Finally, it is not enough to just make predictions about how certain actors will respond; you also need to prepare and potentially adjust your messages and/or be ready to take on the challenges you anticipate. As researchers and analysts, you have the advantage of having the iceberg of evidence available to you to draw on in making these plans.
The European Stability Initiative case is a good illustration of how one advocate used their evidence and produced a separate communication tool to head off a response and challenge they predicted. The example also shows that much effort is entailed in managing this aspect of your advocacy work.
Case 2: Kosovo (UNSCR 1244)
Reorganization of local administrative units in Mitrovica (2003–2006)
Think tank (European Stability Initiative)
Following their first conference with all the players involved, the European Stability Initiative managed to get the Albanian side to agree to the establishment of a separate Serb municipality in the north of Mitrovica. This came from the European Stability Initiative presenting their research evidence that the town of Mitrovica was living off the crisis the town would die without its subsidies and stipends. The establishment of the separate municipality came with the conditions that there would be freedom of movement between the north and south parts, full return of property, and joint economic planning for the whole town.
However, the European Stability Initiative feared that the government in Belgrade would not like this compromise solution and would push the local Serbian leaders to stay firm to their original plan which would completely separate the town and that this local municipality would stay true to Belgrade as its capital and not recognize the independent Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) they feared was coming. In order to support the decision of the local leaders and respond to this potential threat from Belgrade, the European Stability Initiative produced a policy brief entitled “Mitrovica: People or Territory?”1 in which these fears were detailed and the advantages of the agreed local solution were emphasized.
In addition to making a prediction about peoples’ responses, it is advisable to case test messages with people from outside the research team and organizations involved before going public with your messages. Obviously, it would be useful to case test your messages with the same profile of audiences you are targeting, that is, experts, informed nonexperts, or the general public, to see whether or not you are getting the responses you predict. Distancing yourself from the research can be difficult process, so getting feedback in a controlled way is easier to handle when the stakes are low; this feedback should really contribute to sharpening and adapting your messages.
Advocacy planning checklist
Reflect on the plans you have made for your advocacy messages, communication tools, and supporting activities and consider the potential responses by the target audiences:
- What responses do anticipate getting to your ideas and proposals from the target audiences?
- What will be the likely challenges from an expert audience on the methods that you have employed or the evidence that you have gathered? For example, in terms of the claims you make based on the cases studied or sample size or data available?
- Is there any way you can tone down or reshape elements of your message so that a challenge is seen as professional or on the issue, rather than personal?
- How are you going to address the challenges that you predict will come from these target audiences?
-
European Stability Initiative 2004b. ↩︎