Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 412-427 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | Evaluation |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Early online date | 30 Sep 2014 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Oct 2014 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Impact evaluation
- Impact assessment
- ART
- qualitative methods
- development practice
- exploratory and confirmatory analysis
- pro-project bias
Cite this
Credible impact evaluation in complex contexts : Confirmatory and exploratory approaches. / Copestake, J G.
In: Evaluation, Vol. 20, No. 4, 01.10.2014, p. 412-427.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Credible impact evaluation in complex contexts
T2 - Confirmatory and exploratory approaches
AU - Copestake, J G
PY - 2014/10/1
Y1 - 2014/10/1
N2 - Debate continues over how best international development agencies can evaluate the impact of actions intended to reduce poverty, insecurity and vulnerability in diverse and complex contexts. There are strong ethical grounds for simply asking those intended to benefit what happened to them, but it is not obvious how to do so in a way that is sufficiently free from bias in favour of confirming what is expected. This article considers scope for addressing this problem by minimising the prior knowledge participants have of what is being evaluated. The tensions between more confirmatory and exploratory methodological approaches are reviewed in the light of experience of designing and piloting a qualitative impact assessment protocol for evaluating NGO interventions in complex rural livelihood transformations. The paper concludes that resolving these tensions entails using mixed methodologies, and that the importance attached to exploratory (nested within confirmatory) approaches depends on contextual complexity, the type of evidence sought and the level of trust between stakeholders.
AB - Debate continues over how best international development agencies can evaluate the impact of actions intended to reduce poverty, insecurity and vulnerability in diverse and complex contexts. There are strong ethical grounds for simply asking those intended to benefit what happened to them, but it is not obvious how to do so in a way that is sufficiently free from bias in favour of confirming what is expected. This article considers scope for addressing this problem by minimising the prior knowledge participants have of what is being evaluated. The tensions between more confirmatory and exploratory methodological approaches are reviewed in the light of experience of designing and piloting a qualitative impact assessment protocol for evaluating NGO interventions in complex rural livelihood transformations. The paper concludes that resolving these tensions entails using mixed methodologies, and that the importance attached to exploratory (nested within confirmatory) approaches depends on contextual complexity, the type of evidence sought and the level of trust between stakeholders.
KW - Impact evaluation
KW - Impact assessment
KW - ART
KW - qualitative methods
KW - development practice
KW - exploratory and confirmatory analysis
KW - pro-project bias
U2 - 10.1177/1356389014550559
DO - 10.1177/1356389014550559
M3 - Article
VL - 20
SP - 412
EP - 427
JO - Evaluation
JF - Evaluation
SN - 1356-3890
IS - 4
ER -