63358 CIFOR's role in research collaboration L rni gfrom artners' pe pectives Purabi Bose IMPACT AsSESSMENT PAPERS SERIES 1. Bringing forests-and-people science to young researchers: An impact assessment study of capacity building Purabi Bose 2. Influencing the global forest policy agenda: An evaluation of (IFOR's research Michael J. Spilsbury and Purabi Bose 3. An evaluation of POLEX ((IFOR's Forest Policy Experts Listserv): Targeting key forest agenda-setters Michael J. Spilsbury and Nina Haase 4. The sustainability of forest management: Assessing the impact of (IFOR's (riteria and Indicators research Michael J. Spilsbury 5. (IFOR's role in research collaboration : Learning from partners' perspectives PurabiBose CIFOR's role in research collaboration Learning from partners' perspectives Purabi Bose This paper is based on an internal impact assessment study of CIFOR's 10 years of collaborative forest (policy) research from the viewpoint of the Center's research collaborators. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the International Congress on 'Globalization, Liberalization and Tropical Forest Management in the 21" Century; Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in October 2003, and at a ClFOR Science Seminar. Donors The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) receives its major funding from governments, international development organizations, private foundations and regional organizations. In 2004, ClFOR received financial support from Australia, African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Carrefour, China, ClRAD, Conservation International Foundation «IF), European Commission, Finland, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Ford Foundation, France, German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTl), German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMl), Indonesia, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), International Fund for Agricultural Development (lFAD), Innovative Resource Management (IRM), International Tropical Timber Organization (lTTO), Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Norway, Organisation Africaine du Bois (OAB), Overseas Development Institute (ODI), Peruvian Institute for Natural Renewable Resources (lNRENA), Philippines, Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Switzerland, The Overbrook Foundation, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Tropical Forest Foundation, United States, United Kingdom, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Waseda University, World Bank, World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). ISBN 979-3361-91-3 © 2005 by CIFOR All rights reserved. Published in 2005 Printed by Indonesia Printer Cover photos by Michael Hailu and Nandini Sundar Published by Center for International Forestry Research JI. CIFOR, Situ Gede. Sindang Barang Bogor Barat 16680, Indonesia Tel.: +62 (251) 622622; Fax: +62 (251) 622100 E-mail: cifor@cgiar.org Web site: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org Contents Acknowledgement iv Abstract v Introduction CIFOR's collaborative research 3 Measuring the progress of collaborative research 6 Methodology 6 Survey results 11 Diversity of the partners 11 Partners' motives for collaboration 16 Partners' participation in collaborative research 18 Benefits for partners of undertaking collaborative research 20 Outputs of collaborative research with ClFOR 21 Outcomes of research partnerships with ClFOR 23 Suggestions by the partners for enhancing future research partnerships 24 Conclusion and recommendations 26 Bibliography 27 Annexes I. Universal list of ClFOR's collaborative research partners 29 II. Survey email questionnaire for ClFOR research partners 54 III. List of E-survey respondent partners 60 Introduction In recent years, the notion of doing research with multiple partners has become an important concept in international development. This reflects the belief that partnerships are important for solving complex problems, reducing costs and competition for the same resources, increasing efficiency and ownership, and ensuring greater accountability. Beaver's (2001) study shows that by increasing interdisciplinary interaction some partnership research can be made much more productive as collaborators bring special expertise and knowledge not otherwise available to the project but crucial to research outcomes. In sharing information, resources and common objectives, such coalitions can influence - even drive - all phases of the intervention cycle: planning, implementation and evaluation. According to Bozeman and Sooho (2003), most studies of collaboration assume that collaboration increases research productivity. Few studies have actually tested this proposition, particularly in relation to research on integrated natural resource management. The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) was established in 1993 by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in response to global concerns about the social, environmental and economic consequences offorest loss and degradation. CIFOR's Statutes define its mission as 'to contribute to the sustained well-being ofpeople in developing countries, particularly in the tropics, through collaborative strategic and applied research and related activities in forest systems and forestry, and by promoting the transfir ofappropriate new technologies and the adoption ofnew methods o/social organizations, for national development: CIFOR research produces the knowledge and methods needed to improve the well-being of forest-dependent people and to help tropical countries manage their forests wisely for sustained benefits. This research is undertaken in partnership. At any given time, more than 100 developing-country researchers participate in CIFOR research projects (CIFOR Annual Report 2003: list of collaborators and consultants). Given the importance it places on partnership, CIFOR recognizes the need to take stock ofhow collaborative research is working, and how effective it is. 1 2 • Purabi Bose ClFOR'S ROLE IN RESEARCH COLLABORATION ----------~ .