Stories win glories: 'ACE'; Brains, The Minister, and the worm (a historical drama)
A loosely fictionalised memory of how a flagship Anti Corruption Research programme (ACE) nearly died before it lived - but was saved by rapid-fire story telling.
One of my babies celebrated its 10th birthday. A research baby, the ‘Anti-Corruption Evidence’ (ACE1) programme. I was somewhere between midwife and parent.
The sofa where it happened.
ACE: surprisingly long and convoluted labour
Like a range of DFID governance research programmes born in the mid 2010s, ACE was part an official response to criticism from the body that holds UK aid spending to account (ICAI). A criticism of DFID policy and programming was typically that action was not evidence based, and therefore to become more evidence-based DFID should invest in evidence, and then use it.
In its 2011 review of DFID’s anti corruption work, ICAI concluded that “overall, there is a lack of evidence as to the most effective strategies for fighting corruption over the long term”. We cited this in ACE’s draft business case. We also had an excellent evidence review that demonstrated that evidence on effective anti corruption was thin. These should have given us unstoppable ‘facty’ power to win Ministerial approval and get the bureaucratic machinery moving to fund anti corruption research.
And yet…. in 2014/5 ACE was surprisingly hard to get approved and funded.
what’s the story here? A lesson that I learnt from this experience was the importance of a pitch, a compelling story in a few punchy points about why we needed ACE, why ACE was different, why ACE would be better than the rest, and why ACE deserved to live.
I moved on from DFID/FCDO/ACE in 2021 and ACE has kept rolling, growing, multiplying, influencing, and improving since. This is gratifying. I still have great friends and collaborators from ACE, and few things feel better (ok, also weird) than an earnest newbie in the anti corruption field recommending that I check out this great programme called ‘ACE’. ACE, and other government-funded research programmes are also the aunties and uncles of my new baby, Open PEA.
10 years later: in pursuit of impact
Fast forward to 2026 and in my work I dredge my years in research commissioning to offer - in partnership with Duncan Green - a side hustle in helping university research teams to make it more likely that their research will get on a pathway to impact (and might change the world).
Duncan brings energetic activism and an astonishing breadth and depth of experience in campaigning, policy influencing, community organising, and in effective communication. I am the sober ex bureaucrat, and we structure our workshops around a bit of ‘how-to’ theory, then help teams to shape great content from their work (impact stories), and then help them to perform this. And perform it again. And again.
Performing includes short briefs, live pitches and role play (with their team mates as the audience) in response to our increasingly strange prompts.
‘You are in Swindon and happen upon the research council directors at their secret executive lunchtime ping-pong club. You have 1 minute to grab a table tennis bat, and seize their attention - why your research matters, and what they should do about it2’.
The point here is that you never know when you will need to perform your ‘pitch’, or tell your story, and it is highly unlikely to happen as you planned (no elevator, no note cards). It could be on a train. At a dinner. On the street. On a sofa. But carpe the per diem3 you must.
To kick the roleplay session off, and to try and reduce fear in the room, Duncan and I typically go first with examples from our own work, including this rather crumby three person sketch that gives a fictionalised account of the difficult birth of ACE, how it nearly died before it lived, but was saved by a story and a sofa. Most of it is true-ish, but I won’t tell you which bits.
I play the Worm, Duncan plays Brains, and we invite a guest to cameo as The Minister (btw the hero of the story is The Minister who was willing to listen, be persuaded, and meet us half way. Exemplary leadership - in a pragmatic and authentic style).
THE PLAY: ANTI-CORRUPTION’S SOFA OF DESTINY
The players: Brains (the Chief Scientist), Worm (a lowly governance worm) and ‘The Minister’ (The Minister).
The set: a bare stage under harsh lights. One single prop - the sofa of destiny.
The set - Worm exits stage left.
Setting the scene: a Business Case and submission for a new £12 million Anti Corruption Evidence research programme have been submitted, considered and rejected by The Minister – years of hard work, and a pretty decent acronym, up in smoke.
But there is one final chance… Brains has used his influence to book 15 mins on the Minister’s sofa of power. Brains and Worm lurk outside the Minister’s office. Worm is sweating. Brains looks… brainy and cool. In my mind like Dominic Cumberbatch in early Sherlock.
………. [begins]………
Brains: Remember Worm, it’s all about telling a story, not about drowning the Minister in facts.
Worm: You mean ‘Stories win glories. Can I say ‘Data’s for haterz’?
Brains: (glares) No.
The Minister appears in the doorway looking frazzled and slightly annoyed to see them. A line of people are trying to catch the Minister’s attention.
