- 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
International Conference on Impacts of Agricultural Research and Development: Why has impact assessment research not made more of a difference?
Sun, 08/31/2008 - 12:52 — Cristina Sette
Publication Type:
MiscellaneousSource:
CIMMYT, Mexico D.F. (2002)Keywords:
Agricultural; Assessment; CGIAR; CIMMYT; difference; Evaluation; Impact; Research; SPIAAbstract:
The CGIAR is an informal association of 58 public and private sector members that supports 16 international agricultural research centers known as Future Harvest Centers. CIMMYT is a Future Harvest Center. The Future Harvest Centers share a mandate to increase agricultural productivity in developing countries, alleviate poverty, and enhance the sustainability of the natural resource base. Successful achievement of this mandate depends on the ability of the Centers to identify appropriate research priorities, effectively manage ongoing research, account for resources invested in research and development activities, and build and maintain public support for international agricultural research. Effective impact assessment should play a key role in achieving the above. The conference reported herein was organized to enhance the effectiveness of CGIAR impact assessment efforts. Specific objectives included: 1. Providing a forum for publicizing ?best practices' in impact assessment research and for disseminating results of recent impact assessment research. 2. Fostering dialogue between impact assessment practitioners, both within the CGIAR and throughout the larger research and development communities. 3. Demonstrating to donors that Future Harvest Centers are committed to organizational learning. The program included invited and contributed papers sessions, panel presentations, free discussion sessions, and poster sessions. Participants highlighted experiences and case studies of impact measurement in agricultural productivity; equity, poverty, social health, and nutrition; the environment; and institutions and human capital. Participants also described novel approaches for assessing hard-to-measure impacts in
such areas as training and capacity-building, institutional strengthening, networking, participatory research, and policy research. Many presentations, focusing principally on non-conventional approaches, analyzed the factors constraining the effective use of impact assessments research. Critical insights were gained regarding the design, process and use of impact assessment studies. Discussion also took place between those practitioners conducting impacts research and the potential users of such information. This included representatives from the donor community, the media, national research systems, NGOs and those involved in research prioritization in the CGIAR. Insights were gained regarding how to improve the effectiveness of impact assessment results, particularly applying those results to research priority setting. Extensive discussions took place between impact assessment practitioners and representatives of the media and donor communities regarding the most appropriate ways to build and maintain public support for international agricultural research.
Sublibrary:
Evaluation
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page