Evaluating the Contribution of Complex International Research-for-Development Programmes to the Sustainable Development Goals.

IF 2.5 3区 社会学 Q2 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES European Journal of Development Research Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1057/s41287-022-00573-7
Arlene Lu-Gonzales, Takuji W Tsusaka, Sylvia Szabo, Reuben M J Kadigi, Camilla Blasi Foglietti, Seree Park, Zoe Matthews
{"title":"Evaluating the Contribution of Complex International Research-for-Development Programmes to the Sustainable Development Goals.","authors":"Arlene Lu-Gonzales,&nbsp;Takuji W Tsusaka,&nbsp;Sylvia Szabo,&nbsp;Reuben M J Kadigi,&nbsp;Camilla Blasi Foglietti,&nbsp;Seree Park,&nbsp;Zoe Matthews","doi":"10.1057/s41287-022-00573-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While evaluation of research-to-policy projects is a fundamental aspect of measuring the impact of new knowledge, limited studies have examined evaluation methods in such projects, as well as how the evaluation can generate learning to facilitate the progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This study conducted a systematic literature review and found that the most commonly used methods for SDG contribution evaluation were Analytical Hierarchy Process (40.4%), Fuzzy TOPSIS (13.2%) and ELECTRE and SPADE Methodology (3.5% each). Ranking analysis was undertaken to determine priorities among the six \"Big Wins\" as defined for the UKRI-GCRF Trade Hub Project, as a case, where the ranking was exercised by the project partners across the globe. Results revealed that \"nature and social factors\" was better considered in international trade agreements as the priority (36.4%) among others. Moreover, among the four \"mechanisms\" of the project, \"knowledge, networks, and connectivity\" was ranked as the top priority (56.9%), followed by \"capacity building\" (28.5%), \"metrics, tools and models\" (7.2%), and \"improving the knowledge base\" (4.6%). Mapping and evaluation revealed that the Big Wins of the Trade Hub contributed to ten out of the 17 SDGs. The most fulfilled goals were SDG 12 (Sustainable Consumption and Production), SDG 15 (Life on Land), and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) in descending order. Furthermore, interaction analysis of the core SDGs revealed both synergy and tradeoff between different outputs. The research articles reviewed for this paper showed no gold standard framework for assessing international development projects against the SDGs. Further research should develop a tool to capture holistic and synergistic contributions of the target outcomes of projects to sustainable development.</p>","PeriodicalId":47650,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Development Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9821358/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Development Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-022-00573-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While evaluation of research-to-policy projects is a fundamental aspect of measuring the impact of new knowledge, limited studies have examined evaluation methods in such projects, as well as how the evaluation can generate learning to facilitate the progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This study conducted a systematic literature review and found that the most commonly used methods for SDG contribution evaluation were Analytical Hierarchy Process (40.4%), Fuzzy TOPSIS (13.2%) and ELECTRE and SPADE Methodology (3.5% each). Ranking analysis was undertaken to determine priorities among the six "Big Wins" as defined for the UKRI-GCRF Trade Hub Project, as a case, where the ranking was exercised by the project partners across the globe. Results revealed that "nature and social factors" was better considered in international trade agreements as the priority (36.4%) among others. Moreover, among the four "mechanisms" of the project, "knowledge, networks, and connectivity" was ranked as the top priority (56.9%), followed by "capacity building" (28.5%), "metrics, tools and models" (7.2%), and "improving the knowledge base" (4.6%). Mapping and evaluation revealed that the Big Wins of the Trade Hub contributed to ten out of the 17 SDGs. The most fulfilled goals were SDG 12 (Sustainable Consumption and Production), SDG 15 (Life on Land), and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) in descending order. Furthermore, interaction analysis of the core SDGs revealed both synergy and tradeoff between different outputs. The research articles reviewed for this paper showed no gold standard framework for assessing international development projects against the SDGs. Further research should develop a tool to capture holistic and synergistic contributions of the target outcomes of projects to sustainable development.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
