Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘technology’ Category

At the 2016 American Evaluation Association conference, I chaired a session on benefits and challenges with ICTs in Equity-Focused Evaluation. The session frame came from a 2016 paper on the same topic. Panelists Kecia Bertermann from Girl Effect, and Herschel Sanders from RTI added fascinating insights on the methodological challenges to consider when using ICTs for evaluation purposes and discussant Michael Bamberger closed out with critical points based on his 50+ years doing evaluations.

ICTs include a host of technology-based tools, applications, services, and platforms that are overtaking the world. We can think of them in three key areas: technological devices, social media/internet platforms and digital data.

An equity focus evaluation implies ensuring space for the voices of excluded groups and avoiding the traditional top-down approach. It requires:

  • Identifying vulnerable groups
  • Opening up space for them to make their voices heard through channels that are culturally responsive, accessible and safe
  • Ensuring their views are communicated to decision makers

It is believed that ICTs, especially mobile phones, can help with inclusion in the implementation of development and humanitarian programming. Mobile phones are also held up as devices that can allow evaluators to reach isolated or marginalized groups and individuals who are not usually engaged in research and evaluation. Often, however, mobiles only overcome geographic inclusion. Evaluators need to think harder when it comes to other types of exclusion – such as that related to disability, gender, age, political status or views, ethnicity, literacy, or economic status – and we need to consider how these various types of exclusions can combine to exacerbate marginalization (e.g., “intersectionality”).

We are seeing increasing use of ICTs in evaluation of programs aimed at improving equity. Yet these tools also create new challenges. The way we design evaluations and how we apply ICT tools can make all the difference between including new voices and feedback loops or reinforcing existing exclusions or even creating new gaps and exclusions.

Some of the concerns with the use of ICTs in equity- based evaluation include:

Methodological aspects:

  • Are we falling victim to ‘elite capture’ — only hearing from higher educated, comparatively wealthy men, for example? How does that bias our information? How can we offset that bias or triangulate with other data and multi-methods rather than depending only on one tool-based method?
  • Are we relying too heavily on things that we can count or multiple-choice responses because that’s what most of these new ICT tools allow?
  • Are we spending all of our time on a device rather than in communities engaging with people and seeking to understand what’s happening there in person?
  • Is reliance on mobile devices or self-reporting through mobile surveys causing us to miss contextual clues that might help us better interpret the data?
  • Are we falling into the trap of fallacy in numbers – in other words, imagining that because lots of people are saying something, that it’s true for everyone, everywhere?

Organizational aspects:

  • Do digital tools require a costly, up-front investment that some organizations are not able to make?
  • How do fear and resistance to using digital tools impact on data gathering?
  • What kinds of organizational change processes are needed amongst staff or community members to address this?
  • What new skills and capacities are needed?

Ethical aspects:

  • How are researchers and evaluators managing informed consent considering the new challenges to privacy that come with digital data? (Also see: Rethinking Consent in the Digital Age)?
  • Are evaluators and non-profit organizations equipped to keep data safe?
  • Is it possible to anonymize data in the era of big data given the capacity to cross data sets and re-identify people?
  • What new risks might we be creating for community members? To local enumerators? To ourselves as evaluators? (See: Developing and Operationalizing Responsible Data Policies)

Evaluation of Girl Effect’s online platform for girls

Kecia walked us through how Girl Effect has designed an evaluation of an online platform and applications for girls. She spoke of how the online platform itself brings constraints because it only works on feature phones and smart phones, and for this reason it was decided to work with 14-16 year old urban girls in megacities who have access to these types of devices yet still experience multiple vulnerabilities such as gender-based violence and sexual violence, early pregnancy, low levels of school completion, poor health services and lack of reliable health information, and/or low self-esteem and self-confidence.

The big questions for this program include:

  • Is the content reaching the girls that Girl Effect set out to reach?
  • Is the content on the platform contributing to change?

Because the girl users are on the platform, Girl Effect can use features such as polls and surveys for self-reported change. However, because the girls are under 18, there are privacy and security concerns that sometimes limit the extent to which the organization feels comfortable tracking user behavior. In addition, the type of phones that the girls are using and the fact that they may be borrowing others’ phones to access the site adds another level of challenges. This means that Girl Effect must think very carefully about the kind of data that can be gleaned from the site itself, and how valid it is.

The organization is using a knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) framework and exploring ways that KAP can be measured through some of the exciting data capture options that come with an online platform. However it’s hard to know if offline behavior is actually shifting, making it important to also gather information that helps read into the self-reported behavior data.

Girl Effect is complementing traditional KAP indicators with web analytics (unique users, repeat visitors, dwell times, bounce rates, ways that users arrive to the site) with push-surveys that go out to users and polls that appear after an article (“Was this information helpful? Was it new to you? Did it change your perceptions? Are you planning to do something different based on this information?”) Proxy indicators are also being developed to help interpret the data. For example, does an increase in frequency of commenting on the site by a particular user have a link with greater self-esteem or self-efficacy?

However, there is only so much that can be gleaned from an online platform when it comes to behavior change, so the organization is complementing the online information with traditional, in-person, qualitative data gathering. The site is helpful there, however, for recruiting users for focus groups and in-depth interviews. Girl Effect wants to explore KAP and online platforms, yet also wants to be careful about making assumptions and using proxy indicators, so the traditional methods are incorporated into the evaluation as a way of triangulating the data. The evaluation approach is a careful balance of security considerations, attention to proxy indicators, digital data and traditional offline methods.

Using SMS surveys for evaluation: Who do they reach?

Herschel took us through a study conducted by RTI (Sanders, Lau, Lombaard, Baker, Eyerman, Thalji) in partnership with TNS about the use of SMS surveys for evaluation. She noted that the rapid growth of mobile phones, particularly in African countries, opens up new possibilities for data collection. There has been an explosion of SMS surveys for national, population-based surveys.

Like most ICT-enabled MERL methods, use of SMS for general population surveys brings both promise:

  • High mobile penetration in many African countries means we can theoretically reach a large segment of the population.
  • These surveys are much faster and less expensive than traditional face-to- face surveys.
  • SMS surveys work on virtually any GSM phone.
  • SMS offers the promise of reach. We can reach a large and geographically dispersed population, including some areas that are excluded from FTF surveys because of security concerns.

And challenges:

  • Coverage: We cannot include illiterate people or those without access to a mobile phone. Also, some sample frames may not include the entire population with mobile phones.
  • Non-response: Response rates are expected to be low for a variety of reasons, including limited network connectivity or electricity; if two or people share a phone, we may not reach all people associated with that phone; people may feel a lack of confidence with technology. These factors might affect certain sub-groups differently, so we might underrepresent the poor, rural areas, or women.
  • Quality of measurement. We only have 160 CHARACTERS for both the question AND THE RESPONSE OPTIONS. Further, an interviewer is not present to clarify any questions.

RTI’s research aimed to answer the question: How representative are general population SMS surveys and are there ways to improve representativeness?

Three core questions were explored via SMS invitations sent in Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda:

  • Does the sample frame match the target population?
  • Does non-response have an impact on representativeness?
  • Can we improve quality of data by optimizing SMS designs?

One striking finding was the extent to which response rates may vary by country, Hershel said. In some cases this was affected by agreements in place in each country. Some required a stronger opt-in process. In Kenya and Uganda, where a higher percentage of users had already gone through an opt-in process and had already participated in SMS-based surveys, there was a higher rate of response.

screen-shot-2016-11-03-at-2-23-26-pm

These response rates, especially in Ghana and Nigeria, are noticeably low, and the impact of the low response rates in Nigeria and Ghana is evident in the data. In Nigeria, where researchers compared the SMS survey results against the face-to-face data, there was a clear skew away from older females, towards those with a higher level of education and who are full-time employed.

Additionally, 14% of the face-to-face sample, filtered on mobile users, had a post-secondary education, whereas in the SMS data this figure is 60%.

Additionally, Compared to face-to-face data, SMS respondents were:

  • More likely to have more than 1 SIM card
  • Less likely to share a SIM card
  • More likely to be aware of and use the Internet.

This sketches a portrait of a more technological savvy respondent in the SMS surveys, said Herschel.

screen-shot-2016-11-03-at-2-24-18-pm

The team also explored incentives and found that a higher incentive had no meaningful impact, but adding reminders to the design of the SMS survey process helped achieve a wider slice of the sample and a more diverse profile.

Response order effects were explored along with issues related to questionnaire designers trying to pack as much as possible onto the screen rather than asking yes/no questions. Hershel highlighted that that when multiple-choice options were given, 76% of SMS survey respondents only gave 1 response compared to 12% for the face-to-face data.

screen-shot-2016-11-03-at-2-23-53-pmLastly, the research found no meaningful difference in response rate between a survey with 8 questions and one with 16 questions, she said. This may go against common convention which dictates that “the shorter, the better” for an SMS survey. There was no observable break off rate based on survey length, giving confidence that longer surveys may be possible via SMS than initially thought.

Hershel noted that some conclusions can be drawn:

  • SMS excels for rapid response (e.g., Ebola)
  • SMS surveys have substantial non-response errors
  • SMS surveys overrepresent

These errors mean SMS cannot replace face-to-face surveys … yet. However, we can optimize SMS survey design now by:

  • Using reminders during data collection
  • Be aware of response order effects. So we need to randomize substantive response options to avoid bias.
  • Not using “select all that apply” questions. It’s ok to have longer surveys.

However, she also noted that the landscape is rapidly changing and so future research may shed light on changing reactions as familiarity with SMS and greater access grow.

Summarizing the opportunities and challenges with ICTs in Equity-Focused Evaluation

Finally we heard some considerations from Michael, who said that people often get so excited about possibilities for ICT in monitoring, evaluation, research and learning that they neglect to address the challenges. He applauded Girl Effect and RTI for their careful thinking about the strengths and weaknesses in the methods they are using. “It’s very unusual to see the type of rigor shown in these two examples,” he said.

Michael commented that a clear message from both presenters and from other literature and experiences is the need for mixed methods. Some things can be done on a phone, but not all things. “When the data collection is remote, you can’t observe the context. For example, if it’s a teenage girl answering the voice or SMS survey, is the mother-in-law sitting there listening or watching? What are the contextual clues you are missing out on? In a face-to-face context an evaluator can see if someone is telling the girl how to respond.”

Additionally,“no survey framework will cover everyone,” he said. “There may be children who are not registered on the school attendance list that is being used to identify survey respondents. What about immigrants who are hiding from sight out of fear and not registered by the government?” He cautioned evaluators to not forget about folks in the community who are totally missed out and skipped over, and how the use of new technology could make that problem even greater.

Another point Michael raised is that communicating through technology channels creates a different behavior dynamic. One is not better than the other, but evaluators need to be aware that they are different. “Everyone with teenagers knows that the kind of things we communicate online are very different than what we communicate in a face-to-face situation,” he said. “There is a style of how we communicate. You might be more frank and honest on an online platform. Or you may see other differences in just your own behavior dynamics on how you communicate via different kinds of tools,” he said.

