- 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
Seasonal calendars
Fri, 08/01/2008 - 08:19 — Cristina Sette
The following text is drawn from Guijt and Woodhill (2002).
Seasonal calendars
The purpose of this method is to explore and record data for distinct time periods (per season, year, month or even week) to show cyclical changes over time. From an M&E perspective, calendars can help, for example, to assess if bottlenecks that occurred regularly are being resolved or not, whether these are attributable to the project and when certain performance questions or indicators are best monitored or evaluated.
The calendar method is ideal for monitoring over specific time periods, such as per season. Seasonal calendars that include a range of indicators can reveal how different patterns of change are linked and can be good for discussing causality of certain changes. Seasonal changes are particularly important for rural areas. They may significantly affect labour, water supplies, disease, food and income.
However, as with historical trends/timelines, seasonal calendars do not necessarily present accurate data. Cross-checking through direct measurement of, for example, time used to fetch water or incidence of diseases may be needed, depending on the accuracy you need.
If using this method with a group of people, it may be difficult to reach consensus on a "typical" or "average" calendar (particularly when it comes to daily routines). It might be best for each person to do one individually and then analyse the different routines together, or to select one or two individuals in the group. Care must then be taken to limit biases in the sample.
Source: Guijt, I. and J. Woodhill (2002). Managing for Impact in Rural Development : A guide for project M & E. Rome, Italy: International Fund for Agricultural Development http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/guide/index.htm
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page