This presentation shares and reflects on the practical implications of the design choices made around standards of rigor, inclusiveness and feasibility in the impact evaluation of the IFAD-funded Root & Tuber Improvement and Marketing Program (RTIMP) in Ghana. The approach used in this evaluation was developed with support from IFAD and the BMGF to assess and explain the impact of program/project investments on rural poverty in a collaborative and participatory manner.

1. 1
Title
Balancing
Rigor,
Inclusiveness
and
Feasibility:
Learnings
from
the
participatory
mixed-­‐methods
and
theory-­‐based
impact
evaluation
of
the
IFAD-­‐funded
Root
&
Tuber
Improvement
and
Marketing
Program
(RTIMP)
in
Ghana.
Brief
This
presentation
will
share
and
reflect
on
the
practical
implications
of
the
design
choices
made
around
standards
of
rigor,
inclusiveness
and
feasibility
in
the
impact
evaluation
of
the
IFAD-­‐funded
Root
&
Tuber
Improvement
and
Marketing
Program
(RTIMP)
in
Ghana.
The
approach
used
in
this
evaluation
was
developed
with
support
from
IFAD
and
the
BMGF
to
assess
and
explain
the
impact
of
program/project
investments
on
rural
poverty
in
a
collaborative
and
participatory
manner.
Authors
Adinda
Van
Hemelrijck
Consultant
for
the
International
Fund
for
Agricultural
Development
(IFAD)
Profile:
https://www.ids.ac.uk/person/adinda-­‐van-­‐hemelrijck
Glowen
Mensah
Managing
Director
of
Participatory
Development
Associates,
Ghana
(PDA)
Profile:
http://www.pdaghana.com/index.php/about-­‐us/personnel-­‐profile/pda-­‐staff
Abstract
The
past
ten
years
have
seen
a
surge
in
interest,
practice
and
investment
in
impact
evaluation
in
international
development.
There
is
an
increasing
demand
for
impact
evaluation
to
assist
policy-­‐
makers
and
donors
in
understanding
and
enhance
the
effectiveness
of
public
investment.
Bullet-­‐
proof
numbers
are
required
to
justify
investments
at
scale.
Validated
explanations
are
needed
of
the
observed
impacts
relative
to
context
to
inform
decisions
and
implementation
on
the
ground.
Hence
there
is
a
growing
recognition
of
the
potential
value
of
mixed
quantitative
and
qualitative
methods
and
stakeholder
engagement
in
impact
evaluation.
Despite
this
increasing
acknowledgement,
involvement
of
national
stakeholders
is
more
an
exception
than
a
rule,
and
local
development
actors
and
beneficiaries
remain
largely
excluded.
Participation
is
often
perceived
as
cumbersome
and
as
producing
less
rigorous
evidence
useful
for
policymaking.
The
preference
tends
to
be
for
survey-­‐based
large-­‐n
cost-­‐effectiveness
studies
that
answer
the
question
“what
works”
to
inform
investment
decisions,
and
participatory
and
mixed-­‐
methods
probing
the
more
complex
“why”
and
“how”
questions
of
impact
trajectories
merely
add
to
the
already-­‐high
cost
of
these
large-­‐n
impact
studies.
What
happens
though
when
demands
are
made
for
rigour,
inclusiveness
and
feasibility
in
impact
evaluations
of
government
programs
despite
limited
budgets
and
limited
baselines?
The
International
Fund
for
Agricultural
Development
(IFAD)
and
the
Bill
&
Melinda
Gates
Foundation
(BMGF)
are
co-­‐funding
a
3-­‐year
project
for
piloting
a
novel
approach
designed
around
these
three
quality
standards
to
assess
and
explain
the
impacts
of
program/project
investments
on
rural
poverty
in
a
collaborative
and
participatory
manner.
The
approach
is
called
PIALA
(Participatory

2. 2
Impact
Evaluation
and
Learning
Approach)
and
seeks
to
stimulate
debate
and
learning
around
rigorous
quantitative
and
qualitative
evidence
that
feeds
policy,
planning,
targeting
and
management
for
greater
impact.
For
this
it
draws
on
a
dynamic
Theory
of
Change
(ToC)
approach,
nested
and
participatory
mixed-­‐methods,
and
a
participatory
sensemaking
model
for
extensive
cross-­‐validation.
The
approach
was
piloted
first
at
provincial
scale
in
southern
Vietnam
and
subsequently
at
national
scale
in
Ghana.
At
the
UKES
Conference
on
13
May
2015,
we
will
present
the
quality
framework
that
guided
the
design
of
the
evaluation
in
Ghana
of
the
IFAD-­‐funded
Root
&
Tuber
Improvement
and
Marketing
Program
(RTIMP)
and
share
the
practical
implications
of
the
choices
made.
The
evaluation
was
conducted
by
Participatory
Development
Associates
(PDA)
with
support
and
supervision
from
IFAD
and
is
hoped
to
inform
the
new
GASIP
(Ghana
Agricultural
Sector
Investment
Program).
Field
research
was
conducted
in
25
districts
in
8
regions
across
the
country,
involving
860
household
surveys,
150
focus
groups
with
1182
intended
beneficiaries
(45%
women)
employing
novel
PRA-­‐
based
methods,
and
100
interviews
with
public
and
private
actors.
Sensemaking
workshops
were
organized
in
23
of
the
25
districts
and
at
the
national
level,
involving
local
and
national
stakeholders
(including
beneficiaries)
in
a
collective
analysis
and
debate
of
the
evidence
of
RTIMP
contributions
to
livelihood
improvements
and
impact
on
rural
poverty.