Page - (000094) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

some thought to what lies between solid science, great technologies, and their positive developmental impact. Amix of an outcome-focused TOCwith people and partners at the core, and a RBMapproach that allows us tomonitor, reflect, evaluate, and learn, are key elements for a programmaticMELstrategy– coupled with great science. 4.13 Conclusion Requests by funding agencies for amove towards outcome-oriented research pro- grams are having considerable impact on theway inwhich research is conceived, planned, implementedandevaluated.Akeyrequirementforsuchworkisflexibility – the flexibility to adjust so that the outcome orientation works as a support mechanism and enabler rather than a one-size-fits-all straitjacket without any space for innovation, serendipity and creativity. The shift to a R4D approach based onTOC is fosteringmassive change,much of it for the better, in our view. However, it also comes with considerable challenges. Defining the necessary changes, anddevelopingnewprocessesandmechanisms,need timeand resources, which are often grossly underestimated and inadequately planned for. Some of these challenges arise because of the nature of research: the results are not known from the start, unlike in engineeringwhere the outcomes are generallymuch less uncertain.Another challenge is thatCGIAR is aR4Dorganization, not a develop- ment organization, and it is still in the process of sorting out how to balance the need to do great sciencewith the need for impact.We need to avoid the results- basedfocusbeingtothedisadvantageofthescience,anddevelopmentbeingseento be incompetitionwith thescience.Rather, theyneed tobeseenascomplementary, enabling, and liberating. References Alvarez, S., Jost, C., Schuetz, T., F€orch,W., Schubert, C., &Kristjanson, P. (2014).Lessons in theory of change from the introductory training on theories of change, impact pathways and monitoring & evaluation (CCSL Learning Brief No. 10). Copenhagen: CGIAR Research ProgramonClimateChange, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). http://hdl.handle.net/ 10568/52992. Bazeley, P. (2004). Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. In R. Buber, J. Gadner, & L. Richards (Eds.), Applying qualitative methods to marketing management research (pp. 141–156).Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan. Bester, A. (2012).Results-basedmanagement in theUnited NationsDevelopment System: Pro- gress and challenges.A report prepared for theUnitedNationsDepartment ofEconomic and SocialAffairs, for theQuadrennialComprehensivePolicyReviewFinalReport. Binnendijk, A. (2000).Results-basedmanagement in the development co-operation agencies:A reviewof experience.DACWorkingParty onAidEvaluationReport.OECD.www.oecd.org/ development/evaluation/dcdndep/31950852.pdf. 4 Pathway to Impact: Supporting andEvaluatingEnablingEnvironments for. . . 75