The session of the Bootcamp was led by Mr. Trilochan Pokharel, Senior Director of Studies at NASC. He began by showing two videos that presented conflicting perspectives on the dynamics of public policy formulation, highlighting a gap between existing policies and the actions of policymakers. Mr. Pokharel explained that the policymaking process should begin with recognition, diagnosis, prognosis, followed by formulation, consultation, decision-making, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and review and adjustment. He emphasized that this process should include contributions from academicians, think tanks, research organizations, and experts—elements that are unfortunately lacking in Nepal's current policy making practices. Mr. Pokharel further noted that federalism serves as the bridge that connects local problems with national solutions. In conclusion, he described the core of policymaking as encompassing problem identification, problem formulation, decision-making, policy evaluation, and policy implementation.

Sharing his insights from the experience in Public Policy Dr. Pukar Malla, Founder and Chairperson of the Daayitwa, introduced the Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) approach, developed by researchers at Harvard University’s Center for International Development, as a method designed to address the challenges of complex policy-making. Traditional policy processes often rely on standardized solutions or best practices from other contexts, which can lead to significant gaps in implementation.

Dr. Malla highlighted these often-overlooked gaps in well-crafted policies, questioning whether low and stagnant capabilities represent a gap or a trap. While these challenges are frequently perceived as gaps, Dr. Malla argued that when the same approaches are repeated without yielding results, it signifies a trap. This trap arises from isomorphic mimicry, adopting ideas from others to establish legitimacy rather than addressing core issues. He explained that this imitation of modern institutional forms tends to overlook the importance of sustainability. Additionally, it leads to premature load-bearing, where external solutions are imposed that surpass the capacities of the implementers. Consequently, despite their initial appeal, such policies fail to achieve the desired outcomes due to these underlying traps.

In response to these challenges, Dr. Malla introduced the PDIA approach as a dynamic and flexible method of policy-making. PDIA prioritizes problem-solving in context-specific, iterative, and adaptive ways, making it particularly effective for addressing complex and evolving policy challenges.

This module was facilitated virtually by Dr. Udaya Raj Wagle from NACA. This module included discussion on different tools available to better understand and define the policy issue/problem - one of the key aspects before initiating any policy research. Dr. Wagle started his session with the introduction and definition of public policy to bring consensus among all the participants. The session then identified all the stakeholders involved in the policy making process and then moved to introduce the rational model of policy analysis which is one of the popular problem solving models used in policy process. The rational models included quantitative analysis and summation, cost-benefit analysis, cost effectiveness analysis, risk and actuarial analysis etc. Dr. Wagle further introduced non-rationality in policy analysis. The session also included a “technical exercise: do values matter?”. One essential learning for the participants from this session was the introduction of a generic (stage-heuristic) policy analysis process which included discussion on stages of the ongoing policy cycle.

The day ended with group work instigating participants to reflect on the sessions and work with their group on the final outcome: framework on policy brief.

“To understand what is required to ensure women’s representation, we must first understand why women’s representation is so low”, Mr. Chandra Bhandari, a Senior Research Manager at Inclusion Economics Nepal at Governance Lab started the session with the importance of scenario-building as a method that allows policymakers to anticipate potential futures, explore the implications of various scenarios, and make informed decisions that are resilient to change.""

Mr. Bhandari explained a broad research agenda that asks what constrains female political representation? Globally, there are two major explanations for the low levels of female political representation:
i) supply constraints; i.e. there are fewer women seeking political office, possibly because women lack political aspirations and
ii) demand constraints; i.e. women are less preferred as political representatives either because political parties prefer to nominate men or voters prefer to elect men.
According to Mr. Bhandari, their existing research suggests that, in Nepal, demand constraints may be more important in explaining the challenges to women’s representation at the local level. They conducted a nationwide survey in December 2021 where they saw a large share of female incumbents report an aspiration to run for higher office. 63% of female deputy mayors expressed an intention to run for mayor in 2022 elections. However, only 6% of mayoral candidates were women. Therefore, there is a mismatch between women’s stated desire for higher office and parties’ fielding of women in those positions.

This module, facilitated by Dr. Sucheta Pyakuryal, introduced the participants on tools and techniques of using evidence generated from research to policy making. In the background, she highlighted the dis-link between evidence generation and use of the same during the policy-making process which means we are not making the most of vast and increasing investment in knowledge production. She even introduced the construct of “two communities” which is widely used to describe the sharp disconnect between the world of academia and policy. In this context, the primary question that remains in front of us is: How can policy makers maximize the underutilized potentials in scientific research? And, what tools of communication are appropriate to make research accessible to various stakeholders?

Dr. Pyakuryal’s session took the participants through a journey of four waves of evidence revolution where first wave included efforts to develop indicators to measure performance, second wave defined the rise of use of randomized control trials (RCTs), third wave included the rise of systematic reviews and finally fourth wave included emergence of researchers whose incentive is to produce systematic reviews relevant for policy and practice. Her session also introduced the participants with Gordan Adam’s Iron Triangle which undermines rational, evidence-based policy making process. She further highlighted the use of numbers and symbols in policy communication.