评估复杂的国际研究促进发展项目对可持续发展目标的贡献。
虽然对从研究到政策的项目进行评估是衡量新知识影响的一个基本方面,但有限的研究考察了此类项目的评估方法,以及评估如何产生学习,以促进实现可持续发展目标(sdg)的进展。本研究通过系统的文献回顾发现,SDG贡献评价最常用的方法是层次分析法(40.4%)、模糊TOPSIS法(13.2%)和ELECTRE法和SPADE法(各占3.5%)。进行排名分析,以确定为UKRI-GCRF贸易中心项目定义的六个“大胜利”中的优先事项,并由全球项目合作伙伴进行排名。结果显示,在国际贸易协定中,“自然和社会因素”是优先考虑的因素(36.4%)。此外,在项目的四个“机制”中,“知识、网络和连通性”被评为最优先(56.9%),其次是“能力建设”(28.5%)、“指标、工具和模型”(7.2%)和“改善知识库”(4.6%)。测绘和评估显示,贸易中心的重大胜利对17个可持续发展目标中的10个做出了贡献。实现最多的目标依次为可持续发展目标12(可持续消费和生产)、可持续发展目标15(陆地上的生命)和可持续发展目标2(零饥饿)。此外,对核心可持续发展目标的相互作用分析揭示了不同产出之间的协同和权衡。本文回顾的研究文章显示,根据可持续发展目标评估国际发展项目没有金标准框架。进一步的研究应发展出一种工具,以掌握项目的目标成果对可持续发展的整体和协同贡献。
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
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Development Research (EJDR) redefines and modernises what international development is, recognising the many schools of thought on what human development constitutes. It encourages debate between competing approaches to understanding global development and international social development. The journal is multidisciplinary and welcomes papers that are rooted in any mixture of fields including (but not limited to): development studies, international studies, social policy, sociology, politics, economics, anthropology, education, sustainability, business and management. EJDR explicitly links with development studies, being hosted by European Association of Development Institutes (EADI) and its various initiatives. As a double-blind peer-reviewed academic journal, we particularly welcome submissions that improve our conceptual understanding of international development processes, or submissions that propose policy and developmental tools by analysing empirical evidence, whether qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods or anecdotal (data use in the journal ranges broadly from narratives and transcripts, through ethnographic and mixed data, to quantitative and survey data). The research methods used in the journal''s articles make explicit the importance of empirical data and the critical interpretation of findings. Authors can use a mixture of theory and data analysis to expand the possibilities for global development. Submissions must be well-grounded in theory and must also indicate how their findings are relevant to development practitioners in the field and/or policy makers. The journal encourages papers which embody the highest quality standards, and which use an innovative approach. We urge authors who contemplate submitting their work to the EJDR to respond to research already published in this journal, as well as complementary journals and books. We take special efforts to include global voices, and notably voices from the global South. Queries about potential submissions to EJDR can be directed to the Editors. EJDR understands development to be an ongoing process that affects all communities, societies, states and regions: We therefore do not have a geographical bias, but wherever possible prospective authors should seek to highlight how their study has relevance to researchers and practitioners studying development in different environments. Although many of the papers we publish examine the challenges for developing countries, we recognize that there are important lessons to be derived from the experiences of regions in the developed world. The EJDR is print-published 6 times a year, in a mix of regular and special theme issues; accepted papers are published on an ongoing basis online. We accept submissions in English and French.
期刊最新文献
Do Behavioral Interventions Enhance the Effects of Cash on Early Childhood Development and Its Determinants? Evidence from a Cluster-Randomized Trial in Madagascar The Role of High-Value Agriculture in Capability Expansion: Qualitative Insights into Smallholder Cash Crop Production in Nepal, Laos and Rwanda Impact of Public Agricultural Investment on Crops Production, Households’ Welfare, and Employment Generation Opportunities in Togo, West Africa ‘Mind the Gaps’: Exploring Regional and Gender Patterns in Threats to Ethiopian Adolescents’ Bodily Integrity Persepsi Masyarakat Terhadap Limbah Peternakan Ayam Ras Di Kabupaten Muaro Jambi
×
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