Advertisement

Evaluations and Impact Assessments in Communication for Development

  • Lauren Kogen
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Within the development field, project evaluations and impact assessments are essential. Donors are increasingly requiring rigorous evaluations in order to (1) ensure that aid dollars are spent on projects that are having positive impacts and not being wasted on projects that are ineffective and (2) promote “evidence-based policy making” in which evaluations contribute to understanding best practices for development aid. These two goals are frequently referred to by the world’s major donors as promoting “accountability” and “learning,” respectively. However, current conceptions of learning and accountability are problematic – at times even counterproductive. This chapter provides an overview of the role of evaluations in the CDS field and the concepts of accountability and learning and then describes the problems, contradictions, and ethical dilemmas that arise in the field because of them. The chapter ends with suggestions for how the field might fine tune the concepts of learning and accountability in a way that would better serve both donors and aid recipients.

Keywords

Communication for development Communication for social change Foreign aid Monitoring Evaluation 

References

  1. Armytage L (2011) Evaluating aid: an adolescent domain of practice. Evaluation 17(3):261–276.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389011410518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banerjee AV, Banerji R, Duflo E, Glennerster R, Khemani S (2010) Pitfalls of participatory programs: evidence from a randomized evaluation in education in India. Am Econ J Econ Pol 2(1):1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Botes L, van Rensburg D (2000) Community participation in development: nine plagues and twelve commandments. Community Dev J 35(1):41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bott S, Morrison A, Ellsburg M (2005) Preventing and responding to gender-based violence in middle and low-income countries: a global review and analysis. Policy research working paper no. 3618. World Bank, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnside C, Dollar D (2004) Aid, policies, and growth: revisiting the evidence. Policy research paper no. O-2834. World Bank, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell C, MacPhail C (2002) Peer education, gender and the development of critical consciousness: participatory HIV prevention by South African youth. Soc Sci Med 55(2):331–345.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00289-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cashman SB, Adeky S, Allen AJ III, Corburn J, Israel BA, Montaño J, Rafelito A, Rhodes SD, Swanston S, Wallerstein N, Eng E (2008) The power and the promise: working with communities to analyze data, interpret findings, and get to outcomes. Am J Public Health 98(8):1407–1417.  https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.113571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cracknell B (2000) Evaluating development aid: issues, problems and solutions. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Deaton A (2009) Instruments of development: randomization in the tropics, and the search for the elusive keys to economic development. Working paper 14690. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. DFID (2014) DFID evaluation strategy 2014–2019, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Easterly W (2006) The white man’s burden: why the West’s efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Enghel F (2016) Understanding the donor-driven practice of development communication: from media engagement to a politics of mediation. Global Media J: Can Ed 9(1):5–21Google Scholar
  13. Feek W, Morry C (2009) Fitting the glass slipper! Institutionalising communication for development within the UN. Report written for the 11th UN inter-agency round table on communication for development. UNDP/World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Figueroa ME, Kincaid DL, Rani M, Lewis G (2002) Communication for social change: an integrated model for measuring the process and its outcomes. John Hopkins University Center for Communication Programs, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  15. Gagliardone I, Kalemera A, Kogen L, Nalwoga L, Stremlau N, Wairagala W (2015) In search of local knowledge on ICTs in Africa. Stability: Int J Secur Dev 4(1):35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillwald A (2010) The poverty of ICT policy, research, and practice in Africa. Inf Technol Int Dev 6:79–88Google Scholar
  17. Glennie J, Sumner A (2014) The $138.5 billion question: when does foreign aid work (and when doesn’t it)? Policy paper no. 49. Center for Global Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Gumucio-Dagron A (2009) Playing with fire: power, participation, and communication for development. Dev Pract 19(4–5):453–465.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520902866470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hornik R (1988) Development communication: information, agriculture, and nutrition in the third world. Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Huesca R (2003) Participatory approaches to communication for development. In: Mody B (ed) International and development communication: a 21st-century perspective. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 209–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inagaki N (2007) Communicating the impact of communication for development: recent trends in empirical research. World Bank working papers. The World Bank, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kogen L (2018a) What have we learned here? Questioning accountability in aid policy and practice. Evaluation 24(1):98–112.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389017750195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kogen L (2018b) Small group discussion to promote reflection and social change: a case study of a Half the Sky intervention in India. Community Dev J.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsy030
  24. Kogen L, Arsenault A, Gagliardone I, Buttenheim A (2012) Evaluating media and communication in development: does evidence matter? Report written for the Center for Global Communication Studies. Center for Global Communication Studies, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  25. Lennie J, Tacchi J (2013) Evaluating communication for development. Routledge, Oxon/New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lennie J, Tacchi J (2014) Bridging the divide between upward accountability and learning-based approaches to development evaluation: strategies for an enabling environment. Eval J Australas 14(1):12.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X1401400103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lennie J, Tacchi J (2015) Tensions, challenges and issues in evaluating communication for development: findings from recent research and strategies for sustainable outcomes. Nordicom Rev 36:25–39Google Scholar
  28. Moyo D (2009) Dead aid: why aid is not working and how there is a better way for Africa. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2008) The Paris declaration on aid effectiveness and the Accra agenda for action, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Power M (1997) The audit society: rituals of verification. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Ravallion M (2009) Should the randomistas rule? The Economists’ Voice 6(2):1–5Google Scholar
  32. Servaes J (2016) How “sustainable” is development communication research? Int Commun Gaz 78(7):701–710.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048516655732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shah H (2010) Meta-research of development communication studies, 1997–2006. Glocal Times 15:1–21Google Scholar
  34. Stern E, Stame N, Mayne J, Forss K, Davies R, Befani B (2012) Broadening the range of designs and methods for impact evaluations. Working paper no. 38. Department for International Development, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. USAID (2011) Evaluation: learning from experience. U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. USAID (2016) Strengthening evidence-based development: five years of better evaluation practice at USAID, 2011–2016. U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. USAID (n.d.) Meta-analyses, evidence summits, and systematic reviews. Retrieved from http://usaidprojectstarter.org/content/meta-analyses-evidence-summits-and-systematic-reviews
  38. Vähämäki J, Schmidt M, Molander J (2011) Review: results based management in development cooperation. Report written for Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  39. Waisbord S (2015) Three challenges for communication and global social change. Commun Theory 25:144–165.  https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12068CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © The Author(s) [YEAR] 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Media Studies and ProductionTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations