Science, technology, innovation and partnerships for development: an evidence gap map

Abstract

The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is an international grant-making NGO promoting evidence-informed development policies and programmes. We are the global leader in funding, producing and synthesising high-quality evidence of what works, for whom, why and at what cost. We believe that high-quality and policy-relevant evidence will make development more effective and improve people's lives. 3ie evidence gap maps 3ie evidence gap maps (EGMs) are thematic collections of information about impact evaluations or systematic reviews that measure the effects of international development policies and programmes. The maps present a visual overview of existing and ongoing studies in a sector or sub-sector in terms of the types of programmes evaluated and the outcomes measured. EGM reports provide all the supporting documentation for the maps themselves, including the background information for the theme of the map, the methods and results, including the protocols and the analysis of the results. 3ie EGMs are available through an online interactive platform on the 3ie website that allows users to explore the studies and reviews that are included. About this evidence gap map reportThis report summarises the methods and findings of an EGM on how science, technology, innovation and partnerships enhance development programming. A companion paper, Assessing the evidence on science, technology, innovation, and partnership for accelerating development outcomes, additionally assesses the demand for new and higher quality evidence and provides recommendations for future investment for research and synthesis 3ie developed it as part of a project funded by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)'s US Global Development Lab. The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors or its Board of Commissioners, or reflect the views of USAID or the United States government. Any errors and omissions are also the sole responsibility of the authors. Any comments or queries should be directed to the corresponding author, Shayda Sabet ssabet@3ieimpact.org. AcknowledgementsWe gratefully acknowledge funding of this paper from the American people through USAID's Global Development Lab. 3ie relied on the guidance and feedback from an advisory group for this scoping work; the members, to whom we are thankful: Ashley Bear (National Academy of Sciences) Samuel Bickel (UNICEF) David de Ferranti (Results for Development) Naoto Kanehira (World Bank) Kyriacos Koupparis (USAID) Saharah Moon Chapotin (USAID)The authors wish to thank Shannon Griswold, Joshua Kaufman and Jessica Lucas for their constant guidance and support; Scott Neilitz, Kristen Rankin and Ben Wood for their valuable input and advice; and the work of consultants Mark Engelbert, Amy Holter, Leah Leavitt, Julie Perng, Nadine Pfeifer, Aryamala Prasad and Ingrid Rojas, who helped with the search and screening process to identify studies ...

IFAD Research Series 38 – Meta-Evidence Review on the Impacts of Investments in Agricultural and Rural Development on Sustainable Development Goals 1 and 2

“…The 3ie Map of Maps (updated 17 April 2017) included "Information and communications technology" as a sector and SDG 1 and SDG 2 as outcome categories. Within this, no evidence maps were included under SDG 1 but two were included under SDG 2: Zewge and Dittrich (2015) and Sabet et al (2017). Sabet et al (2017), a 3ie Gap Map on "Science, Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships" yielded just seven systematic reviews in total, only one of which was relevant for our purposes.…”

“…Within this, no evidence maps were included under SDG 1 but two were included under SDG 2: Zewge and Dittrich (2015) and Sabet et al (2017). Sabet et al (2017), a 3ie Gap Map on "Science, Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships" yielded just seven systematic reviews in total, only one of which was relevant for our purposes. The relevant systematic review, Lee et al (2016), "Effectiveness of mHealth interventions for maternal, newborn and child health in low-and middle-income countries: Systematic review and meta-analysis," included the impact of technology on breastfeeding outcomes and is included in the Evidence Map and database.…”