Mixing methods in evaluation of development projects: PCIP case study in Lurigancho-Chosica (Peru)

Evaluation of development projects always implies some difficulty to measure socioeconomic impacts. However, It is generally accepted that the sustainability of processes is a key for success, and so processes themselves should be the object for the evaluation. In this sense, evaluation can be considered as a tool to promote or to reinforce those processes. This article summarizes a case study in Lima outskirts carried out by researchers from the Technical University of Madrid and the International Potato Center. Mixing methods has become an approach to program evaluation, and so different evaluation methods and tools have been combined here: key questions, process mapping and empowerment evaluation. This methodology has been useful to identify ongoing processes and their links with project achievements. This is the base to involve stakeholders in consolidating those processes.

[1]  Jacqueline Glass,et al.  Use of process maps to develop a management briefing sheet for a design consultancy , 2005 .

[2]  J. Lennie,et al.  Empowerment Evaluation: A Practical Method for Evaluating a National School Breakfast Program , 2005 .

[3]  E. Fenton,et al.  Visualising Strategic Change:: The Role and Impact of Process Maps as Boundary Objects in Reorganisation , 2007 .

[4]  Sandy Taut,et al.  Studying Self-Evaluation Capacity Building in a Large International Development Organization , 2007 .

[5]  G. Prain.  URBAN HARVEST: A CGIAR GLOBAL PROGRAM ON URBAN AND PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE , 2006 .

[6]  David M. Fetterman,et al.  Empowerment Evaluation , 2007 .

[7]  José M. Díaz-Puente,et al.  Building Evaluation Capacity in Spain , 2008, Evaluation review.

[8]  José M. Díaz-Puente,et al.  Crossing National, Continental, and Linguistic Boundaries , 2007 .

[9]  Frances P Lawrenz,et al.  The Archipelago Approach To Mixed Method Evaluation , 2002 .

[10]  Francis D. Tuggle,et al.  A methodology for mining embedded knowledge from process maps , 2004 .

[11]  Jennifer Caroline Greene,et al.  Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed‐method evaluation , 1997 .

[12]  Riki Savaya,et al.  Mixed method evaluation: A case study , 1997 .

[13]  K. Kirkhart,et al.  Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence , 2000 .

[14]  Gaamaa Hishigsuren.  Evaluating Mission Drift in Microfinance , 2007, Evaluation review.

[15]  David M. Fetterman,et al.  Foundations of empowerment evaluation , 2000 .

[16]  Robert B. Pojasek.  Understanding processes with hierarchical process mapping , 2005 .