This article was downloaded by: [University of Otago]

On: 27 December 2014, At: 02:21

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Development in Practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdip20

Bridging gaps: collaboration between

research and operational organisations
James L. Garrett
Published online: 19 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: James L. Garrett (2004) Bridging gaps: collaboration between research and operational
organisations, Development in Practice, 14:5, 702-709, DOI: 10.1080/0961452042000239850

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0961452042000239850

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication
are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &
Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use
can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 James L. Garrett

The authors
Linda Kelly is an independent practitioner who specialises in community development,
monitoring and evaluation, and gender and aid management. Contact details: 37 North Valley
Road, Park Orchards, 3114, Australia. < paulnichols@onaustralia.com.au > . Patrick Kilby
lectures in programme management and empowerment and rights-based development at the
Australian National University. Contact details: Asia Pacific School of Economics and
Government, Crawford Building, Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australia.
< patrick.kilby@anu.edu.au > . Nalini Kasynathan has taught at University Peredeniya in Sri
Lanka and is currently responsible for managing Oxfam CAA programmes within South and
East Asia. Contact details: Oxfam Community Aid Abroad, 156 George St, Fitzroy, Vic 3065,
Australia. < Nalinik@caa.org.au > .
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 02:21 27 December 2014

Bridging gaps: collaboration between research and operational

organisations

James L. Garrett

The potential of collaboration

Information is essential to improving organisational effectiveness. The potential for benefits
from collaboration between a research organisation and an operational NGO seems large. The
NGO can tap into the latest knowledge and learn how to improve its own survey and analytical
methods. This can in turn strengthen its show of impact and innovation to donors. By working
with NGOs, researchers can get a better sense of critical policy and programme questions and
shape their work to demand, thereby increasing the probability that others will actively make
use of their findings.
This Practical Note builds on the insights of Laura Roper’s 2002 article on ‘Achieving
successful academic–practitioner research collaborations’ by reviewing one example of such
collaboration, a partnership between CARE and the International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI). Since 1997, CARE and IFPRI have collaborated on increasing knowledge
about urban livelihoods that will be of use to programme development. The two have worked
in a number of countries, including livelihood assessments in Tanzania, issue-based research
in Bangladesh, technical assistance in Mozambique, and programme assessment in Peru and
Ethiopia. Examining their collaborative efforts, this paper provides a concrete illustration of
how to build bridges and profit from synergies between two such organisations while
highlighting potential bumps to expect along the way and what to do about them.

The gap
Despite the apparent benefits, explicit collaborations between research and operational
organisations are not common. Institutional perceptions throw up barriers to working together.
The roots of the problem may be primarily differences in organisational culture and intellectual

702 Development in Practice, Volume 14, Number 5, August 2004

 Bridging gaps

approach (Roper 2002). NGOs may see research organisations as too theoretical, too slow, too
expensive, and ignorant of the Real World. On the other hand, some researchers believe that
NGOs are too ideological, too activist, too ‘quick and dirty’, and generally ignorant of what
it takes to generate reliable information.
These perceptions are too stark to reflect reality, but there are differences between the two
types of organisation. Many of these differences revolve around useful parallels. In broad
strokes, research organisations produce information. Operational organisations use it. Research
institutions analyse policies, evaluate programmes, think in general terms, and usually target
higher-level audiences, such as policy makers, donors, and academics. Operational
organisations work under (and may attempt to change) policies, implement programmes, act
more concretely, and target their programmes to individuals and households. These parallels
can provide important commonalities around which actions can fit and shared interests
emerge.
The most outstanding commonality is information: as users, NGO staff want information
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 02:21 27 December 2014

that is practical, provides concrete, specific answers, and gives clear direction for action. They
seek information that adds value to what they already know. NGO staff often have years of
experience. What does a researcher know that they don’t about project design, implementation,
monitoring, and evaluation of programmes?
As information suppliers, researchers must be able to relate their often general knowledge
to a specific context. Any additional research must focus on the specific situation. The research
community, though, pulls researchers in the opposite direction, asking them to draw general
conclusions from their work.
Collaborators should build on these different perceptions, not attempt to remake the other in
their own image. Ultimately, NGOs have a comparative advantage in terms of knowledge
about the design, implementation, and operation of programmes in the field. Research
organisations have a comparative advantage in methods to produce, analyse, publish, and
disseminate information produced by rigorous processes. Researchers can often raise key
questions about programme operation, while implementing organisations often focus almost
exclusively on specific management and reporting issues. For instance, when CARE staff in
Bangladesh identified questions for research, they highlighted personnel and reporting
requirements, not ‘higher-level’ issues of potential design changes to improve impact.