---. This paper is an initial attempt to explore partners' experience of carrying out research in collaboration with CIFOR. The first part of the document introduces CIFOR's collaborative strategy and the partnership framework used for this study. 'The second section presents the study's objectives, approach and findings. The third and final section analyses the results and the implication of the study's findings for CIFOR and its partners. CIFOR's collaborative research The term 'collaboration' is vague and it is often taken for granted that everybody knows what it means. The dictionary suggests that is means 'working with partners'. It is self-evident from such a broad definition that collaboration takes various forms. The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)'s 'Strategy for Collaborative Forestry Research' (1996) examines in-depth the roles, advantages and research challenges associated with research collaboration, and prioritizes themes. The document presents the collaborative research approach to research and capacity building as flexible, cost-effective and innovative. It also states that the approach optimizes the contributions of all partners and promotes a sense of ownership. It emphasizes CIFOR's three key comparative advantages. They are: (a) a global mandate that encourages the engagement of all stakeholders in constructive dialogue about forest-research needs and possibilities, (b) the diversity and skills of CIFOR collaborators, and (c) important institutional values and commitment to South-South co-operation and the fostering of research capacity in developing countries. Almost 70 per cent of CIFOR's research, therefore, is conducted away from its Headquarters in Bogor, Indonesia, through collaborative arrangements with research partners in developing countries. CIFOR's partners are universities and research institutions, donors, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centres, regional and intetnational environmental organizations, communities, public agencies and private companies (Figure 1). Internationallnstitutions Countries Foundations and (Multilateral) (Bilateral) Private Sector CGIAR Networks Regional and International Forestry & and Environmental Partnerships Figure 1. CIFOR's Collaborative links with partners (Source: CIFOR 1996) 3 4 • Purabi Bose ClFOR'S ROLE IN RESEARCH COLLABORATION Turnbull and Byron undertook a preliminary study, in 1998, to analyze CIFOR's types of research partnerships. They broadly classified CIFOR's collaborative research into four categories and illustrated each with an example from CIFOR's projects (Turnbull and Byron 1998). 1. Minor involvement ofCIFORscientists but a major financial contribution from the organization. 2. CIFOR playing a major coordination role, involved in planning, and making a modest financial contribution but with little direct involvement in the fieldwork. 3. Joint planning ofresearch with a partner and significant direct involvement in the fieldwork. 4. Most research activities organized and conducted by CIFOR scientists. The study findings show that each of the CIFOR projects has a strategic plan and aims to meet its objectives by a combination of partnership arrangements. The majority of the CIFOR partnership arrangements fall into the above-mentioned categories 2 and 3. One of the main limitations of Turnbull and Byron's study was that most partnership arrangements during the study period had been in operation for fewer than 2 years, so it was difficult to assess the long-term viability and effectiveness of partnership arrangements. Honadle and Cooper (I 989) defined three basic classes of collaboration: sharing of information, sharing of resources, and joint activities. Figure 2 is a diagram, adapted from Honadle and Cooper (1989) to describe CIFOR's multi-dimensional collaborative research approach. This involves consultation, cooperation and coordination, and requires different levels and types of participation by CIFOR scientists. These classes are not mutually exclusive, but together they form a complete set that defines collaborative research. Figure 2. ClFOR's Multidimensional Collaborative Research Approach Source: Adapted from Honadle and Cooper 1989 IMPACT ASSESSMENT PAPERS No.5. 5 1. Consultation: This form of collaboration is based on sharing information. The partners exchange and disseminate experiences, ideas and opinions through consultative processes, seminars, workshops or conferences. lbe main objective is information sharing (the partners' role is sharing research data), or transferring knowledge (through the dissemination of research results). It is often considered to be a lower level of collaboration as there is minimum involvement of partners. 2. Cooperation: The partners' primary aim is to share the costs in order to make research cost-effective. Resources, such as funds, equipment, communications technology, administration and logistics, are shared by partners, thus ensuring effective use of limited resources. In this form of collaboration, although each partner has its own initiatives, they are guided by a common programmatic theme with the purpose of sharing resources. 