Researcher at the University of Oxford Olga Onuch published a study on Think Thanks in Ukraine
Researcher at the University of Oxford Olga Onuch published a study on Think Thanks in Ukraine. It is part of the Open Society Think Tank Fund, International Renaissance Foundation’s Civil Society and Good Governance Program, and USAID-funded UNITER project implemented by Pact.
Thinking about Think Tanks in Ukraine: Experiences from the Field
Study on Think Thanks in Ukraine
By Olga Onuch
As is usually the case, intensive fieldwork abroad is complex. The right balance of systematization and openness must be struck by the investigators in order for the interviewees to “give you what you need” and to “feel comfortable” while doing it. This is coupled with an intricate code of ethics, which we try our best to adhere to. All together, making the task of field research quite onerous.
Such was our rigorous 10-day stint in Ukraine in September 2012. My colleagues (Vlad Galushko, Eric Livny & Nikolay Petrov) and I, all of us with divergent backgrounds and experiences, where given the task to conduct intensive field research of Think Tanks in Ukraine. While the schedule (six 1.5 hour interviews per day), the three languages used for interviews (English, Ukrainian and Russian), the variety of interview subjects (from NGO managers and Journalists to Politicians and Analysts), and number of interviewers (up to four in a room), was not easy to manage, and at times methodologically problematic, the most testing and intriguing aspect of the work was that we (ourselves researchers, consultants and practitioners) were researching, analytical centers and consultancies. Thus, we found ourselves (as any other researcher surely would) as both insiders and outsiders. We naturally, both empathized with our interviewees’ methodological and financial constraints but also compared the Ukrainian analytical centers to think tanks and consultancies we work for. All the while, trying to approach the interviewees with as much distance as we could, in order to assess and analyze objectively.
Whilst the task itself was demanding we were met with great sincerity and enthusiasm from the side of our interviewees. The Ukrainian participants where highly engaged with our study and devotedly described their sector and personal work in analytical centers. While in Kyiv we generally worked together, interviewing – especially politicians – in larger groups. We broke off into smaller groups of two, in the regions. There, our team was divided between Crimea, Donetsk, Kharkiv, Lviv, and Odesa. I conducted research in Lviv (with Nikolay Petrov), in Kyiv and in Donets’k (with Eric Livny). Thus, my research experience, spanning from the ‘west’ to the ‘east’ of Ukraine, was probably the most wide-ranging, representative and yet still analogous spectrum of the sector. Interestingly enough, whereas some of our regionalized findings supported the ideas of fellow political scientists: like the role of geographical “Linkages and Leverages” (Levitsky and Way, 2006) and the problem of “two Ukraines” (Ryabchuk: 2000); other findings reinforced a much more elaborate notion of a cosmopolitan Ukraine (Sasse, 2010). Inter-regional variation was also balanced with national parallels. It is clear that structural, regional environments affect the abilities and scope of the centers, we can also identify several commonalities that affect the policy sector more broadly. Below, I will address my experiences in the three regional analytical environments of in Lviv, Kyiv and Donetsk and highlight the regional exceptionalities and but also identify national patterns.
“In Lviv we all know each other…we all support each other…artists, researchers, businessmen, activists … it’s a city, but it’s also a village … a community”
– Anonymous Interviewee, Lviv Analytical Centre.
Lviv the City of Intellectuals: In Lviv, our team was greeted with an extremely, if not over, enthusiastic group of analysts. The atmosphere was energetic and intellectual. One problematic issue for our research, and perhaps explaining the overt enthusiasm, was that our team also consisted of representatives of the very donor agencies that these centers so desperately relied on.
