IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v28y2019i2p158-168..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How is gender being addressed in the international development evaluation literature? A meta-evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Steven Lam
  • Warren Dodd
  • Jane Whynot
  • Kelly Skinner

Abstract

Gender equity is an increasingly discussed priority and cross-cutting theme within international development evaluation. However, it is unclear whether advances being made in evaluating the outcomes in this area are reflected in the scholarly literature. In this context, a fundamental question is: How is gender being addressed in international development evaluation? To answer this question, we conducted a meta-evaluation to identify, synthesize, and assess published evaluation studies in international development with a focus on gender. We searched the Web of Science™ Core Collection database along with nine evaluation-focused journals using variations of the terms ‘program evaluation’ and ‘gender’. A total of 2027 studies were identified, of which 70 met a priori inclusion criteria. Of the reviewed evaluations, many targeted gender-specific programs and specifically women. While the number of studies that report on gender is growing, and nearly all studies included gender-disaggregated data, often only outcomes by ‘women’ and ‘men’ were considered without going further to raise larger questions of gender equity. For evaluation to further contribute to gender equity, we suggest that future peer-reviewed evaluation studies provide data on diverse groups of genders, engage with evaluation stakeholders, consider the larger socio-cultural-political context of programming, encourage the use of evaluation findings, and provide actionable recommendations.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven Lam & Warren Dodd & Jane Whynot & Kelly Skinner, 2019. "How is gender being addressed in the international development evaluation literature? A meta-evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 158-168.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:28:y:2019:i:2:p:158-168.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvy042
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lam, Steven & Dodd, Warren & Wyngaarden, Sara & Skinner, Kelly & Papadopoulos, Andrew & Harper, Sherilee L., 2021. "How and why are Theory of Change and Realist Evaluation used in food security contexts? A scoping review," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    2. Arlette Jappe, 2020. "Professional standards in bibliometric research evaluation? A meta-evaluation of European assessment practice 2005–2019," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-23, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:28:y:2019:i:2:p:158-168.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.