3. Coordination: In this form of collaboration, partners work together, share common goals and objectives, and implement joint action plans. Such arrangements are based on shared vision, trust and a clear description of roles and responsibilities. All partners work together on a strategic. long-term research arrangement. -Ibis avoids duplication, and promotes research efficiency. Most of CIFOR's research projects can be classified according to the categories outlined above. Some collaboration may change within a project over time. For instance, project staff might begin by simply consulting the partners, but during implementation the partnership might strengthen and become a more coordinative collaboration. Trust, power, leadership, influence, experience, credibility and the capabilities of partners are fundamental factors in establishing collaboration. As with 'collaborative' research, CIFOR's definition of the term 'partner' is broad. A partner may be an individual or an institution involved in consultation, cooperation or coordination of research activities, or a combination of all three; may be working on a short or long-term basis; and mayor may not be formally associated through an agreement with the Center. Measuring the progress of collaborative research Like many other international institutions working on integrated natural resource management, the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) faces challenges in assessing the impacts of its collaborative research in relation to forests and people. It is taken for granted that collaboration leads to better decisions that are most likely to be implemented and, at the same time, better prepare partners for future challenges (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Embedded in this view of research collaboration are number of assumptions that: (a) good collaboration is based on mutual sharing; (b) research partnerships significantly improve scientific productivity; (c) collaborative research builds the capacity of partners; and Cd) collaboration leads to effective use of resources. The involvement of multiple actors and the influence of external factors make it difficult to assess these assumptions about collaborative research. Most impact studies of collaborative research focus on citations, co-authorship, costs and benefits, and the influence on scientific productivity (Stokes and Hartley 1989; Bozeman 2000). In such kinds of assessments, the evaluator's task is to measure, describe and make a professional judgment about research collaboration. In this preliminary assessment study, CIFOR's partners articulate their views on the strengths and weaknesses of their partnerships with CIFOR, and outline issues that need to be resolved. The main objectives of this paper are to explore, for CIFOR, the validity of some of the above-mentioned assumptions about collaborative research. The study examines three key questions from the partners' perspective: 1. Why do partners associate with CIFOR? 2. What is the degree and type of partners' involvement in collaborative research? 3. Is collaborative research helping partners to improve the relevance of their research? If so, how? Methodology The assessment was carried out in two simple steps. First, a universal list of CIFOR's research partners was identified. Second, a survey questionnaire was designed. 6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT PAPERS No.5. 7 A. Identifying research partners The purpose of the study was to examine whether partners benefit from collaborative research - and if so, how? The author compiled lists of individual and institutional partners, from both developing and developed countries, who took part in CIFOR's collaborative research projects between 1994 and 2003. Various kinds of 'partners' were identified, ranging from universities and research institutes to government agencies, civil society organizations and non­ governmental organizations (NGOs). lhe partners identified were classified by: (a) the nature of the contractual agreement with CIFOR informal association or formal contracts, grants or Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs); (b) the year in which the partnership was established and the length of the association; and (c) the nature of the association in terms of whether the partner simply provided information or was more actively engaged in the collaborative research process. The study excluded interns and graduate students, village institutions, multilateral and bilateral donors, and partners from other Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centres, such as the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF). Based on the criteria described above, a total of more than 700 agencies, organizations, institutions and individuals were identified as research partners. Annex I provides a complete list of tbe partners identified. The universal list was drawn up by combining data from CIFOR's Human Resources Department (HRD), a list maintained by major collaborative research projects, and a list of partners from the regional offices in Brazil, Cameroon and Zimbabwe. Several methodologies were used to identifY CIFOR's partners. 0) Identification through recorded documents. More than 600 present and past research partners associated as individual consultants, institutional grantees or through Mo Us were identified from CIFOR's HRD database (see Annex I, parts A, B and C). the average period of collaboration for this group was two years. (ii) Identification of informal research collaborators. The secretary to each research project maintains a list of partners who informally, but actively, participate in CIFOR's collaborative research projects. For the purpose of this study, these are categorized as 'informal' partners because no formal agreement is signed nor do they receive any financial support from CIFOR. A list of informal partners (included in Annex I, part D) was identified from CIFOR's three major research programmes Forests and Livelihoods, Environmental Services, and Forest Governance. 