|
|
|
|
a concept note towards a research
network on water
Rajeswari Raina
Why a research network?
There is an amazing array of knowledge available on water. The disarray and problems in the water sector however, point to several problems in the way this knowledge is generated, accessed and utilized by society. |
|
 |
Compartmentalization
Knowledge in the water sector exists in several forms/dimensions and compartments. The most obvious are |
|
|
| - |
organized public sector research or S&T, the most celebrated, |
|
| - |
informal traditional or indigenous, acknowledged (grudgingly till recently)
& increasingly coaxed into ‘participation’ in formal S&T and development
endeavors, |
|
| - |
highly adaptive market oriented knowledge in private sector water or water-based enterprises, dreaded for its ecologically
& socially blind profit motives and |
|
| - |
the water
administration /
management knowledge vested with complacent (non-profit oriented
& unaccountable) bureaucracies organized to provide piece-meal responses to crisis. |
|
|
|
Confrontations and
ownerships
The past two decades have witnessed increasing confrontations among these different forms and compartments of water
knowledge / skills. In South Asia, debates and crises over dams, drinking water supply, pollution, agricultural technologies, river basin projects, river linking plans, toxicity limits in bottled beverages, etc. have all accentuated these differences in our water knowledge. Each organization/actor reveals tendencies of ownership and therefore, the need to defend its position or stance regarding the
programme / plan, its implementation processes, expected impacts and un-expected impacts. |
|
|
Information flows
An unfortunate outcome of this has been the increasing skepticism within some sub-sectors of water knowledge about the other sub-sectors of water administration or water businesses, accompanied by increasing tendency to withhold or hide or manipulate information, processes and impacts in or related to the water sector that are crucial for all of South Asia. In a world that is increasingly moving towards building partnerships and coalitions, there is a dire need now, to pool our information and knowledge resources. First there is a need for processes that can convert existing useful information into active knowledge, accessible to all concerned. It is clear that all these knowledge actors/agencies do care about water
- their own stakes in water are high-professional and personal. It is also clear that unless we pull together, the economic, social and ecological costs are going to be too high. But the existing organization of knowledge-an allegedly linear regress of knowledge from basic science to technology generation to diffusion/dissemination and finally to implementation or adoption-does not work in the water sector. Existing information flows that are top-down, narrow, constructed within disciplinary boundaries and organizational mandates are not enough. |
|
|
Knowledge sharing and working arrangements
Several attempts have been made to bridge this knowledge divide in the field through participatory irrigation management, water policy and planning, watershed development programmes, water supply and sanitation projects, etc. These have heightened the awareness among formal water researchers, administrators and policy-makers about the possible partnerships, sharing of knowledge and resources/responsibilities, and other alternative ways of resolving water crises or improving water management. But once a project or programme is through, these ways of working and mechanisms for sharing knowledge/resources also disappear, or assume some form of tacit understanding that is (in rare cases) recalled and taken up in future work. And in many cases (that fail or call for re-designing conventional compartments of knowledge and action) actors/agencies spend time and energy re-inventing the wheel. A network ensures that these lessons or tacit knowledge is not lost-and is built into all future work. |
|
|
|
What is a Research Network?
The Research Network concept-Conceptually, a research network is a group of individuals or organizations that exchange information and/or work in collaboration to Re-Search any issue of relevance to or in the water sector, peoples’ livelihoods, ecosystems, and economies dependent on water.
The purpose is to develop the critical mass, insights and collective voice to influence knowledge, policy and practice in the water sector.
The proposal for a research network in South Asia stems directly from these concerns in knowledge and action or impact in the water sector. Our experience
- including several actors from grassroots organizations, environmental movements, policy-making organizations,
academia / formal research, specific sectors like
health / agriculture / industry
/ gender, informal and formal groups voicing politics/equity or other social
& economic concerns-has taught us that a formal recognition and a collective identity of a network is essential given the diversity and complexity of the water sector and its problems.
A network format brings greater focus, systems perspectives, collective wisdom, social relevance, accountabilities and operational flexibilities, compared to working within our own conventional organizational mandates. |
|
|
How will ResNet SA be different?
A network mode of working is a different ‘way’ of working or a different set of institutional arrangements. It operates with different institutions (i.e., rules, norms, habits or values) compared to conventional knowledge actors - organizations, individuals, or communities.
