2009 Perspectives on Impact Evaluation Conference

Event 2009 Perspectives on Impact Evaluation Conference
Date 29 March-2 April
Venue Cairo, Egypt
Organizer NONIE, 3ie/African Evaluation Association

This year’s Perspective on Impact Evaluation Conference had the title ‘Approaches to Assessing Development Effectiveness’ and gathered 700 policymakers, practitioners, sponsors and other stakeholders in evaluation and in development. Almost everyone who is someone in the evaluation field was there. An impressive body of knowledge was present at the conference; a great opportunity for exchanging, learning and debating.

This was an event for specialists and the sessions covered an impressive array of subjects, from specific methods to contributing to policy processes to evaluation ethics.

Many participants regretted that the conference was quite ‘North-dominated’ and a general observation circulating in the corridors was that, for an event organized in Africa, very few Africans participated in the panels and presentations. The ‘evaluated’ were mainly absent. It was in the plenaries that the tensions and debates in the field became evident when speakers like Sanjeev Khagram and Patricia Rogers raised fundamental questions about how the politics and purposes of impact evaluation contribute to improving development outcomes.

There were two camps at the conference, and it sometimes felt as if there were two parallel conferences happening as the two camps were not always talking to each other. On one side was the positivist crowd, the defenders of experimental or quasi-experimental impact evaluation designs, which aim to identify objectively what works in development, for national policymaking. For these ‘randomistas’, the debate on theory and politics sometimes appeared not to be necessary; method was the main issue for discussion.

The other camp was formed mostly by those working at the community level, who saw impact evaluation taking its meaning within a larger context of impact planning, assessment and learning. They argued that it can be rigorous only if the processes of evaluation contribute to improving development outcomes themselves, including by empowering people. Discussions in this camp tended to cover theory, politics and method more or less equally.

This dichotomy came into sharp focus in the presentation of the draft NONIE Guidance on Impact Evaluation. This document may shape what is considered as ‘rigorous and credible evaluation’ and have a considerable influence on how resources are allocated in development. Yet, the process of drafting it seems to have taken into account only the voices of the ‘randomistas’, with token nods to mixed methods and participation but without really dealing with how these should be incorporated in impact evaluation design. The voices of those affected were not present. Widespread concern about the guidelines echoed in the conference rooms.

This was particularly ironic since, as Robert Chambers identified, many innovations in the evaluation field are coming from Africa and Asia. It is an imperative for future events of this kind that these innovations become more visible and play a more prominent role in shaping the evaluation practice mainstream.

Natalia Kiryttopoulou is Adviser and Research Associate at Keystone. Email Natalia@KeystoneAccountability.org

For more information
www.impactevaluation2009.org