Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis: a practical method for project planning and evaluation

Alvarez, Sophie; Douthwaite, Boru; Thiele, Graham; Mackay, R.; Córdoba, Diana; Tehelen, Katherine

doi:10.1080/09614524.2010.513723

Cited by 70 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The conceptual framework adopted in the IMPRESA case studies is based on a Participatory Impact Pathway Analysis (PIPA). Originally, the PIPA approach was conceived as an ex‐ante evaluation method, to be conducted prior to implementation of research programmes and projects (Alvarez et al ., ). In that form, it used a theory of change (Connell and Kubisch, ) to summarise how the intended innovation pathway would occur.…”

Section: Mapping Research Pathwaysmentioning

confidence: 97%

Tracing the Pathways from Research to Innovation: Evidence from Case Studies

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The complex process through which agricultural research stimulates innovation and achieves policy goals has commonly been treated as a ‘black box’ in the scientific literature. Statistical correlations between measured expenditure and impacts, where satisfactorily established, have mostly led to details of the research and innovation system being ignored. However, identifying and exploring causal chains of impact propagation can strengthen agricultural innovation. IMPRESA investigated impact mechanisms for research‐based innovations in six case studies using a Participatory Impact Pathway Assessment approach. Several suggestions result for improving performance and public support for agricultural research. Planning for impact is needed at the design phase of research so that expected advances in technology and their consequences can be explored. At that stage and throughout the research process, soft social skills are required to promote uptake. Greater impact can be achieved through the close involvement of key public and private sector stakeholders, using stakeholder mapping as a supporting tool. There is a strong argument for the close involvement of relevant social scientists and professional facilitators from the design phase of research through to its ultimate impacts. Funding frameworks and the specification of calls for tenders would function more effectively by giving more flexibility for stakeholder engagement.

show abstract

Section: Mapping Research Pathwaysmentioning

confidence: 97%

Tracing the Pathways from Research to Innovation: Evidence from Case Studies

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Impact Pathways Analysis was later adapted, in line with the concept of Mode 2 Science discussed above, to include stakeholder participation (Douthwaite et al, 2007;Alvarez et al, 2010). Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis (PIPA) takes account of actor and stakeholder views to ensure a relevant scientific focus on existing problems.…”

Section: Participatory Impact Pathways Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Science of Impact and the Impact of Agricultural Science

Midmore¹

2017

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research impact and its measurement are of increasing importance. This is particularly significant for agricultural science, which is expected to produce solutions to future challenges that will arise from population growth, climate change and ecosystem degradation. Much econometric effort has been devoted to analysis of investment in agricultural research and its effects on farm productivity. This analysis, reviewed here, has produced a consensus suggesting that returns are high, although they are achieved only after long lags. However, policy‐makers perceive the occurrence of impacts as too few, and poorly targeted with respect to their needs. An attribution gap between the outcomes of agricultural research and how they reach farmers has motivated evaluation of the process of transmission and translation of agricultural research outputs into ultimate impacts. This gap can be narrowed by Participatory Impact Pathway Analysis, implemented mostly so far in low income countries. However, it is a costly and cognitively complex approach. Content analysis of the UK's 2014 REF Impact Case Studies uncovers the mind set of researchers and their managers regarding the description of impact and how it is supposed to occur. This reveals a nascent conservatism that focuses on research that can be shown to have impact, rather than research impact itself. From the overall discussion it can be concluded that the impact evaluation of agricultural science raises more profound issues than simply efficiency or transparency. Confirmation bias threatens impact evaluation, principally by distracting from other important stories about how and why the ultimate effects occur, but also by transforming the nature of the process itself. Methodological pluralism, with greater integration and triangulation between different evaluation approaches, is a promising means of resolving these problems.

show abstract

“…This process can be defined through two main features: it is participatory, and it is intended to support design. The evaluation of participatory methods is the subject of an abundant literature in the agricultural world, in the fields of agricultural development and the impact of agronomic research (Alvarez et al 2010;Perez et al 2010;Joly et al 2015; Thornton et al 2017). This literature emphasises the variety of dimensions of evaluation on contrasting scales.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Operationalisation of the TATA-BOX Process

Taverne¹,

Clément²,

Prost³

et al. 2019

Agroecological Transitions: From Theory to Practice in Local Participatory Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The chapter evaluates how the TATA-BOX process supported the collective design of an agroecological transition. In order to carry out this evaluation, we interviewed a panel of 24 participants about their experience of the process and their opinions on it. In this chapter we set out the results in relation to three questions: How did the workshops go? What characterised the outputs? What effects were identified? On these bases, we discuss some possible improvements in the TATA-BOX process and the ways in which this process supported the design of an agroecological transition. We show in particular that the TATA-BOX process successfully initiated a collective design process as it allowed the participants to establish a common ground, define a range of goals to meet, and identify actionable means that could help to reach these goals. The process will nevertheless have to be continued through actual implementation. Various actors will most likely take responsibility for limited actions, rather than for the territorial agricultural transition project in its entirety. They will select the design solutions they need and might revise them. The TATA-BOX participatory process thus appears to be one step in the process of designing the territory's transition.

show abstract

Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis: a practical method for project planning and evaluation

Cited by 70 publications

References 6 publications

Tracing the Pathways from Research to Innovation: Evidence from Case Studies

Tracing the Pathways from Research to Innovation: Evidence from Case Studies

The Science of Impact and the Impact of Agricultural Science

Evaluation of the Operationalisation of the TATA-BOX Process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About