He noted that a range of issues has been raised in connection to ICTs in evaluation, but that it’s been rare to see priority given to evaluation rigor. The study Herschel presented was one example of a focus on rigor and issues of bias, but people often get so excited that they forget to think about this. “Who has access.? Are people sharing phones? What are the gender dynamics? Is a husband restricting what a woman is doing on the phone? There’s a range of selection bias issues that are ignored,” he said.

Quantitative bias and mono-methods are another issue in ICT-focused evaluation. The tool choice will determine what an evaluator can ask and that in turn affects the quality of responses. This leads to issues with construct validity. If you are trying to measure complex ideas like girls’ empowerment and you reduce this to a proxy, there can often be a large jump in interpretation. This doesn’t happen only when using mobile phones for evaluation data collection purposes but there are certain areas that may be exacerbated when the phone is the tool. So evaluators need to better understand behavior dynamics and how they related to the technical constraints of a particular digital or mobile platform.

The aspect of information dissemination is another one worth raising, said Michael. “What are the dynamics? When we incorporate new tools, we tend to assume there is just one-step between the information sharer and receiver, yet there is plenty of literature that shows this is normally at least 2 steps. Often people don’t get information directly, but rather they share and talk with someone else who helps them verify and interpret the information they get on a mobile phone. There are gatekeepers who control or interpret, and evaluators need to better understand those dynamics. Social network analysis can help with that sometimes – looking at who communicates with whom? Who is part of the main infuencer hub? Who is marginalized? This could be exciting to explore more.”

Lastly, Michael reiterated the importance of mixed methods and needing to combine online information and communications with face-to-face methods and to be very aware of invisible groups. “Before you do an SMS survey, you may need to go out to the community to explain that this survey will be coming,” he said. “This might be necessary to encourage people to even receive the survey, to pay attention or to answer it.” The case studies in the paper “The Role of New ICTs in Equity-Focused Evaluation: Opportunities and Challenges” explore some of these aspects in good detail.

Read Full Post »

Over the past 4 years I’ve had the opportunity to look more closely at the role of ICTs in Monitoring and Evaluation practice (and the privilege of working with Michael Bamberger and Nancy MacPherson in this area). When we started out, we wanted to better understand how evaluators were using ICTs in general, how organizations were using ICTs internally for monitoring, and what was happening overall in the space. A few years into that work we published the Emerging Opportunities paper that aimed to be somewhat of a landscape document or base report upon which to build additional explorations.

As a result of this work, in late April I had the pleasure of talking with the OECD-DAC Evaluation Network about the use of ICTs in Evaluation. I drew from a new paper on The Role of New ICTs in Equity-Focused Evaluation: Opportunities and Challenges that Michael, Veronica Olazabal and I developed for the Evaluation Journal. The core points of the talk are below.

*****

In the past two decades there have been 3 main explosions that impact on M&E: a device explosion (mobiles, tablets, laptops, sensors, dashboards, satellite maps, Internet of Things, etc.); a social media explosion (digital photos, online ratings, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, discussion forums, What’sApp groups, co-creation and collaboration platforms, and more); and a data explosion (big data, real-time data, data science and analytics moving into the field of development, capacity to process huge data sets, etc.). This new ecosystem is something that M&E practitioners should be tapping into and understanding.

In addition to these ‘explosions,’ there’s been a growing emphasis on documentation of the use of ICTs in Evaluation alongside a greater thirst for understanding how, when, where and why to use ICTs for M&E. We’ve held / attended large gatherings on ICTs and Monitoring, Evaluation, Research and Learning (MERL Tech). And in the past year or two, it seems the development and humanitarian fields can’t stop talking about the potential of “data” – small data, big data, inclusive data, real-time data for the SDGs, etc. and the possible roles for ICT in collecting, analyzing, visualizing, and sharing that data.

The field has advanced in many ways. But as the tools and approaches develop and shift, so do our understandings of the challenges. Concern around more data and “open data” and the inherent privacy risks have caught up with the enthusiasm about the possibilities of new technologies in this space. Likewise, there is more in-depth discussion about methodological challenges, bias and unintended consequences when new ICT tools are used in Evaluation.

Why should evaluators care about ICT?

There are 2 core reasons that evaluators should care about ICTs. Reason number one is practical. ICTs help address real world challenges in M&E: insufficient time, insufficient resources and poor quality data. And let’s be honest – ICTs are not going away, and evaluators need to accept that reality at a practical level as well.

Reason number two is both professional and personal. If evaluators want to stay abreast of their field, they need to be aware of ICTs. If they want to improve evaluation practice and influence better development, they need to know if, where, how and why ICTs may (or may not) be of use. Evaluation commissioners need to have the skills and capacities to know which new ICT-enabled approaches are appropriate for the type of evaluation they are soliciting and whether the methods being proposed are going to lead to quality evaluations and useful learnings. One trick to using ICTs in M&E is understanding who has access to what tools, devices and platforms already, and what kind of information or data is needed to answer what kinds of questions or to communicate which kinds of information. There is quite a science to this and one size does not fit all. Evaluators, because of their critical thinking skills and social science backgrounds, are very well placed to take a more critical view of the role of ICTs in Evaluation and in the worlds of aid and development overall and help temper expectations with reality.

Though ICTs are being used along all phases of the program cycle (research/diagnosis and consultation, design and planning, implementation and monitoring, evaluation, reporting/sharing/learning) there is plenty of hype in this space.