Bridging the gap

Understanding these needs and differences is key to bridging gaps. Roper (2002) identifies
several models of cooperation, whereby the researchers serve as consultants or trainers,
document organisational practice, develop the theoretical literature, or pursue a more
collaborative process of learning. These models are not exclusive and the type of engagement
differs depending on the type of NGO (and research or consulting firm) involved. The internal
dynamics of each institution will also shape the nature of the collaboration.
Regardless of the model, some principles to bridge the gap include:

 identification of common ground, institutional advantages, and synergies;

 identification of a mutually understood knowledge gap;
 identification of usable activities and outputs to fill that gap;
 identification of entry points for research via current institutional mechanisms;
 dissemination of information.

How did the IFPRI–CARE partnership reflect these principles?

Development in Practice, Volume 14, Number 5, August 2004 703

 James L. Garrett

Common ground and synergies

The two organisations had a mutual interest in urban poverty and hunger. CARE-USA
headquarters had highlighted urban livelihood insecurity as an area to emphasise in future
programming. A few country offices had urban programmes, such as Peru and Zambia. Others,
like Bangladesh, were planning work in urban areas. Their interests meshed with IFPRI’s,
which had just begun a multi-country research programme on urban livelihood, food, and
nutrition security.
The organisations also shared institutional missions: to be leaders in how to help the poor
and vulnerable in developing countries. CARE and IFPRI both had a commitment to
innovation and excellence, with IFPRI aiming to produce cutting-edge policy analysis and
CARE seeking to develop effective programming in a creative way. Interests and goals
overlapped.
Finding the part of the organisation that shares a research perspective on knowledge is
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 02:21 27 December 2014

important. Cash-strapped country offices are not likely to support research that generates
‘general knowledge’ (rather than information relevant to a specific project), unless it is for a
new programme area. In addition, country funds are often only for operational purposes. An
NGO’s head office, however, is usually more interested in gleaning lessons applicable across
countries and may be able to assist.
Cross-project synergies can open up possibilities for funding and knowledge generation. For
studies of community-driven development in Madagascar and Zambia, for instance, IFPRI
leveraged funds from a World Bank project looking at the same topic while CARE
headquarters, regional offices, and country missions added their own funds to the pool.
Synergies also arise as the research organisation brings to bear knowledge generated by other
projects. For example, recently completed research from other IFPRI studies on public works
in South Africa shed light on CARE’s experiences with food-for-work (FFW) programmes in
Ethiopia and Peru.

Knowledge gaps
Head office advisers were aware that country offices had limited experience with city-based
programmes or had not yet documented their urban experiences. IFPRI had recently completed
a comprehensive literature review on urban issues. IFPRI and CARE could then match
knowledge needs with knowledge availability and identify gaps to be addressed.

Usable activities and outputs

Different types of collaboration may be appropriate at different times. An initial engagement
might simply build trust through categorisation of the organisation’s current knowledge. Later
work could proceed to more rigorous research (Roper 2002). Researchers and CARE staff
together identified specific activities or outputs that would be useful in the short, medium, and
long term. These included technical assistance and guidelines for rapid assessments as well as
specific studies on various aspects of urban livelihoods.
Products generally fell into the following categories:

 conceptual frameworks, to use for understanding potential areas of intervention and

designing programming activities;
 general knowledge to provide context, lessons, and insights;

704 Development in Practice, Volume 14, Number 5, August 2004

 Bridging gaps

 methods for data collection and analysis in monitoring and evaluation;

 best practices, identifying what works and what doesn’t in programme design and
implementation;
 capacity building to conduct, direct, and use research.

