Lilja, N. and J.A. Ashby. 1999. Types of participatory research based on locus of decision making. Working Document No. 6. PRGA Program. Cali, Colombia.

Lilja, N. and J.A. Ashby. 1999. Types of gender analysis in natural resource management and plant breeding. Working Document No. 8. PRGA Program, Cali, Colombia.The objective of the gender/stakeholder analysis is to assess what can be done to better involve all stakeholders in the innovation process. This assessment requires considering what patterns affect development among the stakeholders, analyzing what activities different types of stakeholders carry out, and assessing what resources different stakeholders have to work with. Gender and stakeholder analysis does not always directly provide answers to agricultural production or natural resource management problems, but it provides means for raising questions about links between and among different stakeholders and agricultural production or natural resource management. Moreover, carefully conducted and documented gender/stakeholder analysis provides convincing basis for developing strategies to incorporate gender issues that are key to the success of development efforts. (For gender analysis frameworks see for example: Wilde and Vainio-Mattila 1995; Lingen 1997) Similarly, a sound assessment of impacts of gender/stakeholder analysis provides convincing evidence on effectiveness of gender/stakeholder analysis on meeting the overall goals of the development.

Horton, D. and Mackay, R. (Guest Editors). 2003. Special Issue of Agricultural Systems: Learning for the Future": Innovative Approaches for Avaluating Agricultural Research and Development. ELSEVIER.    * Preface    * Using evaluation to enhance institutional learning and change: recent experiences with agricultural research and development    * Expanding the use of impact assessment and evaluation in agricultural research and development    * Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems    * Why impact analysis should not be used for research evaluation and what the alternatives are    * Measuring the impact of user participation in agricultural and natural resource management research    * Disciplines, institutions and organizations: impact assessments in context    * An analysis of IPGRI’s influence on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture    * Impact pathway analysis: an approach to strengthening the impact orientation of agricultural research    * Foreword

Adams, J. 2001. NGOs and Impact Assessment. NGO Policy Briefing Paper No. 3. INTRAC NGO Research Programme.The role and approach of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in development has changed radically over the last fifteen to twenty years. NGOs are now accepted as significant contributors to the development process by governments and official agencies. In the early 1980s it was assumed that NGOs would have an impact because of who they were and their relationship and closeness to the ‘beneficiaries’. This unsubstantiated assumption has increasingly come into question; throughout the 1990s the issue of assessing NGO impact and the need for appropriate methodologies to do so came to the fore. As the profile of NGOs has increased, so too has the need for them to assess the impact of their work. The rise in popularity of NGOs and the increase in funding channelled through them by governments has had consequences in terms of performance and accountability (Edwards and Hulme 1995). In addition, NGOs have become more critically aware themselves of the need to assess their impact, both for organisational learning and strategy development and in order to inform an increasingly discerning public supporter base. This Policy Briefing Paper explores the current state of the debate on impact assessment of development interventions. It moves on to review the current state of practice and methodologies and concludes with a summary of critical issues and implications for NGOs.

Calkins, P. Thi Thao, V. Institutional Impacts of the Cassava Farmer Participatory Research and Extension Project in Thailand and Vietnam, 1993 - 2004, CGIAR Systemwide Program on Paticipatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technological and Institutional Innovation (PRGA Program), International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, CO, 2005.

Cromwell, E. P. Kambewa, R. Mwanza and R. Chirwa with Kwera Development Centre. 2001. Impact assessment using participatory approaches: 'Starter Pack' and sustainable agriculture in Malawi AgRen Network Paper No. 112.This paper is based on a study undertaken as part of the Malawi Starter Pack Evaluation Programme (1999– 2000). Focusing on the concept of ‘sustainable agriculture’, it describes how participatory approaches can be used for impact assessment and the kind of information that emerges from such an approach. The study explored how farmers themselves perceive the concept of sustainable agriculture and how this relates to their livelihoods. Detailed information was collected from 30 villages and was used to determine variations in sustainability across regions, between different households, and trends over the last 30 years. The types of inputs required for increased agricultural sustainability were also ascertained.

