Assessing the contribution of impact assessment to donor decisions for international agricultural research

Research Evaluation

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 187-199

  Raitzer, David A ^a   Kelley, Timothy G ^b  

^a CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCH   (Indonesia)

^b FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54249096118     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/095820208X331702     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Alston, J M, G W Norton and P G Pardey 1996 Science under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
2. Alston, J M, B J Craig and P G Pardey 1998 Dynamics in the creation and depreciation of knowledge, and the returns to agricultural research. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 35. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
3. Alston, J M, C Chan-Kang, M C Marra, P G Pardey and T J Wyatt 2000 A meta-analysis of rates of return to agricultural Rand D: ex pede herculem? Research Report 113. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
4. Anderson, J R 1998 Selected policy issues in international agricultural research: on striving for international public goods in an era of donor fatigue. World Development, 26(6), 1149-1162.
5. Baker, J 2000 Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty: a Handbook for Practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank.
6. Boyer, J F and L I Langbein 1991 Factors influencing the use of health evaluation research in congress. Evaluation Review, 15(5), 507-532.
7. CGIAR Secretariat 1982 CGIAR International Centers' Week, Washington, D.C., November 8-12, 1982: Main Conclusions Reached and Decisions Taken. Washington, DC: CGIAR Secretariat.
8. Ekboir, J 2003 Why impact analysis should not be used for research evaluation and what the alternatives are. Agricultural Systems, 78(2), 166-184.
9. Henry, G T and M M Mark 2003 Beyond use: understanding evaluation's influence on attitudes and actions. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 293-314.
10. IAEG, Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group 1999 Impact assessment of agricultural research: context and state of the art. Paper prepared for the ASARECA / ECART/ CTA workshop on impact assessment of agricultural research in eastern and central Africa, Uganda, November 1999.
11. Kelley, T and H Gregersen 2005 NRM impact assessment in the CGIAR: meeting the challenge and implications for ICRISAT. In Methods for Assessing the Impacts of Natural Resource Management Research: a Summary of the Proceedings of an International Workshop, 6-7 December 2002, eds. B Shiferaw and H A Freeman. Patancheru 502 324, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
12. Kelley, T, J Ryan and H Gregersen 2008 Enhancing ex post impact assessment of research: the CGIAR experience. Research Evaluation, 17(3), September, 201-212.
13. Lele, U, C Barrett, C K Eicher, B Gardner, C Gerrard, L Kelly, W Lesser, K Perkins, S Rana, M Rukuni and D J Spielman 2003 The CGIAR at 31: an Independent Meta-evaluation of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. Washington, DC: World Bank Operations Evaluation Department.
14. Leviton, L C and R F Boruch 1983 Contributions of evaluation to education programs and policy. Evaluation Review, 7(5), 563-598.
15. Leviton, L C and E F X Hughes 1981 Research on the utilization of evaluations: a review and synthesis. Evaluation Review, 4, 525-548.
16. Maredia, M, D Byerlee and J R Anderson 2000 Ex post evaluation of economic impacts of agricultural research programs: a tour of good practice. In The Future of Impact Assessment in the CGIAR: Needs, Constraints and Options. Rome, Italy: CGIAR Technical Advisory Committee Secretariat, FAO.
17. Patton, M Q 1978 Utilization-focused Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18. Raitzer, D A 2003 Benefit-cost meta-analysis of investment in the international agricultural research centres of the CGIAR. Rome, Italy: Science Council Secretariat, FAO.
19. Raitzer, D A and K Winkel 2005 Donor demands and uses for evidence of research impact - the case of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Rome, Italy: Science Council Secretariat, FAO.
20. Sheehan, K 2001 E-mail survey response rates: a review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(2); 〈http://www. ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html〉, last accessed 26 May 2005.
21. Sheehan, K B and S J McMillan 1999 Response variation in email surveys: an exploration. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(4), 45-54.
22. Shulha, L M and J B Cousins 1997 Evaluation use: theory, research, and practice since 1986. Evaluation Practice, 18(3), 195-208.
23. Shulock, N 1999 The paradox of policy analysis: if it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(2), 226-244.
24. Siegel, K and P Tuckel 1985 The utilization of evaluation research: a case analysis. Evaluation Review, 9(3), 307-328.
25. Stemler, S 2001 An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7(17); 〈http://PAREonline.net/getvn. asp?v=7andn=17〉, last accessed 22 September 2005.
26. Turnbull, B 1999 The mediating effect of participation efficacy on evaluation use. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(2), 131-140.
27. Weiss, C H 1980 Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1(3), 481-404.
28. Weiss, C H 1999 The interface between evaluation and public policy. Evaluation, 5(4), 468-486.
29. Zilberman, D and A Heiman 2004 The value of economics research. In What's Economics Worth? Valuing Policy Research, eds. P Pardey and V Smith. Baltimore, MD, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press.