Brains: Minister! Thank you for agreeing to give us the time. This is lowly Worm who is the leader of my governance research team. He drafted the anti corruption business case...
Minister: (Groans audibly). Brains, I’m afraid I haven’t got time for this – I literally have to be on a call 5 minutes ago.
Brains: If you could give us even 4 minutes on the sofa it would really help us to close this issue [Brains looks glum and downwards as if we have come to surrender].
Minister: OK OK! but no more than that. Let’s get straight down to it.
[they down sit in a row on the sofa, with Worm in the middle].
Minister: When I read this business case my first thought was ‘what the hell are we saying?’ - do we really need more research on anti corruption? We’ve been doing this stuff for years and my policy team tells me that we know exactly what to do - we just need more money to do it.
That’s why I rejected the business case. It’s really not needed, not a priority… we need to get on and do, not unleash more academics to ponder and theorise - and get in the way.
[Brains – elbows Worm to jump in and interrupt].
Worm: Minister, I think that my policy colleagues are half right - anti corruption certainly needs more funding, but there’s also a fundamental need for more research to tell us what actually works.
[Minister looks frustrated]
Worm: As we know, corruption keeps on evolving - so even if we know exactly what to do, we need to keep learning and adapting to meet the changing threat; and you know that corruption drags down most of the other things that we want to deliver in the world – better health, education, growth.
Brains: (whispers) tell a story!
Worm: And the research will be deeply practical. Do you remember your visit to Bihar during your trip to India? We took you to visit a new government ‘right to public services’ centre?
It was a brand new approach where people can now get vital services like a birth certificate or pay bills or get a passport through a simple online process and an electronic fee paid at the counter – thus completely cutting out the touts and thugs who usually lurk in the corridors of government offices and are the fixers for officials seeking bribes and speed money.
Bihar had been a byword for corruption, and yet as <you> saw, it had managed to deliver rapid change and reduce corruption using technology and a radical new approach. And the real results were better basic services, not just ‘less corruption’.
Minister: I do remember that trip! The Chief Minister was really proud of that centre – and it did look impressive. The women that I spoke to in the queue said it was like a miracle - they had been scared to set foot in government offices and now it was so straightforward, well lit, safe, and business-like.
Worm: Well Minister, the research we’re proposing is basically to take examples like the one you saw in Bihar, research it thoroughly so that we understand exactly how it works, and then use the learning to inform interventions elsewhere – so taking those practical lessons to scale.
[Brains elbows Worm and whispers ‘emotional hook!’]
Worm: We’ll focus on countries where we spend our biggest aid budgets; and the results that we promise from this research investment are not estimates of ‘less corruption’, but measurably more people getting benefits and services such as maternal health services and kids getting a quality education because there is less corruption. That’s how we’ll measure success!
- The Worm embellishes this story and basically retells it x 4.
- Brains does world class senior nodding and making positive noises.
- The Minister seems enthused, then tired, and looks at the clock. The Minister’s team appear periodically from the wings, catching the Minister’s eye and tapping imaginary watches. They look daggers at the Worm for hogging their sofa.
- 20 minutes later…
Minister: OK OK OK! – I really have to go.
So here’s what we will do - you wanted 12 million but I’m still a bit sceptical so I’ll cut this to 9, and I want you to rethink the countries to focus on. You proposed country X but I certainly don’t want you to unleash research teams to get in the way of important programmes there. It’s hard enough as it is.
I want you to work in places where there is political commitment for change, and hope that corruption can be reduced, and we could learn positive lessons and apply these elsewhere - rather than trying to do this in places where corruption has the strongest grip.
Worm: So how about Tanzania and Bangladesh, and we really need somewhere in West Africa so how about…
[Minister stands up and shuffles papers - and is seized by the smartly dressed team appearing from the wings. As they exit stage right.]
Brains (in a low but clear voice): Nigeria!
[Minister turns, smiles wearily, mouths thank you and hurries off]
Worm : did we land Nigeria?
Brains: put it in the meeting note and see if anyone objects.
[THE END OF THE BEGINNING]
A DECADE LATER…..
ACE is currently due to end in September 2027 and is summarised here. The total budget is £26.7 million, and £21.2 million has been spent to date.
What a fantastic post, Peter, particularly as I recognise many of the players from my time in RED during this period. More seriously- really clever and a great way to teach research uptake and influence!
What a fantastic post, Peter, particularly as I recognise many of the players from my time in RED during this period. More seriously- really clever and a great way to teach research uptake and influence!