6.4.1 Choose the advocacy activities that fit the role, process, and objectives

At this stage in the planning process, a number of factors will guide your choice of advocacy activities. The usual role of any advocacy organization will provide the broader limits of possible choices of activities. For example, think tanks should not really be planning demonstrations, but of course they can choose to go into a coalition with an activist organization willing to do so, if they feel such public action or pressure is required. When it comes to advocating for the results of policy research or expert analysis, the natural networks of actors who usually engage in this type of discussion tend to be on the inside track, and that is where policy advocacy usually starts, with activities such as presentations and briefings with experts and decisionmakers. If advocates feel that they are not getting a positive response to the proposals on the inside track, they may then go to the media to put on some pressure. Of course, this can differ from context to context: a recent trainee from Bulgaria claimed that if an issue is not in the media, then politicians feel that the issue is de facto not on the agenda and are uninterested in advocacy efforts. In such a context, some type of media presence would be required as an opening advocacy activity.

As this example illustrates, the specifics of the “way into the process” identified in the first circle of the APF will further guide you in the planning, that is, the target audiences and their current positions, the time available to try to change their position, and how far you think their positions can be changed or in other words, what you think is a feasible objective. Furthermore, you obviously need to plan these activities in relation to getting the timing right--for example, you might already have an idea when a policy window will open and possibly also close. In sum, you are looking for what will work to convince your target audiences in the time and openings available to have the best chance of achieving your target advocacy objective.

Experience has clearly shown that the more participatory and collaborative the advocacy process, the more effective it will be.¹ This is hardly a surprise when we consider that the goal is to provide enough opportunities for target audiences to understand, engage, ask questions, process and digest, be convinced, further clarify, take input from others, bargain with players and stakeholders, and then own and act on your ideas. The management and steering of this negotiation and dialogue is at the heart of this activity selection step of the planning process.

The table below details the combination of advocacy activities that were used in each of the cases presented here.

A number of lessons also can be drawn from these cases:

• Multiple activities and persistence over a significant period are usually needed to allow for the interaction necessary to reach your goals.
  In planning your advocacy campaign, you need to combine the release of papers or publications with the multiple opportunities to discuss and push for the ideas in them. You also need to stay involved in the discussion and be persistent in order to reach your advocacy objectives.² All four cases show the commitment of an individual or a full team over a cycle of two to four years. This may not entail full-time commitment over this period, but it certainly involves significant time and resources. Another reason to stay involved over a longer period is to make sure that the reporting of your research stays true to its original message: research can be co-opted and distorted for political ends.³

• A significant driver of advocacy activity choice will be the obstacles you need to overcome.
  In addition to providing enough interaction to reach your goals, specification of the obstacles you need to overcome will drive the planning and selection of activities. For example, if the current government in power opposes your value framework, it may be an idea to engage the media and opposition figures to build pressure. Alternatively, you may choose to be more quiet about it and focus instead on building the support of experts and opinion leaders with the aim to soften them up to your ideas for the time when the government changes. The Kazakh case provides a good example of how an obstacle may drive the activity choice.

Ultimately, the purposeful planning of your activities in line with your advocacy objectives and yet balanced with overcoming obstacles will ensure that the range of activities and tools you select have the best chance of achieving the specific targets in your advocacy campaign.

• Initially plan activities for the short to medium term or first wave of advocacy, and then make further plans in response to the developing debate.
  When it comes to discussion and negotiation, it is difficult to predict how exactly the process or dialogue will develop and unfold. You are trying to plan for the opening or first wave of the advocacy campaign, that is, for the short to medium term, and then you will see what kind of response you get. At this point, you need to return to the APF or the decisions you made through the planning process and be ready and willing to adapt to the situation as it unfolds. In any case, you must be willing to stay involved if you are looking for influence.

• Advocacy should start as early as possible, even during the research process.
  Few researchers realize that effective advocacy begins before the research ends; experience has shown that involving policymakers as early as possible in the research process can increase the chance of policy influence or research being used.⁵ Getting feedback from the earliest stages of defining the research questions through to data analysis and draft recommendations can be extremely useful for the research process, especially in keeping research and analysis practical and relevant. In addition, it also has an advocacy-oriented dimension of bringing the decisionmaker into the research ideas, building the political legitimacy of the project, and ultimately building ownership.

In this vein, we often emphasize to policy researchers that the advocacy opportunities presented when conducting research interviews with decisionmakers and other key stakeholders should not be overlooked in building awareness of the research in the broader stakeholder group. It is beneficial to tell them when and how the research will be available and even ask them if it is possible to get a follow-up interview or meeting or just feedback by email, thereby engaging them throughout the process rather than just as a follow-up to the research conducted.

Through these measures, you are starting a dialogue and beginning to think about fostering their ownership of your ideas. As one trainee from an Estonian think tank commented: your policy recommendations should not come as a surprise to the target audience. Her approach is not just to inform decisionmakers of finished policy advice, but to use the research and analysis process to engage them and negotiate feasible and implementable recommendations that are developed jointly with the researcher. One of the cases illustrates a further useful approach to the early engagement of policymakers:

This kind of “case testing” approach communicates openness to decision makers and the importance of stakeholder input, which means that researchers end up not only getting very useful feedback but also, in fact, already beginning the advocacy discussion. Indeed, experience has shown that communication of research results prior to publication allows for early uptake and usage of the findings.⁶