Authors: Situ Shrestha , Binayak Krishna Thapa

The term “Scaling” in Research for Development (R4D) has been conceptualized within various disciplines and domains of knowledge such as economies, sociology, management, entrepreneurship and psychology with different and diverse associations, assumptions and implications. Nonetheless, the comprehensive review of existing set of literature from different knowledge domains and disciplines indicates that the meaning of scaling is related with the notion of ‘scaling-up’, or the idea of ‘more is better’. In other words, scaling up refers to the boosting efficiency or increment of resources. More importantly, framing of scaling as the enhancement of efficiency and effectiveness derived from theoretical framework of economics still dominates the field of R4D in social sciences. However, the meaning, understanding, and methods to operationalize scaling as a research framework relevant for its applications in different social contexts so far remains as contested. Apart from the differences of understanding across various disciplines regarding scaling, the conceptualization of scaling has both evolved and transformed within a time frame of early phases of industrialization to current highly dynamic and competitive market and business realities of 21^st century economy. Therefore, acknowledging both diversity and difference associated with the conceptualization of scaling, this blog firstly elaborates on various definitions connoted to scaling in social sciences, and then discusses the scaling paradigms/models. In doing so, the blog offers discussion around the scaling paradigms that situates in a spectrum of two extremes, the traditional paradigms and a new emerging paradigm.       

Regarding chronological development of the concept, the article “Scaling Science” by John Gargani and Robert McLean, discusses the transformative nature of ‘scaling’ concept along a timeline from the 19th century onwards to present day. Starting from the 19th century, initial the notion of scaling referred to industrial expansion, production, and distribution of standardized physical objects at the lowest cost for profit maximization. Manufacturing, distributing, and increasing market share of a product from small to large scale began as a key to “operational scale”, and the idea of scaling was only understood from a narrow frame of ‘more is better’. Gradually, this idea of scaling changed with the expansion of the market and the production of larger goods and innovations along with its increasing demand. This transformation of market situation warranted the need to capture the sole rights of produced goods and services and to uptake the ownership of approved innovations. With this, the innovators started owning the jurisdiction and empowerment to scale-up their innovation as required. This situation gave rise to a new scaling paradigm where scaling of a product achieved by innovators and owners was associated with having an authority to scale for the exclusivity of scale. 

However, these days, this notion of scaling by the authority with exclusivity exercised by the innovators/ investors has been largely contested by ever increasing new innovators and agencies in the market space. This is a result of rapid growth and relatively more competitive market of the 21st century characterized by ever increasing technology startups and social entrepreneurship, the new entrants in the business and market. More importantly, the new investors, innovators, and entrepreneurs have taken up scaling through resource expansion with rapid learning. Hence, with rapid business growth and innovative ideas, there has also been a gradual shift in both understanding as well as in practice of “scaling” in comparison to the old-mind set of “scaling”. Nonetheless the old-mind set of scaling did provide some guidance for social innovators who want to scale-up, though this conceptualization was incomplete. And, this incompleteness has necessitated a need to re-think the concept of scaling. With a purpose to cover this conceptualization gap,  the article “Rethinking Scale: Moving Beyond Numbers to Deep and Lasting Change” by Cynthia E. Coburn has argued to re-think on scale, and has proposed four dimensions of scaling which are a) depth, b) sustainability, c) spread, and d) shift in reform ownership. Alternative to this model is called the “Scaling Science” approach.  

Moreover, the “Scaling Science” is a new and emerging paradigm/model of Scaling. This approach is a contribution of International Development Research Center (IDRC), a Canadian Institution in collaboration with Brookings Institute of USA through the implementation project called Research on Scaling the Impacts of Innovations in Education (ROSIE). In theory, scaling science has two primary purposes, and the first objective is related to scaling scientifically derived results and the second is to scale innovation guided by its core principles in such a way that the scaled innovation benefits the society at large.  With this combination of imagination and critical thinking, the IDRC proposes scaling science by four guiding principles, which are as follows a) Moral Justification, b) Inclusive Coordination, c) Optimal scale, & d) Dynamic evaluation. Guided by these principles, the scaling science approach states that scaling processes require coordinated efforts applied to achieve a collection of impacts at optimal scale that are morally justified and dynamically evaluated. This approach differs with earlier orientations on the grounds that it provides space for wider thinking about scaling strategies that considers varying contexts within which keys actors of scaling act and engage in the time of uncertainty. 

On the basis of this paradigm/ model, two educational interventions have examined the contextual readiness for the scaling approach. For this purpose, a research entitled “Scalability: Diagnosis on the Potentiality of Scaling Program for Strengthening Public Schools” has already been conducted. This research was a sub-project of a larger project entitled “Effectiveness and Scalability of Programs for Children Who are Out of School and at Risk of Dropping Out in Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal” led by Kathmandu University School of Arts’ (KUSOA) Learning Innovation and Knowledge Exchange Lab, which is supported by Knowledge Innovation and Exchange (KIX) an innovation of Global Partner for Education (GPE) and the IDRC. Currently, this project, in its implementation phase, is proceeding in two rural municipalities and one municipality of Rautahat District, Nepal. The main objective of the project is to find effective ways to bring Out of School Children (OOSC) back to school and retain those children at risk of dropping out of school. 

Furthermore, based on the contextual evidence gathered and analyzed in the initial situation analysis and baseline survey, the two interventions selected have been selected further:  “Campaign through action groups enhancing inclusive access to public schools for OOSC and children at risk of dropping out” and “Extra-Curricular Activities after School”. At present these interventions are implemented in the above indicated research site mentioned. Importantly, taking forward the scaling model utilized by aforementioned interventions, the research in progress offers additional insights regarding the scaling strategy by operationalization of Scaling Strategy Worksheet, a tool that tracks needed and workable strategies to scale interventions at initial stages of the project. In addition, the research in progress also examines the readiness of the institutions that are key stakeholders when it comes to scaling the concerned interventions as the project progresses.

Similarly, for the purpose of tracking the readiness of the institutions, the Institutionalization Tracker tool has been operationalized in both the interventions. Here, both the Scaling Strategy Worksheet and Institutionalization Tracker as research tools are used during scaling processes for institutional analysis and evaluation. These tools are the contributions of Jenny P. Robinson, Molly C. Wyss, & Patrick Hannahan and adopted by Center for Universal Education (CUE) at the Brookings Institute for the Educational Sector in July 2021. Both the interventions have adopted these two tools, and have put them into operation in the research. The results harvested by the interventions with the utilization of these two approaches will be offered in our upcoming blogs on scaling science.