Entry points
Operational organisations often follow a specific project cycle in carrying out programming:
consultation, assessment, formulation and design, implementation, operation, monitoring, and
evaluation. This cycle can provide strategic points of entry for the research, with research
supporting each stage as needed. For instance, in Mozambique and Tanzania IFPRI joined
CARE teams in the diagnostic phase to plan and carry out rapid livelihood security
assessments. In Bangladesh, IFPRI worked with CARE staff to strengthen monitoring and
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 02:21 27 December 2014

evaluation methodologies and train them in field techniques. CARE staff have now adopted
many of these tools for work in other cities, which they carry out themselves.
One danger is that commissioned research will be disembodied, especially when demand
originates in headquarters and not in the country office. Country-level staff may not see how
the research fits and supports their work and view it as an additional burden. To reduce the
burden and promote ownership, IFPRI took advantage of the project cycle to tie research more
closely with project activities and build incrementally on previously planned research and
evaluation. For example, the CARE urban livelihoods programme in Bangladesh needed to
conduct a baseline survey; researchers modified modules in this survey to include data useful
for a number of other studies, including the dynamics of urban livelihoods and the social status
of women.

Dissemination
For a research organisation, dissemination of knowledge is a primary mission. With the
proliferation of information technologies even in developing countries, postings to the
websites of headquarters, country offices, or projects can disseminate information to multiple
audiences (although fairly passively) at relatively low cost. More actively, research from the
collaboration, produced in-house in a number of formats, reaches a variety of audiences
through IFPRI’s extensive mailing list.
Though these general guidelines are fairly concrete, the ‘softer’ aspects of institutional and
interpersonal relations are often the fundamental determinants of success or failure. In the end,
researchers have to think hard about soft things, like personal relations, organisational
missions, and management. These are not skills that come easily to those used to working
independently on research issues they have chosen. Personalities and cultures that mesh or
conflict can make or break the relationship. Flexibility and awareness of the need for
continuous contact and mutual education over time as players and institutional perspectives
change are essential.
Roper (2002) suggests that the organisations need to ‘learn how to learn together’. By
listening with respect and communicating openly and honestly, an organisation can
understand how and why the other does certain things in a certain way. Each can grow to
appreciate the focus of and constraints upon the other. In most cases, this means working
within pre-established structures, standard operating procedures, and conceptual frameworks.
The organisations can then work within those parameters to shape useful processes and
outputs.

Development in Practice, Volume 14, Number 5, August 2004 705

 James L. Garrett

Bumpy bridges
The discussion so far makes collaboration seem almost easy. Yet, despite best efforts, attempts
to construct bridges between the two types of organisation are often quite bumpy experiences.
From a researcher’s perspective, chief causes include:

 short time horizon of the operational organisation;

 demand for technical assistance;
 variation in schedule and focus of a project;
 differences over acceptable precision;
 limited capacity for appreciating and using research findings;
 concern for meeting reporting requirements.
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 02:21 27 December 2014

Short time horizon

Operational organisations frequently feel that they do not have the luxury of commissioning
research that takes place over months or years. NGO staff often do not fully recognise that if
the information does not exist, failing to do the research will not provide the information they
need any faster. It simply means that decisions will be based on less information.
Part of the frustration arises from staff who feel research generates the same data as their
own management information systems. They find a researcher’s claim that generating ‘the
same information’ will take longer hard to believe. This partly reflects a genuine need for less
precision and partly a lack of appreciation of the research process. Researchers may also be
wed to certain methods and approaches, and may need to be innovative in order to shorten the
amount of time needed to obtain research outputs.
Operational organisations generally work with a shorter time horizon than research
organisations. Particularly in the start-up phase of a project, they need information and
assistance within a particular timeframe, one that was not always planned far ahead. The
researcher may be able to respond to NGO demands in the shorter term by identifying discrete
issues that take less time to investigate and by disseminating information as the research goes
along.
The organisations may also find it useful to establish a medium-term workplan with specific
tasks and outputs from the start, rather than working only under more general guidelines of,
say, ‘carry out operations research’ or ‘undertake an impact evaluation’. Such a workplan
demonstrates value to an operational organisation more clearly and fits more comfortably with
its usual frame of operation of dealing with consultants with specific, time-bound tasks. This
exercise can also alert the researcher to problems in issue identification, expectations, or
capacity to use and disseminate the research.

Demand for technical assistance

Given the focus on project management, NGOs frequently look to researchers for day-to-day
assistance. Although researchers may want to respond to these queries, getting involved in
daily operations can pull them away from longer-term research—and often contractual—
commitments. Both organisations must be clear about responsibilities and divisions of labour
from the beginning. To maintain a focus on in-depth research, a research firm may turn over
requests for technical assistance or routine reports, like baselines, to another organisation, such
as a consulting firm.

706 Development in Practice, Volume 14, Number 5, August 2004

 Bridging gaps

Variations in schedule and focus

Projects in the field hardly ever follow a perfectly linear trajectory. Problems with funding or
partnerships can delay start-up. Parts of the project continue while others experience
bottlenecks. Even the same project components may move differently because they are
implemented at different times in different places. This can complicate research, which often
presumes a stable progression of the project. Surveys must plan for starts and stops and adjust
to variations in implementation, including changes in leadership and strategic direction. IFPRI
has now found that in the start-up phase it is easier to undertake research that produces
thematic information not specifically dependent on the project’s progress. Until a project is
functionally stable, useful research is more likely to focus on design issues, and not a rigorous
determination of impact.

Differences over acceptable precision

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 02:21 27 December 2014

NGOs seldom need information of academic quality, in part because they work in a world
where the academic assumptions of ‘all other things being constant’ do not hold.
Consequently, they are less appreciative and less willing to support academic-level rigour in
terms of money or time. Findings from a few quickly formed focus groups or from more
careful ethnographic research both produce words. Data from a poorly drawn sample or a
carefully drawn one both produce numbers. To many NGO staff the difference in results (or
quality) produced by these contrasting methods is not clear, provided ‘expert consultants’ have
generated them both.
Explaining the concept of quality in data and the importance of methodological rigour is
difficult but necessary. The researcher must be able to show how more and less rigorous
processes affect the confidence the organisation can place in the results of the study, and
therefore the confidence it can place in its actions. At the same time, the researcher must be
careful to weigh precision against need. The additional rigour may not, in fact, be necessary.
An NGO may be satisfied with being confident that 90 per cent of the time the true value is
within 10 percentage points, while academic standards would require 95 per cent confidence.
In qualitative work, a reasonable, if not academically rigorous, selection of groups to interview
may give sufficient insight into community relations to know what the primary problems are,
or whether or not an approach will work. Appreciation of the needs of the other can allow for
compromises that meet the needs of both researchers and NGO staff.

Capacity to own, direct, and use research

The researcher will almost always need to develop the capacity of the NGO to own, direct, and
use the research—and may have to do this repeatedly as staff change. In Bangladesh, CARE’s
research-oriented assistant country director, who initiated the original collaboration and guided
it through the funding process, left. The collaboration was reconfigured to carry out thematic
studies on project-related topics, but later project coordinators could not envision how to use
the more general knowledge generated by these studies to improve their own project. Because
of problems with start-up, usable outputs were delayed, and lower-level staff and upper
management saw few outputs of value to them from the project. Without genuine ownership
of the collaboration by CARE, support dwindled, and the collaboration was halted before the
research was completed or findings disseminated.
Changes in the vision or strategy of other stakeholders, such as funders, can also impact the
effectiveness of research collaboration. Urban issues had always had difficulty obtaining a

Development in Practice, Volume 14, Number 5, August 2004 707

 James L. Garrett

place in USAID’s Title II-funded programmes, but in Bangladesh a new and particularly
unenthusiastic country director arrived just at the time of the initial funding submission. He
questioned any investment in urban issues, particularly research, although this was only a
small part of the overall proposal. After CARE staff took him to see the deprivation found in
urban slums, he changed his mind and supported the work.
One major lesson from these experiences is that the researcher must constantly work with
the project supervisors, staff, organisational management, and donors to ensure broad support
for the research, to create the capacity among stakeholders to see the benefits of such research,
and ultimately use the data and findings. This is often not an easy task.
NGO staff seldom have training in how to apply conceptual models or general knowledge
to their specific situation, or in the use of analytic skills and tools. Instead, they see the money
spent on research as funds that could be used for direct programme support and data as simply
fulfilling reporting requirements. In fact, research represents an investment in improving the
project, and data are the stock of information needed to do that.
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 02:21 27 December 2014

