researchers and then translated to English by a third researcher. Then, the three researchers checked the translated codes and adjusted them where needed, to make sure all codes are understood and used correctly by all the researchers (Degroot, Dannenburg & Vanhell, 1994). Every interviewer coded their own transcripts by using the code guide. Throughout the coding process, the code guide was updated when new codes were made or when existing codes were changed. After the coding process, data analysis commenced. In order to facilitate analysis of all the codes, an analysis matrix was constructed. The analysis matrix comprised topics based on the sub questions of this study. Also, other relevant information was added as topics into this matrix. The topics included were background and demographics, motives, resources, tactics, policy community cohesion, facilitation, guiding institutions, Share-Net, power between stakeholders and Joint Knowledge Agenda. The linked codes to these topics were identified. Then, in order to compare the three stakeholder groups, each of these topics were summarized for the different stakeholder groups. The summaries were based on all the fragments of the transcripts associated to one topic. This was done by eight researchers who had both a Dutch and English linguistic proficiency. Out of the summaries of the topics made for the different stakeholders, the results can be written.
Chapter 6 - Results Ten interviews are conducted in present study. The interviewees are divided into four groups: researchers group consisting of three researchers (referred to as ‘researcher 1’, ‘researcher 2’, ‘researcher 3’), an NGO group consisting of three employees of NGOs (referred to as ‘NGO1’, ‘NGO2’, ‘NGO3’), a governmental group consisting of three policy makers of the MOFA (referred to as ‘policy maker 1’, ‘policy maker 2’, ‘policy maker 3’) and an expert on power relations (referred to as ‘expert on power relations’). A short description of all interviewees is presented below. More information about the background of the interviewees could be found in Annex 8.
Researcher 1 was involved with the foundation of Share-Net in 2000 and is currently working for a knowledge institute. Researcher 2 works for the SRHR Team and is involved with Share-Net Burundi. The employer of researcher 3 is member of Share-Net and involved in SRHR. The employer of NGO1 mainly focusses on violence against women and SRHR and NGO1 is working together with Share-Net. NGO2 is managing the implementation of a SRHR programme in Uganda and Bangladesh. The main task of NGO2 is to be the link between the SRHR programme in the Netherlands and the SRHR programmes in Uganda and Bangladesh. NGO3 is a deputy director and is in charge in the knowledge management strategy. They work closely together with a lot of organisations involved in SRHR, specifically on the topic of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender). Policy maker 1 is a policy officer for the department from where the platform for SRHR was launched. Policy maker 1 was also involved in the development of Share-Net. Policy maker 2 works in the SRHR team and aims to make SRHR progressive and to get it onto the global agenda. Policy maker 3 is a policy worker involved with issues as child marriage, key populations (Men who have sex with men (MSM), sex-workers and drugs-workers) and tuberculosis. The expert on power relations worked for several important institutions and was an advisor for the UN. Therefore, the expert on power relations directly experienced power relations. The expert on power relations provided background information on power.
Motives A remarkable distinction that emerged from the interviews is that the different stakeholders considered different types of motives important to focus on certain SRHR topics. There is a continuum from limited freedom to choose topics of own interest to complete freedom to choose topics of own interest. In other words, some of the interviewees indicate that they address specific topics because
they were told to do so, while others indicate that they address topics that they themselves consider important or relevant. All policy makers describe the launch of the four core areas of SRHR policy by the Dutch government in order to improve the SRHR situation and to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. In order to achieve these improvements in SRHR the MOFA receives money from the United Nations, the Global fund and the Lower House. However, instead of spending money to issues of the own interest of the MOFA, the policy makers of the MOFA indicate that they have to follow these core areas. As a consequence, the MOFA has control over the allocation of the budget to specific issues, but only within that framework of these four core areas. The respondent say that the MOFA often allocates money to certain topics based on global trends proposed by the UN, but the MOFA could also publish call for tenders or call for proposals for a specific mission they consider important. In brief, the MOFA can decide over their budget and how they would like to spent it, but only within the framework of the four core areas. The interviewees of the NGOs indicate that they could either address topics of their own interest or that they can focus on topics that were considered important by the MOFA. For example, they could sign in for the call for tenders or call for proposals published by the MOFA. Some interviewees indicate that their motives to address certain topics are influenced by articles, funding, WHO reports and the Millennium Development Goals. Also an interviewee pointed out that the respondent’s motive was to be able to support knowledge production. NGOs can also gain support from the policy makers of MOFA for a certain topic by actively campaigning for a certain topic. In summary, NGOs could either address an issue of their own interest or they can address an issue because it was considered important by the MOFA. The researchers mention several motives involved in the process of selecting a certain research subject. A researcher found it important to do research in order to fill knowledge gaps. Besides, the respondent considers it important that topics on the research agenda should be divided; it would not be efficient if the same topic is being researched in different studies.
“..sexuality education [...] many are working on that so it's not necessarily on our agenda to do that; we can focus on other things.” (Researcher 1, Male)
Two different views concerning money as a motive are mentioned by the researchers. A researcher mentioned money as a motive, because financial support is needed to do research. Another motive about money was mentioned by a respondent and relates to the relevance of a certain topic for the public.
“We contribute to knowledge where hopefully others benefit from. Because I do think, research money is also tax money. You need to be accountable in this, where are you going to focus research on? Not just on a subject which is relevant for us, I think.” (Researcher 3, Female)
The expert on power relations stated the only motive for states to do something is if, in the end, it is them who benefit out of it; States only give development money if they get something in return. The expert on power relations mentioned a research of a Canadian sociologist investigating all development programmes of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. This Canadian sociologist found out that 1) all of the development programmes eventually would lead to a dead-end and that 2) the World Bank was aware of that. According to the Canadian sociologist it was not about development of the Third World countries, it was about integrating these countries in the global economy; taking up developing countries into the global economic industry in order to earn money.
“As a rule of thumb, half of the development money going from the North to the South, was payed back in return for the technology of the North.” (Power Expert 1, Male)
Resources There are different types of resources that are considered as substantial by each of the stakeholders in order to position their interest under the attention by other stakeholders. Of all the important resources that are required, having sufficient amount of time to put certain topics into the joint knowledge agenda is highlighted by a respondent from the MOFA and a researcher as well. Both of the respondents emphasize that although time is an important aspect in setting their topics in joint knowledge agenda, they are facing the challenge of limited time. Moreover, a respondent from the MOFA said, as depicted in the quote below, that limited time for the government is mainly caused by a lot of meetings within the organization.
“It is not a matter of finances […] some months are just really busy with meetings” (Policy maker 1, Female)
Hence, this leads to prioritization in meeting attendance which is closely affected by the responsibility and personal interest of the MOFA official themselves.
Finance is another resource that is brought forth as well by the respondents both from the MOFA and researchers. However, it appears that the importance of finance is being pointed out differently by both stakeholders. A respondent from the MOFA acknowledges the significance of finance in joint knowledge agenda by recognizing the MOFA’s key role in providing funds to the NGOs or researchers. On the other hand, a respondent from the researchers group highlights that money is a persistent issue. For researchers money is required to carry out research. As a consequence, a certain interest in the topic is necessary in order to get the topic onto the agenda. In relation with power, the capability of financing other organizations also provides the MOFA greater power than the other stakeholders as perceived by respondents from the researchers and NGOs. In a nutshell, these acquired insights describe that in general finance is a crucial resource for the stakeholders to gain other stakeholders’ attention for specific topics.
Aside from time and financial resources, social skills are also considered as vital resources in this matter by the respondents from researchers and NGO. A researcher states that social skills are important and in fact are also relatively easy to understand. Additionally, a respondent from NGO specifically mentioned social skills in the form of persuasiveness as being required to bring the SRHR agenda under the attention of the other stakeholders.
“Charisma, because I believe that communication is 90% nonverbal. [...] I heard internally that proposals are first being rejected, but two years later accepted, while it is the same proposal by the same people, but presented differently [...] The way something is presented is very important.” (NGO 1, Female)
The knowledge in SRHR area also contributes to getting topics from different stakeholders onto the agenda. An NGO respondent states that it is an advantage to have experts in this area. Based on the interview results from all of the NGO respondents, there is a link identified between knowledge and power. Apparently, power differences occur between the NGOs in particular. The bigger NGOs are considered to have higher level of knowledge in terms of more expertise and experience than the smaller NGOs. Thus, as stated by the respondents, having knowledge provides the opportunity for bigger NGOs to have more power. As a consequence, they can influence the decision making on the agenda settings. On the contrary, the interview with an expert in power suggests that knowledge is not directly related to power. According to this expert, literacy of handling information or knowledge is required to derive power from knowledge.
“To think that the people could derive power from having knowledge is a misconception. Because a lot is needed in order evolve information to power: you need the ability to handle information, select information, translate information to operation models. In conclusion, you need a level of literacy in handling information” (Power Expert 1, Male)
The above insight implies that knowledge is regarded as influential resource to place particular topics in the agenda settings between other stakeholders. In addition, the different level of knowledge is also regarded by the NGOs respondents to generate power differences across the NGOs in the field of SRHR.
Tactics Tactics can be seen as the strategies used by the respondents to promote their topic of interests among other stakeholders. Alliance formation is emphasized by one of the policy makers as well as a researcher as a strategy that they use to promote their topic. However, the stakeholders with whom the alliance is formed are different for the respondents. A researcher indicates to prefer forming alliances with universities, the researcher believes that forming alliances results in a stronger voice. A policy maker mentions to prefer forming alliances with NGOs, because it enables them to reach target groups better. Additionally, the policy maker notes to prefer forming alliances with others that share their interest.
“If you want to change something, you should not start with those who think completely different than you do. That will cost way too much energy, you should start with those who are open to your ideas. That is what we do within MOFA.”(Policy maker 1, Female)
The researchers and a respondent from the NGOs also mention lobbying as one of the tactics to gain support, but they differ in their approach. The respondent of NGOs emphasizes the power of persuasiveness in direct conversation whereas the researchers highlight that they also lobby during informal conversations. The view of the one of the researchers on informal conversations is evident in the quote below:
“The coffee break, in between that process, it is important you talk to each other, but it’s not an over competitive […] process of agenda setting” (Researcher 1, Male)
Support from other stakeholders working in the area of SRHR is another tactic that is mentioned by the respondents. Several respondents consider support as a tactic to create more proponents in terms of getting higher level of support to prioritize certain topics to come onto joint knowledge agenda.
“... you cannot be the only one asking for attention if you want to get attention for your topic” (Researcher 2, Female)
More proponents are gained by means of popular campaign and media. One of the respondents states that more proponents could also generate greater power for the organization.
Cohesion The cohesion describes how stakeholders come together within the negotiation arena for the formulation of a joint SRHR knowledge agenda. The policy makers of the MOFA, NGOs and researchers agree that they could benefit from cooperation with other stakeholders and they acknowledge that they could learn from each other. Researchers state that every stakeholder has different input which is valuable. This can either be on the topic, the perspective on the topic or topics that are yet unknown for others. In accordance with this statement, all three stakeholders point out that they share information or knowledge with each other. A policy maker of the MOFA states that there is a warm and frequent exchange of knowledge and information between the field, the stakeholders and the MOFA. Furthermore the contacts between policy makers of the MOFA and NGOs are really easy. NGOs are important for policy makers of the MOFA because they reach groups that are harder to reach for policy makers. Besides, policy makers benefit from collaboration with NGOs, because they know what is happening at street-level.
“NGO’s help us to stay focused, they also help to keep other governments focused. It is a strategic choice to collaborate with NGO’s.” (Policy maker 2, Female)
NGOs confirm this by mentioning that they think that their knowledge is valued and taken into account by other stakeholders and that the relation with the MOFA is really good. However, there is still some room for improvement in the collaboration process. Researchers mention that there should be more integration with academic partners. Furthermore, they mention that a lot of knowledge and evidence from the field is yet undervalued. The focus should not only be on interventions that work,
but also on what is not working, because this is a form of knowledge as well. This is confirmed by the expert on power relations.
