IMPACT-L Archives

Moderated conference on impact assessment of agricultural research: May 2014

Impact-L@LISTSERV.FAO.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Date:
Wed, 28 May 2014 11:46:31 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (34 lines)
This is Daniel Suryadarma, yet again. I found the comments by Hailemichael Taye (Message 84) interesting, but I disagree with the main thrust of his email. 

Hailemichael criticized attribution analysis for lacking internal validity [he wrote: "using attribution analysis in research and extension interventions would lead us false claims"]. He proposed that contribution analysis can be a solution [he wrote: "The essential value of contribution analysis is that it offers an approach designed to reduce uncertainty about the contribution the intervention is making to the observed results through an increased understanding of why the observed results have occurred (or not!) and the roles played by the intervention and other internal and external factors"]. 

I disagree with Hailemichael on two fronts. First, a lack of internal validity occurs when the researchers fail to use appropriate evaluation methods - be it attribution or contribution analysis - or apply the methods incorrectly. So, arguing that internal validity is inherent in attribution analysis and non-existent in contribution analysis is simply wrong.

Second, attribution analyses can, and have been used to, provide an in-depth understanding why observed outcomes have or have not occurred as a result of an intervention. Proper attribution analyses do not merely measure impacts and then provide no explanation as to why they have occurred, but extensively use theory of change and also examine the intermediary steps between an intervention and the final outcomes.

For those interested to read further on the debate, I recommend two interesting essays by Howard White (2009a, 2009b). 

Dr. Daniel Suryadarma
Senior Scientist - Impact Assessment
Center for International Forestry Research
P.O. Box 0113 BOCBD
Bogor 16000
Indonesia
www.cifor.org
e-mail: d.suryadarma (at) cgiar.org
www.danielsuryadarma.com
twitter.com/dsuryadarma

References:

- White, H. 2009a. Some reflections on current debates in impact evaluation. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) Working Paper 1. http://www.3ieimpact.org/en/evaluation/working-papers/working-paper-1/ 

- White, H. 2009b. Theory-based impact evaluation: principles and practice. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) Working Paper 3. http://www.3ieimpact.org/en/evaluation/working-papers/working-paper-3/  (in English, French and Chinese)

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [log in to unmask] The last day for sending messages to the conference is 1 June. The searchable message archive is at https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?A0=Impact-L ].

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the Impact-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=Impact-L&A=1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2