This article describes a systematic process that is helpful in improving impact evaluation assignments, within restricted budgets and timelines. It involves three steps: a rethink of the key questions of the evaluation to develop more relevant, specific questions; a way of designing a mix of research methods to generate evidence that supports more valid conclusions; and a step that aims to make evaluation outputs more useful. The approach is illustrated through two examples: one on measuring income impacts in an irrigated horticulture programme in Nepal, Zambia and Ethiopia; and another on the assessment of changes in organizational capacities for collective marketing by smallholders in Bolivia. The article demonstrates that this simple, straightforward and structured three-step process helped to reduce the tendency to one-method designs. Enhanced critical reflection within the team allowed for greater sensitivity to validity threats and the creativity to find ways to handle them.
There are no comments yet. You can post the first one!
Post a comment
Please log in to use this service. Login as Wageningen University & Research user or guest user in upper right hand corner of this page.