Simanowitz, A. with S. Johnson and J. Gaventa. 2000. How can impact assessment for development finance be more participatory? Development Finance Impact Assessment Planning Workshop. IDS, University of Sussex. June 2000Increasingly impact assessment is recognised as a core part of the work of development finance organisations (DFOs), both to demonstrate the achievement of their social objectives, and to assist management with strategic decisions and methodology development. Participatory approaches have not featured prominently within “minimalist” microfinance, nor have they been widely used by DFOs for impact assessment. Partly this results from the lack of background that most microfinance practitioners have in participatory methods, and partly due to a minimalist approach that does not give space for debate with clients about what services are provided and in what way. Financial services are typically delivered by organisations striving for financial self-sufficiency and client control of services or lengthy research may damage this goal. Instead, market research provides the client information that is needed to provide attractive financial services in a commercially viable way. Other DFOs take a more integrative approach, and provide financial services as part of broader social empowerment and development. Their central concern is to work with marginalised groups, and facilitate transformation at individual, community and societal levels. For these organisations participatory approaches have been used for many years, and are seen as an important tool for empowerment. When developing impact assessment systems it is natural for them to work with a participatory approach that is empowering for the organisation’s members or clients, and allows for a strong client voice in the impact assessment process. These two descriptions represent two ends of the spectrum. Participatory impact assessment (PIA) similarly may be viewed from two extremes, dependent on the organisational type. For ‘participation purists’, “… conventional baseline surveys are virtually useless for impact assessments… The question now is how widely local people can be enabled to identify their own indicators, establish their own participatory baselines, monitor change, and evaluate causality… ” (Chambers, 1997, p123). Alternatively, for organisations striving for sustainability, the use of participatory tools may be seen as an effective way of passing the costs of gathering information to clients, and increasing the cost-efficiency of market research. PIA is thus very dependent on the context in which it is used and the objectives behind its use. However, some basic principals can be outlined. There are convincing arguments for making impact assessment more participatory from both the empowerment and instrumentalist perspectives, as well as in terms of the quality and usefulness of information produced.

Vahlhaus. M. 2001. Guidelines for Impact Monitoring in Economic and Employment Promotion Projects with Special Reference to Poverty Reduction Impacts Part II: How to introduce and carry out Impact Monitoring - Tips, Methods and Instruments. GTZ. H-214-e.

Vahlhaus, M. and T. Kuby. 2001. Guidelines for Impact Monitoring in Economic and Employment Promotion Projects with Special Reference to Poverty Reduction Impacts Part I : Why do Impact Monitoring? - A Guide. GTZ. H-213-e. These guidelines provide a comprehensive and systematic description how to develop a participatory impact monitoring system. Also clear definitions of monitoring, impacts and impact monitoring are included. Six methodical steps for structuring and implementing impact monitoring are outlined.In Part II these steps are described in detail quoting examples from the day-to-day work of projects in the field of EEP and at the very end a broad range of methods and instruments is presented. This paper was written for projects in the field of EEP with special reference to poverty reduction in particular, nevertheless, the concept it is based on allows for a broader field of application.

Lilja, N. and N. Johnson. 2001. Guide to Impact Assessment of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis. Working Document No. 7. PRGA Program. Cali, Colombia. This zipped file contains a Powerpoint presentation and several Word files. After downloading, unzip them into a single directory.

Baur, H., M. Bosch, S. Krall, T. Kuby, A. Lobb-Rabe, P.T. Schütz, and A. Springer-Heinze. 2001. Establishing plausibility in impact assessment. Workgroup on Assessing the Impact of Agricultural Research in Development. GTZ, Eschborn, Germany. 19 pp.

Adato, M. and R. Meinzen-Dick. 2002. Assessing The Impact Of Agricultural Research On Poverty Using The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. EPTD Discussion Paper 89. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Kristjanson, P. F. Placeb, S. Franzel and P.K. Thornton. 2002. Assessing research impact on poverty: the importance of farmers' perspectives. Agricultural Systems. 72(1):73-92.In this paper we provide evidence to show that farmers' perspectives on poverty processes and outcomes are critical in the early stages of evaluating impact of agricultural research on poverty. We summarize lessons learned from farmer impact assessment workshops held in five African locations, covering three agro-ecological zones and five different agroforestry and livestock technologies arising from collaborative national–international agricultural research. Poverty alleviation is a process that needs to be understood before impact can be measured. Workshops such as those we describe can help researchers to identify farmers' different ways of managing and using a technology and likely effects, unanticipated impacts, major impacts to pursue in more quantitative studies, the primary links between agricultural technology and poverty, and key conditioning factors affecting adoption and impact that can be used to stratify samples in more formal analyses. Farmer workshops inform other qualitative and quantitative impact assessment methods. We discuss the linkage of farmer-derived information with GIS-based approaches that allow more complete specification of recommendation domains and broader-scale measurement of impact.

Riley, J. 1996. Impact Assessment for Participatory Research. Integrated Farming in Human Development. Proceedings of a Workshop March 25-29, 1996, Tune Landboskole, Denmark.The author proposes approaches to the assessment of impact of participatory studies in natural resources research but argues that, for them to be successful, they must be designed into the study from its beginning. The project-implementation-impact spectrum is emphasised as an essential structure for the maintenance of efficient design, monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment. Good design and analysis techniques need to be used to correspond to clearly defined objectives. A summary is given of essential features of statistical design for participatory studies. The types of data which will be generated are discussed and indicators of relevance to impact assessment are highlighted. Further issues for impact assessment programmes are discussed.