Duncan Green and Tom Kirk are planning a new initiative at the LSE: working title ‘Programme on Intentional Influencing and Advocacy’ (catchy eh?). To kick off, they want to pick your brains on what is already out there both in terms of evidence, and training programmes. Here’s their ask:
First, the evidence. What do we know about how citizens and organisations outside of the state bring about progressive change? Regular readers of this blog (and, perhaps, Duncan’s book) might retort, quite a lot actually. But, we’re not so sure…
Yes, history and academia are littered with studies of large-scale political experiments and social movements. This includes sweeping manuscripts that theorise how events such as Brexit or the fall of the Berlin Wall were rooted in multiple long-running processes and feedback loops. Within programme documents, evaluations or guides to activism, there are also multiple shorter ‘success stories’ of initiatives that have succeeded in changing social norms, behaviours, policies and legislation. These have recently been joined by a growing body of research on what exactly is new about digital activism.
But we’re worried that comparatively little is known about how smaller groups of dedicated non-violent people and organisations outside of the state have realised visions of change that were often initially dismissed as unrealistic.
We’re specifically interested in those initiatives that sought progressive changes, in the sense of expanding people’s freedoms and capacities to live the lives they want. And those that began with clear aims and intentionally worked towards them, even if they were modified in response to new information, changes in the context or setbacks. These are the types of initiatives that often, but not always, see themselves as engaged in influencing, advocacy, social accountability and campaigning.
But why raise this now?
This is important as people are increasingly disillusioned with mainstream politics and the ballot box. Instead, they are looking for alternative pathways to influence those in power, disrupt the status quo and challenge what they see as regressive agendas. Many have found homes in the plethora of social movements that have risen since the 2008 financial crash and during the Covid pandemic, whilst others have set about making change in traditional NGOs or CSOs.
However, for the most part, we suspect that what we know about them comes from their own write-ups of successful initiatives, is contained within learning documents and think pieces, or filed away in evaluation reports that are rarely publicly available. This literature is often self-authored, centres the role and agency of the activists and organisations, and is written with the wider goal of building their brands.
So, we’re thinking of conducting a semi-systematic literature review to test these assumptions and, hopefully, put our worries to bed.
Broadly, it will focus on case studies of the types of change initiatives we’ve described above (avoiding social movements). And it will encompass academic and grey literature, and evaluation reports and books. To make it manageable, it will focus on cases from the 1990s to the present that describe intentional change episodes in North America, the United Kingdom, South Africa, India, the Philippines and Brazil. But, to increase its rigour, we want to try to exclude those authored by the organisations involved.
We also want to be able to say something about what we find. Ideally, to spot trends, underlying theories of change, what works and doesn’t across different contexts, and knowledge gaps within the existing literature that can shape future research agendas.
To do this, our initial codebook will use the categories found in the framework for influencing strategies developed by Duncan’s book How Change Happens. It will help us pick through what we read, looking for factors present across diverse cases. Nevertheless, we will remain alive to what else might emerge as important as we go.
The ask
Before we commit, we want to ask what you think.
- Are we barking up the wrong tree or has this been done many times?
- Is it too broad, or do our inclusion / exclusion criteria lack nuance?
- Even if this is a worthwhile undertaking, how can we refine and improve our aims, concepts and methods?
- Should we begin with a review of the existing reviews (there are several focussed on specific forms of activism and issue areas, or on organisations’ portfolios of initiatives)?
- Are there better frameworks or theories we should begin with?
Put another way, please help us sense-check this. We want to learn from others and to avoid replication before deciding on whether to set off on what will be a long path. And, if we do, we want to contribute something that will be useful for all of you.
Mapping the Sources of Training
We also want to map who else is providing similar training programmes, and who could therefore be potential partners and/or sources of learning. Since training is a huge and amorphous area, we will set clear boundaries on who we will include:
- Areas: both insider and outsider influencing, e.g. humanitarian diplomacy, campaign strategy design, or effective public and private communications.
- Sectors: Training provided by and for non-profit non-state actors, including CSOs, INGOs and multilateral aid organisations
- Geography: Training providers in North America, UK, South Africa, South Asia, the Philippines and Latin America.
- Scope: Short-term training, rather than full time further education.
We’re looking for names and contact details, websites, advice. If you don’t want to leave comments on this blog, please write to us at d.j.green@lse.ac.uk (for the mapping) or t.kirk@lse.ac.uk (for the literature review).
Please?