Training Report DPR training – CDI/IPD – December 2011
1
Training Report
Training in
‘Analysis Oriented to the Needs of
the DPR’
20 – 21 December 2011
Vanessa Johanson Alpern
Consultant and Associate, CDI
Training Report DPR training – CDI/IPD – December 2011
2
Introduction
On 20 – 21 December 2011, the Centre for Democratic Institutions (CDI)
delivered training for the research staff of the Indonesian parliamentary
secretariat entitled ‘Analysis Oriented to the Needs of the DPR.’* This report
describes the content and participants of the training and gives some analysis
and recommendations for next steps. This training was delivered in cooperation
with the Institute for Peace and Democracy (IPD), based in Bali, Indonesia.
Goal
The overall goal of the training was to increase the capacity of DPR researchers
to respond to the needs of the DPR.
This goal was chosen based on CDI’s ongoing analysis of the performance of the
DPR and informal needs assessments carried out through meetings with DPR
members, Secretariat staff, and other stakeholders. This assessment confirmed
that the research service of the DPR could be better utilised and its skill-base
better optimalised for improving policy-making based on evidence and analysis.
Preparation
Preparation for the training began in June 2011 and proceeded as follows
through to December 2011:
• Draft training outline submitted and discussed internally by CDI and IPD.
• Research carried out by phone, email, internet and in person, focusing on
international norms and practices in parliamentary research services. In
particular, interviews and / or in-depth email exchanges were carried out
with the heads of parliamentary research services in Australia, Uganda,
Sweden and the UK
• Coordination was carried out with other organisations carrying out
capacity development for parliamentary researchers and staff (House
Democratic Partnership, USAID’s Prorep, National Democratic Institute)
• Comprehensive draft Facilitator’s Notes prepared and discussed
internally
• Meetings held in September 2011 in Jakarta with key stakeholders; and
in-depth discussions between Vanessa Johanson Alpern and Ketut
Erawan, co-trainers
• Facilitators Notes and materials finalised
• Logistical preparations implemented by Hazelia Margaretha
Curriculum
The curriculum was designed using participatory adult training methodology,
which treats participants as rich sources of knowledge and experience by
* Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Peoples Representative Council or lower house of
parliament
Training Report DPR training – CDI/IPD – December 2011
3
engaging them in exchanges of ideas. The methodology takes into account the
different learning styles of participants by utilising a range of activities. In this
case planned activities included group discussions, pair work, reading and
comprehension, roleplays, case studies, opinion mapping, brainstorming, video,
and other tools.
Comprehensive Facilitators Notes were prepared, in order to ensure that each
step had been carefully considered and to record the training process for future
replication.
Training Report DPR training – CDI/IPD – December 2011
4
The Summary Agenda was as follows.†
Analysis oriented to the needs of the DPR, Training Agenda (final revision), Jakarta, December 2011
DAY 1
8.30 – 9.30 Welcome and Opening; Introductions
9.30 – 10.00 Parliamentary research services compared (Sweden, Australia, Uganda) 10.00 – 10.30 Mapping relationships between research services and other parliamentary entities 10.30 – 10.45 Break 10.45 – 12.30 Parliamentary research requests: What is acceptable?
12.30 – 1.30 Lunch 1.30 – 2.00 Understanding our audience, building better relationships
2.00 – 3.00 Stakeholders and styles – (exploring practical vs. academic research, DPR vs. LIPI as stakeholders)
3.00 – 3.15 Break 3.15 – 4.00 DPR research needs: experience from a former DPR Member (Alvin Lie) 4.00 – 4.30 Proactive research services: UK and Sweden case study
DAY 2
8.30 – 8.45 Review of Day 1 – What was interesting, what was confusing?
8.45 – 10.30 Analysis for parliamentary purposes – based on two current Bills 10.30 – 10.45 Break 10.45 – 11.30 DPR Research needs: experience from a DPR member (Eva Sundari) 10.45 – 13.00 Writing for our audience 13.00 – 14.00 Lunch 14.00 – 14.30 Peer review and editing of written pieces
14.30 – 15.00 Presenting research results – presentation skills 15.00 – 15.15 Break 15.15 – 16.00 Looking ahead and training evaluation 16.00 – 16.15 Certificates and closing
† This is the agenda as delivered. The agenda was adjusted a number of times during the training due to time constraints and the interests and pace of participants.
