Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T10:14:47.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TRANSFORMING IMPACT ASSESSMENT: BEGINNING THE QUIET REVOLUTION OF INSTITUTIONAL LEARNING AND CHANGE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2008

JAMIE WATTS ,
DOUGLAS HORTON ,
BORU DOUTHWAITE ,
ROBERTO LA ROVERE ,
GRAHAM THIELE ,
SHAMBU PRASAD  and
CHARLES STAVER
JAMIE WATTS*
Affiliation:
Bioversity International, Via dei Tre Denari 472a, 00057, Rome, Italy
DOUGLAS HORTON
Affiliation:
Consultant, 7224 Treymore Ct., Sarasota, FL 34243, USA
BORU DOUTHWAITE
Affiliation:
International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Apartado Aereo 6713, Cali, Colombia
ROBERTO LA ROVERE
Affiliation:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Km. 45, Carretera Mexico-Veracruz, El Batan, Texcoco, CP 56130México
GRAHAM THIELE
Affiliation:
International Potato Center/Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP), Av. La Molina 1895, La Molina, Lima, Peru
SHAMBU PRASAD
Affiliation:
Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar, 751 013, India
CHARLES STAVER
Affiliation:
Bioversity International, Parc Scientifique Agropolis II, 34397 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
*
†Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Scores of assessments of the impacts of agricultural research have been carried out over the years. However, few appear to have been used to improve decision making and the effectiveness of research programmes. The Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative emerged within the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), with the goal of strengthening learning from experience and using lessons to improve pro-poor innovation. It is testing approaches for expanding the contributions of impact assessment and evaluation to learning, decision making and improvement.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 21 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adato, M. and Meinzen-Dick, R. (2002). Assessing the impact of agricultural research on poverty using the sustainable livelihoods framework. FCND Discussion Paper 128. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
Alston, J. M., Chan-Kang, C., Marra, M. C., Pardey, P. G. and Wyatt, T. (2000). A meta-analysis of rates of return to agricultural R&D: ex pede herculem? Research Report 113. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).Google Scholar
Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Barnett, A. (2004). From ‘research’ to poverty reducing ‘innovation’. Policy Brief. Brighton, UK: Sussex Research Associates Ltd.Google Scholar
Carlsson, J. and Wohlgemuth, L. (Eds) (2000). Learning in Development Co-operation, Stockholm: Expert Group on Development Issues.Google Scholar
Collinson, M. P. and Tollens, E. (1994). The impact of international agricultural research centers: measurement, quantification, and interpretation. Issues in Agriculture No. 6. Washington, DC: CGIAR.Google Scholar
Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D. L. and Stavros, J. M. (2003). Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: The First in a Series of AI Workbooks for Leaders of Change. San Francisco, USA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Davies, R. and Hart, J. (2005). The ‘most significant change’ technique: a guide to its use. MandE News. http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf. (Accessed 18 April 2006.)Google Scholar
Douthwaite, B. (2002). Enabling Innovation: A Practical Guide to Understanding and Fostering Technological Innovation. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Douthwaite, B. and Ashby, J. (2005). Innovation histories: a method from learning from experience. ILAC Brief No. 5. Rome: Bioversity International.Google Scholar
Douthwaite, B., Kuby, T., van de Fliert, E. and Schulz, S. (2003). Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agricultural Systems 78:243–265.Google Scholar
Evenson, R. E. and Gollin, D. (2003). Crop Variety Improvement and its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
Gasper, D. (1997). ‘Logical frameworks’ critical assessment, managerial theory, pluralistic practice. ISS Working Paper Series No. 264. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies.Google Scholar
Hall, A., Bockett, G., Taylor, S., Sivamohan, M. V. K. and Clark, N. (2001). Why research partnerships really matter: innovation theory, institutional arrangements and implications for developing new technology for the poor. World Development 25:783–797.Google Scholar
Juma, C. and Yee-Cheong, L. (Eds) (2005). Innovation: Applying Knowledge and Development. UN Millennium Project Task Force on Science, Technology and Innovation, Earthscan Publishing.Google Scholar
La Rovere, R., Dixon, J. and Hellin, J. (in press). Enriching impact assessment at CIMMYT. ILAC Brief. In press.Google Scholar
Mackay, R. and Horton, D. (2003). Expanding the use of impact assessment and evaluation in agricultural research and development. Agricultural Systems 78:143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maredia, M., Byerlee, D. and Anderson, J. (2001). Ex post evaluations of economic impacts of agricultural research programs: a tour of good practice. Paper presented to the Workshop on ‘The Future of Impact Assessment in CGIAR: Needs, Constraints, and Options’, Rome, 3–5 May 2000. Rome: Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) of the Technical Advisory Committee.Google Scholar
Matlon, P. (2003). Foreword. Agricultural Systems 78:122–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElroy, M. W. (2003) The New Knowledge Management. Burlington, USA: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Organizational development and evaluation. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation Special Issue, 93–113.Google Scholar
Pingali, P. L. (2001). Milestones in Impact Assessment Research in the CGIAR, 1970–1999. Mexico, DF: Standing Panel on Impact Assessment, Technical Advisory Committee of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
Preskill, H. and Torres, R. T. (1999). Evaluative Inquiry for Learning in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, USA: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raitzer, D. A. (2005). Demands and applications for impact-related information in development-oriented international agricultural research. MSc Thesis, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Science Council and CGIAR Secretariat (2006). Description of the Performance Indicators for CGIAR Centers (2005 data). Washington, DC: CGIAR.Google Scholar
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. and Smith, B. (1999). The Dance of Change: The Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations. New York: Currency.Google Scholar
Shambu Prasad, C., Hall, A. J. and Thummuru, L. (2006). Engaging scientists through institutional histories. ILAC Brief No. 14. Rome: Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC).Google Scholar
Sonnichsen, R. C. (2000). High Impact Internal Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, USA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
TAC (Technical Advisory Committee) and the Secretariat of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (2001). The Future of Impact Assessment in the CGIAR: Needs, Constrains and Options. Proceedings of a workshop organized by the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment of the Technical Advisory Committee, 3–5 May 2000. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Thiele, G., Devaux, A., Velasco, C. and Manrique, K. (2006). Horizontal evaluation: stimulating social learning among peers. ILAC Brief No. 13. Rome: Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC).Google Scholar
Watson, D. J. (Ed.) (2002). International Conference on Impacts of Agricultural Research and Development: Why has impact assessment research not made more of a difference? Mexico, DF: CIMMYT.Google Scholar
World, Bank (2006). Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems. Agriculture and Rural Development Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar