Persuasion methodologies: Practical

guidance
In this module we discuss some common methodologies, including
advocacy as a significant element within a humanitarian diplomacy
strategy. We also discuss some of the practical tools that can be put
to use in the development of that strategy. You will see that
advocacy is not a free-standing action, but an element in some (but
not all) HD strategies:

 How to develop your persuasion strategy, collect evidence,

and consider credibility and risk
 The importance of stakeholder analysis when developing HD
strategies
 The benefits and challenges of working in partnerships
 How advocacy fits within HD
This module also draws on the IFRC Legislative Advocacy
Toolkit (2018), but these tools can be applied to any type of
advocacy (not just legislative or policy change) and within any
humanitarian organisation.

Keep in mind that the tools we describe are not a final or definitive
list of tools you might use and that your choice will usually be fitted
to the cultural context in which persuasion takes place.

We recognise that this module may seem to emphasise an ideal

approach rather than one which is possible for every organisation.
By the end of the module, you will find an abbreviated list of
important questions for every organisation.

We will not cover social media in this module, even though it is now
one of the most visible pathways for evidence gathering and
advocacy, especially when the strategy concerns certain age groups,
or those in remote communities, for example. The issue will be
addressed more specifically later in the course, but you can keep it
in mind throughout this module.
What is advocacy?
‘Advocacy’ originates from advocare: to‘call to one’s aid’ or to speak
out on behalf of someone, as a legal counsellor (UNICEF, 2010, p. 2).
It’s a deliberate process, based on demonstrated evidence, of
directly and indirectly influencing decision makers, stakeholders, and
relevant audiences, to support and implement actions in the
interests of the most vulnerable (UNICEF, 2010, p. 3).

If we assume the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary,

advocacy is an action to ‘recommend or support by argument, a
policy, cause, etc.’ However, it’s important to remember that in the
context of humanitarian diplomacy, ‘by argument’ does not simply
mean complaining. Developing an advocacy strategy asks us instead
to use evidence to promote a solution.

Although advocacy is often seen as an action which takes place in

public, or before an audience, the most common advocacy work is
done in private or with a small group.

We often associate the term ‘advocacy’ with the process of

changing opinions, and from that achieving legal and policy change
at international, national or local levels. Within the RCRC movement
there is an established tradition of seeking this kind of change – just
as Henri Dunant and the founders of the Movement did while
developing and advocating for the 1864 Geneva Convention. When
considering what advocacy within HD can achieve, there are a
number of potential dimensions:

 Influencing the attitudes, opinions, and practice of individuals

in positions of power or opinion leadership.
 Developing or reforming the policy and practice of institutions
or their leaders.
 Improving the lives of significant numbers of people in
conditions of vulnerability or crisis or at risk of vulnerability or
crisis.
  Mobilising resources to support the organisation’s objectives.
What makes for a good humanitarian diplomacy strategy?
Developing a strong and useful strategy as part of humanitarian
diplomacy requires humanitarian diplomats and organisations to
have a clear focus on essential objectives and from that clear
message; to know the problem and the proposed solution; to know
how best to reach the right stakeholders and targets; and to be able
to demonstrate effectively, with evidence, and to the appropriate
decision-makers, that there is something that needs to be changed.
This requires discipline within humanitarian organisations and
(where relevant) partnerships for the message cannot be clouded by
misunderstandings or differences.

How does policy change happen?

A research paper by Organizational Research Services (Stachowiac,
2014) outlines six theories or ‘pathways’ within different disciplines
that explain how policy change can happen. It can be useful for
organisations to identify the most relevant persuasion pathway for
their issue at a particular time.

1. A ‘large leap’ is where something monumental happens in

society which leads to significant change in policy and
institutions, such as the release of Nelson Mandela from prison
in South Africa in 1991, which led to the first multiracial
elections in South Africa.
2. ‘Coalition theory’ and ‘alliances’ are where change happens by
organisations working together with a common purpose and
some core policy beliefs, to achieve a common goal. For
example, the wide alliance of organisations in EU countries
campaigning for a ban on public smoking.
3. Policy windows are where something happens in the outside
world that then presents you with a window of opportunity to
frame or promote your issue. For example, a government
passes legislation to end the immigration detention of children,
and then organisations use that opportunity to advocate to
end indefinite immigration detention for adults.
4. Messaging and frameworks explore how a stakeholder’s policy
preferences or willingness to accept them will depend on how
 an issue is communicated or framed. Many organisations will
only have one ‘comfortable’ way of communicating an issue
that works for them – but is this the most effective way? This
theory invites humanitarian diplomats and organisations to test
and refine their messaging and framing for maximum impact.
5. Power politics is where you go directly to the person with the
power to make the change you are seeking. For example,
where National Societies have used their auxiliary role and
existing relations with national authorities to take a direct
route to senior decision makers to achieve incremental policy
change.
6. Community organising is where a community comes together
at a local level in a collective action to push for change for their
community. For example, a volunteer-led initiative which
carries out local activities, but also asks supporters to write to
their Members of Parliament and demand change at a national
level.

Advocacy as an element within the broader humanitarian

diplomacy field
In some contexts, the terms ‘advocacy’ and ‘humanitarian diplomacy’
are used interchangeably. It is, however, important to see advocacy
as being located within broader humanitarian diplomacy, which
includes not just advocacy, but a range of activities: forming
partnerships; negotiations; brokering informal and formal
agreements; communication; protocol and etiquette; mobilising
resources; the ability to navigate multiple players and complex
information across national, regional, and global levels; and so on.

Advocacy is therefore one method of action in humanitarian

diplomacy, and provides humanitarian diplomats with the practical
tools for building a humanitarian strategy. This sits within the wider
process of influencing opinion leaders and decision makers to act in
the interests of the most vulnerable. As described in Module 1, one
key activity within humanitarian diplomacy is the ongoing
development and promotion of a humanitarian policy environment –
within which, advocacy activities can be more successfully carried
out.

The advocacy spectrum

In Module 1, we explored three approaches for humanitarian
diplomacy: creating a policy environment, private diplomacy or
negotiation, and public diplomacy/advocacy. For most humanitarian
diplomats, and traditionally within the RCRC Movement, their most
common form of diplomacy will fall into the ‘private’ or ‘quiet’
category – either one-on-one in the field, or directly with decision
makers or opinion leaders at varying levels.

We sometimes think of this ‘quiet’ diplomacy as the ‘inside route’: in

direct contrast to the ‘outside route’ of public advocacy – such as
orchestrating a public messaging campaign designed to raise
awareness on an issue, or bringing public pressure on decision-
makers, or fundraising.

However, IFRC’s advocacy spectrum illustrated below (Figure 1)

expands those two categories, demonstrating that there are not just
two ‘types’ of advocacy, but a nuanced range of activities along a
sliding scale. While quiet, private negotiations are indeed on one
end, and direct public action at the other, this visual can encourage
humanitarian diplomats to consider the different forms and
approaches to change that advocacy might take, and how they could
interact with other humanitarian diplomacy activities.
Figure 1: Advocacy spectrum
Source: IFRC, 2018

Developing an advocacy strategy

Advocacy within your humanitarian diplomacy is a process with a
set of tools, not an outcome in itself. Its purpose is the achievement
of a humanitarian diplomacy goal. In order to achieve your goal, you
need to have a clear idea of what you want to achieve, and how you
are going to achieve it. In other words, it must be fitted within your
HD strategy. Your strategy is the road map you will follow, which
will eventually lead to the achievement of that goal.

At its most fundamental, developing an HD strategy requires us to

consider it within a wider context:

 What is the problem?

 Who has the power to make the change we want to see?
 What might be the solution?
 If advocacy can support the strategy, which form should be
chosen and applied. Keep it in mind that different forms might
be applied to different stakeholders within the same HD
strategy, and different forms might be applied by different
partners.
There are some additional key criteria that help too, including
looking at how the problem was identified; determining where
power lies in your context; working in successful partnerships;
demonstrating concrete action; creating or capitalising on
momentum; identifying and mitigating risk; and so on. We will look
at some of these elements in more detail later.

Defining your issue

For some organisations, identifying a problem to solve is easy.
However, it is usually harder than you think, particularly when
attempting to define the root cause of a problem.

Stakeholder analysis is very important to this. Ask yourself:

 What is the real issue, and how widespread is the recognition

of that issue as a problem among the target group?
 What is the interest in the issue of the stakeholders you’ve
identified?
 What government or other services are currently available to
deal with that issue?
 Which HD tools are best suited?
 Are you the best organisation to step forward as a leader in
solving this problem?
 Will solving this problem result in a real improvement in
people’s lives?
 What are the views of the target group? How do you know?
 Is this problem easy to communicate and understand?
 What opposition is your action likely to need to overcome?
 How would you quantify success?
A good stakeholder analysis should therefor reveal which other
organisations are at work on the same issue (positively or negatively
from your perspective).

But why?
The ‘but-why’ technique is a simple method which can be useful
when determining your strategy. As the example below shows, it
can help to determine whether you have identified the root cause of
the problem, or just a symptom. It may uncover several different
solutions for an issue, and reveal alternatives that may not have
been apparent before. It is then up to the organisation to identify
which potential causes and solutions are the most crucial, and are
issues that they can most credibly address (Community Tool Box,
2018).

The immediate problem → The children are not going to school

But why? → They keep falling ill

Possible response: provide medicines

But why? → They drink bad water

Possible response: dig a new well

But why? → The well is too far from the school

Possible response: put in a pipe

But why? → The local government said it would dig a new well last
year but it hasn’t

Possible response: dig a well, or approach local government

But why? → The central government has not released the funds that
are supposed to have been set aside

Possible response: dig a well, put in a pipe, or approach central

government

But why? → The bilateral donors haven’t released the pledged aid
funds

Possible response: dig a well, put in a pipe, or approach bilateral

donors
There will be times when the problem of children not going to
school might have a very different cause, and use of the ‘but why’
technique might start as follows:

But why? → Because of disease, education is being delivered online

and children without internet access and/or connected devices are
not able to attend

Possible response: institute a new program with strong donor

funding for internet connectivity and the provision of computer
hardware or other connected devices like tablets or smartphones for
teachers and students

But why? → Options for internet access are limited and/or

expensive in rural areas

Possible response: investigate all options for internet connectivity;

ensure donor funding to cover costs

The evidence for the strategy

Evidence is a critical element in any HD strategy, and can mean
anything from a lengthy report to a short field report, including a
short video or a case study. This was covered in greater detail in
Module 2, but it’s important to keep in mind that when developing
your strategy, you should be considering:

 What evidence of your problem do you have?

 What evidence do the ‘but why’ answers indicate that you
need?
 Does the evidence already exist, either within or outside your
organisation?
 Have you consulted in a meaningful way with the people
affected by the issue, and was their evidence collected with
informed consent?
 Do you have different types and mediums of evidence to
support your cause?