Training Report DPR training – CDI/IPD – December 2011
5
Trainers and Resource People
Name Role in training Organisation
Vanessa Johanson Alpern Curriculum design and
training facilitation
Independent consultant;
CDI Associate
Ketut Erawan Training facilitation Director, IPD
Stephen Sherlock Opening remarks; inputs
on comparative
parliamentary research
services
Director, CDI
Alvin Lie Resource person on MPs’
research needs
USAID Prorep; former
Member of DPR (PAN)
Eva Sundari Resource person on MPs’
research needs
Member of DPR (PDIP)
Hazelia Margaretha Logistics; input into
research and curriculum
design
CDI
Participants and participation
The main target audience for the training was the research unit of the Pusat
Pengkajian Pengelolaan Data dan Informasi (PPPDI), or Centre for Analysis, Data
and Information Management in the DPR Secretariat. This target group was
chosen after needs assessment with relevant stakeholders indicated that
relationships between PPPDI and some key elements of the DPR needed more
development and that more of the work of PPPDI could be focused on the core
business of the DPR.
Twenty-three‡ researchers from PPPDI were invited and a further nine
participants were invited from Fraksi (party factions in parliament) Expert Staff.
CDI gave the following criteria for participation of the PPPDI staff:
• educational minimum of a Masters degree
• at least 1 year working at PPPDI
• willing to attend the 2 full days of training
• willing to fill out a pre-training questionnaire
• 50% male and 50% female
Of the 32 invited, 27 participants attended the training: 22 from PPPDI and 5
from the Fraksi. The full list of participants is attached as Annex II. There were
more female than male participants.
‡ The number of 23 from PPPDI was selected based on the fact that CDI was
informed that 46 new researchers had started in the past 1 – 2 years; for this
first training half were offered a seat. The number of Fraksi staff invited was
based on one seat for each of the 9 large Fraksi in the DPR.
Training Report DPR training – CDI/IPD – December 2011
6
The pre-training questionnaire reassured the trainers that the participants were
already thinking about the key message of the training: improved
responsiveness to the needs of the DPR. It also gave useful information on the
educational and professional backgrounds of the participants. The questionnaire
also included the question ‘If you could ask an experienced parliamentary
researcher from another country one question, what would it be?’ This helped
trainers get a sense of the needs and interests of participants. The pre-
questionnaire template is attached as Annex III.
Most participants attended for the full two days and were active in the training;
one or two only attended for one day; several others were silent or distracted for
much of the training. Overall, the level of engagement was good, although group
/ pair / individual training activities were preferable for this group as many
were unwilling to speak up in the plenary sessions, even if they appeared to
listen attentively. While the two external resource people (Alvin Lie and Eva
Sundari) took care to address the key focus of the training and gave clear and
relevant presentations, participants were fairly quiet in these sessions.
End-of-training evaluations
All twenty-seven participants completed an end-of-training evaluation
questionnaire with a number of qualitative and quantitative questions. The
results are summarised as follows:
Training Report DPR training – CDI/IPD – December 2011
7
Training Report DPR training – CDI/IPD – December 2011
8
Participants noted the ‘most important thing/s I learnt’ as follows. The numbers
in brackets indicate the number of times this point was mentioned:
• How to be more professional and responsive to the needs of the DPR and
members, including concise and reliable briefings (9)
• Relationship building between PPPDI and fraksi expert staff; relationship
building with Members and all DPR elements (6)
• Strategic and political research vs. academic and theoretical research (4)
• The importance of the role of researchers in parliament, learning from
international experience (3)
• What is acceptable and unacceptable for a parliamentary researcher to do
(2)
• Changing our thinking patterns (1)
• Expressing our views more confidently and systematically (1)
• Developing PPPDI through individual and collective development (1)
• The need for a PPPDI database (1)
• A research service’s need for Standard Operating Procedures (1)
Sessions felt to be ‘most useful’ were as follows.
• Practicing analysis to respond to a member’s request (7)
• Experience from former and current members of the DPR (6)
• Comparing parliamentary research services internationally (5)
• Acceptable and unacceptable requests (2)
• Presentation skills (2)
• Strategies for institutional reform (1)
• Understanding the weaknesses of PPPDI (1)
• Research that combines data and analysis, discourse, and
transformational elements (1)
• Pro-active research services (UK case study) (1)
To the question regarding which session was the ‘least useful,’ most participants
wrote ‘none were least useful.’ Four participants noted a ‘least useful’ session:
• Comparison with other countries
• Pro-active research services
• International standards for parliaments
• The presentation skills session (material was too general)
Participants would like to see the following from CDI in future:
• Exchange or study tour with overseas PRSs (7)
• More practice and methodology for responding to members’ requests (6)
• A longer / deeper training on same topics (6)
• Include all researchers and expert staff (fraksi, Commission) in future
training (4)
• Material based on each of our sectors (law, economics etc.) (2)
• A study on performance of PPPDI and other structures inside the DPR (2)
Training Report DPR training – CDI/IPD – December 2011
9
• How to create databases (1)
• Researcher management (1)
• Training in a place where we stay overnight so more focused (1)
• Invite DPR members to speak who have utilised our services more (1)
• Gender mainstreaming in parliamentary research (1)
• Conflict resolution in the office (1)
• How to survey members’ needs (1)
• Policy research and analysis (1)
• Communication management for researchers (1)
• Presentation skills for researchers (1)
Analysis: context and impact
PPPDI’s research unit is a resource of some ninety Masters and PhD graduates
from a range of backgrounds. This resource is not yet optimalised by the DPR for
a range of reasons. A major structural impediment is that PPPDI staff gain
promotions through academic performance measured by the Indonesian
Institute of Sciences (LIPI) rather than by providing a service that is rated highly
by the DPR itself. Researchers might gain professional pride, but no increases in
salary or status resulted from assessments of usefulness for the work of DPR
Members.
The doubling in numbers of research staff in the past two years, as well as
increased budgets for expert staff within the DPR, indicate that the role of
research and information is being taken more seriously. However changes to
structures and attitudes still need to be considered in order to improve the
utilization of PPPDI, both from within the PPPDI, the Secretariat and DPR
members and bodies. More broadly, the DPR Secretariat as a whole may need
some restructuring in order to improve its service, relevance and links to the
DPR.
Despite these structural and attitudinal concerns, the training appeared to have a
good impact on the outlook of individual participants. This was evidenced by
high levels of attendance and attention, the end-of-training evaluation, as well as
feedback during the training. On the second morning a brief discussion of ‘what
was interesting about yesterday’s session and what was confusing about
yesterday’s sessions?’ revealed that participants had absorbed many of the
messages we were trying to convey.
The candid inputs from a Member and a former Member of the DPR (Alvin Lie
and Eva Sundari), both of whom gave pointed feedback of their impressions of
the work of PPPDI, provided something of a ‘reality check’ for participants. While
participants were relatively quiet during these sessions, the sessions seemingly
had an impact and seem to have mostly been taken as stimulus to do better work
rather than discouraging participants.
The five fraksi staff who attended were initially skeptical of the training’s
relevance. After the initial sessions, the facilitators took care to include them
through tailored ‘key questions’ during group activities. For example, in the
Training Report DPR training – CDI/IPD – December 2011
10
section on ‘Pro-active research services’ they were asked ‘From the perspective
of fraksi staff, what could PPPDI do to be more pro-active in publicising its
products and requesting feedback?’ Interaction increased during the training
and the fraksi staff were present and vocal throughout.
Overall, in the estimation of the trainers, the training achieved its goals of
improving the awareness and skills of DPR researchers to respond to the needs
of the DPR. As usual, follow-up is needed both to consolidate and monitor the
impact of this first step. CDI is well-placed to carry out this follow-up.
Recommendations
Structural / contextual:
1. Explore CDI support for assessment of Secretariat structures to assist it to
increase its responsiveness to the DPR’s needs. CDI could also provide
opportunities for international networking and comparative study by the
Secretary General, the head of PPPDI, and the head of Research and
Analysis. This could include study tours and conferences; ongoing
informal discussions with CDI leadership; further invitations to open and
participate in training events similar to the ones described in this report;
coordination and cooperation with other organisations working with the
Secretariat.
Researcher training and capacity building:
2. Deliver the same training again to another group of PPPDI researchers,
adjusting the curriculum according to feedback from participants and
internal CDI / IPD analysis. Given the amount of material to be covered,
future trainings should be at least 3 days long, particularly given
participants’ desire to finish the training day by 4pm. In the training
described in this report, about 30% of the material was dropped from the
original agenda due to time constraints. For sustainability and
institutional memory purposes, finalising and consolidating the full
Facilitators Notes and materials is important.
3. Mixed participant groups: This training was a good start in improving
relationships between PPPDI and the fraksi staff. Future trainings should
include a higher proportion of fraksi staff, adding Commission staff, and
tailoring the sessions to better accommodate the differing mandates.
Additionally, facilitators should prepare more carefully for the dynamics
created by having a mixed group of participants, including thinking
through how better to develop relationships between them.
4. Utilising curriculum elsewhere: Deliver the same training again in East
Timor and in other locations as needed. This would capitalise on the
investment so far in curriculum development and translation into
Indonesian.