Screen Shot 2016-05-25 at 3.14.31 PM

There is certainly a place for ICTs in M&E, if introduced with caution and clear analysis about where, when and why they are appropriate and useful, and evaluators are well-placed to take a lead in identifying and trailing what ICTs can offer to evaluation. If they don’t, others are going to do it for them!

Promising areas

There are four key areas (I’ll save the nuance for another time…) where I see a lot of promise for ICTs in Evaluation:

1. Data collection. Here I’d divide it into 3 kinds of data collection and note that the latter two normally also provide ‘real time’ data:

  • Structured data gathering – where enumerators or evaluators go out with mobile devices to collect specific types of data (whether quantitative or qualitative).
  • Decentralized data gathering – where the focus is on self-reporting or ‘feedback’ from program participants or research subjects.
  • Data ‘harvesting’ – where data is gathered from existing online sources like social media sites, What’sApp groups, etc.
  • Real-time data – which aims to provide data in a much shorter time frame, normally as monitoring, but these data sets may be useful for evaluators as well.

2. New and mixed methods. These are areas that Michael Bamberger has been looking at quite closely. New ICT tools and data sources can contribute to more traditional methods. But triangulation still matters.

  • Improving construct validity – enabling a greater number of data sources at various levels that can contribute to better understanding of multi-dimensional indicators (for example, looking at changes in the volume of withdrawals from ATMs, records of electronic purchases of agricultural inputs, satellite images showing lorries traveling to and from markets, and the frequency of Tweets that contain the words hunger or sickness).
  • Evaluating complex development programs – tracking complex and non-linear causal paths and implementation processes by combining multiple data sources and types (for example, participant feedback plus structured qualitative and quantitative data, big data sets/records, census data, social media trends and input from remote sensors).
  • Mixed methods approaches and triangulation – using traditional and new data sources (for example, using real-time data visualization to provide clues on where additional focus group discussions might need to be done to better understand the situation or improve data interpretation).
  • Capturing wide-scale behavior change – using social media data harvesting and sentiment analysis to better understand wide-spread, wide-scale changes in perceptions, attitudes, stated behaviors and analyzing changes in these.
  • Combining big data and real-time data – these emerging approaches may become valuable for identifying potential problems and emergencies that need further exploration using traditional M&E approaches.

3. Data Analysis and Visualization. This is an area that is less advanced than the data collection area – often it seems we’re collecting more and more data but still not really using it! Some interesting things here include:

  • Big data and data science approaches – there’s a growing body of work exploring how to use predictive analytics to help define what programs might work best in which contexts and with which kinds of people — (how this connects to evaluation is still being worked out, and there are lots of ethical aspects to think about here too — most of us don’t like the idea of predictive policing, and in some ways you could end up in a situation that is not quite what was aimed at.) With big data, you’ll often have a hypothesis and you’ll go looking for patterns in huge data sets. Whereas with evaluation you normally have particular questions and you design a methodology to answer them — it’s interesting to think about how these two approaches are going to combine.
  • Data Dashboards – these are becoming very popular as people try to work out how to do a better job of using the data that is coming into their organizations for decision making. There are some efforts at pulling data from community level all the way up to UN representatives, for example, the global level consultations that were done for the SDGs or using “near real-time data” to share with board members. Other efforts are more focused on providing frontline managers with tools to better tweak their programs during implementation.
  • Meta-evaluation – some organizations are working on ways to better draw conclusions from what we are learning from evaluation around the world and to better visualize these conclusions to inform investments and decision-making.

4. Equity-focused Evaluation. As digital devices and tools become more widespread, there is hope that they can enable greater inclusion and broader voice and participation in the development process. There are still huge gaps however — in some parts of the world 23% less women have access to mobile phones — and when you talk about Internet access the gap is much much bigger. But there are cases where greater participation in evaluation processes is being sought through mobile. When this is balanced with other methods to ensure that we’re not excluding the very poorest or those without access to a mobile phone, it can help to broaden out the pool of voices we are hearing from. Some examples are:

  • Equity-focused evaluation / participatory evaluation methods – some evaluators are seeking to incorporate more real-time (or near real-time) feedback loops where participants provide direct feedback via SMS or voice recordings.
  • Using mobile to directly access participants through mobile-based surveys.
  • Enhancing data visualization for returning results back to the community and supporting community participation in data interpretation and decision-making.

Challenges

Alongside all the potential, of course there are also challenges. I’d divide these into 3 main areas:

1. Operational/institutional

Some of the biggest challenges to improving the use of ICTs in evaluation are institutional or related to institutional change processes. In focus groups I’ve done with different evaluators in different regions, this was emphasized as a huge issue. Specifically:

  • Potentially heavy up-front investment costs, training efforts, and/or maintenance costs if adopting/designing a new system at wide scale.
  • Tech or tool-driven M&E processes – often these are also donor driven. This happens because tech is perceived as cheaper, easier, at scale, objective. It also happens because people and management are under a lot of pressure to “be innovative.” Sometimes this ends up leading to an over-reliance on digital data and remote data collection and time spent developing tools and looking at data sets on a laptop rather than spending time ‘on the ground’ to observe and engage with local organizations and populations.
  • Little attention to institutional change processes, organizational readiness, and the capacity needed to incorporate new ICT tools, platforms, systems and processes.
  • Bureaucracy levels may mean that decisions happen far from the ground, and there is little capacity to make quick decisions, even if real-time data is available or the data and analysis are provided frequently to decision-makers sitting at a headquarters or to local staff who do not have decision-making power in their own hands and must wait on orders from on high to adapt or change their program approaches and methods.
  • Swinging too far towards digital due to a lack of awareness that digital most often needs to be combined with human. Digital technology always works better when combined with human interventions (such as visits to prepare folks for using the technology, making sure that gatekeepers; e.g., a husband or mother-in-law is on-board in the case of women). A main message from the World Bank 2016 World Development Report “Digital Dividends” is that digital technology must always be combined with what the Bank calls “analog” (a.k.a. “human”) approaches.

