IMPACT-L Archives

Moderated conference on impact assessment of agricultural research: May 2014

Impact-L@LISTSERV.FAO.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date:
Thu, 15 May 2014 11:05:40 +0200
Reply-To:
Subject:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Message-ID:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Moderated conference on impact assessment of agricultural research <[log in to unmask]>
From:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
This is Huu-Nhuan Nguyen again. 

I would like to have further discussion about communication issues in ex-post impact assessment (epIA). Thanks to Matthieu Stigler (Message 30) for your good comments. I would like to discuss two concerns that Mathieu and myself have mentioned:

1) If the active participation of key stakeholders and beneficiaries is needed for ex-post impact assessment

Regarding Matthieu's question about if "the participation" is appropriate for epIA, I would like to elaborate more. As we all know that the key objectives in impact assessment are i) measuring the contribution or gains created by agricultural research projects; ii) drawing learning lessons for better future interventions and iii) recently enhancing development impacts. As the term "participatory" is rooted from "participation", a participatory impact assessment approach therefore implies having active participation of people (key stakeholders and beneficiaries) in impact assessment processes. However, how important the participation is depends much on WHO are the main USERS of the impact results? 

In my view, if people are actively involved in impact assessment, ex-post impact results could be more useful not only for researchers but also for development of target communities. If impact results aim mainly at reporting to donors or for requesting more funding and publication purposes, the participation as "an end" of beneficiaries may not be needed. However, recent agricultural research for development (AR4D) initiatives aim at long-term development. It means that impact results could be also utilized as key inputs for development at different levels from individual, household, community, regional level (e.g., farm practices, livelihood strategies, development policies). In this case, key people are main users of impact results. Without understanding fully about impact of innovations as well as being aware that the development intervention is for them, they have no incentives to sustain impacts.

[In Matthieu's Message 30 (a response to Message 18 by Huu-Nhuan) he wrote that two arguments for using participatory methods are to increase the involvement of stakeholders or to empower them but that he was not sure whether they "make much sense in a pure and narrow ex-post perspective? Both arguments seem to me to be more appropriate for the monitoring of an on-going project, where the project can still be adjusted and adapted, and involvement in the project makes sense (unlike in the ex-post case where a project would be terminated)?"...Moderator].

2) Is an evaluation asking beneficiaries' opinions seen as a participatory approach?

In my point of view, such an evaluation is NOT a participatory approach. This approach helps to "increase the quality of the evaluation itself" (as mentioned by Matthieu, Message 30) via the involvement of people in the evaluation processes rather than local development. 

According to my discussion (Message 18), in many existing impact assessments, people participated in passive ways. In some cases, people participated in evaluation process by being consulted but decision made by evaluators. In other cases, people participated by providing resource for being paid in food, cash, and materials. It is also observed that in many agricultural research projects, ex-post impact evaluation is conducted for getting positive results for requesting more funding or publication purposes rather than for the sake of local communities. Impact results are not reported or shared with beneficiaries. As a consequence, in many cases, key stakeholders and beneficiaries have limited understanding about the contribution of impact assessment to development. They consider impact assessment is done for outsiders (researchers, research institutions, NGOs or governments) but not for their own interests and local development. I like the comment from Peter Stradiot (Message 25) that "if they [the farmers] can tell the research story themselves then they know the impact".

So what is participatory impact assessment? In my understanding, participatory impact assessment should not only help to generate information and statistical data on how much change are attributed by development activities but also empower local communities towards sustainability. It, therefore, should enhance equal and equitable participation of stakeholders and beneficiaries in defining and assessing impact indicators. I agree with the idea that true participation in evaluation implies that participation is the goal in itsself, which is to empower people by equipping them with the capability to change their own lives (Pretty, 1995; Van de Fliert, 2010). However, the types and levels of participation also depend on WHO are the main USERs of the impact assessment results. In addition, due to the complexity of social and political conditions, the combination of quantitative and qualitative approach in impact evaluation could help to meet both the objectives of implementation actors and beneficiaries.

Finally, I think that impact pathway or theory of change is only useful for tracing impact if it is designed and assessed with perspectives from stakeholders and beneficiaries.

I hope to receive more discussions from participants about communication issues in ex-post impact assessment.
 
Nguyen Huu Nhuan
PhD Candidate
University of Queensland, 
Australia
Mobile:+61 450 268 689
Email: huunhuan.nguyen (at) uqconnect.edu.au ; nguyennhuan1977 (at) gmail.com

References:

- Pretty, J. N. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247-1263. doi: 10.1016/0305-750x(95)00046-f

- Van de Fliert, E. (2010). Participatory communication in rural development: What does it take for the established order? Extension Farming Systems Journal, 6(1), 96-100. http://www.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/109646/EFS_Journal_v06_n01_11_van_de_Fliert.pdf (60 KB)

 [To contribute to this conference, send your message to [log in to unmask] For further information, see http://www.fao.org/nr/research-extension-systems/res-home/news/detail/en/c/217706/ ].  

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

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