 |
 |
| Enterprise Development Impact Assessment Information Service | |
|
||||
| EDIAIS Conference November 24-25, 2003 | |||||||||
 |
|
|
|||||||
|
home > conference - November 24-25, 2003 Enterprise Development Impact Assessment Information Service (EDIAIS) NEW DIRECTIONS IN IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT: METHODS AND PRACTICEReversing the Paradigm: Quantification and Participatory Methods This Paper draws on Chambers and Mayoux papers presented at the Conference ABSTRACT In recent years there has been increasing interest in 'integrated impact assessment', using varying combinations of quantitative, qualitative and participatory methods. However participatory methods have often been relegated to a 'politically correct' frill to the more serious task of 'expert' quantitative and qualitative research. It is commonly assumed firstly that rigorous quantitative data can only be produced by questionnaire surveys or scientific measurement and secondly that participatory approaches only generate qualitative insights. This paper discusses numerous experiences and innovations since the early 1990s which show both these assumptions to be false. It argues that participatory methods should form the basis, not an optional frill, for monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment. When used well, participatory approaches and methods can generate both qualitative insights and usually more accurate quantitative data than more conventional approaches and methods. They are also far more cost-effective and can form a sound basis for much better targeting and focusing of more expensive quantitative and qualitative investigation to where they are really needed. Although empowerment of participants cannot be assumed, participatory methods have the potential to substantially increase the downward accountability of the development process and contribute in and of themselves to empowerment and civil society development. The main challenge for wider use and acceptance of participatory methods is not so much any inherent limitations to rigour and reliability of the data produced compared with conventional quantitative methods. It is rather how to preserve their potential for enabling very poor women and men to really have a voice in definitions and policies for pro-poor growth and civil society development in the face of institutional prejudice against a process which challenges conventional norms of expertise and vested interests. to top of page
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
