Projects per year
Abstract
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.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 169-184 |
Number of pages | 16 |
Journal | Evaluation |
Volume | 24 |
Issue number | 2 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 Apr 2018 |
Keywords
- blinding
- confirmation bias
- impact evaluation
- international development practice
- qualitative methods
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Development
- Sociology and Political Science
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Managing relationships in qualitative impact evaluation of international development: QuIP choreography as a case study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Projects
- 1 Finished
-
Assessing Impact in Complex Contexts
Copestake, J. (PI)
Economic and Social Research Council
9/09/12 → 8/09/15
Project: Research council
Profiles
-
James Copestake
- Department of Social & Policy Sciences - Professor
- Institute for Policy Research (IPR)
- Centre for Qualitative Research
Person: Research & Teaching, Core staff