B) Methodological

Some of the areas that Michael and I have been looking at relate to how the introduction of ICTs could address issues of bias, rigor, and validity — yet how, at the same time, ICT-heavy methods may actually just change the nature of those issues or create new issues, as noted below:

  • Selection and sample bias – you may be reaching more people, but you’re still going to be leaving some people out. Who is left out of mobile phone or ICT access/use? Typical respondents are male, educated, urban. How representative are these respondents of all ICT users and of the total target population?
  • Data quality and rigor – you may have an over-reliance on self-reporting via mobile surveys; lack of quality control ‘on the ground’ because it’s all being done remotely; enumerators may game the system if there is no personal supervision; there may be errors and bias in algorithms and logic in big data sets or analysis because of non-representative data or hidden assumptions.
  • Validity challenges – if there is a push to use a specific ICT-enabled evaluation method or tool without it being the right one, the design of the evaluation may not pass the validity challenge.
  • Fallacy of large numbers (in cases of national level self-reporting/surveying) — you may think that because a lot of people said something that it’s more valid, but you might just be reinforcing the viewpoints of a particular group. This has been shown clearly in research by the World Bank on public participation processes that use ICTs.
  • ICTs often favor extractive processes that do not involve local people and local organizations or provide benefit to participants/local agencies — data is gathered and sent ‘up the chain’ rather than shared or analyzed in a participatory way with local people or organizations. Not only is this disempowering, it may impact on data quality if people don’t see any point in providing it as it is not seen to be of any benefit.
  • There’s often a failure to identify unintended consequences or biases arising from use of ICTs in evaluation — What happens when you introduce tablets for data collection? What happens when you collect GPS information on your beneficiaries? What risks might you be introducing or how might people react to you when you are carrying around some kind of device?

C) Ethical and Legal

This is an area that I’m very interested in — especially as some donors have started asking for the raw data sets from any research, studies or evaluations that they are funding, and when these kinds of data sets are ‘opened’ there are all sorts of ramifications. There is quite a lot of heated discussion happening here. I was happy to see that DFID has just conducted a review of ethics in evaluationSome of the core issues include:

  • Changing nature of privacy risks – issues here include privacy and protection of data; changing informed consent needs for digital data/open data; new risks of data leaks; and lack of institutional policies with regard to digital data.
  • Data rights and ownership: Here there are some issues with proprietary data sets, data ownership when there are public-private partnerships, the idea of data philanthropy’ when it’s not clear whose data is being donated, personal data ‘for the public good’, open data/open evaluation/ transparency, poor care taken when vulnerable people provide personally identifiable information; household data sets ending up in the hands of those who might abuse them, the increasing impossibility of data anonymization given that crossing data sets often means that re-identification is easier than imagined.
  • Moving decisions and interpretation of data away from ‘the ground’ and upwards to the head office/the donor.
  • Little funding for trialing/testing the validity of new approaches that use ICTs and documenting what is working/not working/where/why/how to develop good practice for new ICTs in evaluation approaches.

Recommendations: 12 tips for better use of ICTs in M&E

Despite the rapid changes in the field in the 2 years since we first wrote our initial paper on ICTs in M&E, most of our tips for doing it better still hold true.

  1. Start with a high-quality M&E plan (not with the tech).
    • But also learn about the new tech-related possibilities that are out there so that you’re not missing out on something useful!
  2. Ensure design validity.
  3. Determine whether and how new ICTs can add value to your M&E plan.
    • It can be useful to bring in a trusted tech expert in this early phase so that you can find out if what you’re thinking is possible and affordable – but don’t let them talk you into something that’s not right for the evaluation purpose and design.
  4. Select or assemble the right combination of ICT and M&E tools.
    • You may find one off the shelf, or you may need to adapt or build one. This is a really tough decision, which can take a very long time if you’re not careful!
  5. Adapt and test the process with different audiences and stakeholders.
  6. Be aware of different levels of access and inclusion.
  7. Understand motivation to participate, incentivize in careful ways.
    • This includes motivation for both program participants and for organizations where a new tech-enabled tool/process might be resisted.
  8. Review/ensure privacy and protection measures, risk analysis.
  9. Try to identify unintended consequences of using ICTs in the evaluation.
  10. Build in ways for the ICT-enabled evaluation process to strengthen local capacity.
  11. Measure what matters – not what a cool ICT tool allows you to measure.
  12. Use and share the evaluation learnings effectively, including through social media.

 

 

Read Full Post »

2016-01-14 16.51.09_resized

Photo: Duncan Edwards, IDS.

A 2010 review of impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives, conducted by Rosie McGee and John Gaventa of the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), found a prevalence of untested assumptions and weak theories of change in projects, programs and strategies. This week IDS is publishing their latest Bulletin titled “Opening Governance,” which offers a compilation of evidence and contributions focusing specifically on Technology in Transparency and Accountability (Tech for T&A).

It has a good range of articles that delve into critical issues in the Tech for T&A and Open Government spaces; help to clarify concepts and design; explore gender inequity as related to information access; and unpack the ‘dark side’ of digital politics, algorithms and consent.

