Take the Pill, Discuss the Issues and Act: Using RCTs, PAR and FGDs to Evaluate a Media Entrepreneurship Programme in Tanzania

  • Linda Helgesson Sekei
  • Naomi Benny Lugoe
  • Karen Marie Thulstrup
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Communication for Social Change book series (PSCSC)

Abstract

Media initiatives are widely used to educate and engage youth within the field of communication for behaviour and social change, but often the challenge is to find the right approach to evaluate their effectiveness. This chapter sets out to discuss and compare three different applied research approaches employed in the evaluations of the effectiveness of the reality television entrepreneurship competition in Tanzania—Ruka Juu. It sheds light on how the main approaches, randomized control trials and participatory action research, differ in nature, and how both yield better results when accompanied by focus group discussions. Through a pluralistic research approach, outcomes as well as depths and nuances of the issues at stake are captured.

Keywords

Baseline Survey Television Show Control School Support Farming Community Male Youth 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bandiera, O., N. Buehren, R. Burgess, M. Goldstein, S. Gulesci, I. Rasul, and M. Sulaiman. 2012. Empowering Adolescent Girls: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial in Uganda. London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  2. Berge, L.I.O., K. Bjorvatn, K.S. Juniwaty, and B. Tungodden. 2012. Business Training in Tanzania: From Research-driven Experiment to Local Implementation. Journal of African Economies 21(5): 808–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjorvatn, K., Cappelen, A. W., Helgesson Sekei, L. S., Sørensen E. Ø., and Tungodden, B. 2015. Teaching Through Television: Experimental Evidence on Entrepreneurship Education in Tanzania. Discussion paper SAM 3 2015, NHH Norwegian School of Economics.Google Scholar
  4. Ekström, Y., and Helgesson Sekei, L. 2014. Citizen Engagement Through SMS? Audiences ‘Talking Back’ to a Reality TV Edutainment Initiative in Tanzania. In Reclaiming the Public Sphere: Power, Communication and Social Change. Palgrave.Google Scholar
  5. FSDT. 2014. FinScope 2013 Survey: Widening Your Financial Future. Dar es Salaam: FSDT.Google Scholar
  6. Green, D. 2010. Randomized Control Trials: Panacea or Mirage?. http://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/randomized-controlled-trials-panacea-or-mirage/.
  7. Helgesson Sekei, L. 2011. Impact Evaluation of Ruka Juu 2011: An Entertainment-Education Initiative in Entrepreneurship and Financial Education in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: Femina HIP.Google Scholar
  8. Helgesson Sekei, L., and A. Kisinda. 2013. Ruka Juu II: Young Farmers in Business. Impact Study. In partnership with the Femina HIP M&E team, The Norwegian School of Economics (NHH), Rural Urban Development Initiatives (RUDI) and Kilosa District Agriculture Office. Dar es Salaam: Femina HIP.Google Scholar
  9. MoEVT. 2014. Basic Education Statistics in Tanzania (BEST) 2009–2013. National Data. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Education and Vocational Training.Google Scholar
  10. NBS. 2011. Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey 2010. Dar es Salaam: National Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
  11. Servaes, J., and P. Malikhao 2005. Participatory Communication: the New Paradigm?. Media and Glocal Change: Rethinking Communication for Development, p. 91–103.Google Scholar
  12. Singhal, A., and E.M. Rogers. 1999. Entertainment-Education. A Communication Strategy for Social Change. Publishers, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Tanzania Gatsby Trust. 28 January, 2016. Mkubwa Project. http://tanzania-gatsby.com/v3/mkubwa-project/.
  14. Tufte, T., and P. Mefalopulos. 2009. Participatory Communication: A Practical Guide. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  15. White, H. 2011. An introduction to the Use of Randomized Control Trials to Evaluate Development Initiatives. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, Working Paper 9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda Helgesson Sekei
    • 1
  • Naomi Benny Lugoe
    • 2
  • Karen Marie Thulstrup
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Social and Economic GeographyUmeå UniversityUmeåFinland
  2. 2.Femina HIPDar es SalaamTanzania
  3. 3.UNHCRCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations