What is the value of evaluation? New DFID discussion paper
David Rinnert

Hi David (and co-authors of the paper). I have reviewed the paper here on MandE NEWS. I found myself agreeing with much of what was in this paper. Apart from highlighting the statements that struck me as important, my main comments were glosses on the four proposals for further action. For the readers here the four steps were:

  1. “Consider selecting a sample of evaluations for ex-post valuation within any given reporting period” Earlier it notes that “”…a growing body of ex–post valuation of evaluations at the portfolio level, and their synthesis, will build an evidence base to inform evaluation planning and create a feedback loop that informs learning about commissioning more valuable evaluations”
  2. “Qualitative approaches that include questionnaires and self-evaluation may offer some merits for commissioners in setting up guidance to standardise the way ongoing and ex-post information is collected on evaluations for ex-post assessment of the benefits of evaluations.”
  3. “Consider using a case study template for valuing DFID evaluations”
  4. “An ex-ante valuation framework is included in this paper (see section 4) which incorporates information from the examination of the above techniques and recommendations. Commissioners could use this framework to develop a tool, to assess the potential benefit of evaluations to be commissioned”

My responses to these were:

  1. The is already a body of empirically-oriented literature on evaluation use dating back to the 1980s that should be given adequate attention. See my probably incomplete bibliography here. This includes a very recent 2016 study by USAID.
  2. The use of case studies the kind used by the Research Excellence Framework (REF), known as Impact Case Studies’ makes sense. As this paper noted “. The impact case studies do not need to be representative of the spread of research activity in the unit rather they should provide the strongest examples of impact” They are in, other words, a kind of “Most Significant Change” story, including the MSC type requirement that there be “a list of sufficient sources that could, if audited, corroborate key claims made about the impact of the research” Evaluation use is not a kind of outcome where it seems to make much sense investing a lot of effort into establishing “average affects”. Per unit of money invested it would seem to make more sense searching for the most significant changes (both positive and negative) that people perceive as the effects of an evaluation
  3. The ex-ante valuation framework is in effect a “loose” Theory of Change“, which needs to be put in use and then tested for its predictive value! Interpreted in crude terms, presumably the more of the criteria listed in the Evaluation Decision Framework (on page 26) are met by a given evaluation the higher our expectations are that the evaluation will be used and have an impact. There are stacks of normative frameworks around telling us how to do things, e.g. on how to have effective partnerships. However, good ideas like these need to disciplined by some effort to test them against what happens in reality.
One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.