Toward a plurality of methods in project evaluation: a contextualised approach to understanding impact trajectories and efficacy
AbstractUnderstanding the efficacy of development projects requires not only a plausible counterfactual but also an appropriate match between the shape of impact trajectory over time and the deployment of a corresponding array of research tools capable of empirically discerning such a trajectory. At present, however, the development community knows very little, other than by implicit assumption, about the expected shape of the impact trajectory from any given sector or project type, and as such is prone to routinely making attribution errors. Randomisation per se does not solve this problem. The sources and manifestations of these problems are considered, along with some constructive suggestions for responding to them.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Journal of Development Effectiveness.
Volume (Year): 1 (2009)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJDE20
Other versions of this item:
- Michael Woolcock, 2009. "Towards a Plurality of Methods in Project Evaluation: A Contextualised Approach to Understanding Impact Trajectories and Efficacy," Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper Series 7309, BWPI, The University of Manchester.
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Tannahill, Carol & Sridharan, Sanjeev, 2013. "Getting real about policy and practice needs: Evaluation as a bridge between the problem and solution space," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 157-164.
- Sridharan, Sanjeev & Nakaima, April, 2011. "Ten steps to making evaluation matter," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 135-146, May.
- McKenzie, David, 2011.
"Beyond baseline and follow-up : the case for more t in experiments,"
Policy Research Working Paper Series
5639, The World Bank.
- McKenzie, David, 2012. "Beyond baseline and follow-up: The case for more T in experiments," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 210-221.
- Michael A. Clemens & Gabriel Demombynes, 2011.
"When does rigorous impact evaluation make a difference? The case of the Millennium Villages,"
Journal of Development Effectiveness,
Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 305-339, September.
- Clemens, Michael A. & Demombynes, Gabriel, 2010. "When does rigorous impact evaluation make a difference ? the case of the millennium villages," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5477, The World Bank.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.