Scoping the impact evaluation capacity in sub-Saharan Africa

Q2 Social Sciences African Evaluation Journal Pub Date : 2020-10-23 DOI:10.4102/AEJ.V8I1.473
Yvonne Erasmus, S. Jordaan, Ruth Stewart
{"title":"Scoping the impact evaluation capacity in sub-Saharan Africa","authors":"Yvonne Erasmus, S. Jordaan, Ruth Stewart","doi":"10.4102/AEJ.V8I1.473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: There has long been an assumption that Africa has low levels of impact evaluation capacity and that when impact evaluations are conducted in the region, they need to be led and conducted by researchers from the North. The Africa Centre for Evidence at the University of Johannesburg conducted a scoping study on impact evaluation capacity in sub-Saharan Africa to test this assumption. Methodology: We used a multicomponent design, which included a systematic author search, desk review, online survey (with 353 respondents) and key informant discussions. Results: Contrary to previous assumptions, we found a large number of researchers with impact evaluation capacity across sub-Saharan Africa. We identified 490 impact evaluation publications, to which 1520 unique African researchers from 34 countries had contributed. South Africa had the most impact evaluation researchers who had published, followed by Kenya and Uganda, illustrating a concentration of capacity in Southern and Eastern Africa. Authors largely resided within schools of public health and health science faculties at universities. The study showed that modules and elements of impact evaluation training had been offered in 32 countries, indicating more training opportunities than anticipated, although formal, accredited training in impact evaluation was mostly presented outside Africa. Conclusion: Contrary to previous assumptions, widespread capacity to conduct impact evaluations exists in sub-Saharan Africa, reducing the need for researcher capacity from the Global North to deliver impact evaluations in the region. However, our evidence suggests that capacity gaps exist in non-health sectors, creating an opportunity for further capacity support in these areas.","PeriodicalId":37531,"journal":{"name":"African Evaluation Journal","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Evaluation Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/AEJ.V8I1.473","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: There has long been an assumption that Africa has low levels of impact evaluation capacity and that when impact evaluations are conducted in the region, they need to be led and conducted by researchers from the North. The Africa Centre for Evidence at the University of Johannesburg conducted a scoping study on impact evaluation capacity in sub-Saharan Africa to test this assumption. Methodology: We used a multicomponent design, which included a systematic author search, desk review, online survey (with 353 respondents) and key informant discussions. Results: Contrary to previous assumptions, we found a large number of researchers with impact evaluation capacity across sub-Saharan Africa. We identified 490 impact evaluation publications, to which 1520 unique African researchers from 34 countries had contributed. South Africa had the most impact evaluation researchers who had published, followed by Kenya and Uganda, illustrating a concentration of capacity in Southern and Eastern Africa. Authors largely resided within schools of public health and health science faculties at universities. The study showed that modules and elements of impact evaluation training had been offered in 32 countries, indicating more training opportunities than anticipated, although formal, accredited training in impact evaluation was mostly presented outside Africa. Conclusion: Contrary to previous assumptions, widespread capacity to conduct impact evaluations exists in sub-Saharan Africa, reducing the need for researcher capacity from the Global North to deliver impact evaluations in the region. However, our evidence suggests that capacity gaps exist in non-health sectors, creating an opportunity for further capacity support in these areas.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
确定撒哈拉以南非洲影响评价能力的范围
背景:长期以来,人们一直认为非洲的影响评估能力水平较低,在该地区进行影响评估时,需要由来自北方的研究人员领导和开展。约翰内斯堡大学的非洲证据中心进行了一项关于撒哈拉以南非洲影响评价能力的范围研究,以检验这一假设。方法:我们采用多成分设计,包括系统的作者搜索、案头回顾、在线调查(353名受访者)和关键信息讨论。结果:与之前的假设相反,我们发现撒哈拉以南非洲地区有大量具有影响评估能力的研究人员。我们确定了490份影响评估出版物,其中来自34个国家的1520名独特的非洲研究人员做出了贡献。南非发表的影响评价研究人员最多,其次是肯尼亚和乌干达,说明能力集中在南部和东部非洲。作者大多居住在大学公共卫生学院和健康科学学院。这项研究表明,在32个国家提供了影响评价培训的模块和要素,这表明培训机会比预期的要多,尽管影响评价方面的正式、经认可的培训主要是在非洲以外提供的。结论:与先前的假设相反,撒哈拉以南非洲存在广泛的进行影响评估的能力,减少了对全球北方研究人员能力的需求,以便在该地区进行影响评估。然而,我们的证据表明,非卫生部门存在能力差距,这为在这些领域进一步提供能力支持创造了机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
African Evaluation Journal
African Evaluation Journal Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal publishes high quality peer-reviewed articles merit on any subject related to evaluation, and provide targeted information of professional interest to members of AfrEA and its national associations. Aims of the African Evaluation Journal (AEJ): -AEJ aims to be a high-quality, peer-reviewed journal that builds evaluation-related knowledge and practice in support of effective developmental policies on the African continent. -AEJ aims to provide a communication platform for scholars and practitioners of evaluation to share and debate ideas about evaluation theory and practice in Africa. -AEJ aims to promote cross-fertilisation of ideas and methodologies between countries and between evaluation scholars and practitioners in the developed and developing world. -AEJ aims to promote evaluation scholarship and authorship, and a culture of peer-review in the African evaluation community.
期刊最新文献
Erratum: Review of Goldman and Pabari’s book through the lens of the work of Sulley Gariba Table of Contents Vol 11, No 1 (2023) Improving citizen-based monitoring in South Africa: A social media model A results-based monitoring and evaluation system for the Namibian Child Support Grant programme Lessons learned from an occupational therapy programme needs assessment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1