The research centers we visited ranged from smaller 2-3 person operations to larger better-equipped ones, with up to 10 members of staff. All of the centers had a small specialist policy remit. The majority of the analysts explained that their work was highly grant-dependent, unstable, with little prospects to work strategically towards longer-term goals. But alas, there was a real ethos of collaborative work, both locally, regionally and with neighboring EU countries. Analysts explained that the proximity to the EU border not only shaped their thematic focus, (Migration, EU Environmental Policy, Education, Cross-cultural policy projects); it also made access to EU funding through partnership easier. Analytical centers in Lviv can only be described as dynamic and capable of relying on local institutional and intellectual support. As was described by several interviewees – directors of research centers and consultancies, joined politicians, cultural figures and business owners in roundtable discussion and goal setting enterprises like ‘Univs’ka Initsiatyva’ and ‘Nestors’ka Initsiatyva’. Lviv’s dense and overlapping networks are abundant with human capital, and make it possible for some analytical centers to potentially match the output and methodological skills of their Kyiv based counterparts. In fact, some centers in Lviv even won national government projects beating out Kyiv based organizations because of their specialist focus (environmental policy, medical policy, local governance and media analysis/monitoring methodological), strengths. My partner and I identified several analytical centers that were worth serious strategic investment by donor agencies. The advice we shared with our colleagues was not to merely support these organizations through training (communication, media and methods) and networking grants, but also through institutional funds, specifically targeting the organizations focusing on what could be identified as lucrative cross-boarder (EU-Ukraine) policy issues.
“Kyiv is a competitive market…we are all in constant competition… we deal in professional analysis …and value for money, we deal in ideas…our competitors have at times stolen or copied our ideas… it happens.”
– Anonymous Interviewee, Kyiv Analytical Centre.
Kyiv The Competitive Capital: In Kyiv, you had a clear sense that the majority of the analytical centers are ‘playing’ at a different level. Our interview subjects were institutionalized organizations with years of experience (working since the 1990s, a smaller portion since 2005). Most centers are well connected to political parties as well as individual politicians and media insiders. Although it was understood that, like in Lviv, everyone knew everyone else, my team members and I were clearly given the impression, that each center viewed the others as their competitors. The intensity of competition and the consistent vying for the same small pots of funding undermines the centers’ ability to concentrate on analytical, thematic and methodological innovation. Such rivalry also means that the Directors interviewed where quick to point out the ‘other center’s’ methodological or thematic weaknesses.
Aside from the clear policy strengths of analytical centers in the capital, which produce consistent public and policy relevant research, the weaknesses were commonly, if not equally, distributed. Most centers’ required to better design and adjust their communication strategies. For instance as was described by politicians and journalists, the long document format output, coupled with a press conference, are simply not enough to quickly and systemically disseminate research findings and policy recommendations to the correct channels. Secondly, rather then competing across 8-10 policy areas, centers would benefit from specialization and deeper focus, which would also allow for great cross-sphere cooperation. Third, methodological concerns could be raised with even the best centres’ outputs, and thus, it was clear that continuous methods training would be beneficial to the further development of the industry. Moreover, journalists covering politics and policy issues should also receive some methods training, in order to better understand the statistical outcomes. Finally, the analytical centers need to address the question of the demand side. Many government institutions in Ukraine opt to use private PR and consultancy groups like the Research and Branding Group, rather then policy recommendations made by public and professional analytical centers. After several discussions, seeming like recurring dreams, it was clear that both the analysts and the donor bodies need to consider how the above can be changed and how to promote competition that is constructive. Most crucially, there must be greater dialogue between stakeholders, as to how public policy research can have a greater impact on the policy makers in Ukraine.
On a different note there are some Kyiv based analytical centers like The Foundation for Effective Governance, which are again on a different level. Backed by oligarch money, they focus on their own policy interests. They employ professional and foreign staff, paid at western salary levels and have better access to the current party in power insiders. But most importantly these are not reliant on foreign donors. These are indeed independent islands, not competing. Yet, based on our team observations, it is still uncertain if such organizations are models to move towards, or away from.
“In Donetsk’, there is a very small local market, and even smaller group who produces analytical research…the big companies like the research and branding group are the ones the local ‘vlada’ uses…we have limited resources”
– Anonymous Interviewee, Donetsk Analytical Centre.
