evaluations, paying special attention to the context under which a mechanism is
triggered to generate an IO. As a result, it could identify a number of pertinent
programme theories and specific contextual conditions for each type of
implemented interventions. This approach encourages the evaluator to go beyond
deterministic cause-and-effect world and can provide explanations (rather than
judgments) about what may work for whom, under what circumstances. CCA
programmes by nature are quite complex, and are characterised by “multi-sectoral
nature, cross-thematic focus, and long timeframes” (Bours et al. 2014), whilst
impact of climate change felt differently in a different location and context. Thus
simply collecting “best practices” of CCA interventions will not help policy makers
and stakeholders to know what may work under their own circumstances, and how
they are supposed to work for whom. What this analysis has revealed is that it is not
just about “doing right things” or about “doing things right”; but it is also about
“doing right things right, in right context”.
Some of the findings of this meta-analysis can indeed help provide useful
explanations. For example, a rather usual intervention of closely coordinating
with national and local government may not automatically produce the anticipated
result of a higher level of relevance should the priorities of CCA not be identified by
host government or line ministries prior to the programme. A result of an increased
level of stakeholder involvement may not be guaranteed by simply building partnerships at an early stage; as it may depend on how specific and focused programme
design is. Ensuring an increased level of adaptive capacity and a high level of
utilisation of introduced adaptive measures is what virtually all CCA programmes
wish to achieve through, e.g., facilitating training and transferring techniques and
know-how. But even this may not work if specifically identified targeted groups of
people are not well aware of climate risks, or cognisant of specific skills that they
themselves want to acquire. Moreover, fostering a sense of ownership towards built
capacities and introduced adaptive measures is key in generating the linkage
between the programme’s inputs and attainment of the desired ends, in this case
high likelihood of sustainability. But such generative mechanism may not be
triggered under the context where key partners do not have a high level of
understanding of programme’s intended overall objectives (as opposed to, e.g.,
their understanding toward introduced adaptive measures).
The CMO configurations presented in this paper should not, however, be considered a mere check-list for future CCA programming. Rather, they provide a good
platform through which policy makers, programme designers and implementers can
be guided, in order for them to make better decisions and develop CCA
programmes that are suited for the respective circumstances.
Finally the authors would like to emphasize the point that adoption of realist
approach in international development is still at its nascent stage. Exactly how
critical realism should be adopted in international development evaluation still
remains to be discussed and a challenge. Closer comparative examination of the
framework put forward by Pawson (2013) and Wong et al. (2013), and its research
implications in social sciences explained by Danermark et al. (2002) should be done
to identify the methodological gaps (and potentially misapplied parts in our
252
T. Miyaguchi and J.I. Uitto
triggered to generate an IO. As a result, it could identify a number of pertinent
programme theories and specific contextual conditions for each type of
implemented interventions. This approach encourages the evaluator to go beyond
deterministic cause-and-effect world and can provide explanations (rather than
judgments) about what may work for whom, under what circumstances. CCA
programmes by nature are quite complex, and are characterised by “multi-sectoral
nature, cross-thematic focus, and long timeframes” (Bours et al. 2014), whilst
impact of climate change felt differently in a different location and context. Thus
simply collecting “best practices” of CCA interventions will not help policy makers
and stakeholders to know what may work under their own circumstances, and how
they are supposed to work for whom. What this analysis has revealed is that it is not
just about “doing right things” or about “doing things right”; but it is also about
“doing right things right, in right context”.
Some of the findings of this meta-analysis can indeed help provide useful
explanations. For example, a rather usual intervention of closely coordinating
with national and local government may not automatically produce the anticipated
result of a higher level of relevance should the priorities of CCA not be identified by
host government or line ministries prior to the programme. A result of an increased
level of stakeholder involvement may not be guaranteed by simply building partnerships at an early stage; as it may depend on how specific and focused programme
design is. Ensuring an increased level of adaptive capacity and a high level of
utilisation of introduced adaptive measures is what virtually all CCA programmes
wish to achieve through, e.g., facilitating training and transferring techniques and
know-how. But even this may not work if specifically identified targeted groups of
people are not well aware of climate risks, or cognisant of specific skills that they
themselves want to acquire. Moreover, fostering a sense of ownership towards built
capacities and introduced adaptive measures is key in generating the linkage
between the programme’s inputs and attainment of the desired ends, in this case
high likelihood of sustainability. But such generative mechanism may not be
triggered under the context where key partners do not have a high level of
understanding of programme’s intended overall objectives (as opposed to, e.g.,
their understanding toward introduced adaptive measures).
The CMO configurations presented in this paper should not, however, be considered a mere check-list for future CCA programming. Rather, they provide a good
platform through which policy makers, programme designers and implementers can
be guided, in order for them to make better decisions and develop CCA
programmes that are suited for the respective circumstances.
Finally the authors would like to emphasize the point that adoption of realist
approach in international development is still at its nascent stage. Exactly how
critical realism should be adopted in international development evaluation still
remains to be discussed and a challenge. Closer comparative examination of the
framework put forward by Pawson (2013) and Wong et al. (2013), and its research
implications in social sciences explained by Danermark et al. (2002) should be done
to identify the methodological gaps (and potentially misapplied parts in our
252
T. Miyaguchi and J.I. Uitto