“You have to have the courage to thoroughly evaluate why previous initiatives did not work out, because only when you understand what went wrong, you can try differently next time. But, we make the same mistake over and over again (NL: vinden het wiel steeds opnieuw uit).” (Expert on power relations, male)
NGOs mention that a joint knowledge agenda provides the opportunity for a better collaboration and to learn from stakeholders that have different interests. This is in contrast with the opinions of the researchers and policy makers, who also think that the joint knowledge agenda is a good initiative, but agree to talk with colleagues with similar interest to form an alliance as mentioned before. One the contrary, the respondents mention also several drawbacks of the setup of a joint knowledge agenda. Researchers mention that there is the feeling within Share-Net that they all think the same, but that their view is different from the rest of the world. Furthermore, the policy makers state that even though all stakeholders collaborate in the development in the joint knowledge agenda, every stakeholder still has to maintain their own role and expertise. This own role and expertise could be used to complement each other in the process of the development of a joint knowledge agenda. The policy makers mention that now, with the setup of a joint knowledge agenda, there might be less possibility to keep this own personal role.
Facilitation The different stakeholders describe several opinions about in what way they perceive an influence of facilitation on the topics that are being addressed in a meeting. One of the policy makers of the MOFA points out that it matters who facilitates meetings and gatherings. An NGO also mentioned that the one who organises the meeting has influence on the way information is discussed. In other words, the one who facilitates the meeting has a certain status. Therefore the respondent suggests that it would be a good idea if the facilitation is done alternately by every stakeholder. However, this respondent does not consider the influence on the way information is discussed as something harmful; the one who facilitates usually has a lot of passion and knowledge for the topic. On the other hand, the researchers did not mention the facilitation as an actor which has large influence on the topics being discussed. However, a researcher did mention that the facilitator should be neutral and that different opinions should be heard.
“The outcome of the meeting should not be predetermined, it should be open because the agenda should be in a certain way that different things can happen, depending on who’s there and depending on which speakers you invite.” (Researcher 1, Male)
Both the policy makers and the researchers mention problems with the time and place of the meetings. A policy maker of the MOFA says that the gatherings are too long which makes it hard for the policy makers to go because they are short in time. This respondent gives the recommendation to hold the meetings more often but shorter in duration. This problem was also seen by some researchers:
“There is the idea that if we have workshops in The Hague all the time, that more policy makers will come, but that is totally not true [...] what I think more is that it is important that organisations also host and feel the responsibility for a process..” (Researcher 2, Female)
Within meetings a chair usually leads the discussion, this chair is being chosen by the facilitator. The expert on power relations states that it is very important for a chair to bring someone’s prejudices and insecurities to the surface during a meeting, this will lead to better results. Policy makers mention that these chairs most of the times also have a background and represent an organization. This background will always influence the way how they will facilitate the discussion. As a consequence, the organizations the moderators are coming from can indirectly become guiding institutions within the discussion. Facilitation is very closely related to guiding institutions that dominate within decision-making.
Guiding institutions In present study, guiding institution implies 1) coordination among organisations who are involved with the SRHR issue as well as 2) take charge in order to get attention for the topics in the joint knowledge agenda settings. The most influential guiding institution as perceived by the researchers and NGOs is the MOFA. The influence is manifested in the form of the authority to set the agenda among the other stakeholders in SRHR. A respondent from NGO expressed that influence of the MOFA is derived from the financial resources they hold. However, the same respondent also mentions that although the MOFA provides the money, they lack time availability and flexibility in determining its objectives to be implemented by the other stakeholders, as one of the respondents’ mentions:
“Who has a strong voice […] I think it is someone with the most money and the least time” (NGO 1, Female) A quote below from an NGO respondent describes the opinion regarding the MOFA’s steering function:
‘’I found it a bit odd that we had something included in their programme of the last meeting. But I understood that, that was something of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’’ (NGO 3, female)
Although a researcher confirms the substantial influence possessed by the MOFA, the respondent argues that the MOFA is not dictating, but that other stakeholders are still able to share their insights about implementation of a policy or programme. On the other hand, none of the respondents from the MOFA actually acknowledge this influence within their organizations. Some respondents from the MOFA indicate that in reality the policy makers in their organization provide suggestions to the minister. In addition, they indicate that the decisions made are based on the consideration of the minister and the policy makers. Interestingly, some of the MOFA respondents mention that politicians also influence every decisions made, as depicted in the quote below:
“I feel that we can have a lot of ideas within the Ministry, but that at the end the political issues of the day are leading” (Policy maker 1, Female)
Furthermore, some respondents emphasize that the MOFA only executes what is being decided by the Lower House. Thus, it is implied that the most decisive role as perceived by the MOFA in determining the SRHR agenda settings is in the office of the Lower House.
Aside from those politicians, the respondents from the MOFA mention other aspects that have the ability to lead the negotiation of SRHR topics to be included in the agenda settings. The steering committee of the knowledge platform, Share-Net, is considered capable to indirectly take the lead on discussion of such topics. Additionally, the MOFA respondents note that the committee is also representing each of the committee’s own organization’s interest while doing the negotiation with the other stakeholders. Public attention is another aspect that also regarded important to lead negotiation of joint SRHR agenda settings. This aspect is capable to pull the interest of politicians, thus to move the priority to some issues into the agenda settings that subsequently require further policy
action by the MOFA. The MOFA respondents also think that public attention is achievable through the media. In addition, the same respondents add that NGOs are able to raise awareness among the politicians about topics that gained a lot of public attention in the attempt to place such topics onto the SRHR joint knowledge agenda.
Apart from the influence of the MOFA, some respondents also state influence from NGOs and researchers as guiding institutions to a certain extent. For instance, the researchers say that some NGOs can have more influence on the certain agenda than other NGOs due to knowledge of target population and robust capability in lobbying and advocacy. The influence of NGOs is also acknowledged by one respondent from an NGO that state that the influence and power of NGOs is achieved through their network or contacts. The steering function of researchers as stated by one researcher attributes to the decision making in methods. Meanwhile, one of the MOFA respondents mentions that both NGOs and researchers possess influence. However, this respondent argues that their influences are considered low and it depends on their effort to lobby their topics to get onto the agenda.
Additional findings In this section the findings which are not taken into account in the sub-questions are presented. The section comprises the opinions of the respondents about Share-Net and the use of Share-Net by the respondents. Also the respondents’ perceptions about a joint knowledge agenda are presented. Furthermore, additional information about power between the different stakeholders from the perspective of the respondents is included in this section.
Most of the respondents consider Share-Net as a good tool to share knowledge with different stakeholders. Most of the policy makers of MOFA mention that Share-Net is a useful platform and important in the field of SRHR. Also, a respondent who works for an NGO mentions that the NGO can get a lot of information from Share-Net. However, most of the researchers and policy makers say that they often cannot be at meetings of Share-Net, because it is very time-consuming. The meetings are often the entire afternoon and these respondents find them quite long. As a result, they do not have the time to go.
“Yes, the meetings that Share-Net has organised are very useful, but they are all in the afternoon. So I almost never can be there.” (Policy maker 2, Female)
In addition, the respondent who work for NGOs mention some other critics on the platform. One of these respondents expresses the feeling that Share-Net is a little bit talking to themselves and that they feel that Share-Net should reach out to a wider audience. Next to that, another NGO points out that Share-Net can be used for a variety of things. As a consequence, the respondent states that there is the danger that it is going to be too oversized.
Almost all respondents say that they think the development of a joint knowledge is a good idea. The policy makers of MOFA and the researchers indicate that the joint knowledge agenda could help to get to know other stakeholders and could improve the collaboration between stakeholders. Besides, a researcher as well as a policy maker mention that a joint knowledge agenda might draw more attention to intervention- or implementation research, which can result in more evidence-based programmes. Furthermore, the researchers also consider a joint knowledge agenda as a worthwhile exercise to look together at where the world is at and where knowledge gaps are present. On the other hand, all respondents also express their concerns and doubts about a joint knowledge agenda.
First, the researchers mention, as well as respondents from NGOs, that it is probably very difficult to agree on the content of a joint agenda, because there are many different stakeholders with their own goal and vision. Second, policy makers and researchers are concerned about the time it will cost to get together for a joint agenda, since they already do not have much time to attend meetings. In addition, it also costs a lot of money to get stakeholders together. Third, some of the respondents are concerned with the possibility that the agenda will not be followed upon.
“What I’m a bit concerned about is that it costs a lot of time to sit around the table to establish a joint knowledge agenda and I think that practice will just make this yesterday’s news because practice will show that there is 1 issue, that is very important, [...] where all the attention goes to” (Policy maker 1, Female)
Fourth, a policy maker points out that it is not always good that all stakeholders are on the same page, since it is important that the stakeholders keep their own role, because they all have a specific contribution. Fifth, all respondents question the issue of differences in power relations between the stakeholders. They expect that this issue will problematize the development of a joint knowledge agenda. Most researchers say that MOFA has the money and therefore has a large influence on what gets onto the agenda. However, the policy makers of MOFA have a different perspective. According to them, the power to decide which topic get onto the SRHR agenda is within
the Lower House. In the meantime, the policy makers also mention that they suggest topics to the Lower House and that the Lower House then decides on the approval of the budget for a certain topic. One of the policy makers pointed out that, since the Lower House decides on SRHR policy, it can be that when elections comes, other parties will be elected and the SRHR policy can be changed entirely.
“You can have great knowledge in the Netherlands, but when we have elections and other parties will get power, they might say: I don’t see the point of all this. Then it can all be thrown away” (Government 3, Male)
All respondents give some recommendations for the development of the joint knowledge agenda. First of all, a researcher and a policy maker both point out that there should be more attention to research and evaluation to see what is evidence-based and thus what programmes and policy actually works. Secondly, a respondent of an NGO explains that it is important to include policy makers and researchers in creating a joint knowledge agenda, to check whether the feasibility of the goals that are going to be included in the agenda. Third, respondents also point out that it would be good to be more creative and to reach out to more people, but at the same time respondents mention that it will be a trickier process to develop the joint knowledge agenda. Therefore, those involved with the process of the development of the joint knowledge agenda should have been chosen very carefully. Fourth, the gatherings to discuss the joint knowledge agenda should be shorter and more often than the current meetings of Share-Net, because this way they consider them very time-consuming. Finally, an NGO states that the most important thing is to first be organized, but in order to do so manpower is needed. However, at this moment they already are short in manpower.
“We lack human beings. We are in desperate need of human beings. We are all overworked.” (NGO 3, Female) All respondents give some recommendations for the development of the joint knowledge agenda. First of all, a researcher and a policy maker both point out that there should be more attention to research and evaluation to see what is evidence-based and thus what programmes and policy actually works. Secondly, a respondent of an NGO explains that it is important to include policy makers and researchers in creating a joint knowledge agenda, to check whether the feasibility of the goals that are going to be included in the agenda. Third, respondents also point out that it would be good to be more creative and to reach out to more people, but at the same time respondents mention that it will be a trickier process to develop the joint knowledge agenda. Therefore, those involved with the
process of the development of the joint knowledge agenda should have been chosen very carefully. Fourth, the gatherings to discuss the joint knowledge agenda should be shorter and more often than the current meetings of Share-Net, because this way they consider them very time-consuming. Finally, an NGO states that the most important thing is to first be organized, but in order to do so manpower is needed. However, at this moment they already are short in manpower.
“We lack human beings. We are in desperate need of human beings. We are all overworked.” (NGO 3, Female)
Chapter 7 - Discussion Results A brief summary of the findings of this study will be given, this will be done in the order of the sub questions derived from the conceptual model. Different stakeholder groups have different motives to get their topics on the agenda. The policy makers work within the framework of policy regarding SRHR. NGOs look for topics to place on their agenda in their own line of interest or they call for tenders or proposals. Researchers are interested in research gaps which they want to place high on the agenda. The main resources, that are mentioned by the stakeholder groups, are finances, time, social skills and expertise. Different stakeholder groups indicated that the forming of alliances, lobbying in both formal and informal way and gaining support are forms of tactics that are used to get the topics of their interest on the agenda. The stakeholder groups agree that it is beneficial to collaborate with other stakeholders. It is stated that every stakeholder has added value in the discussion. Knowledge is also shared. It is mentioned by all respondents that the facilitator of the meetings has influence on the topics that will be addressed during the meetings. However this is not always seen as a problem, because the facilitator usually has knowledge and passion for the topic. By different stakeholders the MOFA is seen as a guiding institution, although the MOFA thinks that other stakeholders also have influence on the topics that will be placed on the agenda. It was also mentioned that NGOs have influence because they raise awareness for certain topics, via campaigning for instance. Apart from the findings stated above some additional findings were found as well, these will be outlined shortly. For starters, most respondents think that Share-Net is a good tool to share knowledge with different stakeholders. However, both researchers and policy makers found the meetings very time consuming and therefore often do not go to those meetings. Almost all the attitudes of the respondents are positive towards the development of a joint knowledge agenda, because it is good to improve the collaboration between different stakeholders. However there have been raised questions about the joint knowledge agenda too by different stakeholders.
The linkage of data to literature Connections between different findings will be made to give insight in the ways these findings influence on each other. The smaller NGOs mentioned that it is very hard for them to lobby, because they do not have the resources that are needed for this. For example, they lack financial resources
and expertise. On the other hand, bigger NGOs stated that they already made a name for themselves, therefore they do not have an urgency to lobby. Policy makers and researchers know what big NGOs have to offer. Most of these bigger NGOs have the resources to lobby but do not need lobbying so much. The fact that small NGOs do not really have the resources to lobby and the big NGOs might not need to lobby can contribute to the fact that small NGOs stay small. Resources play a role in facilitation. Respondents mentioned that knowledge institutes and the MOFA are often the stakeholders who facilitate the knowledge sharing meetings. It was mentioned that these stakeholders have the resources to facilitate these meetings, for example they have space available and do need to ask money for this. This might be the reason why knowledge sharing meetings are often held at these stakeholders. Different tactics were mentioned by different stakeholders. Tactics such as, alliance formation, lobbying and seeking support were the most mentioned by the respondents. These tactics are mostly used by the NGOs and some of the researchers to get their topic on the agenda. As follows from the findings of this study, is the MOFA a guiding institution. However, during the process of knowledge sharing no tactics have been mentioned by the policy makers of the MOFA who were interviewed for this study. This suggest that the MOFA does not need tactics to get their topics under the attention of other stakeholders in the development of a joint knowledge agenda. A reason for this could be that because the MOFA is a guiding institution they do not need tactics to get their topics on the agenda because they already have power from their role as guiding institution. As mentioned before the MOFA is seen as a guiding institution by different stakeholders. However the policy makers of the MOFA do not see the MOFA as a guiding institution, that has all the power. They pointed out that the Lower House is the guiding institution, that the Lower House has all the power and that the MOFA executes the policy of the Lower House. The policy makers who have been pointed out as the ones with all the power according to the researchers and NGOs, do not see themselves as the one with all the power. During the knowledge sharing meetings this could lead to difficult situations. Because the NGOs and researchers think they are talking to the one with all the power, and they might make assumptions about this. However, the policy makers also have someone above them who holds power over them. So they cannot always address the point on the agenda they personally want to address, because they have to take the policy of the Lower House into consideration. Researchers and the NGOs, who see policy makers as a guiding institution with power, might have different expectations of them. The respondents mention that MOFA has the most power concerning money. They decide which topics need the most attention, and therefore they decide who gets the money. A consequence for NGOs might be that they cannot always choose their own topics, but have to follow the decisions
of the MOFA. In the report of Jordan (2005) these findings are supported. The respondent states that the needs and desires of the MOFA and other donors are prioritised over the needs of other stakeholders. The issues that the government chooses to send the money to, might not always be the immediate knowledge needs of the researchers and NGOs. Also, these issues might not always represent the goals and vision of the researcher or NGO (Jordan, 2005). Contrasting, Giddens (1979) defines power differently. He states that power is a relational force, not a possession. Therefore power does not explain anything in itself. Power can only be affirmed by being executed by others (Giddens, 1979). This theory would suggest that having money alone is not being in the possession of power. Furthermore, throughout this study came forward that the connection of science, policy and practice is a challenging and non-linear process. While researchers may revere theories and concepts, decision makers want evidence which is relevant and easy to understand. And while researchers often take years to complete research studies, the decision makers want answers quickly (Mitton, Adair et al. 2007). The fact that there is limited personal contact between NGOs, researchers and policy makers is hereby not very helpful. Also there is a lack of research skills or expertise among policy makers. Lastly can be mentioned that each stakeholder also speaks its own language and has its own role (Choi, Pang et al. 2005). The NGOs, the researchers and the policy makers thus operate within different settings (Choi, Pang et al. 2005) (Meyer, M., 2010). It is confirmed in the findings of this research that stakeholders are ware of these different settings and everyone has its own role. Even though most of the respondents in the study mentioned that they think the development of a joint knowledge is a good thing and can help to improve collaboration, there are also studies that imply that neither researchers nor decision makers should be involved in the translation, transfer and implementation of knowledge (Ward, V., House, A., Hamer, S., 2009). A potential solution, according to literature, for a better connection and collaboration between NGOs, researchers and policy makers is the use of knowledge brokers (Ward, V., House, A., Hamer, S., 2009). Knowledge brokers can be used for knowledge transfer, finding, assessing and interpreting evidence, facilitating interaction and identifying emerging research questions (CHSRF 2003). Brokering is seen as a part of knowledge management. Knowledge brokers are said to act in three different manners: as knowledge managers, linkage agents (between producers and users of knowledge), or capacity builders (through enhancing access to knowledge; Oldham & McLean, 1997). Qualities of knowledge brokers are viewed as particularly important for eliciting well-defined questions thorough understanding of both policy contexts and research methods (Campbell, D., Donald, B., et al., 2011). In other words, there is a good facilitator between all these stakeholders needed who can control the knowledge flow. A knowledge platform like Share-Net can try to do this.
Limitations & Strengths There are a few points about the validity of this study. First, analysis was done by different researchers with different perspectives, which might have led to different interpretations of the results. Instead of each researcher preparing their own codes and compared them with others, two researchers made a code guide that every researcher used on their transcript. Validity of coding could be reduced, because other possible important fragments might have been excluded incorrectly. However, the researches tried to make the descriptions of the codes in the code guide as explicit and detailed as possible, so their interpretations of the codes was clear to others. Also, all the researchers could include new codes in consensus. Secondly, in this study, the interviews were conducted either in English or Dutch. It is anticipated that different language versions of the interview guide would lead to different interpretation of the questions and eventually generate different kind of answers. In the attempt to reduce this type of error, the interview guide was prepared in both languages by applying back and forward translation employed by different researchers on each step with both English and Dutch competencies (Gray, 2014). Finally, the conceptual framework used in this study. It is based on the theory of Clegg and Haugaard (2009) and the models of Few (2002) and Schiffmann and Smith (2007). This framework has not been validated with literature, which can result in that the model might not be reflecting reality perfectly. (Verschuren, 2010) Also, because this is an exploratory study there was no clear outcome of the negotiation arena. This sometimes resulted in a confusion in interpretation. However, strong about this model is that it gave clear insight in the way a joint knowledge agenda could be developed and how power influences this process. It helped framing the perceptions, on how power influences this joint agenda-setting, of all the researchers in the same way. This also was useful for the development of the interview guide. For future research the outcome of the arena could be made more clear. Also, the different kinds of power relations in general could be addressed more. In future research a different model these two things could be used in order to understand how power influencing the deciding making of joint agenda-setting.
Chapter 8 - Conclusion The study finding indicates that the most power in the Share-Net joint knowledge agenda is held by the Lower House in which they direct the policy and allocate the funding that will be further implemented by the MOFA. Of all the resources that leads to power, the MOFA exercises their power to other stakeholders in SRHR mainly by providing funds to other stakeholders in SRHR. The other stakeholders in SRHR also hold power to a certain extent based on resources they have such as financial, expertise, and social skills. In order to improve the development of joint knowledge agenda in SRHR, it is recommended that the stakeholders should respect each other’s role within Share-Net and value the knowledge that each stakeholder contributes to SRHR. In addition, the joint knowledge agenda should be formulated within proper time-frame as the policy on SRHR changes every four years. Furthermore, the evaluation of the policies should be implemented as it helps in deciding which policy is effective and which one is not.
Chapter 9 - Recommendations Based on our findings, the first recommendation is that every stakeholder should keep their own role within the field of SRHR. The joint knowledge agenda will contribute to the collaboration of different stakeholders and it will help to reach consensus between different stakeholders. However, it can also be good if the stakeholders are not always on the same page. Every stakeholder has their own expertise, role and focus. Contradiction can also be important within negotiation, because different stakeholders keep each other sharp by criticizing each other. The different roles of stakeholders should be respected and appreciated.
A second recommendation is that it is important to make a clear and proper time frame for the joint knowledge agenda. The policy on SRHR in the Netherlands changes every four years. Therefore it is good to make sure the joint knowledge agenda is based on a four year time frame, because after this period the focus of SRHR policy might change again due to elections.
Another recommendation is that there has to be more focus on research and evaluation. If there is more focus on intervention or implementation research, then this can result in more evidence based programmes, which helps policy makers and implementers. This way, it becomes clear what works and what not.
Furthermore, earlier failed attempts of a joint agenda setting should be evaluated. Evaluation of previous failed attempts could give useful insight on the fundamentals underlying. This is for the developing of a joint knowledge agenda and also for looking into power.
The meetings for the development of a joint knowledge agenda should be shorter and more often. Most respondents feel that the meetings are very time consuming. Also, awareness must be raised among involved stakeholders that it is an important matter, so it does not end up as a low priority task.
In order to make a joint knowledge agenda feasible there are a few things are needed: time, clear agreements on different roles within the execution of an agenda and commitment from all involved stakeholders.
Chapter 10 - Literature Aids Fonds. (2015). About us: Organisation. Retrieved on September 30, 2015, from aidsfonds.nl: http://www.aidsfonds.nl/about/organisation
Andriessen, J. (2006). To share or not to share, that is the question. Delft Innovative System Papers , 41. Buse, K., Mays, N., Walt, G. (2012). Making Health Policy (2nd edition). London: London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
Campbell, D., Donald, B., Moore, G., & Frew, D. (2011). Evidence Check: knowledge brokering to commission research reviews for policy. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 7(1), 97-107.
Carver, J., (2001). Knowledge Flow: It's not how much you've got, it's where it's going that counts. Seradigm, Knowledge Management.
Chaiklin, S., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1993). Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (Vol. 78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clegg, S.R., Haugaard, M. (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Power. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
CHSRF . The theory and practice of knowledge brokering in Canada's health system. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; Ottawa: 2003.
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D.W.,& Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43-57.
Degroot, A. M. B., Dannenburg, L., Vanhell, J.G. (1994). Forward and Backward Word Translation by Bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language. pp. 600-629
Edward, M., & Hulme, D. (1995). NGO Performance and Accountability: Introduction and Overview. Non-Governmental Organisations. Performance and Accountability: Beyond the magic bullet (pp. 3-17). UK: Save the Children.
ExpressScribe Transcription Software: NCH Software. Available online: http://www.nch.com.au/scribe/
Few, R. (2002). Researching actor power: analyzing mechanisms of interaction in negotiations over space. Area, 34(1), 29-38.
Goering, P., Butterill, D., Jacobson, N. and Sturtevant, D. (2003) ‘Linkage and exchange at the organizational level: a model of collaboration between research and policy’, Journal of Health Services Research Policy, 8 (suppl 2): 14–19.
Gray, D. E. (2014). Interviewing. In Gray, D. E. (Ed.) Doing research in the real world. Sage, pp. 381409.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M. & Namey, E. E. (2012). Introduction to applied thematic analysis. In Guest, MacQueen, Namey (Ed) Applied Thematic Analysis. New York, SAGE Publications. pp. 3-20. Availablonline: https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upmbinaries/44134_1.pdf
Jordan, L,. (2005). Mechanisms for NGO Accountibility. Global Public Policy Insititute. Germany: Berlin. P. 20
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis (Vol. 241). Univ of California Press.
Hardy, C. (1996) Understanding power: Bringing about strategic change. British Journal of Management, 7, Special Issue, S3-S16
Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91-100.
Hislop, D. (2005) Knowledge management in orgnisations. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Hisschemöller, M. and Hoppe, R. (2001) "Coping with intractable controversies, the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis". In M. Hisschemöller, R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn and J.R. Ravetz (eds.), Knowledge, Power and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis and Risk Management. New Brunswick, NJ, USA: Transaction Publishers, pp. 47-72.
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337-359.
Kemp, R. and Rotmans, J. (2009) "Transitioning policy: Co-production of a new strategic framework for energy innovation policy in The Netherlands" Policy Sciences, 42(4): 303-32
Kennedy, E. C. (2015). Essential Clinical Global Health. In P. T. Brett D. Nelson, Essential Clinical Global Health (p. 171). Wiley.
Kingdon, J. W., & Thurber, J. A. (2010). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Vol. 45). Little,Brown Boston.
Koohang, A., Harman, K., & Britz, J. (Eds.). (2008). Knowledge Management: Research & Application. Santa Rosa, California: Informing Science Press
Lathapersad-Pillay, P. (2015). The state of maternal mortality in South Africa. Gender & Behaviour 13(1):6471-6481.
Mastin, L. (2008). The basics of philosophy. Retrieved October 13, 2015, from http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_epistemology.html
MAXQDA, software for qualitative data analysis. (1989-2015). Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software Consult - Sozialforschung GmbH
McNie, E. C. 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science and Policy 10(1):17-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.004
Meyer, M. (2010). The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication,32(1), 118-127.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). (2015). [Website] Share-Net International – About us. Retrieved, September 30 2015 from: http://www.share-netinternational.org/about-us
Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Perry BW. Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: Review and Synthesis of the Literature. The Milbank Quarterly. 2007; 85(4):729–768. [PubMed: 18070335]
Nzokirishaka, A. (2014). Burundi agenda setting for sexual and reproductive health and rights knowledge forum: mission report submitted to Share-Net international. Retrieved September 30, 2015, from http://www.nwo.nl/binaries/content/documents/nwoen/common/documentation/application/wotro/srhr/srhr-share-net-burundi
Østerlund, C., & Carlile, P. (2005). Relations in practice: Sorting through practice theories on knowledge sharing in complex organizations. The Information Society, 21(2), 91-107.
Plan Nederland. (2014). Identiteit. Retrieven on November,1, 2015, at plannederland.org: https://www.plannederland.nl/over-plan/info/plan
Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G.S., Schneider, F., Speranza, C.I., Urs, W. (2010) "Researchers' roles in knowledge co-production: experiences from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal" Science and Public Policy 37(4): 267-281. Ravetz
Princen, S. (2011). Agenda-setting strategies in EU policy processes. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(7), 927–943.
Regeer, B.J. and Bunders, J.F.G. (2009) Knowledge co-creation: Interaction between science and society – A transdisciplinary approach to complex societal issues. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: VU University Amsterdam, Athena Institute
Rijksoverheid. (2015). Ontwikkelingssamenwerking. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from Seksuele en reproductieve gezondheid rechten:
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/ontwikkelingssamenwerking/inhoud/nederlands-beleidontwikkelingssamenwerking/seksuele-en-reproductieve-gezondheid-en-rechten
Roberts, J. (2006) Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3),623-639
Sarewitz, D., and R. A. Pielke, Jr. 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science and Policy 10(1):5-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.001
Save the Children. (2015). Wat wij doen. Retrieved on October, 1, 2015, from Savethechildren.nl: http://www.savethechildren.nl/wij-redden-kinderen/
Shiffman, J. & Smith, S. (2007). Generation of political priority for global health initiatives: a framework and case study of maternal mortality. Lancet, 370, pp. 1370-1379.
Share-Net International. (2015a). Members. Retrieved on October 1, 2015, from Share-Net International http://www.share-netinternational.org/members?page=1
Share-Net International. (2015b). Update on the SRHR partnerships with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Netherlands. Retrieved on September 30, 2015, from Share-Net International http://www.share-netinternational.org/news/update-srhr-partnerships-ministry-foreignaffairs-netherlands
Share-Net International. (2015c). About us. Retrieved on October 1, 2015, from Share-Net International http://www.share-netinternational.org/about-us
Share-Net International. (2015d). What we do. Retrieved on October 12, 2015, from Share-Net International http://nl.share-netinternational.org/node/358
Share-Net International. (2015e). Who we are. Retrieved on October 12, 2015, from Share-Net International http://nl.share-netinternational.org/node/357
Skyrme D.,Amidon D. (1997),"The Knowledge Agenda", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 Iss 1 pp. 27 - 37
Soenen, G., & Moingeon. (2015). B. Knowledge Management: Taking Power Dynamics Seriously.. Retrieved on October 16, 2015, from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guillaume_Soenen/publication/255602709_KNOWLED GE_MANAGEMENT__TAKING_POWER_DYNAMICS_SERIOUSLY/links/54f964d20cf210398e98 5cfc.pdf
Terres des Hommes Nederland.(2015). Missie. Retrieved on September 30, 2015, from terresdeshommes.nl: https://www.terredeshommes.nl/over-ons
United Nations. (2015). Millennium goals, goal 5: improve maternal health. Retrieved September 30, 2015, from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/maternal.shtml
United Nations. (1995). Report of the International Conference on Population and Development. New York.
Van Buuren, A. and Edelenbos, J. (2004) "Why is joint knowledge production such a problem?" Science and Public Policy 31(4): 289-299.
Van den Hove, S. (2007) "A rationale for science-policy interfaces". Futures 39(7): 807-826.
Van Ufford, P. Q. (1993). Knowledge and ignorance in the practices of development policy. An anthropological critique of development: The growth of ignorance, 135-160.
Van Mierlo, B., Regeer, B., Van Amstel, M., Arkesteijn, M., Beekman, V., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2010). Reflexive monitoring in action. A guide for monitoring system innovation projects. Wageningen/Amsterdam: Communication and Innovation Studies, WUR.
Verschuren, D.E. and Doorewaard, H. (2010). Designing a Research Project (2nd edition)Eleven International Publishing, the Hague.
Vogel, C., Moser, S.C., Kasperson, R.E., Dabelko, G.D. (2007) "Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: Pathways, players and partnerships" Global Environmental Change 17(3-4): 349-364.
Ward, V., House, A., & Hamer, S. (2009). Knowledge brokering: the missing link in the evidence to action chain?. Evidence & policy: a journal of research, debate and practice, 5(3), 267.
Annex Annex 1 - English Interview Design Introduction “Good afternoon. We are (names interviewers). We are students of the VU University in Amsterdam in the Netherlands. This interview is conducted by the VU University commissioned by Share-Net Netherlands to gain in-depth insight of power relations between different stakeholders involved in Share-Net Netherlands. [If interviewee isn’t familiar with ShareNet: Share-Net is an online platform to share information and knowledge on Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights (SRHR) between different stakeholders. This is intended to combine expertise and strengths of different Dutch organizations, their Southern partners and key international actors working in the area of SRHR]. Share-Net is now looking into the development of a joint knowledge agenda regarding SRHR. A joint knowledge agenda has the purpose to bring different stakeholders regarding SRHR together and to decide a joint direction for the next period of time. The interviews we are conducting are meant to gain insight into the perceptions of members involved in Share-Net regarding the development of a joint knowledge agenda. We have a few topics we would like to address, starting with some general question about this company and your role in this company. Of course, it is not obligatory to answer: if you prefer not to answer a question or if you’re impeded to answer due to job constraints, just mention this. Now I want to ask you to have a look on this document, it is a informed consent. In there is information about confidentiality and anonymous use of the data. If you agree on the content of the informed consent, we want to ask you to sign it. [Signing informed consent] To facilitate data-analysis we would like to record this interview. Is that okay for you? Logically, all information will be processed anonymously and the tape will be deleted after transcription.” [Start recording] Introducing This first section is meant to start the conversation and to get at ease with each other. Furthermore SRHR should be mentioned in order to make sure that the whole interview is regarding the topic of SRHR.
1. What is your role within the company you work for? 2. What is the vision of your organisation regarding SRHR? Knowledge sharing This section is meant to get information about how knowledge is shared by the interviewee’s organisation and what the organisation’s opinion is concerning knowledge sharing. 3. How does your company share knowledge regarding SRHR with other SRHR stakeholders? Who do you think it is important to share knowledge with regarding SRHR? if they do not adress one of the following: NGOs, researchers, government: ask for their opinion regarding these stakeholders.
IMPORTANT! (question 7 & 8) Make sure that you come to an example of a place or event where SRHR topics are discussed between different stakeholders and use this to refer to in the rest of the interview. 4. Share-Net is a platform where knowledge regarding SRHR can be shared. Is your organisation involved in Share-Net? a. If yes, probe on this: Role of organisation in Share-Net Does the organisation attend meetings of Share-Net? Which ones? b. If no, are there other platforms or events where your organisation discusses SRHR topics? Why do you think this is a good setting to do this? Joint knowledge agenda -motives There is an interest to improve the knowledge flow betweyen stakeholders within Share-Net and we are looking into getting a SRHR joint knowledge agenda. 5. How do you think about the development of a joint SRHR knowledge agenda? 6. Do you already know certain topics your organisation feels strongly about to get on the joint SRHR knowledge agenda? [do not go to in depth on this, save time] Can you give some examples? 7. Can you explain how you prioritise your topic? (translation: Waarop baseert u uw prioriteiten?) For example: funding, field input, research, politics, media.
Resources In this section you elaborate on which skills the organisation has in order to get the topics of their interest under the attention by other stakeholders. 8. Do you think that your organisation has the knowledge to bring your most important topics under the attention by other stakeholders (or public)? If yes, please elaborate. If no, what do you think is needed in order to do this. 9. To what extent do you think social skills are important to get your topics on the attention among stakeholder ? How does this apply for your organisation? Keep in mind you are now in the negotiaton arena. Try to get information on how they negotiate.
Cohesion 10. To what extent are you open to embrace knowledge from other stakeholders? Do you value this knowledge of other stakeholders? When do you not value this knowledge? 11. To what extent do you feel that your contribution is valued by other stakeholders?
Facilitation 12. Do you think that those who organize the event have influence on the subjects discussed? -
Can you please explain how they influence this?
Guiding institution 13. Do you think there is a difference in contribution of different stakeholders, regarding the content of the meetings? Who contributes most? What is the difference?
We discussed which stakeholders contribute a lot. We are now curious how you think this would work in the development of a joint knowledge agenda. 14. Which stakeholder do you think will have the most influence on the development of the Joint Knowledge Agenda? How do they have influence?
-
Please keep in mind you are still in the negotiation arena, and this is the moment that the stakeholder will describe how they will get their topic (high) on the agenda. If the interviewee gives examples, try to link these to the setting we are looking into (the negotiation arena). So, try to involve their examples in your questions.
Tactics 15. What could be strategies of your organization to get your topic on the joint knowledge agenda? alliance formation, persuasion, manipulation? 16. How are your strategies influenced by other stakeholders? By whom is it influenced? How does support from other stakeholders influence the strategies? 17. What do you think is necessary to get consensus between different stakeholders? What needs to be improved in oder to get consensus? Thank you for participating, we would like to remind you again that this interview is confidential and we will delete the data after analysing. Do you want the summary of this interview and when? Do you have any questions for me now? Thank you and give gift.
Annex 2 - Dutch Interview Design Introductie “Goedemiddag. Wij zijn (namen interviewers). Wij zijn studenten van de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam. Dit interview wordt afgenomen door de Vrije Universiteit in opdracht van Share-Net Nederland om meer inzicht te krijgen in de macht relaties tussen verschillende stakeholders die betrokken zijn bij ShareNet Nederland. [Wanneer de interviewee ShareNet niet kent: ShareNet is een online platform om informatie en kennis over Seksuele en Reproductieve Gezondheid en Rechten (SRHR) tussen de verschillende stakeholders te delen. Op deze manier proberen zij expertise en de sterke kanten van verschillende Nederlandse organisaties, hun zuidelijke partners en belangrijke internationale actoren actief op het gebied van SRHR te combineren]. Share-Net houdt zich nu bezig met het ontwikkelen van een gemeenschappelijke kennisagenda over SRHR. Een gemeenschappelijke kennis agenda heeft als doel om stakeholders samen te brengen en dan gezamenlijk een koers te bepalen voor de komende tijd. De interviews die wij afnemen zijn bedoeld om meer inzicht te verkrijgen in de percepties van de leden van Share-Net omtrent de ontwikkeling van een gemeenschappelijke kennisagenda. We hebben een aantal onderwerpen die we graag zouden willen bespreken. We beginnen met enkele algemene vragen over dit bedrijf en uw rol binnen dit bedrijf. Natuurlijk bent u niet verplicht om te antwoorden: als u liever geen antwoord op een vraag geeft of wanneer uw functie u beperkt (volledig) te antwoorden, dan kunt u dit gewoon aangeven. Om de data-analyse makkelijker te laten verlopen, zouden we het interview graag willen opnemen. Gaat u daarmee akkoord? Vanzelfsprekend wordt alle informatie anoniem verwerkt en zal de tape na transcriptie worden verwijderd.” Zou u naar het formulier willen kijken? Het is een toestemmingsformulier en bevat informatie over het verwerken van de data die verkregen wordt uit dit interview, deze data zal vertrouwelijk en anoniem verwerkt worden. Als u het eens bent met de inhoud wil ik u vragen om het document te ondertekenen. Introductie
This first section is meant to start the conversation and to get at ease with each other. Furthermore SRHR should be mentioned in order to make sure that the whole interview is regarding the topic of SRHR.