The basis for successful networking is a series of interactive processes. These processes strengthen the individual autonomy to act and the collective voice developed through discussions/ discursive processes. A successful network is one that is imbued with democratic and ecological values (institutions). (Let us recall when we start out, that this ResNet has to work out these democratic norms/values – of franchise, authenticity, etc..and suitable ecological norms/values for SA).
Evaluation culture: An internal evaluation culture is the hallmark of a research network. In our ResNet SA we will build in the principles and practices of internal assessment that is not an assessment of the end-product or impact but of the entire research process.
The research network will assess itself with pre-selected (and sometimes new issue-based) criteria that will verify the magnitude, quality and reach of changes made in water knowledge, policy and practice at different levels/sub-systems in society. Indicators such as peer-reviewed publications are not the deliverables here. Accurate recording of practices or decisions changed are.
The area of work/ topics to be handled and so on, are defined according to the decisions or goals set by the ResNet. Our ResNet already has a regional identity. The next step is to delineate what our focus-specific objectives should be.
To this end, we need a benchmark of the status of water research in SA. This again is not to be a benchmark in a static sense-of no. of organizations, personnel-
no. of Ph.D.s, disciplines, etc., amount of resources expended, etc. This benchmark will be more in the form of an institutional history of water research in the South Asian countries. In other words an understanding of what is the water knowledge/information that exists,
where / with whom, and in what form, along with a reasonably good analysis of “why and how” this knowledge was sought and accomplished. If we are to work as a coalition with our respective country CapNets and provide institutional and technological linkages to planned CapNet activities, the ResNet SA has to familiarize itself with the rules/norms and the mechanisms of governance of existing water knowledge.
This is the first activity we need perhaps as a prelude to establishing the ResNet SA-or as a first formal step within ResNet SA. The status of water knowledge in SA will focus on the core problems in SA-& thereby focus on water knowledge with specific reference to four domains
(1) poverty,
(2) agriculture,
(3) health and
(4) gender.
We in SA (the Country CapNet Co-ordinators and the regional Co-ordinator) need to think through and decide on some basic principles that will apply to our ResNet. Let us make a note of a few established principles of networking: |
|
|
Partners
The process of selecting the right partners (basically a bunch that will pull together-at least
to start with) is crucial. A relatively familiar and committed core group is often the basis of a purposeful network oriented to delivering its stated goals. The Core Group can then deliberate upon suitable methods/processes to invite/select the best (ones that complement each others skills/gaps/modes) partners for each issue-based research project. |
|
|
Goals/
Objectives
Every network that has delivered social goods has come with clearly defined objectives. Here, as a broad objective we shall state that our objective is “to develop the critical mass, insights and collective voice to influence knowledge, policy and practice in the water sector.” Now, this (if we accept this or any other objective) will determine the direction of our ResNet, the core activities – seeking and undertaking interactive research programmes
(international / regional /
national / local), and the partners who will network with us on each of these.
Objectives (the broad goal and more specific ones) must be reviewed periodically and revised or changed. |
|
|
Mode of
operation
The network mode of research is different in several aspects from conventional research.
In its structure, the ResNet is based on a core group of committed individuals or organizations. It will be really ideal if the people volunteering for the ResNet
CoreGroup work will see the successful functioning of the Network as a well-defined part of their own professional work. The basic principle of operation of the
CoreGroup is non-hierarchical, non-compartmentalized, and democratic.
In its membership the network has to make an early decision about memberships that transcend specific research programmes – i.e., core memberships, and memberships that are specific to each research programme/projects within. But in principle let us recall that it is our objectives that will decide these questions on the nature of membership.
In its linkages/partnerships, the ResNet must recognize that it is but only a small cog in the wheel. In principle, the ResNet will work in close collaboration with other networks and their linkages too. |
|
|
Funding /
Resources:
Most Networks do well with dedicated a CoreGroup member (s) spending energy in mobilizing resources, building contacts with international/national donor agencies. But the more a Network is user funded the stronger it is. Again, in principle, it is best if individuals in the network contribute-with professional inputs/ideas (voluntarily), feed backs (perhaps with a fee-if a specific project allows for it)
& project work (with a fee for time + expenses). |
|
|
Evaluation
Network evaluation is complicated-involving organizations/individuals responding to different mandates. But a network has to begin with in-built internal evaluation processes. And these will be process and product evaluations–with a CoreGroup member documenting and analyzing the processes of Network functioning (decision-making, implementing, impacts, modifications introduced, etc.) and lesson learnt (which can be passed on to other networks). |
|
|
|
|
|
