Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
James Copestake
(University of Bath)
Fiona Remnant (Bath Social & Development Research)
Marlies Morsink (University of Bath)
- Stream:
- G: Methods
- Location:
- D1
- Start time:
- 29 June, 2018 at
Time zone: Europe/London
- Session slots:
- 1
Short Abstract:
How to back up good intent with credible evidence of impact? The session reflects on recent use of the QuIP (see www.bathsdr.org) by INGOs and investors to foster more inclusive reality checks on their social impact in Ethiopia, India, Malawi, Mexico, Tanzania, Uganda, UK and Zambia.
Long Abstract:
At the 2015 DSA Conference we reflected on design and testing of the Qualitative Impact Protocol (QuIP) to generate credible, timely and cost-effective evidence of rural development agencies' social impact in the context of complex rural transformations in Ethiopia and Malawi. Three years on we now reflect on subsequent QuIP studies commissioned by a diverse range of organisations to assess activities in Ethiopia, India, Malawi, Mexico, Tanzania, Uganda, UK and Zambia (see www.bathsdr.org). The aims of these projects included - among other things - improving disaster response, urban housing, health worker training, nutrition awareness, community mobilisation, rural livelihood resilience and value chain inclusivity. We will reflect particularly on the scope for the QuIP studies to contribute to more equitable and inclusive development practice, taking into account the emphasis on enabling intended beneficiaries to 'give voice' to their experiences, but also how this 'invited space' is hierarchically structured. We will consider whose 'credibility threshold' counts, and how far 'speaking truth to power' can contribute to 'transforming power structures'. The session will draw on a forthcoming book on use of the QuIP (published by Practical Action) and on reflections by producers and commissioners of QuIP studies, including those completed for Habitat for Humanity, Gorta Self Help Africa, Save the Children and Tearfund.
Accepted papers:
Session 1James Copestake (University of Bath) Marlies Morsink (University of Bath) Fiona Remnant (Bath Social & Development Research)
Paper short abstract:
We introduce the session by highlighting the dilemmas inherent in attempting to co-produce credible development impact attribution in an inclusive way. These are explored through reflection on case study experience with commissioning and use of the qualitative impact protocol (QuIP).
Paper long abstract:
Development impact attribution underpins claims to efficiency, upward accountability and legitimacy; but it can also foster exclusivity - weakening incentives to downward accountability and collective action. It is also hard to do credibly to serve multiple purposes and audiences. This paper introduces the session by reflecting on the dilemmas and trade-offs that the practice of impact attribution present to development agencies in their quest to manage performance effectively and openly. The issue is explored through reflective practice based on co-design and application of the qualitative impact protocol (QuIP).
Charlotte Flowers (Tearfund)
Paper short abstract:
Tearfund partnered with BSDR to research the impact of CCM in Uganda using QUIP in 2016. This led to research based on beneficiary voices, and inclusive learning at different levels. However, this depended on intentional learning events to ensure involvement of local partners and communities.
Paper long abstract:
Church and Community Mobilisation (CCM) starts in the local church and aims to empower the community to lead development themselves. Therefore, Tearfund commissioned QUIP because it provides a research method which put the voices at the centre of the evidence to ensure accountability and inclusion.
The research provided good evidence of impact and the unique blinding provided a wide contextual picture of the most important causes of changes as reported by participants, enabling a fuller understanding of cause and effect in that context. This provided an understanding of the place that CCM holds in the myriad of other interventions and drivers.
However, the "blinding" also meant that the beneficiaries were not aware that Tearfund had commissioned the study. Therefore, Tearfund and our partners visited each community involved to hold workshops. There we thanked the participants, received feedback, presented and verified the initial findings. Afterwards, there was a participatory learning review where the community assessed their progress and challenges, and prioritised actions.
Tearfund also facilitated an 'unblindfolding' workshop after the study to bring researchers and project staff together to discuss findings and determine what they mean for future projects. Tearfund's Ugandan partners have used the findings to adapt and improve the programme.
Despite these good intentions, making sure the process was inclusive of our local Ugandan NGO partners, churches and communities was challenging, we often only provide an invited space which doesn't always change the existing power norms.
Summary report : https://learn.tearfund.org/en/themes/church/church_and_community_mobilisation/studying_the_impact_of_ccm_using_quip_methodology/
Max Nino-Zarazua (University of Bath)
Paper short abstract:
Housing microfinance (HMF) is intended to improve the housing and living conditions of low-income people. In 2016 Habitat for Humanity International (HfHI) commissioned an impact evaluation of two HMF programmes in India. This paper presents main findings and reflections of this experience.
Paper long abstract:
Habitat for Humanity International (HfHI) is an international NGO which helps people meet their affordable housing needs across the globe. Habitat incorporated MicroBuild India -a wholesale loan financing company- with the objective of increasing access to housing microfinance to improve the housing condition of low-income households in India to increase their safety, health, education and economic security. In 2016 HfHI commissioned Bath Social and Development Research Limited to conduct an impact evaluation of two microfinance institutions and their housing microfinance clients with the assistance of Micro-Credit Ratings International Ltd. (M-CRIL). The social impact assessment used the Qualitative Impact Protocol (QuIP) to help HfHI, its partners and industry stakeholders to understand the impacts, both positive and negative, on low-income households that access housing microfinance loans and chart a future course of action. This paper will present some reflections of how HfHI responded to the study and utilised it in other geographies.
Wilm van Bekkum (Self Help Africa)
Paper short abstract:
Will share my experiences with promoting the QuIP approach more broadly within an international NGO focused on agricultural development.
Paper long abstract:
The experiences includes developing the QuIP protocol during the period 2012 - 2015.
Three project sides from Self Help Africa were used 2 in Malawi (Masumbankhunda & Karonga) & 1 in Ethiopia (Assela).
After the tool was developed we have asked Bath SDR for 3 additional QuIPs 1in Zambia (Northern Province) 1 in Burkina Faso ( Bam, Sanmatenga & Nanmatenga provinces) 1 in Kenya (Homabay & Kusuma)