- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Presentations by ILAC Team
- Working Papers
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Reports
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
Impact Assessment of Agricultural Research: Context and state of the art
Sun, 08/31/2008 - 12:52 — Cristina Sette
Publication Type:
MiscellaneousSource:
Revised Version of a Paper prepared by the Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group (IAEG) of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) for the ASARECA / ECART / CTA Workshop on Impact Assessment of Agricultural Research in Easte, FAO, Rome (2000)Keywords:
EvaluationAbstract:
Agricultural research organizations, worldwide, are under increasing pressure to undertake impact assessment of their research activities and to better integrate the social, economic and environmental considerations in research planning and implementation. There is a rich literature of impact assessment with examples of evaluation studies that range in methods used, and in the breadth and scope of analysis undertaken. The purpose of this paper is to present a ?state of the art? survey of impact assessment of agricultural research. It is targeted at agricultural researchers and administrators who understand agricultural research well, but have limited experience with impact assessment (IA).
In preparing this paper, the IAEG recognizes that in several institutions in the ASARECA region, agricultural research impact assessment already is ongoing and has produced practical results of use to the organizations involved. (cf. paper by Omiti, Waithaka and Mwangi for this workshop and the paper by Anandajayasekeram and Martella, 1999).
Substantial experience has also been gained by SACCAR which produced several major impact studies for the Southern Africa region, as well as a comprehensive training manual for biological scientists on impact assessment of investments in agricultural and natural resources research (Anandajayasekeram et al, 1996). It is hoped that the experiences in impact assessment summarized by these studies along with the background information provided in this paper will aid workshop participants in the implementation of impact assessment in their respective organizations. The paper follows the spirit of the organizers, as expressed in the lead paper: ?while methodological questions can certainly not be excluded altogether, the focus of this workshop should be on conceptual and institutional matters.? Thus, we focus broadly on some questions of interest given to us by the organizers: (1) What is impact assessment from the perspective of the CGIAR? (2) Why and when should impact assessments be done? (3) Who is doing what in agricultural research impact assessment? (4) What are some of the implementation and institutional issues in impact assessment? (5) What can we learn from the past, and what are the implications for the future? The paper is organized around these broad issues and questions. As a caveat, we would like to recognize that our review is not exhaustive and may be biased towards studies conducted in recent years. However, our bias and limited coverage of the literature does not imply that earlier and omitted literature is less relevant than literature covered,
especially in regard to methodological rigor.
Sublibrary:
Evaluation
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page