Suchergebnisse

Who does what and when during an impact evaluation has an important influence on the credibility and usefulness of the evidence generated. We explore such choreography from technical, political and ethical perspectives by reflecting on a case study that entailed collaborative design of a qualitative impact evaluation protocol ('the QuIP') and its pilot use in Ethiopia and Malawi. Double blind interviewing was employed to reduce project-specific confirmation bias, followed by staged 'unblindfolding' as a form of triangulation. We argue that these steps can enhance credibility of evidence, and that ethical concerns associated with them can be addressed by being open with stakeholders about the process. The case study illustrates scope for better use of qualitative impact evaluation methods in complex international development contexts.

Evaluation choreography - or who knows what when through the process of impact evaluation - has an important influence on the credibility and usefulness of findings. We explore such choreography from technical, political and ethical perspectives through reflection on a collaborative case study that entailed collaborative design of a qualitative impact evaluation protocol ('the QuIP') and its pilot use in Ethiopia and Malawi. Double blind interviewing was employed to reduce project specific confirmation bias, followed by staged 'unblinding' as a form of triangulation. We argue that these steps can enhance credibility of evidence and that ethical concerns associated with blinding can be addressed by being open with stakeholders about the process. The case study suggests qualitative impact evaluation can contribute to a more deliberative and less rigid style of international development practice.