1. Wat is uw functie binnen uw bedrijf? 2. Wat is de visie van uw bedrijf op het gebied van SRHR?
Knowledge sharing
This section is meant to get information about how knowledge is shared by the interviewee’s organisation and what the organisation’s opinion is concerning knowledge sharing. 3. Op welke manier deelt uw organisatie kennis op het gebied van SRHR met andere stakeholders? -Met welke stakeholder is het belangrijk om kennis te delen op het gebied van SRHR?
- Als ze niet refereren naar Government, NGOs of researchers vraag hun mening over deze stakeholders. 4. Share-Net is een platform waar kennis op het gebied van SRHR kan worden gedeeld. Is uw organisatie betrokken bij Share-Net? Zo ja, vraag door: - De rol van de organisatie binnen Share-Net - Woont uw organisatie bijeenkomsten van Share-Net bij? En welke? Zo nee, - Zijn er andere platformen of evenementen waar uw organisaties onderwerpen bespreekt die gerelateerd zijn aan SRHR? - Waarom denkt u dat dit een goede setting is?
IMPORTANT! Make sure that you come to an example of a place or event where SRHR topics are discussed between different stakeholders and use this to refer to in the rest of the interview. Gemeenschappelijke kennis agenda/Motieven Er is een doel om het doorgeven van kennis tussen verschillende stakeholders binnen Share-Net te verbeteren. Daarom zal er gekeken worden naar het ontwikkelen van een gezamenlijke kennis agenda. 5. Hoe denkt u over de ontwikkeling van een SRHR gemeenschappelijke kennis agenda? 6. Bent u bekend met enkele onderwerpen waar van uw organisatie het belangrijk vind dat ze op de SRHR gemeenschappelijke kennis agenda komen? (niet te diep op ingaan, save time)
-
Kunt u enkele voorbeelden geven van deze onderwerpen?
7. Kunt u iets uitleggen over de manier waarop u prioriteit geef aan deze onderwerpen? Waarop baseert u uw prioriteiten? - Bijvoorbeeld, financiering, onderzoek, media en politiek
Middelen
In this section you elaborate on which skills the organisation has in order to get the topics of
their interest under the attention by other stakeholders.
8. Denkt u dat uw organisatie de specifieke kennis in huis heeft om de belangrijke onderwerpen onder de aandacht te brengen? - Ja → kunt u dit uitleggen? - nee → wat is er nodig om dit wel te kunnen? 9. In hoeverre denkt u dat sociale vaardigheden belangrijk zijn om uw onderwerpen onder de aandacht te brengen van andere stakeholders? (Overtuigingskracht, onderhandelen) Hoe werkt dit in uw organisatie?
Keep in mind you’re now in the negotiation arena. Try to get information on how they negotiate. Cohesie 10. In hoeverre staat u open voor kennis van andere stakeholders? -
Hecht u waarde aan kennis van andere stakeholders? Wanneer hecht u geen waarde aan kennis van andere stakeholders?
11. In hoeverre heeft u het gevoel dat uw bijdrage gewaardeerd wordt door andere stakeholders?
Facilitatie 12. Denkt u dat degene die het event organiseert invloed heeft op de onderwerpen die worden besproken? -
Kunt u uitleggen op welke manier er invloed uitgeoefend wordt?
Leidende instellingen 13. Wat is volgens u het verschil in bijdrage van de verschillende stakeholders aan de inhoud van de meetings? - Wie draagt het meest bij? - Wat is dat verschil dan precies?
We hebben besproken welke stakeholders veel bijdragen en nu zijn we benieuwd naar hoe dit werkt in de ontwikkeling van een gezamenlijke kennis agenda.
14. Welke stakeholders hebben volgens u de meeste invloed op de ontwikkeling van de gemeenschappelijke kennis agenda? - Hoe hebben zij dan meer invloed?
Please keep in mind you are still in the negotiation arena, and this is the moment that the stakeholder will describe how they will get their topic (high) on the agenda. If the interviewee gives examples, try to link thes to the setting we are looking into (the negotiation arena). So, try to involve their examples in your questions. Tactieken 15. Wat zijn de strategieën van uw organisatie zijn om uw onderwerp op de gemeenschappelijke kennis agenda te krijgen? - Het vormen van allianties, manipulatie, overtuigen 16. Hoe beïnvloeden andere stakeholders uw strategieën? Kunt u mij vertellen wie dat zijn? Hoe beïnvloedt de steun die u krijgt van andere stakeholders uw strategieën? 17. Welke dingen zijn er volgens u nodig zijn om binnen een gesprek/bijeenkomst tot overeenstemming te komen? - Welke verbeteringen zijn er nodig volgens u om die overeenstemming te bereiken?
Dat waren al mijn vragen, ontzettend bedankt dat u bereid was om deel te nemen in ons onderzoek. Ik wil nogmaals benadrukken dat het interview vertrouwelijk blijft en we de data alleen zullen gebruiken voor data analyse en daarna zullen verwijderen. Heeft u nog vragen voor mij? Wilt u een samenvatting? Wanneer wilt u die hebben?
Annex 3 - Interview Design ‘Expert on Power’ (Dutch) Introductie “Goedemiddag. Wij zijn (namen interviewers). Zoals u dus al weet, studeren wij aan de VU. Het onderzoek dat wij doen is in opdracht van Share-Net Nederland en betreft het opstellen van een gemeenschappelijke kennisagenda. Om precies te zijn is ons gevraagd om uit te zoeken hoe we het opstellen van een dergelijke agenda kunnen faciliteren. [Wanneer Cees Share-Net niet kent: ShareNet is een online platform om informatie en kennis over Seksuele en Reproductieve Gezondheid en Rechten (SRHR) tussen de verschillende stakeholders te delen. Op deze manier proberen zij expertise en de sterke kanten van verschillende Nederlandse organisaties, hun zuidelijke partners en belangrijke internationale actoren actief op het gebied van SRHR te combineren]. Omdat er verschillende stakeholders betrokken zijn bij dit proces - die naar alle waarschijnlijkheid allemaal hun eigen agendapunten het meest belangrijk vinden - spelen macht relaties een belangrijke rol spelen bij het totstandkomen van een dergelijke agenda. U zult dit natuurlijk vele malen beter begrijpen dan wij doen. In ieder geval, door middel van dit interview hopen wij een beter inzicht te verkrijgen in hoe deze machtsrelaties precies werken. U zult bekend zijn met de procedure, maar alle antwoorden zullen anoniem en vertrouwelijk worden verwerkt. Als u een vraag niet goed begrijpt of liever geen antwoord geeft, kunt u dat natuurlijk aangeven. Verder willen wij u nog vragen of u ermee akkoord gaat dat wij het interview opnemen. Dit zal de data-analyse namelijk vergemakkelijken. Na afloop van de transcriptie zullen wij de tape weer verwijderen. Vindt u dat goed?”
Introductie Via Kyra zijn wij geadviseerd om contact met u op te nemen. Natuurlijk hebben wij u even opgezocht en er kwam een indrukwekkende lijst met activiteiten op allerlei verschillende gebieden naar voren. Om er een paar te noemen: mensenrechten, globalisering, communicatie, verschillende bestuursrollen en adviseur bij allerlei instanties (zoals de VN) en speelt jazzmuziek een rol in uw leven.
1.
Kunt u iets vertellen over uw huidige bezigheden naast het doceren bij Containment
Strategies? 2.
Kyra heeft ons dus naar u doorverwezen, o.a. door uw betrokkenheid bij de VN. Omdat ons
onderzoek zich focust op machtsrelaties, vroegen wij ons af op welke manier u daar persoonlijk mee in aanraking bent gekomen.
Onderhandelingstafel Share-Net heeft geconstateerd dat de kennisstroom tussen onderzoekers, overheidsinstellingen en NGOs niet optimaal verloopt. Als oplossing hiervoor hebben zij een gezamenlijke kennisagenda op het gebied van SRHR aangedragen. Voor ons onderzoek kijken wij naar verschillende concepten die invloed zouden kunnen hebben op machtsrelaties tussen stakeholders bij het opstellen van een gezamelijke kennis agenda.
4.
Welke concepten vindt u het meest belangrijk? Waarom? Hoe zijn deze met elkaar
verbonden?
probe questions: [De concepten die we zijn tegengekomen zijn: motieven, middelen, cohesie, faciliteiten, instituten die het voortouw willen nemen, mobilisatie van het publiek en tactieken.]
5.
Hoe denkt u over het opstellen van een gezamenlijke kennisagenda als oplossing voor het niet
optimaal verlopen van de kennisstroom tussen de verschillende stakeholders? Waarom?
Gemeenschappelijke kennis agenda/Motieven
Wanneer de verschillende stakeholders samen komen bij zo’n meeting om een gezamenlijke kennisagenda op te stellen, lijkt het ons aannemelijk dat iedere stakeholder zijn eigen ideeën het meest belangrijk vindt en zo hoog mogelijk op de gezamenlijke agenda willen krijgen.
6.
Wij vroegen ons af of u denkt dat er verschillen in het soort motivatie (extrinsiek/intrinsiek
(eventueel met regulaties)) een rol spelen bij hoe deze verschillende stakeholders bij de onderhandelingstafel aanschuiven. ➔
Follow up: vindt u dat er verschillend moet worden gekeken naar onderwerpen met
verschillende motivaties: bijvoorbeeld onderzoekers die iets onderzoeken omdat ze het zelf heel interessant vinden of bijvoorbeeld onderzoekers die iets onderzoeken omdat het veel geld oplevert.
Middelen
7.
In hoeverre denkt u dat de middelen waarover een bepaalde organisatie beschikt
doorslaggevend zijn voor de items die uiteindelijk op de gezamenlijke kennisagenda komen. (Denk aan: geld, mensen, expertise, tijd, politiek)
8.
Wat voor soort kennis is van invloed op het onder de aandacht te brengen van topic op een
persoonlijke agenda bij andere stakeholders? (bijv. expertise)
9.
Wat voort vaardigheden zijn er belangrijk om onderwerpen onder de aandacht te brengen
van andere stakeholders? (bijv. sociale) -
Kunt u dit uitleggen?
Keep in mind you’re now in the negotiation arena. Try to get information on how they negotiate.
Cohesie Carron et al. (2002) noemde een vierdeling van cohesie: sociaal vs taak en individueel vs team.
10.
In hoeverre denkt u dat de tweedeling tussen sociaal en taak invloed heeft op het opstellen
van een gemeenschappelijke kennisagenda? Sociaal betreft de de wijze waarop een groepslid op sociaal vlak de groep als een eenheid beschouwt en de manier waarop een groepslid zijn of haar persoonlijke sociale interacties met andere groepsleden ziet. Taak betreft de perceptie van een groepslid over de gelijkheid en eenheid van de groep als geheel met betrekking tot het uitvoeren van haar taken of behalen van haar doelstelling en hoe een groepslid denkt over zijn of haar persoonlijke betrokkenheid bij de groepstaak.
11.
In hoeverre denkt u dat de tweedeling tussen individueel en team invloed heeft op het
opstellen van een gemeenschappelijke kennisagenda?
Facilitatie
12.
Denkt u dat degene die het event organiseert invloed heeft op de onderwerpen die worden
besproken? -
Kunt u uitleggen op welke manier?
Leidende instellingen Share-Net maakt een onderscheid tussen NGOs, onderzoekers en de overheid als stakeholders.
13.
In hoeverre denkt u dat exposure van bepaalde stakeholders invloed zal hebben op de
ontwikkeling van een gezamenlijk kennis agenda?
14.
Welke stakeholders hebben volgens u de meeste invloed op de ontwikkeling van de
gemeenschappelijke kennis agenda? -
Hoe hebben zij dan meer invloed?
Tactieken 15.
Wat zullen de onderhandeling strategieën zijn om een onderwerp op de
gemeenschappelijke kennis agenda te krijgen? -
Het vormen van allianties, manipulatie, overtuigen, voort wat hoort wat
16.
Op welke manier kunnen bepaalde strategieën door andere stakeholders beïnvloedt
worden? -
Kunt u mij vertellen wie dat zijn?
-
Hoe beïnvloedt de steun die u krijgt van andere stakeholders uw strategieën?
17.
Wat is er volgens u nodig om binnen een gesprek/bijeenkomst tot overeenstemming te
komen? -
18.
Welke verbeteringen zijn er nodig volgens u om die overeenstemming te bereiken?
Gezien de machtrelaties tussen de stakeholders, wat denkt u dat de beste manier zou zijn
voor de manier waarop een gezamenlijke kennisagenda tot stand komt? Dus, het feit dat deze machtsrelaties er zijn of is een democratische beslissing (stemmen met elk individu evenveel invloed) of lootjes trekken een betere oplossing zou zijn.
Dat waren al mijn vragen, ontzettend bedankt dat u bereid was om deel te nemen in ons onderzoek. Ik wil nogmaals benadrukken dat het interview vertrouwelijk blijft en we de data alleen zullen gebruiken voor data-analyse en daarna zullen verwijderen.
Zijn er nog bepaalde ambities die u wilt verwezenlijken?
Als er nog tijd over is: Vind u dat er nog andere concepten zijn binnen cohesie die een rol spelen bij in hoeverre een stakeholder open staat voor topics die worden aangedragen door andere stakeholders?
Heeft u nog vragen voor mij? Heeft u het idee dat we belangrijke dingen hebben gemist?
Wilt u een samenvatting? Wanneer wilt u die hebben?
Annex 4 - Informed Consent Form
Informed Consent Form This interview is conducted as part of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam research commissioned by Share-Net Netherlands. Share-Net Netherlands is an online platform to share information and knowledge on Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights (SRHR) between different stakeholders. The objective of this interview is to gain in-depth insight of power relations between different stakeholders involved in Share-Net Netherlands. The interviewee is chosen in accordance with his or her participation in Share-Net Netherlands and/or expertise in SRHR area. The information derived from the interview will provide us more insights in the power relations between different stakeholders involved in Share-Net Netherlands. During this interview, the interviewee will be asked questions regarding motives, resources and tactics of stakeholders in relation to the development of a joint knowledge agenda. The interview will take approximately 45 minutes. 1. I understand that participation in this interview is voluntary. 2. I understand that I have the right not to answer a question. 3. I understand that I can stop the interview at any time. 4. I understand that the interview will be recorded. 5. I understand that the information that arises from this interview will be treated as
confidential. 6. I confirm that quotations from this interview can be used in the final research report and
other publications. I understand that the quotations will be processed anonymously. I hereby declare that I have read and understood the text and statements mentioned above. Name:
Signature:
Date:
Annex 5 - Toestemmingsformulier
Toestemmingsformulier Dit interview maakt onderdeel uit van een studie van de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in opdracht van Share-Net Nederland. Share-Net Nederland is een organisatie die een online platform biedt voor de uitwisseling van informatie en kennis omtrent Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights (SRHR) tussen verschillende stakeholders. Het doel van deze studie is om inzicht te verkrijgen in de macht relaties tussen verschillende stakeholders die betrokken zijn bij Share-Net Nederland. De geinterviewde is gekozen op basis van betrokkenheid met Share-Net Nederland of op basis van expertise op het gebied van SRHR. De verkregen informatie van dit interview zal ons meer inzicht geven in de macht relaties tussen verschillende stakeholders betrokken bij Share-Net Nederland. Tijdens dit interview zal de geïnterviewde vragen krijgen over motieven, middelen en tactieken van stakeholders in relatie tot een gezamenlijke kennis agenda. Het interview zal ongeveer 45 minuten duren. 1. Ik begrijp dat deelname aan dit interview vrijwillig is. 2. Ik begrijp dat ik het recht heb om een vraag niet te beantwoorden. 3. Ik begrijp dat ik het interview op elk gewenst moment mag stoppen. 4. Ik begrijp dat dit interview opgenomen wordt. 5. Ik begrijp dat de verkregen informatie uit dit interview vertrouwelijk
behandeld wordt. 6. Ik bevestig dat citaten uit dit interview gebruikt mogen worden voor het
onderzoeksrapport en andere publicaties. Ik begrijp dat deze citaten anoniem zullen worden verwerkt. Hierbij verklaar ik dat ik de bovenstaande tekst en statements gelezen en begrepen heb. Naam: Handtekening:
Datum:
Annex 6 - Referring Interviewees Interviewees code
Description
COM01SB
Researcher 4, Female
COM02RJ
Researcher 5, Female
NGO01KS
NGO 1, Female
NGO02AH
NGO 2, Female
NGO03RJ
NGO 3, Female
RS01NN
Researcher 1, Male
RS02TS
Researcher 2, Female
RS03VF
Researcher 3, Female
GOV01LE
Policy Maker 1, Female
GOV02ES
Policy Maker 2, Female
GOV03SB
Policy Maker 3, Male
PW01ML
Power Expert 1, Male
Annex 7 - Timeline of the Study
This study has been plotted in a four week period by employing a team of ten researchers. The above table shows the planning of the study. The study started in week 1 with writing the research design, which was divided between the different members of the research team. Also the recruitment for respondents started in week 1.
The number of researchers involved in each activity is indicated on the above timeline. Three researchers acted as the point of contact whereby they coordinated recruitment for one stakeholder group: policy makers of MOFA, NGOs, or SRHR researchers. The next step was data collection by semistructured interviews within a six days period. Ten interviews have been conducted hence each researchers has had the chance to lead one interview. Data transcription started immediately after each interview by the researcher who conducted that interview. Concurrently, the interview was summarized and sent back to the respondent. This way, the respondent could check if the interpretation of the researcher was correct, which will contribute to the validation of the study. This step will be done by the stakeholder group coordinators. Data coding has been done by all researchers.
The next step that followed was data analysis which has been done by ten researchers. In the meantime, report writing started and this step involved all ten researchers until the day before submission date. In a parallel process with report writing, the presentation team, consisting of two researchers, have prepared the presentation draft. Following this, the final version of the report was submitted to the supervisor on October 22nd and was eventually presented on October 23rd.
Annex 8 - Background Information of the Interviewees RS01NN: The respondent is a senior advisor who has about 15 years experience in different roles. The respondent focusses on lecturing, doing research and doing consultancy, advisory work. Besides that, the respondent takes place in networking, linking and learning and that is where the participation in Share-Net comes from. The respondent is a coordinator for the team on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. Researcher 01 was involved with the foundation of Share-Net in 2000. Sixteen years ago Researcher 01 was the first the first coordinator of Share-Net for two and a half or three years. Researcher 01 is still involved with Share-Net since Researcher 01 is working for knowledge institute nowadays and maintains his/her relationships with his/her contacts at Share-Net. The knowledge institute shares new knowledge produced in their research reports via Share-Net, so they are quite active. RS02TS: The respondent is a senior advisor and also a researchers and dedicates about 20% of his/her time to lecturing. The respondent does advisory work that is always related to research, an impact evaluation or an assessment. The respondent works for the Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Team, but also works for the Health Systems Team. Vision towards SRHR of the organization the respondent works for: they share the vision of the department of foreign affairs on this subjects. Researcher 02 only visits the expert meetings organised by Share-Net and does some assessments, including making policy. Researcher 02 also wrote a paper about knowledge management commissioned by Share-Net. She is involved with Share-Net Burundi. RS03VF: The respondent is involved in research and coordinates research.The respondent also facilitates workgroups who focus on monitoring and evaluating. The vision of the organisation where the respondent works on SRHR is that everyone has the right to sexual and reproductive health care. By linking community work and advocacy and human rights and individual work. The organization the respondent works for is member of Share-Net. NGO01KS: The respondent is specialist in information management. This includes external tasks like keeping in touch with universities and being a project leader. Internal tasks include improving information policy and strategies surrounding information policy. The organisation where the respondent works for focusses mainly on violence against women and SRHR. NGO 01 tries to make clear to Share-Net what they want to be investigated by researchers. Besides, they work together with Share-Net. For example, they provide an internship sponsored by Share-Net and come to meetings and events.
NGO02AH: The respondent is supporting and implementing a SRHR programme in Uganda and Bangladesh. The respondent makes sure that the 5 programme’s in Uganda and the 5 programme’s in Bangladesh work together towards the same goal. The main task of the respondent is to be in between the Netherlands programme and the programme’s in Uganda and Bangladesh and make sure that everything goes smoothly. The respondent also makes sure that the knowledge that is available via consultancies is applied in Uganda and Bangladesh. NGO02 considers Share-Net important on the topic of SRHR. According to NGO02, Share-Net provides an overview of different consequences of the difference visions, what SRHR means in practice for Share-Net and which agenda is most important. NGO03RJ: Respondent is deputy director of his/her company, so the respondent is in charge of developing the knowledge management strategy. The respondent assesses a variety of resource tools, such as the HIV Stigma Index and the Human Rights Count. They work together with a lot of organisations involved in SRHR on the topic of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender). They are also involved in inter agency. NGO03 became involved with Share-Net in 2015. The respondent would like that other employees of NGO03 become member of Share-Net too, since at this moment the respondent is the only face from NGO03 within Share-Net; all information is channelled to NGO03 through the respondent which is not optimal. A contribution to Share-Net is to bring other organisations along and support the work of Share-Net. GOV01LE: The respondent is a policy officer for a department from where the platform for SRHR was launched. The respondent was involved from the beginning in the knowledge platform Share-Net. When ShareNet was established the respondent stayed involved for a year and a half until a board was appointed. From that moment on the respondent still follows up on the developments of Share-Net but is no longer actively involved in the platform Respondent, currently working for GOV01, was involved with the establishment of the topic SRHR in the Netherlands. As a result, the respondent contributed to the development Share-Net and fulfilled the role of record holder for a few years in Share-Net International. Therefore, the respondent did not need to be actively involved with Share-Net. Currently, the department of the respondent deals with an online cursus that aims to share knowledge about the complex problem of SRHR with those who are interested in the problem in the Netherlands. GOV02ES: The respondent worked in his/her previous function for an organization that is a member of ShareNet, the respondent worked with Share-Net a lot. In the current function of the respondent, the
respondent works in the SRHR team and does mainly negotiations, to make SRHR progressive and to get in on the global agenda. The respondent focusses on political processes on the SRHR topic. In a previous function, the respondent has been a lobbyist and he/she still does this sometimes. The respondent already was concerned with the topic of SRHR before Ben Knapen introduced the four core areas in 2012. The current employer’s policy was approved by the IOB (Inspectie Ontwikkelingssamenwerking en Beleidsevaluatie). GOV01 funds the UN (United Nations) as well as foundations involved with AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, programmes as GAVI (A global vaccine alliance) and research institutions. GOV01 also has a youth ambassador on the field of SRHR in order to monitor the focus on the youth and provide feedback concerning this target group. GOV01 is also involved with other governments and embassies by delivering experts on the topic of SRHR and, by extension, collaboration with NGOs working on local level. Despite that GOV01 still works together with Share-Net, nowadays the respondent is involved with Share-Net to a less extent. The respondent indicates that he/she and colleagues cannot attend meetings of Share-Net because of their duration, though the respondent considers the meetings of Share-Net very useful and thus would like to attend. Therefore, it remains a challenge how the information of that meeting reaches the respondent.
GOV03SB Summary: The respondent is a policy worker concerned with the four core areas of a letter to the Second Chamber. The respondent is involved with issues as child marriage, key populations (MSM (Men having Sex with Man), sexworkers and drugsworkers) and tuberculosis. The respondent indicates that GOV03 funds Share-Net and Share-Net International. The respondent points out that he/she almost never attends meetings organised by Share-Net. The respondent uses Share-Net by forwarding information and vacansies. and to enlarge and spread knowledge. The respondent considers Share-Net as an important platform to form collaborations between the government, NGOs and researchers. Within this collaboration the government has a guiding role, the NGOs are the executors and the researchers provide evidence-based support. PW01ML Summary: The respondent worked for all kinds of institutions. In all those institutions the balance of power played a role. The respondent was involved in so called peace missions whereby the goal was to negotiate with different parties to come an agreement.
Annex 9 - Translated quotes Motives:
“As a rule of thumb, half of the development money going from the North to the South, was payed back in return for the technology of the North.” (Power Expert 1, Male) “We contribute to knowledge where hopefully others benefit from. Because I do think, research money is also tax money. You need to be accountable in this, where are you going to focus research on? Not just on a subject which is relevant for us, I think.” (Researcher 3, Female)
“Wij dragen bij aan kennis waar anderen hopelijk straks ook iets aan hebben. Want ik vind wel, onderzoeksgeld is ook belastinggeld. Daar moet je ook accountable in zijn van waar gaan we ons onderzoek op richten? Niet zomaar op een onderwerp wat voor ons relevant is, vind ik.” (Onderzoeker 3, Vrouw)
Resources:
“Charisma, because I believe that communication is 90% nonverbal. [...] I heard internally that proposals are first being rejected, but two years later accepted, while it is the same proposal by the same people, but presented differently [...] The way something is presented is very important.” (NGO 1, Female)
“Charisma echt, omdat communicatie voor 90% nonverbaal is, geloof ik. [...] ik heb bijvoorbeeld intern ook dingen gehoord dat voorstellen eerst niet worden aangenomen en twee jaar later wel, terwijl het exact dezelfde mensen zijn met hetzelfde voorstel, maar dan anders gepresenteerd [...] De manier waarop iets gepresenteerd wordt is wel heel erg belangrijk.” (NGO 1, Vrouw) “it is not a matter of finances […] some months are just really busy with meetings” (Policy maker 1, Female)
“dus ik denk niet dat het een kwestie van financiering is nee [...] sommige maanden is het gewoon heel erg druk met bijeenkomsten” (Beleidsmaker 1, Vrouw) “To think that the people could derive power from having knowledge is a misconception. Because a lot is needed in order to evolve information to power: you need the ability to handle information, select information, translate information to operation models. In conclusion, you need a level of literacy in handling information” (Power Expert 1, Male)
het hebben van kennis (...) maar om te denken dat mensen daaraan dus ook macht aan zouden kunnen ontlenen, is een misvatting. Want om van informatie tot macht te komen is er nog heel wat nodig: heb je bijvoorbeeld ook het vermogen nodig om met informatie om te gaan, informatie te selecteren, informatie te vertalen naar handelingsmodellen, dus je moet een soort van alfabetisering hebben van het omgaan met informatie
Tactics:
“...that you cannot be the only one asking for attention if you want to get attention for your topic” (Researcher 2, Female)
Je kan nooit alleen de enige roepende in de woenstijn zijn (Onderzoeker 2, Vrouw) “The coffee break, in between that process, it is important you talk to each other, but it’s not an over competitive […] process of agenda setting” (Researcher 1, Male) “we can decide on who we are working with […] we are not necessarily looking for NGOs that execute what we say, but with whom our ideas are complementary to theirs.” (Policy maker 2, Female)
“we kunnen natuurlijk kijken waar we accenten op leggen, met wie werken we samen […] we zoeken niet persé NGOs die ons beleid uitvoeren, maar met wie we complementair aan elkaar kunnen zijn” (Beleidsmaker 2, Vrouw)
Cohesion:
“If you want to change something, you should start with those who do not think completely different than you do. That will cost way too much energy, you should start with those who are open to your ideas. That is what we do within MOFA.” (Policy maker 1, Female)
“Als je een verandering teweeg wil brengen, dan moet je niet beginnen met degene die heel anders denken dat jij. Want dat kost gewoon veel te veel energie, dus je moet beginnen met degene die, die open staan voor jou ideeën en daarmee beginnen. En dat doen we binnen het Ministerie van Buitenlandse zaken.” (Beleidsmaker 2, Vrouw) “NGO’s help us to stay focused, they also help to keep other governments focused. It is a strategic choice to collaborate with NGO’s.” (Policy maker 2, Female)
“Plus, NGO’s houden ons scherp en houden andere overheden scherp. Dus het is echt een strategische keuze om met NGO’s samen te werken.” (Beleidsmaker 2, Vrouw) “You have to have the courage to thoroughly evaluate why previous initiatives did not work out, because only when you understand what went wrong, you can try differently the next time. But, we make the same mistake over and over again (NL: vinden het wiel steeds opnieuw uit).” (Expert on power relations, male)
Dus je moet ook de moed hebben om heel grondig te evalueren waarom eerdere initiatieven niet gewerkt hebben, want pas als je begrijpt waarom het fout is gegaan, kun je het op een andere manier anders gaan proberen. Maar we vinden opnieuw het wiel uit als maar weer
Facilitation
“The outcome of the meeting should not be predetermined, it should be open because the agenda should be in a certain way that different things can happen, depending on who’s there and depending on which speakers you invite.” (Researcher 1, Male)
“There is the idea that if we have workshops in The Hague all the time, that more policy makers will come, but that is totally not true [...] what I think more is that it is important that organisations also host and feel the responsibility for a process..” (Researcher 2, Female)
“Er is het idee dat mensen de hele tijd workshops in Den Haag doen, dat er dan veel meer beleidsmakers komen maar dat is helemaal niet waar.” (Onderzoeker 2, Vrouw)
Guiding institutions:
“I feel that we can have a lot of ideas within the Ministry, but that at the end the political issues of the day are leading” (Policy maker 1, Female)
“Ik merk hier op dat we bij het ministerie heel veel kunnen bedenken, maar dat op een gegeven moment de politieke waan van de dag toch leidend is” (Beleidsmaker 1, Vrouw) ‘’I found it a bit odd that we had something included in their programme of the last meeting. But I understood that, that was something of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs'' (NGO 3, Female)
“I think it is someone with the most money and the least time” (NGO 1, Female)
“Ik denk degene met het meeste geld en de minste tijd” (NGO 1, Vrouw)
Additional Findings “Yes, the meetings that Share-Net has organised are very useful, but they are all in the afternoon. So I can almost never be there.” (Policy maker 2, Female) “What I’m a bit concerned about is that it costs a lot of time to sit around the table to establish a joint knowledge agenda and I think that practice will just make this yesterday’s news because practice will show that there is 1 issue, that is very important, [...] where all the attention goes to” (Policy maker 1, Female)
“You can have great knowledge in The Netherlands, but when we have elections and other parties will get power, they might say: I don’t see the point of all this, then it can all be thrown away” (Policy maker 3, Male) “Je kan prachtige kennis hebben in Nederland maar als we verkiezingen hebben gehad, dan komen er hele andere partijen aan de macht, die zeggen: ik zie het helemaal niet zitten, dan kan het eigenlijk wel de prullenbak in.” (Beleidsmaker 3, Man)
Annex 10 - Summaries of the Interviews Policy makers GOV01EL In het gesprek heeft u aangegeven beleidsmedewerker te zijn op de afdeling Gezondheid en Aids. Vanaf het begin bent u betrokken geweest bij Share-Net International. De afdeling Gezondheid en Aids is in roer om de SRHR agenda op het visier te houden bij de minister. Er kwam naar voren uit het gesprek dat u twijfels heeft over een eventuele ontwikkeling van een gemeenschappelijke kennis agenda, door het feit dat het veel tijd gaat kosten om steeds om de tafel te gaan met verschillende stakeholders. Omdat het veel tijd kost, is de kans groot dat we door de praktijk ingehaald worden. De politieke waan van de dag is ook vaak leidend. Of onderwerpen op de politieke agenda komen hangt af van verschillende factoren. Ten eerste aansprekendheid van het onderwerp zoals bijvoorbeeld kindhuwelijken. Men is het erover eens dat dit voorkomen moet worden. Het is een veilig onderwerp politiek mee te scoren. Ten tweede lobbyen vanuit bijvoorbeeld mensen met een handicap zorgt er voor dat de Tweede Kamer vragen over dat onderwerp gaan stellen, en het zullen bespreken. Tot slot heeft ook geld een grote invloed, het ministerie heeft een grote pot met geld, vanuit deze pot worden organisaties betaald om het beleid gemaakt door het Ministerie uit te voeren. Deze organisaties zijn afhankelijk van het geld van de overheid. Ook kwam naar voren dat het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken vaak een meeting host, als BZ dit doet geeft dit wel een soort van status. Echter betekent dit niet dat het dan ook op de politieke agenda komt. Als andere stakeholders een meeting organiseren en er komen personen met een belangrijk publieke functie zorgt dit voor een bepaalde promotie waardoor de zaal gegarandeerd vol zit. Wie aanwezig zijn bij een meeting is sterk afhankelijk van het werkveld van de persoon, van de tijd dat er voor is en van eventueel sterke persoonlijke interesse. Dit is niet afhankelijk van locatie of financiën. Ook kwam naar voren dat kennis vanuit verschillende stakeholders sterk gewaardeerd wordt omdat iedere discipline een eigen rol heeft, stakeholders kunnen niet zonder elkaar. Verder is er gesproken over onderzoek. Er kwam naar voren dat u geen voorstander bent van nieuw onderzoek doen, onderzoek kan heel nuttig zijn maar vaak komen de resultaten te laat en komt de nieuwe kennis in de kast terecht. Kwalitatief goed onderzoek kost veel tijd, tegen de tijd dat onderzoek klaar is, is het onderwerp vaak al van de politieke agenda af. Onderzoek is niet de enige manier om kennis te verkrijgen. Tot slot is kort besproken wat een goede samenwerking bevordert, hier kwam naar voren dat begrip voor elkaar en goede communicatie nodig is. Het is de bedoeling dat er informatie gehaald wordt uit de lessons learned van projecten die al afgerond zijn, maar in hoeverre dit in de praktijk gedaan wordt is nog de vraag.
NGOs NGO01KS De respondent verdiept zich in de informatiemanagement binnen de organisatie waar de respondent voor werkt. De organisatie is betrokken op het gebied van SRHR met onder andere een Gender programma. De organisatie heeft allerlei programma’s met achterliggende doelen om overheden te beïnvloeden, normen en waarden aan te spreken en toegang tot services te vergroten.
Hierin speelt charisma een belangrijke rol. Een ander punt dat naar voren kwam is dat de organisatie transparant probeert te zijn, door kennis te delen via kanalen, bijvoorbeeld websites. De respondent is voorstander om actieve samenwerkingen tussen stakeholders te versterken en de organisatie hecht veel waarde aan samenwerking. Dit omdat je krachten kunt bundelen: de expertise en capaciteiten die de organisatie waar de respondent werkt heeft kunnen aanvullen op de krachten van andere organisaties. De respondent vind het positief aan een gemeenschappelijke kennis agenda dat partijen samenkomen en daarbij van elkaar kunnen leren, maar de respondent geeft ook aan dat het goed is om bepaalde agendapunten van groepen gescheiden te houden. Dit omdat iedereen met hun eigen ding bezig is en daarbij andere kennis nodig heeft en dan is het ook goed om een eigen agenda te hebben. Daarnaast gaf de respondent aan dat het goed is om een stap verder te gaan dan alleen kennis delen; er moet actief actie ondernomen worden om elkaars vakgebied te leren begrijpen. Uit het interview kwam naar voren dat bij het bereiken van consensus aan aantal dingen nodig zijn: tijd, gezamenlijk doel dat elke stakeholder moet dienen, capaciteit, haalbare punten en duidelijke afspraken over rolverdeling. Macht van een organisatie zijn volgens de respondent voor een groot deel afhankelijk van overtuigingskracht. Hierbij gaat spelen een aantal dingen een rol: hoe groot is je stem, met hoeveel ben je, hoe goed is je overtuigingskracht (charisma), media-aandacht en geldstromen. NGO02AH Background Respondent is currently serves as Country Lead of SRHR Alliance in the Netherlands and Senior Consultant International Programmes at a Dutch NGO. The SRHR alliance in the Netherlands consist of five Dutch organizations collaborating in one programme, Unite for Body Rights. Respondent’s main role is implementing and supporting the programmes by means of uniting the voice of SRHR alliance stakeholders in Uganda and Bangladesh. The vision of organization where the respondent’s work on SRHR is that young people has the right to correct information for sensitive topics in sexuality. This organization has related expertise in terms of SRHR knowledge. However, this area of expertise is considered to have lower political priority compared to, for instance, medical knowledge in HIV/AIDS area. Participation in Share-Net Netherlands The organization of where the respondent’s work is often invited to Share-Net Netherlands’ thematic meetings, particularly to present and discuss in the area of young people and sexuality. · The practice of knowledge sharing has been occurring between respondent’s organization and other stakeholders in SRHR. The organization has been seen as expert in SRHR by other stakeholders, while it also values knowledge from universities, policy makers, and UN organizations. Power difference between Stakeholders in SRHR In developing countries, especially in South Asian countries, there is a huge power difference in the organizations working in SRHR area, e. g: between the directors and the programme managers, as the directors are used to a very authoritarian style (top-down). This attitude is copied by the programme managers to the implementers of the programme in the field. Giving no voice to staff
members who are in the field. This authoritarian style of management is a mismatch with the appreciation of equal relationships in SRHR.
Views on Share-Net Joint Knowledge Agenda The plan to have SRHR joint knowledge agenda in the Netherlands might be considered as superficial. The challenge is how to jointly build the knowledge which includes specific contextual SRHR movement discussions in each country. In the Netherlands it is a matter of uniting the insights for each country and uniting the support that is given to one country. Speaking with ’10 Dutch voices’ to one country is confusing and not effective. The priority topic from the respondent’s organization to be included in the agenda are young people sexuality in the context of different cultures and step by step improvement on empowerment. These topics are not much different from what are already included in current Share-Net’s joint knowledge agenda. The organizers of ShareNet meetings have influence on the subjects that discussed during the meeting as they have put their perspective and passion about the issue. The researchers are perceived to have the most contribution in the meeting, while policy and programmes are less contributing, as this is more political than research and more complex, having more different types of interests. The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a neutral actor, but is considered to have the most influence on joint knowledge agenda in regards with its political agenda and funding resources. Recommendation on Share-Net Joint Knowledge Agenda The respondent’s main recommendation on Share-Net joint knowledge agenda is to discuss and challenge the power differences (who has most interest and influence) between SRHR organizations and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs related to funding and different opinions on SRHR and HIV/AIDS priority settings. This discussion tends to be avoided in current practice and there need to be more transparency about the different interests and the different lobbies taken place. In addition to social skills, the skills of realizing political prioritization is also important to make a difference in this area. It is closely associated with what kind of discourse used to get an issue into political prioritization. Using the same discourse as the most powerful people in the Ministry, or having a personal relationship, works best to get your topic politically prioritised. More transparency is needed and the discussion should not be avoided how to best support a SRHR movement in developing countries. NGO03RJ The respondent is in charge of the knowledge management and the deputy director of her organisation. Her organisation works together a lot with other organisations in the field of SRHR. Further the respondent is very close related to Share-Net International, so a lot of the communication between her organisation and Share-Net happens through her. She would like to see that Share-Net reached out to wider audience, because this will provide a better overview and gives more opinions. For example other stakeholders that no one thinks of but which are still involved in SRHR, like truck drivers. In the opinion of the respondent there is already a lot of knowledge sharing, however it should be better organised and more used. There is knowledge production, but it would for example
work better if there was a training programme around it. Her organisation values the knowledge of other stakeholders and also feels that the knowledge of her organisation is really valued. Their developments have been picked up by other countries and organisations. As a tactic for bringing the own issues to the joint knowledge agenda the respondent would come with something concrete and specific. She thinks it is very important to have consensus between stakeholders to develop a joint knowledge agenda. There will be consensus if the knowledge agenda is a win-win for all the stakeholders that they can all benefit from it. The respondent is not negative towards the joint knowledge agenda. She only questions what the difference is from what Share-Net is already doing. The whole purpose of Share-Net is kind of to have the same common agenda with all stakeholders. She feels that there is definitely a difference in power between the stakeholders of ShareNet. For example when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants something on the agenda for a certain meeting, they usually get their way. The respondent also mentioned that there is difference in the contribution of stakeholders during meeting, the NGOs are the once who usually have a lot to say about a subject. Researchers also have a decent presence, but there is still missing linkages between different stakeholders.
Researchers RS01NN Background The respondent is a senior advisor in a knowledge institute. His role includes various tasks such conducting lectures and researches. He is also a consultant advisor and coordinator for the team on sexual and reproductive health and rights. Participation in Share-Net He was one of the people who developed the concept of Share-Net. Share-Net was founded in 2000 and he was part of the group of people that developed the concept of Share-Net.He was the first coordinator of Share-Net. So he is involved in Share-Net before Share-Net came into existence Views on Joint Knowledge Agenda He believes that development of SRHR joint knowledge agenda is important as sometimes there are topics that one stakeholder might feel is very important and would like to work on it but then the topic is already worked out by someone else so then it's not important for the others to spent their time on it as well. The topics respondent’s institution would like to put on joint knowledge agenda are- sexual health , adolescent health and teenage pregnancy and women empowerment and migrant groups.According to the respondent people organizing meetings of Share-Net should have influence on the subjects discussed as they need to plan what is important and what needs more attention. They cannot discuss about all the topics so someone needs to decide which topics should be given priority and organize the meeting keep in mind the time constraint. The strategy to get their topic on joint knowledge agenda is by forming an alliance with other stakeholders with similar interests as the topics get on the agenda through voting by the members.
Recommendations on Joint Knowledge Agenda He recommends to formalize the criteria to decide which topics should be prioritised. Also the transparency of the decisions taken to prioritize the topics should be maintained. RS02TS Achtergrond De respondent is een senior-adviseur en geeft advieswerk dat altijd gekoppeld is aan onderzoek, een assessment of aan een impactevaluatie. Daarnaast is de respondent onderzoeker en besteed ongeveer 20% van de tijd aan les geven. De respondent werkt voor het Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights Team maar is ook werkzaam voor andere teams. Daarnaast is de respondent werkzaam voor Share-Net, vooral inhoudelijk. De organisatie waar de respondent voor werk deelt de visie van Buitenlandse zaken op het gebied van SRHR. Vrijheid om te kiezen om met wie en of mensen seks hebben en of en met wie ze kinderen krijgen. SRHR is een breed begrip en gaat niet alleen om het voorkomen van ziekte maar het gaat ook om rechten en het toegang hebben tot informatie. De respondent focust zich vooral op de jongeren en seksualiteit en verder op versterken van health systems en kwaliteit van zorg. Kennis delen De respondent vindt kennis delen heel erg belangrijk. De organisatie waar de respondent werkzaam voor is is ook voor koppelen en linken. Zo werken ze meestal samen met andere partners in lokale projecten en werken altijd met lokale onderzoekers en vinden ze het belangrijk om naar de context te kijken. De organisatie staat net als de respondent open voor het delen van kennis, ze doen dan ook niet aan copyright en proberen heel erg te delen. Volgens de respondent is het delen van kennis essentieel en is het ook heel belangrijk voor valideren en valoriseren. Share-net De respondent en de organisatie waar de respondent voor werkt zijn betrokken bij Share-Net. De respondent zegt dat er bij het hosten van events voor Share-Net gehandeld wordt vanuit het belang van de members van Share-Net en niet vanuit het belang van de organisatie die host. De respondent zegt dat Share-Net geleid wordt door een steering comité en dat daar vertegenwoordigers van Ngo’s in zitten. Share-Net organiseert thematische meetings en de onderwerpen die daarin besproken worden, worden democratisch gekozen en komen uit de koker van de members. Gezamenlijke kennis agenda De respondent vindt een gezamenlijke kennis agenda heel interessant. Maar geeft ook aan dat er vanuit de core groep van Share-Net minder draagvlak is voor een gezamenlijke agenda en dat er ook het idee is dat er al een gezamenlijke kennis agenda is. Maar dat je wel zou kunnen zeggen dat die teveel bepaald is door buitenlandse zaken of door bijvoorbeeld universiteiten of internationale organisaties en te weinig door urgentie van problematiek of gaps in lokale kennis op bepaalde gebieden. Volgens de respondent gaat het er bij een gezamenlijke kennis agenda misschien niet eens zo zeer over de inhoud maar meer over de organisatie van de gezamenlijke kennis agenda. Het is
volgens de respondent best ingewikkeld om een gezamenlijke kennis agenda te ontwikkelen en het is afhankelijk van een heleboel factoren of een onderwerp op de gezamenlijke agenda komt. De respondent geeft ook aan dat het belangrijk is om aandacht te vragen voor een onderwerp als je dat op de gezamenlijke kennis agenda wil krijgen, bijvoorbeeld doormiddel van lobbyen. Persoonlijk heeft de respondent meer een voorkeur voor zowel een formele als een informele aanpak door bijvoorbeeld in gesprek te gaan. De respondent ziet ook de meerwaarde in van het vormen van allianties. RS03VF Achtergrond De respondent is werkzaam bij het AIDS Fonds Nederland. Deze organisatie is een lid van Share-Net en participeert in verschillende werkgroepen. Kennis delen Binnen de organisatie wordt er op verschillende manieren kennis gedeeld. De respondent noemt job swaps, waarbij collega’s voor een dag of dagdeel elkaars baan kunnen overnemen en met elkaar in contact kunnen komen. Een andere optie is het delen via denk-tanks, waarbij onderzoeksvraagstukken en inzichten kunnen worden besproken met (partner)organisaties. Dit kan bijvoorbeeld gebeuren door het delen en/of uitzenden van rapportages en literatuur. Belangrijk hierbij is wel dat er rekening wordt gehouden met eventuele taalbarrières en dat de kennis vraaggestuurd is. Als laatste optie noemde de respondent een onlangs toegepaste manier van kennis delen, namelijk speed-daten. Op deze wijze wordt er contact gemaakt met collega’s middels en kort gesprek, inzicht verkregen in wat voor werk hij/zij doet en kunnen eventuele onduidelijkheden wat betreft het werk worden besproken. Extern deelt de organisatie kennis via de publicatie in wetenschappelijke tijdschriften, via de website en het geven van presentaties tijdens een conferentie. Bij deze conferenties wordt er bijvoorbeeld kennis gedeeld naar NGO’s en donoren toe, maar ook af en toe naar de betreffende doelgroepen voor wie het onderzoek wordt gedaan. Het algemene idee van de organisatie is dat onderzoek doen en het delen van kennis zo participatief mogelijk gebeurt. Gezamenlijke kennisagenda De respondent is van mening dat het initiatief van Share-Net om een gemeenschappelijke kennisagenda te ontwikkelen een goed idee is. De agenda kan namelijk helpen in het geven van richting, dus waar een onderzoek zich op moet richten en aan welke kennishiaten moet worden bijgedragen. Het is hierbij wel belangrijk de juiste mensen te identificeren: niet alleen degenen die vanuit een machtsfunctie of politieke functie invloed uit kunnen oefenen op de agenda, maar ook dat wetenschappers bij de agenda setting worden betrokken om een overzicht van de kennishiaten te verkrijgen. Het samenwerken en integreren van kennis is belangrijk. De respondent geeft aan dat ondanks dat organisaties concurrenten zijn van elkaar, zij wat zouden kunnen hebben aan elkaars kennis en kunnen samenwerken als “concullega’s”. Ook zou er meer waardering moeten komen voor kennis van kleinere organisaties en het onderzoek van studenten. Dat wordt nu vaak ondergewaardeerd, terwijl ook in die verschillende niveaus veel kennis zit.
Expert on power relations PW01ML Hoewel de respondent elke poging om verschillende stakeholders dichter bij elkaar te brengen steunt, is de respondent sceptisch over het idee van een joint knowledge agenda. “Ik denk dat dat niet gaat lukken, omdat je praat met partijen die volstrekt andere belangen hebben; die geen gedeelde belangen hebben.” Om daadwerkelijk vooruitgang te boeken moet het gesprek voldoen aan een soort pre-agenda, een raamwerk met voorwaarden/criteria, om überhaupt tot een gesprek te komen waarin de verschillende partijen naar elkaar luisteren en waarbij machtsverhoudingen tot een minimum worden beperkt. Zonder dit raamwerk is de conversatie sowieso gedoemd tot falen. Enkele voorwaarden die zijn genoemd: 1. Openheid over de agenda: “zet alle stakeholders maar eens veertien dagen op de heide met elkaar en laat ze allemaal maar eens goed met elkaar nadenken over waarom ze eigenlijk willen wat ze willen.” Met andere woorden, een open dialoog zonder dubbele agenda’s. Vooral op dit punt betwijfelt de respondent ten zeerste of de partijen hierin eerlijk zullen zijn. Daarnaast moeten de betrokken partijen fysiek bij elkaar worden gebracht en moeten er geen externe afleidingen zijn. 2. Kritische evaluatie: de respondent gaf aan dat afgelopen decennia er talloze initiatieven zijn geweest op het gebied van delen van kennis en logischerwijs zijn die vaak mislukt (anders lag de issue niet meer op tafel). Echter, “je moet ook de moed hebben om heel grondig te evalueren waarom eerdere initiatieven niet gewerkt hebben, want pas als je begrijpt waarom het fout is gegaan, kun je het op een andere manier anders gaan proberen. Maar we vinden opnieuw het wiel uit als maar weer.” 3. Luisteren naar andere partijen: “bent u bereid om zo goed naar elkaar te luisteren dat u eventueel uw standpunten wilt veranderen.” 4. Een socratische gespreksleider: “een gespreksleider die de gespreksdeelnemers dwingt om fundamenteel na te denken over hun uitgangspunten en veronderstellingen (…) en ons ertoe verleidt om het achterste van de tong te laten zien.” Daarbij speelt geld uiteindelijk een zeer belangrijke rol bij de joint knowledge agenda setting: “het is heel ordinair, maar (…) de partij die dat geld kan opbrengen is de baas.”
