IMPACT-L Archives

Moderated conference on impact assessment of agricultural research: May 2014

Impact-L@LISTSERV.FAO.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

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

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

Print Reply
Mon, 2 Jun 2014 15:35:56 +0200
text/plain (29 lines)
I am Shams Fawki again (my previous message was nr. 39).

At the end of this great email conference I would like to thank John Ruane and FAO for the coordination. I would like also to thank all the professors, consultants and participants in these very interesting discussions and knowledge exchange. 

As we are dealing with the agricultural ecosystem and nature that are out of our control in some ways, thus we always will have a surprising (unpredictable) part in our work. So it is very important to look at the ex post impact assessment (epIA) process as a flexible and long chain process that is unique for each case. Some of these chain components are essential and some others are complementary. These parts or elements varied between the new agriculture technologies or interventions, the researchers, institutions, universities, policy makers, donors, stakeholders, farmers, or even a statistical analysis used and many others. 

During the conference, much debate has been discussing many controversial issues such as the qualitative vs quantitative methods or a combination of them, and whether the social network analysis is useful or not. As I mentioned, some approaches will be essential in the IA process and some will add some values depending on the intervention used, the area (country, locality or community), the target group (national level, private sector, small scale-farmers and their situation) and what is available for the research group. Thus I think it would be a good idea to create a case studies bank rather than the methodologies themselves and focusing on the key factor/factors for each case and point out the weak points. Thus we can create a whole and clear picture about what approaches could be applicable for a specific case study and what are not.  This email conference could be considered as a step to create this bank. At this stage I think the meta-analysis would be very useful as mentioned by Markus Olapade (message 52) to capture the power for each element in the whole process.  

I would like also to thank Mario Pareja (message 48, 66, 68, 85, 89 and 99), Julien de Meyer (message 67) and Andrew Fieldsend (message 80) for sharing their programme and experience.  

Concerning communicating the epIA results, I would like to thank Anna Augustyn (message 47), Sheilah S. Vergara (message 53), Huu-Nhuan Nguyen (message 54), Shahid Sheikh (message 59) and Daniel Suryadarma (message 83) for their very interesting discussion about incorporation of the stakeholder and farmers as part of the evaluation process especially in the developing nations.

Dr. Shams Fawki El-Shamy
Lecturer
Department of Entomology
Faculty of Science
Ain-Shams University 
Abbasiya 11566, 
Cairo, 
Egypt.
E-mail: shfawki (at) hotmail.com
Tel: +20 2 22612577
Mobile: +20 1094877739

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

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