Donetsk The Industrial Hub: When we arrived, Donetsk had just received a Euro 2012 Championship facelift: the airport was pristine, streets were clean and lined with flowers, the cafes were overflowing. Locals were polite, friendly and spoke several languages. Alas, the local analytical centers, clearly did not receive the same influx of funds as the city streets. They did not drive the flashy cars that zoomed past us at close 100klm/h in the city center, their offices though welcoming, have not been recently renovated.
While most of the centers where connected to the local High Education Institutions (HEIs) and their policy analysis overlapped with university research, some had clear policy agendas. Still, it should be noted the activities of the Donetsk based centers tended to be more in line with that of advocacy groups and civic organizations. One specifically exceptional organization, the CVU (Committee of Voters of Ukraine), while not an analytical center, was highly professionalized and seemed to be the central connection between most other centers, media groups and local government structures. As opposed to the sector trend in Lviv, the research in Donetsk was more relevant local and regional, rather then National and EU policy.
One surprising observation made by our team was despite the fact that Donetsk is an industrial hub and the source of so many Ukrainian fortunes analytical centers in the regions are not capable of attracting funds from local business. Unlike the ‘small oligarchs’ and local business leaders in Lviv, the Donetsk industry does not seem to offer the same type of support to local policy centers and rather pay for Kyiv based or foreign researchers and consultants. It is not clear how donor agencies could aid the regional research centers in developing local private-public partnerships, but it would seem that this would be a worthy investment.
“We need systemic and long-term funding … we are far too often reliant on smaller grants… it affects what topics we cover… we need help even to apply for institutional grants, we do not have professional accountants who are capable to get us ready for an audit for instance”.
– Anonymous Interviewee, Kyiv Analytical Centre.
Common Themes: Overall throughout our interviews one main theme was repeated and seems to be a common problem for Ukrainian analytical centers. Funding, and there lack of, more than any other aspect provided severe constraints on policy research output and center success. Because funding is small grants based, centers tend to align their research output to donor requirements and agency trends rather than develop particular specializations, be it thematic or methodological. Whereas institutional and longer term funding is clearly indispensable to plan strategically, most analytical centers are not currently equipped to even conduct an audit, let alone able to apply for institutional grants from SIDA, CIDA, USAID and Think Tank Fund, due to the cumbersome nature of the application procedures. As mentioned by several interviewees, the application requirements would require the centers to have a member of staff working fulltime on fundraising. In a team of 6-10 or even 2-4 this is not feasible, due to the same funding constraints. Thus, centers that are on the brink of becoming central players in Ukrainian policy-making, are faced with a Catch-22.
Lastly, there is a broader need for training and networking, not only within Ukraine (between the regions and the center) but also between Ukraine, EU and North American based Think Tanks. Learning through example both locally and abroad would seem to be the best value for money. Providing Ukrainian analysts access to develop news skills and sector norms, but also generate stronger cross-boarder network ties, building relationships and fostering opportunities for partnerships.
“We are not bad, but we are not always great… we are in stage of development…with the right long-term aid, we can be much better and valuable regional contributors to policy research…”
– Anonymous Interviewee, Lviv Analytical Centre.
Final thoughts: The intensive almost all-Ukrainian field research has provided out team with insights as to the nature of policy research sector in Ukraine. Complicating our research was the fact that we were analyzing those who analyze for a living – knowing looks and smiles during interviews heighted this fact. Whilst our findings help elucidate the state of Think Tanks in Ukraine, the process of interviewing and asking questions about the structures and procedures of the analytical center’s activity, also helped the analysts think inwardly about the state of their organization and of the sector more broadly. Many of our questions where met with a similar response: “hmmm, I never thought of that, interesting…I guess we should discuss this with our partners…perhaps this is something we should consider in the future”. And thus, that is the thing I found most interesting about researching people and organizations that, well, think for a living – your inquiries, may provoke introspection and self-analysis. Leaving your research subjects thinking about themselves, while you set out to think about Think Tanks.
Contacts:
Olga Onuch
olga.onuch@lac.ox.ac.uk
***
The goal of the Civil Society and Good Governance Program is to promote development of a system to protect the rights of public and municipal service consumers and to support NGO policy capacity building.
