Ann Hollemann, a researcher linked to the Centre for International Studies of the Free University of Amsterdam, just finalised her mostly web-based study to explore the extent to which Prolinnova type of concepts and approaches (related to IK, local innovation and PID) are referred to in academic studies as well as in projects and websites of international development organisations. She also interviewed 10 representatives of such organisations. This study was a follow-up to a similar study undertaken in 2006. Comparing present findings with those in 2006 would tell us, so we hoped, whether efforts of Prolinnova and its allies to lobby at the international level had had any impact.
Ann’s conclusions are clear: She does not find evidence of increased attention internationally to Prolinnova related concepts and approaches and thus notes that impact of our efforts at that level are limited if at all. Her study therefore does not confirm the anecdotal evidence that we have been gathering on cases of international mainstreaming in specific organisations or programmes. She also notes, though, a number of limitations of the study approach and re-examines the assumption that if PID/IK terms do not show up on websites or in annual reports mainstreaming does not occur. She suggests us to also look at horizontal mainstreaming, i.e. actual use of PID/IK approaches in projects and programmes of organisations.
