Three methods for rigorous impact evaluation: strengths and weaknesses with RCT, GIE and QCA

Deltagande kräver anmälan till SVUF-konferensen: www.svuf.nu

The purpose of the session is to introduce and discuss three methods for impact evaluation with focus on their relative strengths and weaknesses in the various conditions under which impact evaluation of public sector interventions can be conducted. The session is based on three reports from the Expert Group for Aid Studies (EBA), but the discussed methods are relevant to evaluators in many policy areas. Among the questions that will be discussed are: What are the strengths and weaknesses of these three methods in responding to various types of impact evaluation questions? Which questions can be answered and which cannot? What is the potential for learning and for accountability? When should/could a specific method be used?

When: 14.30 -15.45, On the 19TH of October 2017

Short introduction – Kim Forss, EBA

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT)  -Strengths, Weaknesses and Policy Relevance -Anders Olofsgård, SITE, Stockholm School of Economics

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) – Strengths, Weaknesses and Policy Relevance, Barbara Befani, University of East Anglia

“Geospatial impact evaluation (GIE) -Strengths, Weaknesses and Policy Relevance – Ann- Sofie Isaksson, University of Gothenburg and University of Örebro

Three methods in comparison – Comments and reflexions, Barbara Befani

Gustav Pettersson, Ann-Sofie Isaksson, Anders Olofsgård, short comments and response

Kim Forss – Summing up

 

Participants:

Barbara Befani, University of East Anglia

Ann- Sofie Isaksson, University of Gothenburg and University of Örebro

Anders Olofsgård, SITE, Stockholm School of Economics

Gustav Pettersson, Swedish Research Council

Kim Forss, EBA (Moderator)