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)