Suchergebnisse

Evaluators are interested in capturing how things causally influence one another. They are also interested in capturing how stakeholders think things causally influence one another. Causal mapping – the collection, coding and visualisation of interconnected causal claims – has been used widely for several decades across many disciplines for this purpose. It makes the provenance or source of such claims explicit and provides tools for gathering and dealing with this kind of data and for managing its Janus-like double-life: on the one hand, providing information about what people believe causes what, and on the other hand, preparing this information for possible evaluative judgements about what causes what. Specific reference to causal mapping in the evaluation literature is sparse, which we aim to redress here. In particular, the authors address the Janus dilemma by suggesting that causal maps can be understood neither as models of beliefs about causal pathways nor as models of causal pathways per se but as repositories of evidence for those pathways.

Substantiating cause and effect is one of the great conundrums for those aiming to have a social impact, be they an NGO, social impact investment fund, or multinational corporation. All face the same quandary: how do you know whether, or how, you contributed to an observed social change? A wide range of impact evaluation methodologies exist to address this need, ranging from informal feedback loops to highly elaborate surveys. But generating useful and credible information in a timely and cost-effective way remains an elusive goal, particularly for organizations working in complex, rapidly evolving and diverse contexts. Attributing Development Impact brings together responses to this challenge using an innovative impact evaluation approach called the Qualitative Impact Protocol (QuIP). This is a transparent, flexible and relatively simple set of guidelines for collecting, analysing and sharing feedback from intended beneficiaries about significant drivers of change in their lives. Innovative features include the use of 'blindfolded' interviewing to mitigate pro-project bias, and the application of a flexible coding system to make analysis and reporting faster and more transparent. The QuIP has now been used in 18 countries (including Ethiopia, India, Malawi, Mexico, Tanzania, Uganda and UK) with activities to promote food security, rural livelihoods, factory working conditions, medical training, community empowerment and microcredit for house improvement. This book includes comprehensive 'how to' QuIP guidelines and practical insights based on case studies from these countries into how to address the numerous methodological challenges thrown up by impact evaluation. Essential reading for evaluation specialists within NGOs, governments and donor agencies; social impact investors; community development practitioners; and researchers and students interested in evaluation methodologies.

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.

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.