Although the majority of researchers had a very positive impression of the conferences (and particularly valued the networking opportunities), there were aspects that respondents criti- cized, such as timing, the uneven quality of the research being presented, the fact that many of the papers at recent conferences were not on the PopPov research questions, the disciplinary mix (much of the research is by economists, but many attendees are not economists), lack of attention to policy issues (and to making the presentations appropriate for policymakers), the absence of Africans on the podium in earlier years, and the fact that there is a mix of papers on work in progress (on which presenters receive useful feedback) and others that are closer to completion. The focus, particularly in later years, seems to have been to expose the researchers (and nonresearcher attendees) to the cutting edge of research in the field, but this has come at the expense of fellows (who seemed to receive less face time in later years) and of researchers with less finalized projects who nevertheless could have benefited from feedback or have faced similar challenges in their own research. We recommend the following regarding the annual conference.
5 Hewlett staff have noted that there are many links between PopPov and its other initiatives in SSA:
The WBCA consortium members all have staff/students who are PIs on PopPov projects or fellows, for example. APHRC is the next host of the PopPov conference in 2014. A number of the key players in the Francophone training (IFORD [in Cameroon], ISSP [in Burkina Faso; Institut supérieur des sciences de la population]) also received research funding from DEMTREND. Colleagues from the training institutions have been reviewers for fellowships and served on PopPov con- ference committees.
V.B.5.a. Continue PopPov Conferences at Least Until 2016
This will ensure that there is time for findings to emerge from the last round of research (which was funded in 2012) and last round of fellows (funded for 2013 through 2015).
V.B.5.b. Have the Conferences Focus More (Than the Recent Ones Have) on Findings and Less on Methodology
Discussants’ detailed methodological comments could be given privately to authors, or there could be a session or a half day devoted specifically to methodological issues (though, ideally, presented in a way to make them as accessible as possible to attendees whose main interests are not in methodology).
V.B.5.c. Continue and Possibly Expand the Poster Sessions
These provide a good opportunity for researchers to get feedback on research in its early stages. V.B.5.d. Structure the Conferences in a Way That Makes It Clear What Each Part of the Conference Is About and Whom It Is Targeting
For example, there is little value in having policymakers sit in on technical academic presenta- tions. To remedy the situation of the multiple goals of the conferences (presentation of com- pleted research versus getting feedback on work in progress, presenting about research meth- odology and findings to other researchers versus disseminating relevant results to policymakers and advocates), we recommend that the conferences be clearly structured to address these dif- ferent goals. A potential structure of a conference more clearly reflecting these conflicting goals explicitly could include the following components:
• a preconference workshop on communications, with practice sessions for people present- ing at the conference
• presentations by fellows with feedback from assigned reviewers
• sessions on other work in progress with assigned discussants working on similar projects • a session on PopPov-funded finalized research with one academic discussant and one
policy discussant
• a session on cutting-edge research from outside PopPov with one academic discussant and one policy discussant
• a session on translated research directed at policymakers in the presence of the researchers having done the research for questions from policymakers. Having all of the discussions of interest to policymakers take place in a condensed period of time would allow busy policymakers to attend for a shorter time while getting all that would be most useful to them.
V.B.5.e. Alternatively, Consider Having a Separate Meeting with Policymakers of Presentations About PopPov and Other Research with Policy-Relevant Findings, with Presentations Designed to Be Appropriate for a Nontechnical Audience
V.B.5.f. Make the Conferences More Focused Topic-Wise, and Try to Make the Whole Greater Than the Sum of the Parts
This could be done, for example, by having more syntheses and drawing out of lessons learned. For example, there could a panel at the end of the conference to assess the papers on various dimensions, e.g., new findings, important methodological advances, and, most importantly, policy implications.
V.B.5.g. Non-PopPov Research Should Continue to Be Presented at the Conferences If It Is Directly Pertinent to the Conference Topical Focus
V.B.5.h. Consider Publishing Conference Proceedings (Including a Summary of Discussants’ Comments and Audience Discussion) and Doing So in a Way That It Is Widely Accessible to the Population and Development Communities
This will enable interested parties outside of the network to be more aware of PopPov research and discussions of it.
V.B.5.i. Have Some Discussants from Outside the Network, Including Development
Economists Who Have Not Worked on Population Issues and People with Policy, Program, and Advocacy Experience, to Get Some Fresh Perspectives
The steering committee suggested earlier could be a good source of recommendations. Try to find a leading researcher who has not been supported by PopPov who could make a presenta- tion about pertinent research that he or she has done and who could also serve as a discussant in another session or in an end-of-conference panel.
V.B.5.j. Invite More Top-Level Academics from African Universities and Some Other Researchers at African Population Institutions That Are Supported by the Hewlett Foundation
This may also have the advantage of encouraging these professors’ students to apply for doc- toral fellowships.
V.B.5.k. Hewlett/PRB Fellows Should Continue to Be Invited to Future Conferences If They Are Still Working on PopPov Topics
Perhaps have a competition for travel grants, for which applicants would explain how atten- dance would be beneficial to their career development. These Hewlett/PRB fellows should be considered as possible session chairs or discussants.
V.B.5.l. Consider Holding a Conference in the United States
This would make it easier for people at such organizations as USAID and the World Bank to attend and should make more likely the participation of U.S. development economists and demographers who are not part of the network.
V.B.5.m. Consider Holding the Annual Conference Some Time Other Than Late January The original idea was to hold the conference earlier in January, before academics needed to return to teaching, but this has not been the case recently. In addition, January is the month when economics students finishing their Ph.D.’s are on the job market, which, in some cases, limits their ability to attend the PopPov conference. Furthermore, winter weather causes some flight delays and cancellations and makes some northern venues unappealing to some potential participants.
V.B.5.n. Explore the Possibility of Piggybacking a PopPov Conference onto a Meeting of the World Economic Forum or a Conference of the NTA Project, or at Least Having Some Formal Links with These Forums
The World Economic Forum is attended by the types of people PopPov strives to reach. (Some Norad officials were not able to attend the PopPov conference in Oslo because they were at the World Economic Forum.) NTA addresses issues very similar to those in one of the key PopPov research questions.