8 • Purabi Bose CIFOR'S ROLE IN RESEARCH COLLABORATION (iii) Identification by local and regional CIFOR offices. Regional and local­ level colleagues helped to identifY institutions and individual research partners. Sample size selected. For the purpose of this study, one-quarter of the partners from the universal list were selected. A stratified random sampling technique was used to ensure equal representation ofall types of partner in the study sample. The selected sample size of247 partners included an almost equal number of partners from on-going projects, completed research, short and long-term association, funded and non-funded arrangements, consultancies, institutional grants and MoUs; they represented a total of 41 countries. About four-fifths of the partners were from 32 developing countries, which reflects CIFOR's overall institutional strategy. The selection of sample size relied on the availability of partners' email address, which may be inherent bias in the study. Table 1 lists the partners in the study according to their institutional background, classified by developed and developing countries. Table 1. Percentage of partners from various institutions in the study sample Partner Developed Developing Pe;ce;'t.;g-;j Countries (9) Countries (32) ~ • Consultant -t__~_2_--,.~."..-+--_=====4-----'1=~=~===~=====-12--1 ;-------­ I Government rei;i I society/..,.c:i0 o 4 17 47 7 --I 21 i Research institute ! University - I I -~. 12 28 39 49 21 31 I i ! Othe r ..... : 2 6 3 ! ~, ---,--~~-~~ -----~-- • Tota I .._---- ! 48 199 --~--------~-----~--- ,--------­ 100 ! B. E-questionnaire and interview To collect the data, a structured electronic questionnaire was designed for partners in order to gain their opinions about CIFOR's collaborative research; it was sent to all the selected partners. English and Bahasa Indonesia were the languages used for the e-questionnaire. The e-questionnaire comprised 12 questions classified into five main sections. It combined multiple-choice questions with ranking, and open-ended questions designed to allow for qualitative responses (see Annex II). IMPACT ASSESSMENT PAPERS No.5. 9 ~ ..- -.. - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. .. -~- .. -----~---- 1. Basic information on the collaborative arrangements with CIFOR In this section, personal and professional information such as the partner's name, address, type of institution, key field of institution's activity, and professional position was requested. Questions were asked about the year(s) of collaboration with CIFOR, type of partnership arrangement, field of CIFOR research activity with which he/she had been associated, and criteria for associating with CIFOR. 2. Role of collaborative research This section's main aim was to seek partners' opinions about collaborative research. They were asked what the advantages and challenges ofcollaborating with CIFOR were. Another question asked partners to describe their degree ofinvolvement in developing the collaborative research process with CIFOR: they were asked to select and rank the statements that best reflected their type of involvement in the collaborative arrangement. The same question was repeated as an open-ended question, for reconfirmation. 3. Evaluating outputs of collaborative research In this section, the questions were aimed at understanding how partners perceived whether the outputs of their partnership with CIFOR had benefited them and/or their institutions. The partners were asked whether the research collaboration had provided any benefit to their own work. What had was the process ofundertaking collaborative research been like? Had the output helped them in their work? Open-ended questions were used to obtain qualitative descriptions of the additional benefits of carrying out collaborative compared to non-collaborative research. 4. Outcomes of CIFOR's collaborative research In this section, questions were asked about the outcomes of collaborative research. What have the direct or indirect outcomes of collaborative research with CIFOR been? Were these outcomes positive or negative? Basic information about project titles, year of project initiation and completion, and CIFOR's contact person(s) was requested. 5. Enhancing future research partnerships In this section, the partners were asked to provide suggestions for enhancing CIFOR's future collaborative research approach. 6. Space for other comments At the end of questionnaire, space was provided for respondents to give qualitative suggestions, comments, or any other related information that had been omitted from the e-questionnaire. ... IV . -=2';Jj":~ -'?'~:,.;? !~ ,~ ,1 • " c: ~ ~'.~hOC.·N~. ~ -~~ ?< ~ Q: -. C' I. '. .' '­ ',,' = ~"." Bel""", ..// CD e '(... 0 UJt1t\/'''~''''7 ('~ . .,' USA. . rland, .. ....J., ... 'S ';J,'> In (!) ;, ..;~~,('» ,,~l··h.\~ ' ..•. ., .• .s r c" .. ,,' . , ,?'8Jop.n :f Frant~"'1: >:·"'n~.-r, .... '., '{.:::;f ";7\ r . ") ;::j;.? •. r .... ) _ t ., '~?"'£}'Pakis~n~ . , . \~ '. d,j , ',,;~.,I '-'~>~'--"""",, " ) \",",­ QMi!tx:l~ I .\ ' ,/j··S······ I... J ,\,.,! \, 8~a ~"'.: ! • ,.,~j •.",•.!'I.iS.~ \.J 'I r~.. -~oen.. J KiJnya i.e Cote d vo &:i::::...'-.. 'II '.WI. Gmlflll . ' " . . '. .J ~~_.~ " t '.da ~Uaan ,r•.. . ...... Gabon I ," "4:~, CongoD" '.Jl () 'ii lamb' r-'---­ o :;l;l Z1m~r~f ...