IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v17y2008i3p201-212.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing ex post impact assessment of agricultural research: the CGIAR experience

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy Kelley
  • Jim Ryan
  • Hans Gregersen

Abstract

Impact assessment of individual research activities have existed in the 15 international research centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) for many years. In 1995, however, the members of the CGIAR decided to give much stronger emphasis to impact assessment at the system level and established what is now called the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA). This paper reviews the panel's efforts to bring ex post impact assessment more to the forefront of the CGIAR, and the lessons learned from this effort are discussed together with some of the remaining methodological issues that need to be addressed. The paper ends with a discussion of the desirable direction for impact assessment in the CGIAR, including broadening the work in terms of purpose and goals, the types of research assessed and the types of impact indicators used. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy Kelley & Jim Ryan & Hans Gregersen, 2008. "Enhancing ex post impact assessment of agricultural research: the CGIAR experience," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 201-212, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:17:y:2008:i:3:p:201-212
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820208X331711
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. L. E. A. Hernandez & F. Graef & H. J. König, 2019. "Participatory Impact Assessment of Food Securing Upgrading Strategies in Rural Tanzania," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 687-706, December.
    2. De los Santos-Montero, Luis A. & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E., 2017. "Natural Resource Management and Household Well-being: The Case of POSAF-II in Nicaragua," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 42-59.
    3. Peter Weißhuhn & Katharina Helming & Johanna Ferretti, 2018. "Research impact assessment in agriculture—A review of approaches and impact areas," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 36-42.
    4. Tran, N. & Crissman, C. & Chijere, A. & Hong, M.C. & Teoh, S.J. & Valdivia, R.O., 2013. "Ex-ante assessment of integrated aquaculture-agriculture adoption and impact in Southern Malawi," Monographs, The WorldFish Center, number 40078, April.
    5. Tariq Ahmad & Ghulam-Muhammad Shah & Farid Ahmad & Uma Partap & Sajjad Ahmad, 2017. "Impact of Apiculture on the Household Income of Rural Poor in Mountains of Chitral District in Pakistan," Journal of Social Sciences (COES&RJ-JSS), , vol. 6(3), pages 518-531, July.
    6. Renkow, Mitch & Byerlee, Derek, 2010. "The impacts of CGIAR research: A review of recent evidence," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 391-402, October.
    7. Maredia, Mywish K., 2009. "Improving the proof: Evolution of and emerging trends in impact assessment methods and approaches in agricultural development," IFPRI discussion papers 929, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    8. Turner, James A & Guesmi, Bouali & Gil, José M. & Heanue, Kevin & Sierra, Miguel & Percy, Helen & Bortagaray, Isabel & Chams, Nour & Milne, Cath, 2022. "Evaluation capacity building in response to the agricultural research impact agenda: Emerging insights from Ireland, Catalonia (Spain), New Zealand, and Uruguay," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:17:y:2008:i:3:p:201-212. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.