Building the analytical, conceptual, and data management capacities of staff (without
transforming the NGO into a research organisation) is essential to increase the NGO’s sense
of ownership and usefulness of research. On the analytical and conceptual side, effective
collaboration requires that the NGO identify a project contact who ‘buys into’ the research,
who champions it, and who can identify useful outputs. This person should be able to think
‘beyond the project’—that is, understand the value of sharing experiences with others beyond
project staff and of generating information on issues beyond day-to-day operations (such as
studies on governance systems or validation of indicators). This person is usually the project
manager but could be another trusted staff person or intermediary.
On the data management side, staff should learn to access and analyse the data to answer
specific questions about project design and management, thereby continuing to increase
project effectiveness even after the final report has been delivered. In all cases, the research
organisation must be sure to provide information in usable, understandable formats (such as
briefs, presentations, and newsletters).
Whereas the management may previously have balked at paying ‘high’ costs for a one-off
information-gathering exercise, with increased capacity the organisation begins to see the
advantage of commissioning high-quality data-gathering exercises. The costs of producing high-
quality information become more reasonable with continued use of the data. Understanding,
rather than criticising, the organisation’s lack of research orientation leads to a sharpening of the
contributions that both an operational and a research organisation can make.

Concern with meeting reporting requirements

Finally, internal and donor requirements often drive the actions of operational NGOs.
Monitoring and evaluation proceed along a pre-established path with pre-established
indicators. The research may need to bend to that timetable and those indicators. In
Bangladesh, for example, IFPRI made CARE’s donor and internal reports part of the research
plan. The more rigorous ‘academic’ reports or simpler summaries could serve most reporting
purposes.
In conclusion, there are reasons and ways for a research organisation to work with an
operational organisation. But researchers must understand NGOs’ needs and perspectives, and
likewise explain to them the focus and constraints of a research organisation. The key is to
identify the ‘space’ within NGOs where a research organisation can contribute. Researchers
can then use their comparative advantage to bridge the gap and answer questions important to
the NGO in ways that fit with its institutional world.

708 Development in Practice, Volume 14, Number 5, August 2004

 Bridging gaps

Reference
Roper, Laura (2002) ‘Achieving successful academic–practitioner research collaborations’,
Development in Practice 12(3&4):338–345.

The author
James Garrett is a Research Fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI),
where he leads a research programme on urban livelihoods and urban food and nutrition
security. Since 1997, he has worked extensively with CARE on urban programming issues.
Contact details: International Food Policy Research Institute, 2033 K Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20006, USA. < j.garrett@cgiar.org > .

DOI: 10.1080/0961452042000239850
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 02:21 27 December 2014

Development in Practice Readers

Development in Practice Readers offer a thematic selection of articles from Development in Practice.
Each reader includes an original introductory essay and an annotated resource list of related publications,
journals, organisations, and websites, constituting an essential guide to cutting-edge thinking and action
on the topic.

Development and the Learning Organisation

edited by Laura Roper, Jethro Pettit, and Deborah Eade
Development agencies are increasingly concerned with some form of knowledge generation
and organisational learning. As the literature on these issues has tended to come out of
the private sector and reflect a Western worldview, Development and the Learning
Organisation is unique in presenting contributions from development scholars and
practitioners from a wide range of institutional and cultural backgrounds. Some introduce
new approaches and models; others offer critical case studies of individual and group learning
practice across cultures, and organisational efforts to put theory into practice. While there are
no simple recipes for success, contributors show that when learning breakthroughs do occur,
the organisational whole can truly become more than the sum of its parts.

Published in association with Oxfam America and IDS at Sussex

0 85598 470 8 • April 2003 • paperback 452pp • £13.95 / US$19.95u'll find full contents listing,

visit
www.developmentinpractice.org
for full contents listing • sample chapters • ordering details

Development in Practice, Volume 14, Number 5, August 2004 709