• ­ • Australia Vi i) r­ m Z South Africa :;l;l m V1 m :t> ~ :c Figure 3. Geographic distribution of 200 partners from 38 countries 8 ;: ~ :;l;l ~ o z IMPACT ASSESSMENT PAPERS No.5. 13 ~~- .............. ~ ...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ............. -~ ...... Individual experts Others 6% 4% 36% Research Institute 26% Figure 4. Institutional representation of respondents Table 2. Some ofthe regional university and research institution partners !Country Partners IStart of ... I It'...• Developing-country inst~_~!!ons ~ !Brazil Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria (EMBRAPA), 1996 Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazonia (IMAZON), Institute of Environmental Research for Amazonia (IPAM), Instituto Floresta Tropical (1FT), University of Para i iCameroon Central African Regional Program for Environment), African 1998 i Rattan ~,:~~arch Program (CARPEl China Research Institute of Tropical Forestry, International Network 1999 for Bamboo and Rattan (lNBAR) Ghana Forestry Research Institute of Ghana 1999 India Indian Institute of Forest Management, Kerala Forest Research 1997 Institute (KFRI) Indonesia Gajah Madatt University, Faculty of Forestry, Institut Pertanian . 1995 Bogor (IPS) ............. ! Philippines University of los Banos, Ecosystems Research and Development 1999 Bureau (ERDB) Peru Institut.o Naclonal de Investigacion Agraria (INIAl, Associason 1997 Tropicos Zimbabwe Southern Alliance for Indigenous Resources (SAFIRE), Uiliversity 1996 of Zimbabwe i ID~loped-- ~ "O.:.! .= 0 .g C C .~ (]) ~ o ...... 'p nJ nJ 'c 0iij 'u "0 ~ c 0. nJ ..c 0 .!!! :s: ..., .~ E t!= (]) E :0 c Q) :0 Q) :::l c:;:: 2 ::::J a.. '" l!! E LD a.. -.-Output ___ Beneficial Figure 13. The major outputs of collaborative research and their benefits for partners 'Establishing networks with partners' was seen as an output of the collaborative research by more than half of the respondents, however about 30 per cent of these respondents rated this as being of insignificant use to them. One of the reasons given by the respondent was that with the termination of the collaborative research the network among partners rarely continues. Other outputs mentioned by the respondents were 'developing a computer­ based model of ACM', 'games and posters on biodiversity', 'joint side-events in major international conferences') 'print media (newspapers, policy briefs)') and IMPACT ASSESSMENT PAPERS NO.5. 23 - ..... ~ .... - -- ---~~ ---- ---- - - - - - - - - _......._ - _....­ 'developing follow-up future proposals'. On average, according to 66 per cent of the respondents, the collaborative research study had resulted in about two-three outputs. The overall results signifY that CIFOR's collaborative research has had several types of research outputs and, according to the most of the respondents, the collaboration was beneficial. Outcomes of research partnerships with CIFOR The results of the qualitative open question on the direct and/or indirect outcomes ofcollaborative research with CIFOR showed that 48 per cent of the respondents reported some form of outcome. Over half of them had been associated with projects that were already complete (before the survey). 1he remaining 31 per cent of the respondents thought it was too early to assess the outcomes of their collaborative study: most of them had been involved in studies that had been completed only recently (1-6 years before the study). Since a time lag of 3-5 years is considered average for any research outcome, this finding is relevant. About 20 per cent of the respondents were involved in ongoing projects; they did not attempt to answer this question. The 48 per cent of respondents who reported collaborative research outcomes represented projects such as ACM, decentralization, plantations, criteria and indicators, site management and NTFP global case comparisons. Most of these respondents were CIFOR partners from government forestry departments and academic institutions, or were individual experts. Ofthese, three-quarters identified outcomes related to influencing their national policy or decision-makers in the donor institutions. Approximately one-quarter ofthe respondents mentioned that an output of collaborative research with CIFOR had resulted in the replication of a similar project in other regions. According to 12 respondents involved with CIFOR's collaborative research on criteria and indicators, the outcomes had led to adoption of the criteria and indicators by several national institutions. According to the respondents, all these outcomes had been beneficial. The findings showed that one-third of the 95 respondents suggested that these outcomes would not have been possible at all without the collaborative research, and that having CIFOR as a partner organization was important for the research outcomes. 'This number may be small but is significant for CIFOR as most of these respondents were senior partners of CIFOR, with partnership periods of over 7 years. 24 • Purabi Bose ClFOR'S ROLE IN RESEARCH COLLABORATION Some quotes by the respondents on outcomes of collaborative research with CIFOR: • 'adoption of research results for e.g. use ofMCA and CIMAT in a number of applications in Canada, US, and other countries' • 'collaborative research is one among various factors which improved relationships between government and civil societies at national level in Nepal.. .' • 'restoration of degraded forests in South China had strong impact on foresters in south China... findings already used in forest management' • 'Mexican government's new forestry law incorporated decentralization of some responsibilities to local governments ... this was after we presented results from Latin American research ... ' • 'book on management of soil, nutrients and water in tropical plantation forests is now widely accepted as the benchmark, state of the art­ publication on these topics ... results from project readily recognized and applied in South India' • 'site management project network contributed to convince ECO SA (Congolese eucalypt commercial company) to manage organic matter in a conservative way' • 'database of NTFP's case comparison allowed sharing among members, which resulted in a very important analysis' To sum up, the findings indicate that over half of the respondents mentioned that collaborative research with CIFOR had shown positive outcomes. Due to the length of time that it generally takes for outcomes to be recognised, about 40 per cent of the respondents were not able to quantifY the outcomes during this survey. Suggestions by the partners for enhancing future research partnerships In the final section of the survey, partners were requested to provide their opinions on possible ways to strengthen CIFOR's future collaborative research. A detailed list was provided to the partners of issues such as access to scientific information, communication, publication, monitoring of the project etc. They were requested to rank the importance as being of high concern, average, or no need for future action by CIFOR. If the issue was of high concern, the partners were asked to provide their suggestions for improvement. Over 95 per cent of the respondents stated that CIFOR's communications, publications, access to scientific documents, administration and project leaders required no change. IMPACT ASSESSMENT PAPERS No.5. 25 Most of the changes recommended by the respondents were related to post­ collaborative research studies. The findings suggest that post-evaluation of the project was of highest concern for 70 per cent of the respondents (Figure 14). Approximately half of the respondents suggested that the financial management of collaborative research needed to be further developed in the future. Follow-up Post-evaluation Monitoring of the project Data processing Field work Financial management o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 No concern II Average High ,..... r',.<>'rn Figure 14. Suggestions by the respondents for enhancing future research partnerships When asked about the collaborative research arrangements with CIFOR, 62 per cent of respondents thought that both CIFOR and its partners benefited from the research projects on an equal basis, and that such a balance needs to be continued in the future. 28 • Purabi Bose CIFOR'S ROLE IN RESEARCH COLLABORATION Turnbull, .l.W and Byron, R.N. 1998 CIFOR's experience with research partnership: responding to the new research challenges. In: Enters, T., Nair, c.T.S. and Kaosa-ard, A. (eds.) Emerging institutional arrangements for forestry research, 277-290. FAO, Bangkok. Wagner-Dobler, R. 2001 Continuity and discontinuity of collaboration behavior since 1800 from a bibliometric point of view. Scientometrics 52: 503­ 517. Wondolleck, .l.M. and Yaffe, S.L. 2000 Making collaboration work, lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 277p. Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E. and Okubu, Y. 2000 Shadows ofthe past in international cooperation: collaboration pronles of the top nve producers of science. Scientometrics 47: 627-657. Annex I Universal list of CIFOR's collaborative research partners l A. Research partners with individual consultant contracts = Approximately 400 (only 3 % were for non-research) -­ RS: NAM~ NATIONALITY BASED START END INCIFOR ! .----. OFFICE 1 C299 IA. Edi Permana Indonesia 1-0ct-00 31-Dec-00 2 C428 Abdon & Toyib Ucan •Indonesian Indonesia 3-Sep-Ol 31-Dec-01 3 C161 Achoundong Cameroon 24-0ct-96 24-Nov-96 4 (319 Adi Supriadi Indonesian Indonesia 11-0ct-OO l1-Dec-OO 5 C102 Agus Susilo Indonesian ,Indonesia 11-0ct-99 10-Nov-99 6 1013 Agni Klintuni IIndonesia Hun-OO 31-May-02 Boedhihartono I...... 7 C199 Ahmad Budiaman Indonesian Indonesia 5-Mar-95. 28-Mar-95 8 C027 Ahmad Dermawan Indonesian Indonesia l-Jan-Oll 30-Jun-011 ~, • 9 C219 Ahmad Sahur Indonesian Indonesia 2-Dec-00 l-Feb-01 ----, 10 C169 Ahui Anvo Indonesia 20-May-95, 5-Jul-95 11 C427 Alan Bojanic Bolivian Indonesia 21-Feb-02 7-Mar-02 12 C179 Alex Banda Zambia 1-Aug-98 31-Dec-98 13 C014 Alex Beraskow Canada 13-Sep-99 1-0ct-99 14 (315 Ali Suhardiman Indonesian Indonesia 1-Sep-01 30-Sep-01 15 C440 Aline Fabing Indonesia 10-Feb-02 31-Mar-02 16 A002 Alois Mandondo Zimbabwe 1-Nov-Ol 31-Mar-03 17 C275 Alvaro Michelena Brazil 6-Nov-OO 22-Dec-OO 18 C003 Amita Baviskar Indian Iindia ~-J""-99 19 C139 Ana Cuenca Fernandez ish Spain -Dec-99 20 C136 Andi Erman esian Indonesia -Apr-99 8-May-99 21 C266 Andrew Lowe UK 22 (326 Andrew P. Vayda .US l-Sep-Ol 31-Aug-02 23 A007 Andrew N. Gillison IUK 1-Apr-98 31-Mar-99 24 C138 Angelica Faune Chilean Nicaragua 1-Sep-99 31-Dec-99 25 C168 Anggana Indonesian Iindonesia 16-Mar-98! 29-Apr-98 26 C110 Anggoro SE Widayat Indonesian Indonesia 6-Dec-99 5-Apr-001 27 C367 Anita Frio filipino Philippines 1-Sep-01 12-Sep-01 1This list of 700 research partners reflects formal contracts. To avoid duplication, the partner has been counted once only although he/she might have been associated with C1FOR more than once over different periods or projects. 29 30 • Purabi Bose CIFOR'5 ROLE IN RESEARCH COLLABORATION REF NAME NATIONALITY BASED START END INCIFOR OFFICE 28 C218 Anne Christine Casson Australian Australia 22-Feb-OO 31-Dec-00 29 C270 Anne Margaret Larson USA l-Jan-02 30-Jun-02 30 C254 Anton Hidayat Indonesian Indonesia 19-0ct-Ol 31-Jan-02 31 C024 Antonio Contreras Philippines 15-Feb-Ol 31-Aug-Ol 32 C132 Anwar Rizal Indonesian Indonesia 22-Apr-99 31-May-99 33 C358 Arif Purnomo Indonesian Indonesia l-Sep-Ol 30-Nov-Ol 34 A005 Arild Angelsen Norway l-Jul-99 30-Jun-02 35 C159 Arletta Gracia Indonesian Indonesia 20-Dec-99 31-Mar-00 36 C216 Arnoldo Contreras Italy l-Nov-OO 30-Nov-00 37 C054 ArthurW. Klassen Canada 14-Aug-99 26-Sep-99 38 C294 Ashley Rohan British Indonesia l-Aug-OO 30-Sep-00 Parasram 39 Cl09 Asjoko Widarudi Indonesian Indonesia 20-0ct-99 18-Nov-99 40 C396 Azucena E. Estanol Filipino Philippines l-Jun-Ol 31-Mar-02 41 1004 Ayu Damayanti Indonesia 4-Mar-02 3-May-02 42 C178 Bahruni, MS Indonesian Indonesia ll-Jul-98 l-Aug-98 43 C156 Bambang Hero Indonesian Indonesia 8-May-00 30-Sep-00 Saharjo 44 C004 Bambang Rudy Indonesian Indonesia 31-Aug-99 30-Nov-99 Ananto 45 C336 Bambang Setiono Indonesian Indonesia 18-0ct-Ol 22-Jan-02 46 C401 Barry Rosenbaum USA l-Jul-O'I 31-Aug-Ol 47 C334 Ben S. Malayang III Filipino Philippines 15-Jun-Ol 30-Nov-Ol 48 C071 Benno Pokorny Brazil 6-Aug-Ol 5-Aug-03 49 C188 Benny Nasendi Indonesian Indonesia 15-5ep-97 31-0ct-97 50 C255 Bernadette Hince Australian Australia l-Sep-OO 31-Aug-Ol 51 C422 Bernaulus Saragih Indonesian Indonesia 8-0ct-Ol 19-Nov-Ol 52 C432 Bettina Nicely Johnson USA 7-Feb-02 6-Feb-03 53 C307 Bevlyn Sithole Zimbabwean Indonesia 14-Feb-02 31-May-02 54 C312 Birge Solberg USA 16-Sep-OO 8-0ct-00 55 C403 Brook Johnson USA l-Jan-02 31-Dec-02 56 C073 Budiawan Dwi Indonesian Indonesia 19-Aug-99 18-Nov-99 Prasetyo 57 C226 Carlos Cornejo Arana Peru 20-Mar-00 19-Jul-00 58 C246 Carmen Garcia Spanish Spain 22-0ct-Ol l-Mar-02 Fernandez 59 C227 Catherine Aubertin USA 20-Mar-00 28-Feb-Ol 60 C233 Chandra Budi Indonesian Indonesia 5-Nov-00 15-Dec-00 61 C421 Chandradewana Boer Indonesian Indonesia 8-0ct-Ol 19-Nov-Ol 62 C308 Charles Pye-Smith British UK l-Sep-O'1 31-Aug-02 63 C348 Charlie Palmer British UK 24-Feb-02 24-Apr-02 64 C237 Cherukat Indian India 20-Sep-00 10-Nov-00 Chandrasekharan 65 C407 Chiranjeewee Khadka Nepal 26-0ct-Ol 31-Mar-02 IMPACT ASSESSMENT PAPERS No.5. 31 ~F H'-Me NATf()NAUn &ASED S,..aT JND INQfQR -­ .OFFfa 66 C012 Chris Barr USA 1-0ct-99 31-Dec-99· .....­ 67 C185 Chris Bennett Indonesia 1-Aug-98 .... 15-Aug-98 68 C022 Chrisandini.... Indonesian Indonesia 26-Aug-Ol 30-Sep-Ol 69 C214 IChun Kok Lai Indonesia l-Nov-OO 30-Nov-00 • 70 C192 ClarkS. Binkey Canada 17-Sep-95 27-Sep-95 71 C339 Claudio Forner Spanish 'Colombia 5-Feb-O'1 30-Sep-Ol· 72 C726 Cynthia Mackie Indonesia 7-Dec-Ol I 31-Dec-Ol i ~-? C268 ICristina Bagui Lorenzo .Filipina Indonesia 24-Apr-Ol 31-Mar-02' 74 C391 Dale Dore . South Africa l-Mar-OO 30-Jul-00. 75 C424 DaniWahyu Indonesian Indonesia 31-Jan-02 4-Feb-021 ! Moenggoro - i ~-...... 76 C384 Daniel Nash . USA 1-0ct-01 12-Nov-Ol ! ..... --.~ 77 C395 David A. N. Fina ------­ .. Indonesian ----------­ Indonesia -~---------. l-Nov-01 31-Dec-01 78 C368 David Brown American USA 10-Dec-01 18-Jan-02 .~ David E. Bign~~ Malaysia 17-Nov-97 29-Dee-97 80 11 David G. Barber Canadian l-May-99 31-Jan-Oll 81 C262 David Kamweti l-Apr-OO. 30-Apr-00 82 ~David Minga Minga 8-May-00 8-Jul-00 83 C3 David Swain New Zealand 25-Jun-Ol 24-Jun-02 84 I C240 Debora Kristiani Indonesia •Indonesia 16-Apr-00 17-Jun-00 ! . ~t C265 Defo Louis C149 Dev Nathan .Thailand 16-Mar-00 3-Mar-99 16-MaY=92.' 31-Dec-00. 87 C292 DeveJ)dra Pandey Indian India 17-0ct-OO 16-Apr-Ol ! 88 C038 Deyanira Lutgarda Nicaragua l-Sep-99 24-Sep-99 Zamora 89 Diana Pabst Parsell l.I\mericar USA 1-Jan-01 • 31-De~ 90 C313 Dietmar Stoain G~rmany l-Nov-99. ..... 31-Dec-99 _ 91.... C036 Dietricht Vogt-Schmidt Germany l-Dec-99! l-Mar-OO 92 C029 [)junClI:!~_ Indonesian Indonesia 27-Nov-99 - 26-Jan-00! I 93 C074 Dodi Priata Indonesian Indonesia 22-Aug-99. 10-Nov-99 94 (121 Donald Gilmour IAustralia l-Sep-Ol 21-0ct-Ol· 95 C236 Donato Romulo l-May-OOI 30-Jul-OO Cardenas 96 C442 Dora Maria Olarte- Bolivia 10-Dee-Ol 10-Feb-02 Zapata - - ­ i 97 C644 Dollop Mamung 16-0ct-03 12-Nov-03 98 C404 Dyfrig Hubble Indonesia 4-0ct-Ol 4-Mar-02 99 C373 Eba'a Atyi Richard Cameroonian Cameroon l-Sep-01 • l-May-02 100 COOS Eddy Mangopo Angi ... ~---- .... Indonesian ~.--- ...... Indonesia 25-~~p-99 25-Nov-99 ...... ­ 101 C115 Edwin Yulianto ·Indonesian .Indonesia 16-0ct-00 17-Feb-01 i Nugroho 102 C080 EdyRiaJ)to Iindonesian Indonesia 20-Feb-02 15-Mar-02 103 C420 Edy Sukmajaya Indonesian Indonesia 21-Dec-01! 30-Sep-02 I 104 C372 IEko Prianto Indonesian Indonesia ll-Feb-02 10-May-02 32 • Purabi Bose CIFOR'S ROLE IN RESEARCH COLLABORATION -- REF NAME NATIONALITY ·I~ASEO START END i INelFeR ! iOFflCE 105 (183 Elizabeth Anne (anadian •Indonesia 20 1-0ct-97 Belcher • ~fOSalgadO 7-Jan-00 3Han-00 • 10 ~6 Emily Boyd Zimbabwe 1-0ct-Ol 15-0ct-Ol 108 097 Emmanuel M. Filipino !Philippines l-Feb-02 30-Apr-02! Esguerra I 109 C309 Endriatmo Sutarto Indonesian Indonesia 1-May-OO 31-Dec-00 110 C377 Erhard Dauber Bolivian Bolivia 1-0ct-01 31-Mar-02 111 071 •Erik Meijaa rd Dutch 1­ -D~~-ool 112 (591 IFabiola Roca 1 -Sep-Oll 113 C209 ~rancisco (hapela Mexico 1-Nov-OO 30-Nov-00 114 C160 FrancoisTchala Abina .(ameroon 29-Jul-97 14-May-98 ~1? C273 Frank Matose Zimbabwe l-Dec-OO 3Han-03 • 116 Cl17 !Fran~y~amzani Indonesian Indonesia 1-Sep-99 15-0ct-99 I 117 A010 Francis E. Putz 11-Aug-02 31-Dec-02! -----­ .... 118 (142 Franz Wilhelm Germany 22-Sep-99 28-Nov-99 IGatzweiler 119 C295 G.A. Dhammika Perer~ 1-Dec-99 31-Mar-OO 120 I (008 Gaj~t1<:JraSingh Thailand 21-Nov-001 30-Nov-OO ---­ 121 rOll Gaelle . . +. . 5-Apr-02 -4- Au g-02 122 (028 Gamaliel Hirung Ding Indonesian Indonesia 1-0ct-Ol 31-Aug-02 .... ~ 123 (405 Geoffrey Scotford Australia l-Dec-Ol 31-Mar-02 Hope 124 C241 Gil A. Mendoza USA lO-Jul-Oll 30-Sep-()1 125 Cl77 Gilead Mlay Mozambique l-Jul-O'I 30-Aug-Ol ........... ~ 126 (040 Glaucia Guimaraes Brazil 14-0ct-99 14-Nov-99 Salles Barreto 127 C269 Godwin Adriano Indonesia 1-Sep-01 31-Aug-02 Limberg 128 C451 Godwin Limberg Dutch Indonesia I 1-Sep-021 31-Aug-03 .. ~ 129 (023 Gordon John Christie Australian Indonesia I 1-Apr-99 31-Dec-99 ~' IThailand 1-0ct-00 31-Aug-Ol I 131 er Australian Australia 1-Nov-00 30-Nov-001 132 itenbeek (anada 3-Aug-OO 31-Jan-Oll 133 C280 Happyson Mudavanhu IZimbabwe I 10-0ct-OO 9-Apr-Oll 134 (043 Hardian Indonesian Indonesia 2-Sep-99 1-0ct-99 ............- - - - - ­ 135 C075 I~ari Priyadi Indonesian Indonesia l-May-02 30-Apr-031 1136 059 ,Haris Iskandar Indonesian Indonesia l-May~Q.? 31-0ct-02· I 137 (030 Hariyatno Indonesian Indonesia 3-Feb-99· 2-Feb-00 Dwiprabowo ~ 138 (196 Hartmut Bossel IGermany 29-Nov-96 10-Dec-96 139 (429 Hasantoha A. Indonesian Indonesia l-Apr-02 30-Sep-02 ISyahputra I 140 (446 Hasbillah Indonesian Indonesia 18-Feb-02 30-Apr-02 141 C410 Hendrik Indonesian Indonesia 21-Jun-01 20-Aug-01 ........... ~ IMPACT ASSESSMENT PAPERS No.5. 33 -- "ReF NAMI NADONAI.I1Y . SASEP INCIFOR START END I : .' OFFICE -- I 142 (119 Hernios Arief - - - f - -Indonesian Indonesia ­ ~_~-No~-991 25-Nov-99 Iindon~sia 1-Apr~02.L~1-De<:~02 ...- . - - - - - -.. .. ~- ..- I 143 j (078 Herry Purnomo i Ind()nesian .... ' ... 114L44~:~zemberg DaSilva ,Bra~~~razi~ 1~JUI-0~L_5~JUI-01_ [14~L~441. Hilton Made~lJ_=r= IZimbabwe ..L.J.::Dec-m :~!:-'-l\1ar.::021 I 146 f::/()nora~()G. P~lis C291 • ____ ~ jPhilipeines_,_10~Mar~2.Q1Q-MaY Q~ .... 1147 Huynh Thi ThuBa___ ~tname~~-1Yie~~~?ep-02 (448 28-Feb-03 I 148 (098 I Made Sudana IIndone~~_Jllld()nes.@__L_1-Sep.::Ql 31-Aug-O:2J '149 (084 Ian Rowland _. _ ~!itish Iindonesia' 1~Sep-99 12-Sep-99 '150 Ida Ayu Pradnja (408 Iindonesian IAustralia I 12-0ct-01 Resosudarmo I : , =1= 1 1;--15-1-+-(-1~2~8+lk-"-e:':R"':"a~ch~matika--" IIndonesian ~Indonesia 1-0ct-00 31-Dec-00: 152 C331;;:;';;~B~suki --~Ind()nesiall· Iindone~i~- _~_ Han-02 31-Dec-02 '153 ....ura (423 Iman s ...meng.g .. ~I~n o.n.es~a~ ~!ndo~.n. ...d. .. ... ... es.i.a.'._..__L 1.5 .. a.r-.0 __ C399 Ina Q. G.lJil!er lTl-<> ~ili£inil~ _ _J!,hilip,Ein..e.s ...::M ...2. .3 1~u~Ol I ... -t: 11-Jul-02 _1-.Mar::~ C338 Indra KaHana ... Ilnd()nesia~lndone~~9-Jan-0r= 27-Mar-02 1----1:--(425 IndrawanSuryadi ___ llndonesjan ,Ifldonesia j 1 8 -fv1 ar- .? o 18~Apr-02, Finla~ . l-sep-ool • 158 159 C257 InduforOy _ _ I (411 Irawan Augustian_.. Iindonesian C248 :lreneGuijt I Dutch -L ,Indo.nesia t 12-Jljn-01 1-Sep-01 j ... 3_0-Sep.::QQj 11 ~~ug.::Q!1 21-0C~ 161 ~~;~::~::~:~:~~:~~i "I~:;~~~~~_i~nesi~+ l~~u;~~~ 8~~~~~~ I .. (086~yadi Samsoedin Indonesian Indonesia __ 1.1-se p.-00 l .... 10-S~P-03 1 C398 'Ismu M. Gunawan Indonesian Indonesia _L 9-Jul::01T'' 8-Sep-01 Iwan Kurniawan Indonesian Indone-sia -112-sep~01~"11-Dec-01 L..C...:'::':.,...-'=--'-:'::':,:':J.-'-(-'-a~ta--'::Iina Santamaria --­ UsA--- l:Ap;:or'':M''-021 Arnold UK 1-Nov-01, 31-Mar-02 r---t---~--+-----' ------+--~- ~- I 3-May-991 - 4-Sep-99 J Workman ._ _.. . 4-Sep-01 .. 29-0ct-01 I ~ : 169 I (279 IJames-Azikiwe George Malawian Hul-ool 30-JUn-0~ : :Milner ' , 176 Janet Lowore -"-- 1O-JC~n~-~02-i-3O::s-e-p--02i 'I 171 I, (093 Jan Piter Parasian Indonesian I, Indonesia- 23-AU9~OO,122-sep~,. Simartama ~---.~. - .- -~ --1..=--' ----=:f--- .-.--'" I 172.Ji,180 Jane Barblett Australian_ _ J!'1.~onesia •... 28-Ap!Y7L 1O-Jul-97 I 1173 I (435 Janis Alcor_n_ . _~____ ~S~_ l1jan-02.I'._.1.~Mar~Q?~ I 174 ' (414 Jeffrey~ayer .._ _.• __... Switzerland.: 7-Dec-01 31-Dec-01J 175 C328 Jeffry Aflwar _ _... Iindonesian _ ,USA_ _ ---l..J2-Feb~01 : l1-Aug-01 I ~~ ~~~: ~:~::~~~~~~I~: C341 Jim Bowyer I IUSA I __J--·_..-··I 1-Jul-Ol l~~ :ll~~:~:ij 31-0~ (167 JockA~~~==r===- USA-·-"-~·17-Se'P-95 27-Se~ C321 John H. Taylor IBritish UK 7-Jan-OO 21-Jan-OO C333 John Kofi Diaw Ghana 34 • ....- - -... Purabi Bose - -....- ­ .. --~.--- ClFOR'S ROLE IN RESEARCH COLLABORATION REf NAME "ATIONAUrv aASEQ START E"I)~ (HaFOR OFFICE I 1 182 C272 John McCarthy. Australian IA_u_st'-'rac.cIi'-'a_--J......-'-'_~~~-'-31-Dec-001 U83 C153 ;John Turnbull Australia~ustralia 1-Jul-01 _~O-Ju_n-O~j ~C094 1 IJOhny Simatupang Indonesian Iindonesia I l-May-OO' m 30-Ap~~ ~~5 I C2~9 'Jon(jthanC.Okafor . --J...___ --f-4-May-o~4-JUI-OOI J1 a IU · · ·~g..A~nda -+""" 1 ~Daeyc~09-91 .,~.!i.· · . i. . .1 0~ Ja n'l~0 1'1 r~050 I~;~:,~:mbe . .. 1186 ! C393 !Jonath(jn L. Dai , __--,-u""ganda-n"" ... f.-188...f4~Joyotee Smith Thailand =I 1-Mar-02 31-Dec-02 ~ ' 189. C261 IJUdith Mang-a-n-i---+ ---- , l-Jul-OO I 30-~ ,Kamoto 1 ' 190 C388-I-Ju-l-ia~Ma~t~ur-a-na Cornel Peru 10-0ct-001 -31-Ja~~ ,191 C042 Jurgen Hagmann Germany 15-Dec-00 15-Mar~01l 192 C104JusuptaTarigan Indonesian 1 l.J1dO.J1esi(j__,_lg~~.··· 9-J~n-011 ' 193 .. C1941Jutta ~Iauer_t_ _ -+-___. England 1 l-Aug-98 31-May-99 194 (306 ,K.D.Sm~ '.~...~=+1-sep~gg-31~Oct-99 C245 K.N. Ganeshaiah Indian India ,l-Nov-OO 31-Dec-00 Iindonesian esia 1 - 17-Jun-00 amaruddin Indonesian Indonesia 25-Nov-99 Karen Freudenberger ,USA 31-May-99 15-Sep-99 USA 11-0ct-99 _15-0ct-9~ -------'---._-_. 29-Jan-02 ._-_. 28-Feb-02 ... .. 1-Sep~99 31-0ct-991 1-Sep-01 31-Dec-0] Keshav Kanel l-Dec-99 l-Mar-OO Kisti Pu rwosari 19-Feb-02 18-Apr-02 L . . . . . . - j - - - - - J . . - -..- - ­ .. - - - j - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - i - - - - - - - ' - - l - - - ' - - - - ' - - - j Komara ~idayat IndoneSia~doneSia 29-0ct-Ol... 28-J(jn-02 ~.?_~~.s2...Kresno Dwi Santosa IndonesianpJ1donesia 10-Mar-03 31-Aug-03 ~07 ' (335 Kriswanto Indonesian ~onesia .... 9-M..