In the opening article, editors Duncan Edwards and Rosie McGee (both currently working with the IDS team that leads the Making All Voices Count Research, Learning and Evidence component) give a superb in-depth review of the history of Tech for T&A and outline some of the challenges that have stemmed from ambiguous or missing conceptual frameworks and a proliferation of “buzzwords and fuzzwords.”

They unpack the history of and links between concepts of “openness,” “open development,” “open government,” “open data,” “feedback loops,” “transparency,” “accountability,” and “ICT4D (ICT for Development)” and provide some examples of papers and evidence that could help to recalibrate expectations among scholars and practitioners (and amongst donors, governments and policy-making bodies, one hopes).

The editors note that conceptual ambiguity continues to plague the field of Tech for T&A, causing technical problems because it hinders attempts to demonstrate impact; and creating political problems “because it clouds the political and ideological differences between projects as different as open data and open governance.”

The authors hope to stoke debate and promote the existing evidence in order to tone down the buzz. Likewise, they aim to provide greater clarity to the Tech for T&A field by offering concrete conclusions stemming from the evidence that they have reviewed and digested.

Download the Opening Governance report here.

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Screen Shot 2016-01-12 at 10.17.25 AMSince I started looking at the role of ICTs in monitoring and evaluation a few years back, one concern that has consistently come up is: “Are we getting too focused on quantitative M&E because ICTs are more suited to gather quantitative data? Are we forgetting the importance of qualitative data and information? How can we use ICTs for qualitative M&E?”

So it’s great to see that Insight Share (in collaboration with UNICEF) has just put out a new guide for facilitators on using Participatory Video (PV) and the Most Significant Change (MSC) methodologies together.

 

The Most Significant Change methodology is a qualitative method developed (and documented in a guide in 2005) by Rick Davies and Jess Dart (described below):

Screen Shot 2016-01-12 at 9.59.32 AM

Participatory Video methodologies have also been around for quite a while, and they are nicely laid out in Insight Share’s Participatory Video Handbook, which I’ve relied on in the past to guide youth participatory video work. With mobile video becoming more and more common, and editing tools getting increasingly simple, it’s now easier to integrate video into community processes than it has been in the past.

Screen Shot 2016-01-12 at 10.00.54 AM

The new toolkit combines these two methods and provides guidance for evaluators, development workers, facilitators, participatory video practitioners, M&E staff and others who are interested in learning how to use participatory video as a tool for qualitative evaluation via MSC. The toolkit takes users through a nicely designed, step-by-step process to planning, implementing, interpreting and sharing results.

I highly recommend taking a quick look at the toolkit to see if it might be a useful method of qualitative M&E — enhanced and livened up a bit with video!

Read Full Post »

Facebook and its Internet.org initiative (now called ‘Free Basics’), have faced their fair share of criticism, but I’m guessing that neither is going away anytime soon. So, here’s something that may be of interest to folks working with and/or designing mobile tools for lower income populations or those with lower end phones.

Praekelt Foundation is partnering with Facebook on an open source toolkit of technologies and strategies that will open the Free Basics platform to more organizations and/or tech developers to adapt existing services or create new ones for distribution through the web and the Free Basics platform.

Praekelt Foundation will be running this incubator for Free Basics. It will provide 100 social change organizations with tools, service and support worth a total of $200,000. The tools and lessons that emerge will be shared with the public in 2016.

Praekelt is working with a broad range of experts in international development, user experience, mobile technology and digital safety and security to create an independent panel that will be responsible for selecting the members of the incubator from an open call to developers, social enterprises and NGOs. Disclosure: I’ve been asked (and agreed) to join the selection panel and will be involved in reviewing applications. I have also provided input into the topic areas.

Applications are sought in the areas of health, education, agriculture, economic empowerment, gender equality, citizen engagement and others. The aim is to enhance information and services available via low-end phones for low-income communities, youth, women and girls, healthcare workers and/or other frontline staff, refugees and migrants, and/or the LGBTQI population. This might include provision of information about and/or access to things like financial services, medical services, advocacy initiatives, citizen engagement efforts, behavior change communications and support and/or counseling.

For questions, comments, or to find out more about the initiative, here’s Praekelt Foundation’s blog and a link to the call for proposals and the application form.

(I’m also interested in feedback to improve on the idea and process, etc., so feel free to get in touch with me also if you have comments.)

 

Read Full Post »

At our November 18th Technology Salon, we discussed how different organizations are developing their ICT for development (ICT4D) strategies. We shared learning on strategy development and buy-in, talked about whether organizations should create special teams or labs for ICT- and innovation-related work or mainstream the ICT4D function, and thought about how organizations can define and find the skill sets needed for taking their ICT-enabled work forward. Population Council’s Stan Mierzwa, Oxfam America’s Neal McCarthy, and Cycle Technologies’ Leslie Heyer joined as lead discussants, and we heard from Salon participants about their experiences too.

Participating organizations were at various stages of ICT4D work, but most had experienced similar challenges and frustrations with taking their work forward. Even organizations that had created ICT4D strategies a couple of years ago said that implementation was slow.

Some of the key elements mentioned by our first discussant as important for managing and strategically moving ICT forward in an organization included:

  • being more informed about where different offices and staff were using ICTs for programmatic work,
  • establishing a standard set of technology tools for organizational use,
  • improved knowledge management about ICTs,
  • publishing on how ICTs were being used in programs (to help with credibility),
  • engaging with different teams and leadership to secure support and resources
  • working more closely with human resources teams who often do not understand ICT4D-related job descriptions and the profile needed.

Our second discussant said that his organization developed an ICT4D strategy in order to secure resources and greater support for moving ICT4D forward. It was also starting to be unwieldy to manage all of the different ideas and tools being used across the organization, and it seemed that greater harmonization would allow for improved IT support for more established tools as well as establishment of other ways to support new innovations.

In this case, the organization looked at ICTs as two categories: technology for development workers and technology for development outcomes. They used Gartner’s ‘pace layered’ model (which characterizes systems of innovation, systems of differentiation, and systems of record) as a way of analyzing the support roles of different departments.

One of the initial actions taken by this organization was establishing a small tech incubation fund that different offices could apply for in order to try something new with ICTs in their programs and campaigns. Another action was to take 10 staff to the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) ICT4D conference to learn more about ICT4D and to see what their peers from similar organizations were doing. In return for attending the conference, staff were required to submit a proposal for the tech incubation fund.

For the development of the strategy document and action plan, the ICT4D strategy team worked with a wider group of staff to develop a list of current ICT-enabled initiatives and a visual heat map of actions and activities across the organization. This formed the basis for discussions on where lots of ICT4D activities were happening and where there was nothing going on with ICTs. The team then discussed what the organization should do strategically to support and potentially consolidate existing activities and what should be done about areas where there were few ICT-related activities – should those areas be left alone or was there a reason to look at them to see if ICT should be incorporated?

Having done that, the organization adapted Nethope’s Organizational Guide to ICT4D to fit its own structure and culture, and used it as a framework for ICT4D strategy discussions with key staff from different teams. The Nethope guide suggests five key functions for strategic, organization-wide ICT4D: lead organizational change, drive knowledge exchange, build a portfolio, manage processes, and develop an advisory service (see below). The aforementioned activities were also clustered according to which of these 5 areas they fell into.

Screen Shot 2015-11-24 at 8.53.12 AM

(Table of contents from Nethope’s Guide.)

The organization felt it was also important to change the image of the IT team. ‘We had to show that we were not going to tie people up with formal committees and approvals if they wanted to try something new and innovative. Being more approachable is necessary or staff will bypass the IT team and go to consultants, and then we open ourselves up to data privacy risks and we also lose institutional knowledge.’

Salon participants agreed that it was important to know how to “sell” an ICT4D-related idea to frontline staff, management and leadership. Some ways to do this include demonstrating the value-add of ICTs in terms of longer-term cost and time efficiencies, showing the benefit of real-time data for decision-making, and demonstrating what peer organizations are doing. Organizations often also need someone at the top who is pushing for change and modernization.

Our third discussant said that her company has been shifting from a commercial product developer to a full-fledged technology company. She outlined the need for strategic thinking along that journey. Initially, the company outsourced activities such as research and data collection. With time, it started to pull key functions in house since systems maintenance and technology has become a core part of the business.

“As a small company, we can be flexible and change easily,” she said. ‘ICT is embedded into our culture and everyone thinks about it.’ One challenge that many ICT4D initiatives face – whether they are happening in a non-profit or a for-profit — is sustainability. ‘People are often fine with paying for a physical product, but when it comes to the web, they are accustomed to getting everything for free, which makes long-term sustainability difficult.’

In order to continuously evolve their strategies, organizations need to have time and space to constantly step back and think about their underlying values and where they see themselves in 5 or 10 years. A more pro-active relationship with donors is also important. Although Salon participants felt that the ICT4D Principles and related processes were promising, they also felt that donors do not have a clear idea of what they are looking for, what exists already, what needs to be created, and what evidence base exists for different tools or kinds of ICT4D. One Salon participant felt that ‘donor agencies don’t know what kinds of tech are effective, so it’s up to you as an implementer to bring the evidence to the table. It’s critical to have the ITC4D support staff at the table with you, because if not these more detailed conversations about the tech don’t happen with donors and you’ll find all kinds of duplication of efforts.’

Another challenge with thinking about ICT4D in a strategic way is that donors normally don’t want to fund capacity building, said another Salon participant. They prefer to fund concrete projects or innovation challenges rather than supporting organizations to create an environment that gives rise to innovation. In addition, funding beyond the program cycle is a big challenge. ‘We need to be thinking about enterprise systems, layered on systems, national systems,’ said one person. ‘And systems really struggle here to scale and grow if you can’t claim ownership for the whole.’

Salon participants highlighted hiring and human resources departments as a big barrier when it comes to ICT4D. It is often not clear what kinds of skills are needed to implement ICT4D programs, and human resources teams often screen for the wrong skill sets because they do not understand the nature of ICT4D. ‘I always make them give me all the CVs and screen them myself,’ said one person. ‘If not, some of the best people will not make it to the short list.’ Engaging with human resources and sharing the ICT4D strategy is one way to help with better hiring and matching of job needs with skill sets that are out there and potentially difficult to find.

In conclusion, whether the ICT4D strategy is to mainstream, to isolate and create a ‘lab,’ or to combine approaches, it seems that most organizations are struggling a bit to develop and/or implement ICT4D strategies due to the multiple pain points of slow organizational change and the need for more capacity and resources. Some are making headway, however, and developing clearer thinking and action plans that are paying off in the short term, and that may set the organizations up for eventual ICT4D success.

Thanks to Population Council for hosting this Salon! If you’d like to join discussions like this one, sign up at Technology Salon.

Salons are held under Chatham House Rule. No attribution has been made in this post.

Read Full Post »

Last month I joined a panel hosted by the Guardian on the contribution of innovation and technology to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Luckily they said that it was fine to come from a position of ‘skeptical realism.’

To drum up some good skeptical realist thoughts, I did what every innovative person does – posted a question on Facebook. A great discussion among friends who work in development, innovation and technology ensued. (Some might accuse me of ‘crowdsourcing’ ideas for the panel, but I think of it as more of a group discussion enabled by the Internet.) In the end, I didn’t get to say most of what we discussed on Facebook while on the panel, so I’m summarizing here.

To start off, I tend to think that the most interesting thing about the SDGs is that they are not written for ‘those developing countries over there.’ Rather, all countries are supposed to meet them. (I’m still not sure how many people or politicians in the US are aware of this.)

Framing them as global goals forces recognition that we have global issues to deal with — inequality and exclusion happen within countries and among countries everywhere. This opens doors for a shift in the narrative and framing of  ‘development.’ (See Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries; and Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.)

These core elements of the SDGs — exclusion and inequality – are two things that we also need to be aware of when we talk about innovation and technology. And while innovation and technology can contribute to development and inclusion…by connecting people and providing more access to information; helping improve access to services; creating space for new voices to speak their minds; contributing in some ways to improved government and international agency accountability; improving income generation; and so on… it’s important to be aware of who is excluded from creating, accessing, using and benefiting from tech and tech-enabled processes and advances.

Who creates and/or controls the tech? Who is pushed off platforms because of abuse or violence? Who is taken advantage of through tech? Who is using tech to control others? Who is seen as ‘innovative’ and who is ignored? For whom are most systems and services designed? Who is an entrepreneur by choice vs. an informal worker by necessity? There are so many questions to ask at both macro and micro levels.

But that’s not the whole of it. Even if all the issues of access and use were resolved, there are still problems with framing innovation and technology as one of the main solutions to the world’s problems. A core weakness of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) was that they were heavy on quantifiable goals and weak on reaching the most vulnerable and on improving governance. Many innovation and technology solutions suffer the same problem.

Sometimes we try to solve the wrong problems with tech, or we try to solve the wrong problems altogether, without listening to and involving the people who best understand the nature of those problems, without looking at the structural changes needed for sustainable impact, and without addressing exclusion at the micro-level (within and among districts, communities, neighborhoods or households).

Often a technological solution is brought in for questionable reasons. There is too little analysis of the political economy in development work as DE noted on the discussion thread. Too few people are asking who is pushing for a technology solution. Why technology? Who gains? What is the motivation? As Ory Okollah asked recently, Why are Africans expected to innovate and entrepreneur our way out of our problems? We need to get past our collective fascination with invention of products and move onward to a more holistic understanding of innovation that involves sustainable implementation, change, and improvement over the longer term.

Innovation is a process, not a product. As MBC said on the discussion thread, “Don’t confuse doing it first with doing it best.” Innovation is not an event, a moment, a one-time challenge, a product, a simple solution. Innovation is technology agnostic, noted LS. So we need to get past the goal of creating and distributing more products. We need to think more about innovating and tweaking processes, developing new paradigms and adjusting and improving on ways of doing things that we already know work. Sometimes technology helps, but that is not always the case.

We need more practical innovation. We should be looking at old ideas in a new context (citing from Stephen Johnson’s Where Good Ideas Come From) said AM. “The problem is that we need systems change and no one wants to talk about that or do it because it’s boring and slow.”

The heretical IT dared suggest that there’s too much attention to high profile innovation. “We could do with more continual small innovation and improvements and adaptations with a strong focus on participants/end users. This doesn’t make big headlines but it does help us get to actual results,” he said.

Along with that, IW suggested we need more innovative thinking and listening, and less innovative technology. “This might mean senior aid officials spending a half a day per week engaging with the people they are supposed to be helping.”

One innovative behavior change might be that of overcoming the ‘expert knowledge’ problem said DE. We need to ensure that the intended users or participants in an innovation or a technology or technological approach are involved and supported to frame the problem, and to define and shape the innovation over time. This means we also need to rely on existing knowledge – immediate and documented – on what has worked, how and when and where and why and what hasn’t, and to make the effort to examine how this knowledge might be relevant and useful for the current context and situation. As Robert Chambers said many years ago: the links of modern scientific knowledge with wealth, power, and prestige condition outsiders to despise and ignore rural peoples’ own knowledge. Rural people’s knowledge and modern scientific knowledge are complementary in their strengths and weaknesses.

Several people asked whether the most innovative thing in the current context is simply political will and seeing past an election cycle, a point that Kentaro Toyama often makes. We need renewed focus on political will and capacity and a focus on people rather than generic tech solutions.

In addition, we need paradigm shifts and more work to make the current system inclusive and fit for purpose. Most of our existing institutions and systems, including that of ‘development’ carry all of the old prejudices and ‘isms’. We need more questioning of these systems and more thinking about realistic alternatives – led and designed by people who have been traditionally excluded and pushed out. As a sector, we’ve focused a LOT on technocratic approaches over the past several years, and we’ve stopped being afraid to get technical. Now we need to stop being afraid to get political.

In summary, there is certainly a place for technology and for innovation in the SDGs, but the innovation narrative needs an overhaul. Just as we’ve seen with terms like ‘social good’ and ‘user centered design’ – we’ve collectively imbued these ideas and methods with properties that they don’t actually have and we’ve fetishized them. Re-claiming the term innovation, said HL, and taking it back to a real process with more realistic expectations might do us a lot of good.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »